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.
Finally had the time yesterday to tear down the 454 that I aquired for my '73. The casting # on the crank, N353039, identifies it as a nodular iron crank used in 70-88 454's. What are, if any the adavantages/disadvantages to this crank versus forged or regular cast?
Nodular iron is supposed to be superior to plain cast iron. It is still a casting and not up to the standards of a forging. It may be fine for your application.
Thank You. I suspect it will work fine for me. Planning on something in the neighborhood of a 400 HP motor. The car will be a weekend cruiser, with an occasional 3-4 hour road trip. No plans to race it. Everything seems to point to the motor being a 1973 LS-4 from an Impala.
3999289 block casting
E 7 73 build date
CWL suffix stamped on the pad
PASS/HIPERF with 11 directly below cast in the front of the block.
Somewhat of a coincidence, as the motor is going in a '73 vette that was built in June of that year.
From: Las Vegas - Just stop perpetuating myths please.
Castings add dampning.
I know forgings are stronger and used for max efforts. But castings do have more inherent damping than forgings but i'm not sure what advantage it will have for u. I'm guessing it would tolerate a lesser balanced assembly and vlv timing would suffer less vibration/variation. As i've read there is a lot of crank twist from the power pulses during acceleration/rapid power or even constant operation that changes crank shape regardless of balance. Nothing wrong with nodular iron castings in a mild street application. Save ur $$$ for other goodies. cardo0
Cast cranks don't flex as much as a forged crank (at least until they break, then they are a lot more flexible )
As far as cast cranks go, nodulars are the cream of the crop. I have an "N" crank in my 455 Olds that I beat on regularly.
Thank You. I suspect it will work fine for me. Planning on something in the neighborhood of a 400 HP motor. The car will be a weekend cruiser, with an occasional 3-4 hour road trip. No plans to race it. Everything seems to point to the motor being a 1973 LS-4 from an Impala.
3999289 block casting
E 7 73 build date
CWL suffix stamped on the pad
PASS/HIPERF with 11 directly below cast in the front of the block.
Somewhat of a coincidence, as the motor is going in a '73 vette that was built in June of that year.
mild for sure, will be fine , just have everything checked as normal
Cast cranks don't flex as much as a forged crank (at least until they break, then they are a lot more flexible )
As far as cast cranks go, nodulars are the cream of the crop. I have an "N" crank in my 455 Olds that I beat on regularly.
Same here .... In process of rebuilding my Olds 455 with a nodular crank. Love those big blocks. Was running before the rebuild 12.0 sec 1/4 miles at 115 mph with stock heads.
Cool biz on the Olds'! The nodulars can take a beating. I have many Olds buddies, noone has ever busted a crank. I've got a '23 t-bucket with a 462 Olds, 10.20'@128 NA. Track won't let me spray my 125 shot..
Cast cranks don't flex as much as a forged crank (at least until they break, then they are a lot more flexible )
As far as cast cranks go, nodulars are the cream of the crop. I have an "N" crank in my 455 Olds that I beat on regularly.
No, cast iron's modulus is about ten percent lower than steel, so for a given load they will "flex" a bit more. Perhaps you mean "ductility". Beyond the elastic limit, most steels will deform more than cast iron before they finally break, but if your crank is stressed beyond the elastic limit, the engine will be toast no matter what.
Forged steels usually have a higher fatigue limit, so they can be stressed higher/longer before they break from fatigue.
For most street engines nodular cast iron crankshafts are just fine.
No, cast iron's modulus is about ten percent lower than steel, so for a given load they will "flex" a bit more. Perhaps you mean "ductility".
Duke
You're right, I misread Gene Berg's paper & got it backwards. They had issues with cast cranks flexing too much & ultra high RPM causing interference problems. Thx for setting me straight.