When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I did some quick measurements from the images. This is definitely not super accurate but interesting.
If you assume the bore spacing is 4.4", then the bore diameter measures around 3.9"-4" and the bolts in the heads are 13 mm hexes. This then puts the large holes in the center valley at 28 mm.
Transferring this to the other picture, I get the following:
Block face dowel diameter (the big ones at the far left and right just below the white plastic) = 18 mm
Inner diameter of the large bore (crank seal?) = 70 mm
Distance from crank centerline to deck face = 208.5 mm
If we back out the stroke from the crank to deck face assuming a 0.75 in distance from piston top to wristpin center (guessing here) we get:
1.6 rod length / stroke = 3.55" stroke.
1.8 rod length / stroke = 3.24" stroke.
I did some quick measurements from the images. This is definitely not super accurate but interesting.
If you assume the bore spacing is 4.4", then the bore diameter measures around 3.9"-4" and the bolts in the heads are 13 mm hexes. This then puts the large holes in the center valley at 28 mm.
Transferring this to the other picture, I get the following:
Block face dowel diameter (the big ones at the far left and right just below the white plastic) = 18 mm
Inner diameter of the large bore (crank seal?) = 70 mm
Distance from crank centerline to deck face = 208.5 mm
If we back out the stroke from the crank to deck face assuming a 0.75 in distance from piston top to wristpin center (guessing here) we get:
1.6 rod length / stroke = 3.55" stroke.
1.8 rod length / stroke = 3.24" stroke.
4" bore with a 3.24" stroke is 5.5L.
Looks pretty good to me for a 5.5L Z06.
Nice effort, thanks. Over square would explain the offset rods especially if it is TT. Bad for smog, good for secondary shakes if it is a flat crank..
I did some quick measurements from the images. This is definitely not super accurate but interesting.
If you assume the bore spacing is 4.4", then the bore diameter measures around 3.9"-4" and the bolts in the heads are 13 mm hexes. This then puts the large holes in the center valley at 28 mm.
Transferring this to the other picture, I get the following:
Block face dowel diameter (the big ones at the far left and right just below the white plastic) = 18 mm
Inner diameter of the large bore (crank seal?) = 70 mm
Distance from crank centerline to deck face = 208.5 mm
If we back out the stroke from the crank to deck face assuming a 0.75 in distance from piston top to wristpin center (guessing here) we get:
1.6 rod length / stroke = 3.55" stroke.
1.8 rod length / stroke = 3.24" stroke.
4" bore with a 3.24" stroke is 5.5L.
Looks pretty good to me for a 5.5L Z06.
Fascinating. I did a similar calculation posted at several places strictly working on bore and stroke to get the 5.5 displacement and came up with the same stroke. It all depends on what GM wants as a solution space using the FPC. The race engine appears to be very reliable. MB AMG has shown that the FPC configuration can be used to optimize a turbo version with a rpm in the low 7000s. It's the street NA version that keeps bugging me. The power characteristics of the NA nd the street driving requirements.
I'm noticing two extra bolt holes in the rear face, that I don't see corresponding mating holes for in the DCT front face. Everything else seems to line up, including the dowels. There's a missing bolt in the top corner of the block that I'm assuming is covered by the plastic tab. Wonder if they strengthened this area..
I'm noticing two extra bolt holes in the rear face, that I don't see corresponding mating holes for in the DCT front face. Everything else seems to line up, including the dowels. There's a missing bolt in the top corner of the block that I'm assuming is covered by the plastic tab. Wonder if they strengthened this area..
Not sure if they will use the same case, but the TR-9080 isn't rated high enough for what the Z06 will probably produce. Tremec has already said higher performance variants are in the works.
Not sure if they will use the same case, but the TR-9080 isn't rated high enough for what the Z06 will probably produce. Tremec has already said higher performance variants are in the works.
Yup. The existing 9080 is rated for 590ft-lb, and the strengthened front face area hints that they are anticipating more torque capacity.
Those rods are done that way to correct the firing angle of an engine. Lots of v10 have this while retaining 90 degree banks since they should technically be at 72 deg.
Those rods are done that way to correct the firing angle of an engine. Lots of v10 have this while retaining 90 degree banks since they should technically be at 72 deg.
You must know why there is an offset in the rod for an over square engine because you didn't ask. There should be a reference index on this forum. Anyway, due to the increased piston and head surface area, the heat loss increases as the bore/stroke ratio is increased. An excessively high ratio can lead to a decreased thermal efficiency compared to other engine geometries. Because these characteristics favor higher engine speeds, oversquare engines are often tuned to develop peak torque at a relatively high speed. The large size/width of the combustion chamber at ignition can cause increased inhomogeneity in the air/fuel mixture during combustion, resulting in higher emissions. IE: not all the fuel can be burned especially above the piston rings mono oxides are generated. Bigger valves are good for pumping efficiencies and let a lot of air into the comb chamber. Piston side loads and bearing loads are high even though piston speeds are low, other loads cause shorter lives than square or under square engines. Develop your own ref. index by saving this.
Don't tell me what to do, OK? Get lost. If the engine is a FPC and oversquare, it will get rods that look this, OK? Pay attention. Do it now. Go away. er...... don't.......never mind.
To be fair, when you originally posted the pic, you did not make it clear the rods were not for the engine block being discussed. You said the pic of the rods was from the same guy as the block pic, so assuming the two are related is not out of the question.
BTW, I don't believe those rods have been split, there are not bolt holes, zero chance those are just sitting there tight enough you can't see the seam. To be that tight would require the bolts.
To be fair, when you originally posted the pic, you did not make it clear the rods were not for the engine block being discussed. You said the pic of the rods was from the same guy as the block pic, so assuming the two are related is not out of the question.
BTW, I don't believe those rods have been split, there are not bolt holes, zero chance those are just sitting there tight enough you can't see the seam. To be that tight would require the bolts.
Engine pic was not from guy... guy works for Roush Yates and pointed out the indentations for splitting the case and then sent the rods as proof that fresh machining could obscure a split rod. He manufactured those specific rods.
Engine pic was not from guy... guy works for Roush Yates and pointed out the indentations for splitting the case and then sent the rods as proof that fresh machining could obscure a split rod. He manufactured those specific rods.
Again, you aren't being clear...
Originally Posted by RapidC84B
A buddy who works for Roush Yates confirmed that the seam is there, but with the fresh machining you can't see the line on the machined spots.
So the "buddy" who works for Roush Yates said you can't see the line due to fresh machining.
Originally Posted by RapidC84B
You're wrong... there are two slots in the picture for splitting the case. The seam is there, but cannot be seen on the freshly machined faces.
These rods are split, but you can't see it on the freshly machined face... sent from the same guy.
Then a "guy", apparently "the same guy" sent a pic of rods that had been machined and you can't see the line. When you say "same guy", I think most people would assume you are implying that the guy who sent you the rod pics is the "same guy" who took the picture of the block.
It's like an Abbott and Costello skit...
And again, I don't think those rods are finished machined.
And again, I don't think those rods are finished machined.
I tend to agree. The hole in the big end looks oblong. I suspect that was done to allow loss of material when parting off the bearing cap so the starting hole would be closer to round during machining of the final bore size.
If the engine is a FPC and oversquare, it will get rods that look this, OK? Pay attention. Do it now. Go away. er...... don't.......never mind.
