Re: [Amc-list] 199 rods in a 4.0l was Re: Rambler six comma fast

[adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)]

" From: Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>
" 
" Sandwich Maker wrote:
" 
" > their pins are much smaller than the 199's, 0.860" vs. 0.930", but the
" > 327 and even the '55 252 six - though oddly not earlier 252s/234s/etc
" > - are the same size.
" 
" > 6.825" is only 0.700" longer than the 199 / '70s 232 / 4.0 6.125" rod.
" > you could just barely handle it on a 199 crank in a '71-up tall deck
" > block; by my calc a 1.15" pin height, and that's just about the
" > minimum i've seen on any aftermkt american slugs.  i'm not so sure
" > you could make it work in a '64-'70 block.
" > 
" > if the 327 rods had a usable big end, you could just about drop them
" > in and run stock slugs on them, with a 199 crank in a 4.0 block.
" 
" I'm at work and don't have any printed data; but 195.6 L-head pistons 
" (flat topped...) have 1.75" pin height, clearly live happily on the ends 
" of those long rods, and the big end attaches to a 199 crank... too bad 
" it's only 3.125" across. So close, yet so far away...

i think they'd be about 0.600" out the deck of a [heavily sleeved] 4.0
block at tdc!

you'd need custom slugs with a 0.90" pin height [if that's possible]
in order to run 196 rods in the navarro block.  it might actually be
advantageous to have them made for the smaller 196 wristpins.
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen
adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none thought
_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list