Runwell vs Zeda crank

[gary55]

IIt don't matter where it's fastest speed is. You cannot push something that is longer (heavier) as fast as something shorter (lighter) at a equal max. speed with the same charge. I mean if were holding then to the same RPM that's a diff. story, but we or at least I was talking about the max. possibilities. This may be where we are not understanding one another.

 

[JerboaJohn]

I always think about Chevy engineering in the mid-70's with the 305 replacing the 283/307/327 family. they switched the 5.7" rod for 5.565, and lost abt 2000rpm (other factors too tho). side note: anyone remember "Pink" rods?
rod to stroke ratio is everything. not gonna get much torque with these small pistons so gotta spin em higher
longer rod needs a shorter/lighter piston to make the same weight, then you get the advantages of less angle on the piston at BDC

 

[Spare_Parts]

I remember the pink rods...lol

 

[gary55]

I always think about Chevy engineering in the mid-70's with the 305 replacing the 283/307/327 family. they switched the 5.7" rod for 5.565, and lost abt 2000rpm (other factors too tho). side note: anyone remember "Pink" rods?
rod to stroke ratio is everything. not gonna get much torque with these small pistons so gotta spin em higher
longer rod needs a shorter/lighter piston to make the same weight, then you get the advantages of less angle on the piston at BDC

Massive drops in compression and smog control didn't help, along with the 305 having nearly 1/2" longer stroke than all mentioned but the 307 being closer to 1/4". The shorter rod wasn't what cost them the rpm. It was screwing up a already good design. I liked the 302 they came out with in 68 with the 4" bore and 3" stroke for the Z.

 

[Street Ryderz]

As Gary stated big losses in comp from changing head chamber volumes from 168-172cc to 198cc and smaller valves killed flow too they f***ed it all up!LOL thought they were reducing emmisions but really just got us to burn more fuel with less efficaintcy.

 

[Lukesky36]

When all the emissions controls stuff came out i think we ended up burning more fuel and wasting more resources then anything such a big waist of money i don't care how much you reburn in the fuel it really depends on the MPG on vehicles what ever goes in the engine is going to come out one form or the other the less fuel and air you can get flowing through in the engine the better witch defeats the purpose of emissions trying to reburn fuels and make cars run worse then intended example 20mpg non emissions car burns 1 gallon in 20 miles so a emissions car with smog and emissions on it gets 18 miles per gallon like what? shur you broken down hydrocarbons more but you just wasted that much more fuel doing it and add that up with every car that emissions where added onto 24.7 a very pathetic number for fuel economy in 2018 some cars in 1975 pull better MPG