Fordmods Logo

KILLER IDEA 

 

Page 2 of 2 [ 25 posts ] Go to page Previous  1, 2

 
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:16 am 
Getting Side Ways
Offline

Age: 30

Posts: 4609

Joined: 29th Jul 2005

Gallery: 10 images

Ride: BOXCAR

Location: Launceston
TAS, Australia

stockstandard wrote:
bradders wrote:
the but the four litres have a smaller bore. you really think it'll be that small?


Thought that this didnt sound right. Just checking the numbers -
3.9 bore is 91.9 and stroke is 99.3
4.0 bore is 92.3 and stroke is 99.3


lol

thats what i was thinking. the difference in size between the 3.9 and 4.0L is only like 40cc

 

_________________

^^^ What He Said

<a href="http://www.fordmods.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=44952" target="_blank" class="postlink"> TAS Cruises</a>

Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 1:02 pm 
Getting Side Ways
Offline
User avatar

Age: 31

Posts: 686

Joined: 3rd Apr 2005

Gallery: 16 images

Ride: ed fairmont ghia, ed gli

Location: mildura
VIC, Australia

what about if you use the rods out of the 3.2l ea, are they shorter with a larger crank or same crank with longer rods? im not sure, i guess how ever long they are, they would probabli be weaker anyway

 

_________________

I LOVE MY DOG

Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 1:36 pm 
Getting Side Ways
Offline
User avatar

Age: 31

Posts: 686

Joined: 3rd Apr 2005

Gallery: 16 images

Ride: ed fairmont ghia, ed gli

Location: mildura
VIC, Australia

na never mind about that, i just thought about it and it would have to have a smaller crank. so yea never mind :D

 

_________________

I LOVE MY DOG

Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 1:43 pm 
Getting Side Ways
Offline
User avatar

Posts: 3115

Joined: 20th Dec 2004

Ride: Falcon

Location: Adelaide
SA, Australia

3.2's have a smaller crank and longer rods (about 1/2" iirc). these rods with suitable pistons would help a 4.0 rev harder.

 

_________________

Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas

Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:28 pm 
Getting Side Ways
Offline
User avatar

Age: 54

Posts: 4102

Joined: 18th Nov 2004

Gallery: 10 images

Ride: PX2 Ranger 4x4 XLT Dual CAB

Location: Carrum Downs
VIC, Australia

fordzatmyplace wrote:
stockstandard wrote:
bradders wrote:
the but the four litres have a smaller bore. you really think it'll be that small?


Thought that this didnt sound right. Just checking the numbers -
3.9 bore is 91.9 and stroke is 99.3
4.0 bore is 92.3 and stroke is 99.3


lol

thats what i was thinking. the difference in size between the 3.9 and 4.0L is only like 40cc


Thats right, because of rounding Ford market them as 100ml differance when in fact they are not.

 

_________________

Image
She's meanness put to music and the b**ch is born to run!
Like the sign says, "speed's just a question of money. How fast can you go?"

Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:03 pm 
Getting Side Ways
Offline
User avatar

Age: 31

Posts: 686

Joined: 3rd Apr 2005

Gallery: 16 images

Ride: ed fairmont ghia, ed gli

Location: mildura
VIC, Australia

stockstandard wrote:
3.2's have a smaller crank and longer rods (about 1/2" iirc). these rods with suitable pistons would help a 4.0 rev harder.


would they be able to handle the extra pressure? they wouldnt bend or anything like that?

 

_________________

I LOVE MY DOG

Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:34 pm 
Parts Gopher
Offline

Posts: 56

Joined: 14th Jul 2005

Ride: Futura ED

Location: Fairfield
NSW, Australia

youve got me thinking :)
Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:55 pm 
Getting Side Ways
Offline
User avatar

Posts: 3115

Joined: 20th Dec 2004

Ride: Falcon

Location: Adelaide
SA, Australia

adrian` wrote:
stockstandard wrote:
3.2's have a smaller crank and longer rods (about 1/2" iirc). these rods with suitable pistons would help a 4.0 rev harder.


would they be able to handle the extra pressure? they wouldnt bend or anything like that?


Depends on what you want to do with it. The 3.2 rods a not weak if thats what your asking.

 

_________________

Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas

Top
 Profile  
 
 
 Post subject: de-stroker
Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 11:07 pm 
Stock as a Rock
Offline
User avatar

Age: 38

Posts: 135

Joined: 3rd May 2006

Gallery: 3 images

Power: 149 rwkw

Location: Bendigo
VIC, Australia

i've heard of people putting 3.2 rods in 4.0 litres to up the compression etc but would it work the other way ie, 4.0 rods in a 3.2 to lower compression for a good turbo set up?

 

_________________

Skidz are cooooool!

15.49 @ 91MPH
2.327 60ft
Willowbank Raceway 14th October 2006
220k motor 320k auto

Top
 Profile  
 
 
 Post subject: Re: de-stroker
Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:07 am 
Getting Side Ways
Offline
User avatar

Posts: 3115

Joined: 20th Dec 2004

Ride: Falcon

Location: Adelaide
SA, Australia

henry95ef wrote:
i've heard of people putting 3.2 rods in 4.0 litres to up the compression etc but would it work the other way ie, 4.0 rods in a 3.2 to lower compression for a good turbo set up?


It doesnt work that way. If you put 3.2 rods into a 4.0 to 'up the compression' the pistons would smash into the head and the engine would be stuffed before it even started. 3.2 rods can be used with pistons with higher pins to reduce rod angles (helps the engine at higher rpm).

I doubt the engine would even run with 4.0 rods in a 3.2 (the compression ratio would be F**k low)

 

_________________

Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:
Sort by  
 Page 2 of 2  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

 

 

It is currently Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:27 am All times are UTC + 11 hours

 

 

(c)2014 Total Web Solutions Australia - Australian Web Hosting and Domain Names