Connecting rod length and piston pin location (compression height) affects piston angularity and hence cylinder wall loading.



Ford went to a .072 shorter rod (6.252) for the '61 - '64 H.D. 292 truck engine and also increased the piston pin compression height by .062 (1.830) when doing so.



1) In building a 292 engine, is it advantageous to use 6.252 C to C rods (312 length) instead of the more common 6.324 C to C rods?



2) WHY did Ford shorten the rod length for the heavy duty truck? Was this change related to truck engine lower operating r.p.m.?



COMMENT: After using EBU rods from '54 to '61, I'm amazed that Ford spent the money to change to the C2AE rods for '62 to '64 standard duty 292 engines!








NoShortcuts
a.k.a. Charlie Brown
near Syracuse, New York