347 & 302 Walk Into A Bar..........

Nice story, bra! Very creative.

There's more to the design than just the length of the rod. I might be in the minority here, but I'm definitely in the 5.315 rod camp. It allows more room to the piston for compression height and the lower amount of dwell time actually helps because it allows the tune to be a little more aggressive. Short rod motors have been very successful in The Engine Masters Challenge competition that hot-rod puts on every year. They're usually pushing those motors to the brink of detonation. I used to believe that l0ng-rod motors made more power, but EMC changed my beliefs.

However, I think other factors would drive my decision before rod length. I have 5.400" rods in my 331 because I got an outstanding deal on them that I couldn't pass up. They're oliver billet I-beam rods, some of the strongest made. Because I'm using them in a potentially max effort turbo build, CP pistons advised me to keep the stroke down so they could build a piston with lower ring packs and more compression height. With 5.315" rods, I would've built a 347 and had even more room to play with for the piston than a 5.400" rod in my 331.

Anyway, you're probably going to be perfectly happy going with either rod. It's not a decision worth losing any sleep on. If you can save money, make it easier to find parts, or already have a set of rods, then don't let the rod length difference get in the way.

Chris

@FastDriver you're WRONG!

PHR puts on EMC. LULZ.

Someone has way too much time on their hands...


For the future please incorporate :roast:
Haven't seen it used in a while...

NIKwoaC said:

@FastDriver you're WRONG!

PHR puts on EMC. LULZ.

Click to expand...

Without elucidation, your argument is weak.
I would be hesitant to go with any rod that places the piston rod into the ring pack if I was worried about oil use and long term street use. They have supporting pieces for under the rings that are supposed to help. As far as 331 vs 347, might as well get the inches for the $$.

7991LXnSHO said:

Without elucidation, your argument is weak.
I would be hesitant to go with any rod that places the piston rod into the ring pack if I was worried about oil use and long term street use. They have supporting pieces for under the rings that are supposed to help. As far as 331 vs 347, might as well get the inches for the $$.

Click to expand...

You missed the joke. Read the fine print.

NIKwoaC said:

@FastDriver you're WRONG!

PHR puts on EMC. LULZ.

Click to expand...

Dammit! and I had a 14 year streak of not being wrong going.

but he's right. your argument is weak!

FastDriver said:

Dammit! and I had a 14 year streak of not being wrong going.

Click to expand...

Booya!

I liked the story, dont know chit about rod length differences though.

FastDriver said:

but he's right. your argument is weak!

Click to expand...

It's because I don't use it anymore. "Use it or lose it" dad used to say. He also used to tell me I was gonna go blind and grow hair on my hands, but I never listened to him on that one.

Haha... neither did GroverDill, but you saw from my picture what happened to him.

:zzz:

NIKwoaC said:

You missed the joke. Read the fine print.

Click to expand...

I guess I did. All I see in fine print is too many abbreviations to understand or Swahili. I did like the original story.