[s-cars] How many people on this list have gone the 2.6 L route?

[djdawson2 at aol.com]

You sorta hit the nail on the head... 5750rpm.
 
Also making a significant difference between the 455 and the Audi example is hp/liter.  The Pontiac, assuming you got the best of the best, was an "HO" rated at 335hp found in the likes of the '71 Trans Am.  That engine would be putting out about 45 hp/liter.  My own little 2.2 is putting out a little over 200hp/liter, and I would expect the stroker to do better.  Not necessarily in the peak hp area, but certainly in the area under the curve.  That output, in and of itself, is enough to make me think twice about a poor rod ratio.
 
Take a bad rod ratio, a huge hp/liter figure, combine it with a forged piston that has an extremely small skirt, and I think you have the definition of "burn twice as bright, live half as long."
 
And... if you happen to own one of those '71-73 Trans Ams, I am envious.  I have a weak spot for early American muscle... even if they can't turn or stop.
 
Dave 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: calvinlc at earthlink.net
To: djdawson2 at aol.com; CaptMagu at aol.com; fastscirocco_2000 at yahoo.com; s-car-list at audifans.com
Sent: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 16:35:14 -0600
Subject: RE: [s-cars] How many people on this list have gone the 2.6 L route?


I will say this, though.  A Pontiac 455 (which I happen to run in my
Firebird) has a stock rod/stroke ratio of 1.57 and a piston speed of 4042
ft/min. (5750 rpm)  These engines routinely went for over 100k miles with
crap pistons and cast cranks/rods.  The differemces I guess I could see that
might make a difference are cruising rpm is happy at 1500-2500 rpm, no need
to wind it up to 3k+ when going 75 mph and piston side loading may not be as
bad due to the much larger bore (106mm).  However, 1.51 does strike me as a
little low....
________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.