Rich, you are a guru in this arena and I value your input. I had assumed (stupid, I know) that since the Eagle rods are forged, have the twelve point ARP bolts and are shoot peened, that they would be a better piece than reconditioning the factory rods and installing ARP bolts.

I know there are much better rods on the market, but for $205, I thought it was a smart move for the budget minded builder such as myself. Has anyone broken one on a 500-600 hp application below 6,500?

Cheers,
John

 

Generally, the rods themselves don't fail first. Usually, the failure is cause by a failing fastener.

-Shannon

 

I did some additional rsearch (ie SEARCH function) and came up with this thread:

http://web.camaross.com/forums/showt...ight=eagle+sir

It appears that part selection is a matter of personal preferance, budget limitations, and erring on the side of conservacy (which is a good thing). From reading through the endless posts about "Is this a good set-up?" I have come to the conclusion that when on a budget, it's better to back off the almighty hp target numbers and have the car perform within it's abilities. That is based soley on what you are willing to invest and what your goals are.

My advise is:
To set a performance goal
Stick to a realistic budget (you can't make 600 reliable hp on $1,000), Upgrade your weakest/critical areas
Put as much money into the bottom end as possible and upgrade the rest at a later date (it's much easier to replace a set of stamped rocker arms than a crank). It's the motors foundation.
Stop when your wallet/ credit cards/ significant other can't take any more

 

I would use a good condition set of stock rods with new bolts in preference to the "SIR". But I do agree that reconditioning a set of beat-up stock rods may not be cost effective.

Rich

 

Regarding the rods, from Lingenfelter's book (1996), on modifying small block chevy engines:

BEAM WIDTH
"Most hot rodders don't know that Chevrolet narrowed the beam width of the small-block Chevy connecting rod beginning approximately with 1989 and later connecting rods. ......I do not use the later narrow rods in any performance application. I have seen occasional rod failures in some of the new LT-1 engines that use this rod. Also notice that although the beam is narrower, the rod is just as heavy, with the weight placed in the big end which actually places more stress on the rod at higher rpm. All of my late-model engines, such as the LT-1 350 and 383 packages, replace these narrow beam rods with either earlier stronger production rods or Oliver 4340 forged steel."

Regarding the balancing, I am using trw pistons with h-beam rods and a stock LT-1 crank. The guy who balanced it removed weight from the crank and flywheel in a few spots, he did not add anything. Been running it for about 6 years like that. There is a slight vibration at 1 very narrow rpm range (perhaps 100-200 rpm) down low but it is smooth after that.

 

I dunno. Cause they're made in China?

 

Someday we may have to learn Chinese.

Rich

 

Bro, I hate to admit it, but they teach it where I work.

I do everything I can to not send work over there. Not only are they still a bunch of damn communists and break every patent & copywright ever filed, they are making near exact copies (knock-offs) of our engines and putting hand-laminated laserjet printed labels on them with our logo, except it's all misspelled. They even have the ***** to have some improvements, but then make up for it by shortchanging on horsepower & durability. And if you order some part from over there, you can spec it in green & they will send it in pink cause that's the color of recycled plastic they were handed by their government on that particular day, which they bought from us. If they ever send me over there, some poor soul is going to have to gutstick himself from loss of face when I spit out the live octopus at the business banquet, cause I refuse to send my business their way.