Quote:
Originally Posted by GregWeld
The reason people don't like the smaller journals is that there is actually more rotational speed and load on the bearing with a smaller journal... speed and friction create heat. Heat is bad. While .10 difference seemingly is "small" == when you're revving at 6,000 rpms - all the math adds up quickly.
Sorry to hear of all your headaches Bryan! Been there - done that.
By the way -- I hate aluminum radiators. Old cars were never made to support big aluminum radiators... we "wrack"(?)(twist 'em) them and the tank to fin area doesn't like that!!
My Nomad was a master at it. #1 the standard radiator had a tank on the top and bottom and was narrow. We then modify our cars and put a WIDE radiator in with tanks on the sides... Then we add stiff suspension (over stock) - big fat ass tires... drive our cars like they're Porsches... beat on them... and then wonder why that poor radiator couldn't take it.
The fix?? Isolate the hell out of it... don't bolt it straight to the core support... Get some wubba (rubber) in there. Or have it supported in a way that the radiator "floats" on it's mounts.
|
Greg, your mostly correct concerning the smaller rod journal diameter. It does have the POTENTIAL to create more heat, because there is a greater load on the smaller bearing (all things being equal), but the rotational speeds, at the bearing surface, will be slower. You have to think radius here. Why people DO like the smaller rod journals, is because it gives you the opportunity to run a lighter rod/rod bearing combo, which allows an engine to accelerate quicker. You nailed it on the radiator twist info, however.
Ok, carry on people...