Has anyone put their own stroker kit together? I was looking at a kit through CHP and then I went and looked at the parts seperately. I know the kit includes rings and bearings as well. My main concern was the balancing, but I'll have to get the kit balanced anyway. I'm just wondering what your experiences were. Thanks.
putting a stroker kit together
- Thread starter mustang70
- Start date
Route666
Active Member
As long as you buy the pistons as a set, and the rods as a set, ie: the same brand and "model" of piston or rod, they will weigh pretty much the same, and will balance well.
The only thing you have to worry about is matching wrist pins, journal diametres, deck and compression heights, yada yada.
The only thing you have to worry about is matching wrist pins, journal diametres, deck and compression heights, yada yada.
Hmmm.....I didn't think about the wrist pins and deck height. Something else I was thinking though, is that if I get the pistons seperately then I can make sure they will get the compression I want with whatever heads I use.
This is why I start my research early.
This is why I start my research early.
brianj5600
Active Member
Max Power said:
The last 393 stroker kit I got from CHP did not live up to my expectations.
1969 block was specified, and the main bearings and dished Probe pistons were for a 72 and later block. Mains had the tang on the wrong side journal-didn't work.
The pistons were for the taller deck height block, and had to machine .020 from the tops to get .005 in the hole. The Total Seal rings supplied gapped all over the world and back--returned.
The cast steel crank supplied was an "RPM" model rather than the specified SCAT, and took 2 1/2 slugs of malloy to properly balance=$$.
I got a 331 kit from them a few years ago and the rods supplied were for a large journal small block. They made good on most issues, but were not in any hurry to do so. I was disappointed to say the least.
jasonn
Founding Member
Give Brian at adperformance.com a call. Very knowledgeable and helpful. Also the cheapest prices I could find on the "good" parts. Not the cheap crap.
jasonn
Founding Member
mustang70 said:
Yes brian has them too. He actually threw the rings and bearing in also. Check his websit out or give him a call. I would get the balance job done locally though.
RajunCajun
New Member
- Nov 26, 2003
- 180
- 0
- 0
guess ill plug his site, ive also had good experences from him
http://www.adperformance.com/
on there stroker 351 kits ignore the typos you see just call em for the detailed specs
http://www.adperformance.com/
on there stroker 351 kits ignore the typos you see just call em for the detailed specs
Route666
Active Member
mustang70 said:Hmmm.....I didn't think about the wrist pins and deck height. Something else I was thinking though, is that if I get the pistons seperately then I can make sure they will get the compression I want with whatever heads I use.
This is why I start my research early.
I was planning (for a 331 stroker) to build my own, because the kits I've seen don't use 5.4" rods, they use shorter ones. I was thinking 5.4" H-Beams, with .917 (or 927, I can't remember) wrist pins, and custom pistons, to match a zero deck height on an 8.2" deck-height block with a 3.25" crank. Also with custom pistons, you can get the top ring gap made a bit tighter, so the vertical gas-porting will work more effectively with the lesser-tension rings.
If you want mentoring on early planning, I'm the man, lol, I've been going for 6 years, and still don't have a stang yet.
Anticipation, after all, is everything.
Route666
Active Member
Hack
15 Year Member
Hehe, I don't know the answer for a fact but I had to post anyway.mustang70 said:
Have you tried using rod length divided by stroke to see what answer that gives you?
Route666
Active Member
If you're doing a 331, you have to fit it in an 8.2" deck height. half of the stroke + rod length + compression height = deck height. You won't get pistons smaller than 1" CH, as there needs to be space for rings, and you don't really want the wrist pin invading oil ring territory.
so 8.2 - 1.625 - 1 = 5.575 means you'll need rods shorter than 5.5" approximately. Also, longer rods are weaker inherently, as a trait of length.
Which gives you 5.4" rods, for a nice number, and a bit more room for the CH of the pistons, so the rings don't have to be so far up, which can weaken the crown.
That's the observations I've made. They may not be correct, in fact, if not, I'd like someone to say so, and why.
so 8.2 - 1.625 - 1 = 5.575 means you'll need rods shorter than 5.5" approximately. Also, longer rods are weaker inherently, as a trait of length.
Which gives you 5.4" rods, for a nice number, and a bit more room for the CH of the pistons, so the rings don't have to be so far up, which can weaken the crown.
That's the observations I've made. They may not be correct, in fact, if not, I'd like someone to say so, and why.
I'm going with a 9.5" deck height. I'm going to be using a 72 351W block. So it sounds like if I can get away with a slightly shorter rod I might be better off. Less chance of the rod breaking? Not that I'm worried about that being much on an issue really.
Route666
Active Member
I thought you might have been using a 351 block, after I posted of course. lol. Go with the longest you can with that, you want the rod to be as straight as possible, hence, as long as possible. That has as much, if not more bearing on how much power the rod will handle than its length.
Similar threads
