Your donations help keep this valuable resource free and growing. Thank you.
|
deck height |
Post Reply |
Author | |
rayamx69
AMC Fan Joined: Oct/09/2009 Location: tucson, az Status: Offline Points: 9 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: Oct/23/2019 at 3:09pm |
Hi all, Could someone clarify what deck height my 232 is. It is coded 706E01 which i see as June 1 1970?
Would this be a 70 model year or 71 model year engine? Just asking because im about to do a build and would like to know if i can use 4.0l rods. Thank you in advance for any information Ray
|
|
farna
Supporter of TheAMCForum Moderator Lost Dealership Project Joined: Jul/08/2007 Location: South Carolina Status: Offline Points: 19676 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
7 would be 65 or 74. The E code is 1970-79 232. Since it's 74 and not 70, you are good to go. The year is when the engine was actually produced, so even if it was a 1970 it would be the "tall" block -- 1971 model year production started in August or September of 1970, some engines would have to be made in the later part of 1970 also. You have to go by the letter code in this case. In 60-67 E was used for a 327, 232 was L for 64-69 models. All the codes changed for 1970 production. I would almost assume that was partially due to the block height change, but you'd think some short deck blocks would have been made in early 1970 to finish out the 1970 model year.
|
|
Frank Swygert
|
|
rayamx69
AMC Fan Joined: Oct/09/2009 Location: tucson, az Status: Offline Points: 9 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Perfect. Thank you Farna
|
|
amcenthusiast
AMC Addicted Joined: Jul/02/2012 Location: SW Atlanta GA Status: Offline Points: 1778 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Edited 11-12-19 to delete my extra long comment..
The idea of using 4.0 rods won't do anything for the performance level of the engine -all the stock rods are made of the same nodular iron material -basically all the same strength. For AM inline sixes, I'd say 'keep the stock factory balanced rotating assembly and stick with all the traditional bolt on hop up parts' -This will be a better investment of your hard earned money, you'll get a better running engine and more bang for the buck. (sorry to put Farna into a discussion on balancing the engine) Edited by amcenthusiast - Nov/12/2019 at 12:51am |
|
443 XRV8 Gremlin YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=2DmFOKRuzUc
XRV8 Race Parts website: http://amcramblermarlin.1colony.com/ |
|
farna
Supporter of TheAMCForum Moderator Lost Dealership Project Joined: Jul/08/2007 Location: South Carolina Status: Offline Points: 19676 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I understand what you are saying about the balance. The term "inherently balanced" is usually when compared to V-6 and V-8 designs. MOST I-6 engines have cranks that make them smooth running. Balance has a lot to do with it -- coupled with the firing order. I don't know of any that are made differently. I suppose they could be made differently and with a different firing order, but all I know of use the same 1-5-3-6-2-4 firing order as well (I checked AMC, Ford, Mercedes and BMW) because it makes them run so smooth. I can't see any reason to make it different... I agree with everything you've said, if that makes any difference.
|
|
Frank Swygert
|
|
billd
Moderator Group Forum Administrator Joined: Jun/27/2007 Location: Iowa Status: Offline Points: 30894 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The only reason to use other rods would be if you wanted a different length rod to run a different piston from stock.
Best to concentrate on a good valve job, porting, a good choice of cam, etc. The 4.0 rods have the exact same bottom end as the others - I know - I've got early AMC rod bearings in my 4.0. (ok, so there's one difference - the locating tab was moved from one side to the other with the 4.0 so I filed new notches in the rod caps, etc. otherwise they are identical) There's no reason to NOT use them - that part I don't get as to the negative fuss about "no, don't do it". Uh, why not, obviously depending on the PISTON choice, etc. If they are the same length center to center, the same pin diameter (I've not checked that), then why not? They are sure easier to find if a person needs rods. But there's no benefit other than availability. If a person uses different pistons - different pin height, there's all sorts of things a person can do. Rod length is something best left to professionals to deal with, though - not taken lightly. Stick with stock rods unless you plan on any other tweaks - pistons, funky crankshaft combo, etc. Farna is talking of the way the crankshaft is designed and the firing order was chosen to prevent torsional twisting and harmonics. As a cylinder fires and the piston pushes the rod which pushes the crankpin, there tends to be a bit of a flex or twist in the crankshaft - a "wind-up" and harmonics, a kind of jump rope out of control situation where the crankshaft is winding up, unwinding, etc. and anyway, it gets complicated. Don't mess with the design other than choosing the right parts for the goal in mind. Set a goal - how will you drive it, what do you expect out of it, how will it be used. Buy all parts with that goal in mind and keep in mind it's a SYSTEM, not a collection of random individual parts. If you decide to go different exhaust - perhaps headers, then you have to consider what's going in and how it's getting there or the headers will be a bolt-on joke. Want more carburetor? Unless you change cam and exhaust it may not matter (depending on choice) Want some fun - go the Holley EFI kit - no messing with a carburetor, no choke problems. Carburetors are fine - not a thing wrong with 'em but that kit would make sure the engine was getting peak air/fuel ratio regardless of what else you do. |
|
amcenthusiast
AMC Addicted Joined: Jul/02/2012 Location: SW Atlanta GA Status: Offline Points: 1778 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I get carried away many times in my explanations.
Just did some more checking around and found that Scat IS making a forged steel 4.0 size rod. What are the critical deck height dimensions for the low deck '64-'70? and the tall deck from '71-'87? and the 4.0 deck height through the end of production? Edited by amcenthusiast - Nov/11/2019 at 11:51pm |
|
443 XRV8 Gremlin YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=2DmFOKRuzUc
XRV8 Race Parts website: http://amcramblermarlin.1colony.com/ |
|
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |