Author
|
Message
|
314
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: 7 Years Ago
Posts: 287,
Visits: 1.7K
|
using a 292 steel crank was once the way to stroke a 289.
|
|
|
Hoosier Hurricane
|
|
Group: Moderators
Last Active: 4 hours ago
Posts: 3.7K,
Visits: 322.9K
|
Oops! Got the numbers reversed. The W is 1.133, the C is 1.118. Sorry.
John - "The Hoosier Hurricane"

|
|
|
Hoosier Hurricane
|
|
Group: Moderators
Last Active: 4 hours ago
Posts: 3.7K,
Visits: 322.9K
|
Y block width, 1.120, 351 W is 1.118, 351 C is 1.133. The problem with the back of the crank is the rear journal is too short to extend out the back of the block. It also uses a full circle oil seal, which the block would have to be machined for. Without making the journal longer, the flywheel would not clear the back of the block. I'm not saying this can't be done, I'm saying it is probably not worth the effort.
John - "The Hoosier Hurricane"

|
|
|
jepito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: 10 Years Ago
Posts: 87,
Visits: 541
|
Any idea on 351 thrust width? Have a marine front cover to handle the snout issue. Trans adapter to overcome flywheel side. New rear seal mount can be made.
|
|
|
Hoosier Hurricane
|
|
Group: Moderators
Last Active: 4 hours ago
Posts: 3.7K,
Visits: 322.9K
|
The thrust bearing on a Windsor is wider than a Y. The Cleveland is the same width. The snouts of both are much shorter than a Y, and I don't believe they have a flywheel flange, the flywheel pilots on the end of the rear journal and the bolts go into the journal. If you are going this way, you should probably start with a steel crank because you are probably going to have to do some welding, and welding a cast crank is not a good plan.
John - "The Hoosier Hurricane"

|
|
|
gekko13
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: 8 Years Ago
Posts: 128,
Visits: 2.6K
|
I have wondered about the feasibility of a 351W crank too. I have no experience machining a crank to fit another application but, I think reworking a finished crank would not work due to the oil passages ending up in the wrong spot and also trying to grind in the proper radius in the shoulders of the journals. I think a better avenue might be to obtain an un-machined or even semi-machined casting and then finish it to size. Easy for me to say because I'm not doing work, right? Using a 2.00 or 1.88 rod journal could net some pretty big gains. JMO
|
|
|
charliemccraney
|
|
Group: Moderators
Last Active: 1 hour ago
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 442.6K
|
jepito (2/17/2012) Rear main seal could be the main issue.Pun intended??
Lawrenceville, GA
|
|
|
jepito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: 10 Years Ago
Posts: 87,
Visits: 541
|
That's an even better deal. Rear main seal could be the main issue. But where there is a will there is a way.
|
|
|
charliemccraney
|
|
Group: Moderators
Last Active: 1 hour ago
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 442.6K
|
Ooohhh. I think that could work out better than the otherwise required custom crank as long as there isn't a whole lot of other work required to make it fit. An Eagle 3.85 stroke Cleveland crank is listed at Summit for $281.95. http://www.summitracing.com/parts/ESP-103523850/
Lawrenceville, GA
|
|
|
jepito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: 10 Years Ago
Posts: 87,
Visits: 541
|
Speedway sells 3.85" stroke cranks for $400. Thought it might be worth the hassle for that. 351c only has 3.5 stroke
|
|
|