1uz, 2uz, 3uz & H Beam

[Lextreme II]

I took the uz rods out this evening and compare them to the Eagle H-Beam rod. I have all the uz rods lined up from 1 to 3 along with a H beam rod. The uz rods have the same specs in all generations. Here are the measurements:

UZFE:
BE: 2.165" (without bearing)
SE: .862"
BE Thickness: .902
Length: 5.7***
Bolt Size: 9 mm (0.35")


H Beam:
BE: 2.122" (without bearing)
SE: .925"
BE thickness: .940"
Length: 5.700"
Bolt Size: 7/16 (0.4375")

 

[Zuffen]

I hope those H beams can sing because they look like the fat lady!

 

[Lextreme II]

Yeah.... That is the only draw back.... I will get them weight today...

 

[Lextreme II]

Ok,

I have the official weight:
1UZFE Rod: 628g
2UZFE Rod: 581g
3UZFE Rod: 581g
Eagle Rod: 673g
Carrillo Rod: 684g

1UZFE is 47g heavier than 2UZFE or 3UZFE
Eagle is 45g heavier than 1UZFE
Carrillo is 11g heavier than Eagle
Eagle is 92g heavier than 2-3UZFE

I used a Pitney Bowes Postage digital scale. The weight include, the rod, cap and 2 bolts without bearings.

 

[JBrady]

I wonder what the specs and pricing will be on the upcomming GM LS7 titanium rods? These rods will be the 7 liter 505hp engine in the 2006 ZO6 Corvette. Could be bargain (relatively) priced titanium rods, hmmm...

 

[Lextreme II]

I think the LS* rod have 2.1" BE and with 6.00" or more rod length. It will be too big and too long for our application. However, it will be nice to see some titamium rods..

 

[MikeMan]

Manley Performance P/N 14001-8 is a SBC rod made of 7075 T-6 alloy.

http://www.manleyperformance.com/pdfs/conrods.pdf

Rod weight is 532 grams for a 5.7" small journal rod. They are USD600 with ARP 8740 bolts from summit racing. http://store.summitracing.com/default.asp?target=partdetail.asp&part=MAN-14001-8&N=400049+300936&autoview=sku




They also have a lite-weight rod that is 445 grams P/N 14601-8 They are USD850.
http://store.summitracing.com/default.asp?target=partdetail.asp&part=MAN-14001-8&N=400049+300936&autoview=sku

 

[skid]

I'm starting to wonder again if replacing the rods is the right move. They may be stronger, but if heavier that extra 50 or 60 grammes can equate to tonnes of force when being revved around at 7000rpm!

Surely this must have adverse effects on the crank and all various bearings as it wouldn't have been designed for that.

I believe if stronger rods can't be had for the same weight then the best route must be to get a good set of original rods and get them weight matched, shot peened, crack tested etc etc etc and stick with them.

If you're going for a full 1000 bhp motor then I think you will succeed in the short run but eventually you will find the weak spot which if previously was a rod will now pass on down the line to the crank.

Just my thoughts. I am geniunely interested in all the developments here but as with any great idea there needs to be some balance.

M

 

[Lextreme II]

I have been looking at those aluminum rods. I have heard they are not good for street application and they are not made for high hp. I am aiming for 900-1000 hp. I am not sure how much hp does those T6 rods can handle. I just a set of Carrillo rods also and I might use them.

 

[The Flea]

Yeah, here's what happens when a 7075 T6 rod isn't heat treated correctly. This rod had about 16 runs on it in the low 10's and broke on a easy pass. Like many rod failures the rod bolt stripped out and then everything else fell apart.

 

[MikeMan]

I have been looking at those aluminum rods. I have heard they are not good for street application and they are not made for high hp. I am aiming for 900-1000 hp. I am not sure how much hp does those T6 rods can handle. I just a set of Carrillo rods also and I might use them.

At those power levels I would be using Carrillo's or the Eagle's. You will be getting your power from boost/cams at approx 7500 I would guess?

However for my project I am aiming at 400-500 HP NA and I only want to build the motor once. I will probably use the Ultra-Lites as those rods combined with some crank work and lightweight pistons should allow 9000+ rpm which is what I will need to get the power I am after.

Before anyone goes "500HP is easy, add a couple of turbos" I want a NA engine in the car that this is for, I know it will cost me a crapload more but I do not want to go FI.

So I guess it is horses for courses.

400-~600 BHP FI @ 7000-7500 = Stock 1UZ rods with work, (Balance, shotpeen, stress relived, nitrided etc)

400-500 BHP NA @ 8500-9500 = Lite alloy SBC rods like the Manley Ultra-Lites

600+ BHP @7000-7500 FI = Eagle or Carrillo SBC rods.

 

[MikeMan]

I'm starting to wonder again if replacing the rods is the right move. They may be stronger, but if heavier that extra 50 or 60 grammes can equate to tonnes of force when being revved around at 7000rpm!

Surely this must have adverse effects on the crank and all various bearings as it wouldn't have been designed for that.

I believe if stronger rods can't be had for the same weight then the best route must be to get a good set of original rods and get them weight matched, shot peened, crack tested etc etc etc and stick with them.

If you're going for a full 1000 bhp motor then I think you will succeed in the short run but eventually you will find the weak spot which if previously was a rod will now pass on down the line to the crank.

Just my thoughts. I am geniunely interested in all the developments here but as with any great idea there needs to be some balance.

M

I agree with you in a generic sense.

However from what I have seen of the 1UZ-FE bottom end if the crank is the weak spot you are making some SERIOUS horsepower.

I have seen dyno sheets on Nissan VG30DETT engines with standard cranks in race trim putting out 1200+ BHP from a 3.0 engine on a bottom end that is not as strong as the 1UZ's. They changed pistons and rods but left the crank standard and shoved approx 40PSI of boost from LARGE turbos (Formula 1 Renault qualifiying turbos, capable of flowing approx 1800BHP for the pair).

I do not think the 1UZ bottom end will be a weak spot at less then 1200-1500HP personally.

 

[Zuffen]

When speaking of rod upgrades we all know about shotpeening, polishing, balancing etc but you rarely hear of cryro treatment.

Whilst I don't now a lot about it has any member ever actually had it done? I've read a bit on the Net but I'd like to hear someones real life impressions.

I plan on retaining my stock rods and have been looking at cryro as a way to gain some more safety margin.

 

[rarson]

I think the problem with cryo treatment is, while you increase the hardness, you decrease toughness and ductility. You may prolong bending a rod, but when it fails, the destruction will be worse.

That said, I don't think it would be necessarily a bad idea for rods. I'd like to find out more about it too. Could cryo be combined with shot-peening?

 

[MikeMan]

I would say stick to:

Balance
Shotpeening
Stress Reliving
Nitriding