lifter preload

[Cheromaniac]

And thats why yourself and many others will continue to believe the persistent myths pertaining to the 4.0L

Then please illuminate this board by sharing some of your knowledge and experience so we can all learn something.

[YJ_and_Corey]

And thats why yourself and many others will continue to believe the persistent myths pertaining to the 4.0L

Then please illuminate this board by sharing some of your knowledge and experience so we can all learn something.

Lets start with this gem: YOU are the reason so many people have detonating Jeep strokers in the first place!

Here's another one: If a person MUST build a 4.2L rodded stroker (instead of the right way to do it), unless the pistons are reversed in the bores, it will need premium fuel to avoid detonation. If they are reversed, it will not require premium fuel.

More?

[Cheromaniac]

Lets start with this gem: YOU are the reason so many people have detonating Jeep strokers in the first place! .

Really? How so?

Here's another one: If a person MUST build a 4.2L rodded stroker (instead of the right way to do it), unless the pistons are reversed in the bores, it will need premium fuel to avoid detonation. If they are reversed, it will not require premium fuel.

Too bad for you that I'm running my stroker on 87 octane without detonation and with my 677P pistons installed the right way round, so I wonder where I went wrong with my build?

[YJ_and_Corey]

It's your piston choice that saved you. Many budget builds use OEM replacement 4.0L pistons, which do indeed need to be reversed.

I've seen you questioning Bennie and Lee's tech on the Hesco board. That tells me a lot about you.
Your stroker "recipes" are pretty much all pie-in-the-sky, most people have figured that out.

Especially the bits about offset grinding (I mean drastically weakening for minimal gains) a 4.2L crank, using big valves (there is a reason Hesco doesn't), milling blocks unnecessarily for quench reasons of all things (waste of a good block), and boring for SBC pistons without any mention of sleeves.
You are not the expert you claim to be, far from it.

[Cheromaniac]

You are not the expert you claim to be, far from it.

Funny you should say that 'cause not once did I ever claim to be an expert.

Many budget builds use OEM replacement 4.0L pistons, which do indeed need to be reversed.

Not if you use a long enough duration cam to bleed off cylinder pressure. Do you see the stock cam being used in my 4.5L low buck "recipe" where the SCR comes in at 9.7:1? Certainly not, and I've never recommended using the stock cam without lowering the SCR.

I've seen you questioning Bennie and Lee's tech on the Hesco board. That tells me a lot about you.

You know very little about me.

Your stroker "recipes" are pretty much all pie-in-the-sky, most people have figured that out.

Yeah, that's why I'm running one of them and many others have either made exact copies of most of my recipes (4.5-4.7L versions anyway) or varied slightly. The 4.8-5.0L recipes are only for the brave of heart (or heavy of wallet).

Especially the bits about offset grinding (I mean drastically weakening for minimal gains) a 4.2L crank, using big valves (there is a reason Hesco doesn't), milling blocks unnecessarily for quench reasons of all things (waste of a good block), and boring for SBC pistons without any mention of sleeves.

1. I'm not a fan of offset-grinding the rod journals but it has been done (ever ask yourself how Hesco built a 4.9L stroker) successfully and it's the only way you're going to build a stroker with more displacement than 4.8L.

2. I don't agree with using big valves either which is why I kept the stock valve sizes in my stroker.

3. I didn't mill my block either and was content to keep the quench at 0.088", but others wanting a tighter quench and a higher SCR might prefer to mill the block than spend $600+ on custom pistons. Even the KB944 pistons when mated to the 4.0 rods require 0.020" to be milled off the block deck to reduce the deck clearance to 0.010".

4. I wouldn't even suggest boring the cylinders to 4.000" for SBC (or SBF) pistons without at least sonic-checking all the cylinders 'cause few 4.0L blocks will take it. Yes, it's been done but how long do these engines last? Not my cup of tea. I'd rather play safe and do the smallest overbore possible to keep the cylinder walls thick so I only went +0.020" on mine.

[YJ_and_Corey]

.......Funny you should say that 'cause not once did I ever claim to be an expert

.......ever ask yourself how Hesco built a 4.9L stroker

.......Even the KB944 pistons when mated to the 4.0 rods require 0.020" to be milled off the block deck to reduce the deck clearance to 0.010".

If YOU don't believe in offset grinds or bigger valves or SBC pistons, why are they in your "recipes"? Maybe you should actually build some of those
combos before calling them recipes

ANYBODY who questions Lee or Bennie had better be an expert, as the FINAL word in 4.0L performance lies with them. Period.

They (Hesco) are building true 5.0L(and beyond) strokers by both siamese sleeving the block and spending the cash on custom "one-off" billet cranks. Not by off-set grinding.
Off-set grinding a 4.2L crank weakens the crank dramatically by reducing the stiffness in the crank. Trust me, they start to whip on our
balancer when they are ground to that extreme. BAD idea.

If you truly think the KB pistons NEED 0.020 machined off the deck to bring clearance to 0.010 you should just quit right now. Hopefully nobody here has
followed this advise. The KB pistons need NOTHING done to the block surface.
I have 7 engines now running the KB pistons on 4.0L rods with zero decking done to the head.

Case in point:

Here is a KB944 sitting at 0.010 in a uncut block (and even if it was at 0.030, it would run fine!)

[Cheromaniac]

If YOU don't believe in offset grinds or bigger valves or SBC pistons, why are they in your "recipes"?

Because other people have successfully used them in their engines.

They (Hesco) are building true 5.0L(and beyond) strokers by both siamese sleeving the block and spending the cash on custom "one-off" billet cranks.

I totally agree that this would be the best way to build them for longevity but how much would such an engine cost?

If you truly think the KB pistons NEED 0.020 machined off the deck to bring clearance to 0.010 you should just quit right now. Hopefully nobody here has followed this advise. The KB pistons need NOTHING done to the block surface.
I have 7 engines now running the KB pistons on 4.0L rods with zero decking done to the head.

I don't "think" the KB pistons NEED 0.020" milled off the block to bring the deck clearance down to 0.010" (it should have been 0.007" actually). KB's own site quotes a deck height of 9.433" when using those pistons. Correct me if I'm wrong but the 4.0 block has a deck height of 9.453" (9.450-9.456) so where did the other 0.020" go?

http://www.kb-silvolite.com/forged.php? ... s&P_id=543

Do the maths:

Deck clearance = Deck height - rod length - stroke/2 - piston compression height

Substituting 9.453" for a stock 4.0L block's deck height, a 6.125" rod length for 4.0L rods, 1.948" for the stroke/2, and a 1.353" piston compression height:

Deck clearance = 9.453 - 6.125 - 1.948 - 1.353 = 0.027" (without milling the block deck)

Naturally there'll be variances due to production tolerances so you'd have to measure everything before you mill the block but I believe my maths is correct.

[YJ_and_Corey]

KB also stated that the KB944 piston gives 9:1 compression, when they first released it.

Like I said, I have 7 sets out there now on uncut blocks. On some blocks, there isn't enough space left to mill 0.020 anyhow.
Your math is correct. but unnecessary. The block does not need to be touched to run the KB944 piston.

Because other people have successfully used them in their engines.

As far as larger valves go, define "success". There are several very well documented cases where larger valves made engines perform sub-par to expectations. Swirl polished, tuliped and back-cut valves yes. Larger valves no (EXCEPT forced aspiration and only on exhaust).

You think you know, but you really don't.

[Cheromaniac]

You think you know, but you really don't.

I know more than you think.

[YJ_and_Corey]

You think you know, but you really don't.

I know more than you think.

You know how to dream up unrealistic, unbuildable and unresearched stroker formulae. I'll give you that.

[Muad'Dib]

Can we stop with the personal attacks already?


Some people build an engine one way, others build it another way... is it really that hard to say ok your method works too .. so does mine.

Some of us want a tight quench... so we will shave the block. That wasnt what you wanted to do nor want to do and thats fine.

Same shit different day.. lets move on to more productive conversations and quit the flame wars, hating, and bashing.

[dwg86]

Can we stop with the personal attacks already?


Some people build an engine one way, others build it another way... is it really that hard to say ok your method works too .. so does mine.

Some of us want a tight quench... so we will shave the block. That wasnt what you wanted to do nor want to do and thats fine.

Same shit different day.. lets move on to more productive conversations and quit the flame wars, hating, and bashing.

X2

[Cheromaniac]

You know how to dream up unrealistic, unbuildable and unresearched stroker formulae. I'll give you that.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I asked you to contribute something constructive and give me some input so I could improve on my stroker "recipes" (with you taking the credit) but you didn't, so quit bashing if you've got nothing better to add. You obviously have some personal issue with me from the tone of your language and I really don't care.
As for the unbuildable stroker formulae, all of the 4.5-4.7 stroker recipes HAVE been built and most importantly, they WORK.

[Plechtan]

I will be the first i dont know the answer to the Quench question, so i went back to someone who both you guys probably respect, and asked him the question , Here is his answer, I copied it from the Hesco BBS

Lee Hurley wrote:

When I did the testing on the boosted piston I used the "V" mark on the piston. The boosted piston is the end results of all that testing.

Maybe the reason the VERY SMALL quench area in the boosted piston worked as it did was boosted engines have a history of turbulent flow to the chamber that quench is not needed. My idea came from diesel knowledge and design.

I have tested NA engines and changed the quench and had data to confirm the results. Tight is best!!!!!!

We all have opinions on things based on our experiences, Hesco seem to have the most experience. The conclusion that quench is not important based on the turbo pistons, seem to be wrong based on what Lee says. The purpose of quench is to create turblance in the combustion chanber, so maybe flipping the pistons 180 also creates turblulance. I think that it would be worth while investigating.


Things were calming down, just thought i would throw some fuel ( and good tech info) onto the fire.

[YJ_and_Corey]

You know how to dream up unrealistic, unbuildable and unresearched stroker formulae. I'll give you that.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I asked you to contribute something constructive and give me some input so I could improve on my stroker "recipes" (with you taking the credit) but you didn't, so quit bashing if you've got nothing better to add. You obviously have some personal issue with me from the tone of your language and I really don't care.
As for the unbuildable stroker formulae, all of the 4.5-4.7 stroker recipes HAVE been built and most importantly, they WORK.

The entire stroker community, with the exception of several individuals present, realize that your stroker formulas are garbage.

As for the formulas working, no they do not. If shaving the block is necessary for a formula to work, it is not a viable formula. I will repeat this again:

Shaving a block is a last-resort measure to save a core. Period.

---------

Yes, tight quench is best - or better than the alternative anyhow.

8:1 pistons with no quench surface runs great, at all RPMs, with boost or no boost. Reversed piston short and long rod stroker runs awesome with high-compression on regular fuel.
So why is quench the "be-all and end-all" in a 4.0L again?

I don't build strokers with 4.2L rods anymore, and neither should anyone else. Using 4.0L rods and KB (or my up and coming new pistons) offerings makes it (quench) a non-issue these days.