548 or 572 BBC N/A Build Assitance/Advise
#21
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: South Central PA
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GPM, that is the 572 combo i was thinking of. my current bore is 4.500 and isnt too bad. maybe just go to a 4.530 bore x 4.375 = 564 or 4.530 x 4.25 =548.
Lets throw another wrench on 548 combo, i have seen some builders using the 6.535 with the 4.25 crank on short decks. i hear that it gives more torque to the motor and better Rod Ratio. But this effects the CH of the piston. is this worth considering or not? It looks as if there are not any shelf pistond for this combo either, so that is one issue.
Any thoughts on that?
Does anyone know from dyno experience what 1 point of compression makes or losses in HP?
Lets throw another wrench on 548 combo, i have seen some builders using the 6.535 with the 4.25 crank on short decks. i hear that it gives more torque to the motor and better Rod Ratio. But this effects the CH of the piston. is this worth considering or not? It looks as if there are not any shelf pistond for this combo either, so that is one issue.
Any thoughts on that?
Does anyone know from dyno experience what 1 point of compression makes or losses in HP?
#22
Registered
Funny how builders differ on this subject. About 4 or 5 years ago I was at LPG speaking with Keith Eickert on building a 540 and he absolutely refused to build one on a 9.8" block Others build them and bigger without batting an eye.
#23
Registered
iTrader: (2)
GPM, that is the 572 combo i was thinking of. my current bore is 4.500 and isnt too bad. maybe just go to a 4.530 bore x 4.375 = 564 or 4.530 x 4.25 =548.
Lets throw another wrench on 548 combo, i have seen some builders using the 6.535 with the 4.25 crank on short decks. i hear that it gives more torque to the motor and better Rod Ratio. But this effects the CH of the piston. is this worth considering or not? It looks as if there are not any shelf pistond for this combo either, so that is one issue.
Any thoughts on that?
Does anyone know from dyno experience what 1 point of compression makes or losses in HP?
Lets throw another wrench on 548 combo, i have seen some builders using the 6.535 with the 4.25 crank on short decks. i hear that it gives more torque to the motor and better Rod Ratio. But this effects the CH of the piston. is this worth considering or not? It looks as if there are not any shelf pistond for this combo either, so that is one issue.
Any thoughts on that?
Does anyone know from dyno experience what 1 point of compression makes or losses in HP?
#24
Registered
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Between A Womans Leggs in IL
Posts: 6,306
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
smart man..if it was safe and reliable the merc would have used a 9.800 block on their 540 bulldog instead of a 10.200 tall deck block..also a longer rod gives the engine more time to stuff the cylinder full of air and more time for it to be pushed out..more air and fuel equals more power..
#25
Registered
iTrader: (2)
smart man..if it was safe and reliable the merc would have used a 9.800 block on their 540 bulldog instead of a 10.200 tall deck block..also a longer rod gives the engine more time to stuff the cylinder full of air and more time for it to be pushed out..more air and fuel equals more power..
#26
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: South Central PA
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
smart man..if it was safe and reliable the merc would have used a 9.800 block on their 540 bulldog instead of a 10.200 tall deck block..also a longer rod gives the engine more time to stuff the cylinder full of air and more time for it to be pushed out..more air and fuel equals more power..
#27
Registered
iTrader: (2)
This is interesting info, Bob Teague has a 540 listed but is a Tall Deck block. Just an FYI. BUT, if we are concerned with the 4.25 stroke then why is or was the 496 so popular ? it has the 4.25 stroke with a smaller bore. i;m not sure of the rod length so dont know what the rod ratio is on this motor..
#28
Registered
Rod ratios are almost irrelevant. Just go with the combo that keeps a reasonable piston deck height. You aren't spinning it fast and the odds you put over 500hrs on it are extremely low.
Cube for cube, two different stroke motors will make virtually identical power. It's been tested. It isn't worth debating anymore.
Cube for cube, two different stroke motors will make virtually identical power. It's been tested. It isn't worth debating anymore.
#29
[QUOTE=260Velocity;4315598]GPM, that is the 572 combo i was thinking of. my current bore is 4.500 and isnt too bad. maybe just go to a 4.530 bore x 4.375 = 564 or 4.530 x 4.25 =548.
Lets throw another wrench on 548 combo, i have seen some builders using the 6.535 with the 4.25 crank on short decks. i hear that it gives more torque to the motor and better Rod Ratio. But this effects the CH of the piston. is this worth considering or not? It looks as if there are not any shelf pistond for this combo either, so that is one issue.
I think you would be happier with the 4.375 crank motor, the larger the bore the better the air flow. I think you're into a custom piston whether you use a 6.385 or 6.405 rod. I don't think the 6.535 rod leaves much of a piston with the 4.375 crank. Just my opinion.
Lets throw another wrench on 548 combo, i have seen some builders using the 6.535 with the 4.25 crank on short decks. i hear that it gives more torque to the motor and better Rod Ratio. But this effects the CH of the piston. is this worth considering or not? It looks as if there are not any shelf pistond for this combo either, so that is one issue.
I think you would be happier with the 4.375 crank motor, the larger the bore the better the air flow. I think you're into a custom piston whether you use a 6.385 or 6.405 rod. I don't think the 6.535 rod leaves much of a piston with the 4.375 crank. Just my opinion.