The thick 1uz rods are indeed weak
07-15-09, 12:22 AM
#76
Another home/shop test would be needed to more closely resemble the pressure/force which the rod has to withstand inside the engine (not by twisting it) is to install the rod on the crank shaft and the crank shaft is installed inside the block of the correct engine. Also, the piston pin must be inside the rod. The key is to make sure the rod is solid as it's supposed to be. If the crank shaft can be locked up without movement and without the engine, then the engine isn't needed.
Put the whole unit with the rod straight up at 90 degree to the block surface(the crank has to be locked up so it won't move and rotate the rod) under a huge press and press down on the rod. Measure the length of the rod before and after the pressing. However, the key is to make sure the length of pressing is equal between the rods. The rods might not have the same length. So with the same amount of pressing length, we can assume it has the same force or pressure, although force seems to be the correct word. Then the rod that has the minimum amount of shrinkage and shape distortion can be the strongest rod. The rod that has the larger amount of shrinkage can be the weaker rod.
I'm not a physicist, but I think this test can provide a large degree of accuracy on the rod strength. Twisting it can only give an idea about the rod strenght, but it doesn't give an accuracy of how the rod is designed to be used.
Put the whole unit with the rod straight up at 90 degree to the block surface(the crank has to be locked up so it won't move and rotate the rod) under a huge press and press down on the rod. Measure the length of the rod before and after the pressing. However, the key is to make sure the length of pressing is equal between the rods. The rods might not have the same length. So with the same amount of pressing length, we can assume it has the same force or pressure, although force seems to be the correct word. Then the rod that has the minimum amount of shrinkage and shape distortion can be the strongest rod. The rod that has the larger amount of shrinkage can be the weaker rod.
I'm not a physicist, but I think this test can provide a large degree of accuracy on the rod strength. Twisting it can only give an idea about the rod strenght, but it doesn't give an accuracy of how the rod is designed to be used.
Last edited by stevechumo; 07-15-09 at 12:28 AM.
Indeed. These need to be tested in the way they are used.
07-15-09, 11:48 AM
#78
Driver
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow this thread is like a soap opera. People getting mad at each other, people not understanding each other, this thread would be awesome if not for all that. I honestly don't think the stock rods need to be tested for anything as everyone ALREADY knows that they are not very strong. If you want baller power from a UZ you gotsta build it. I'm no mechanical engineer or fancy lawyer or any of that stuff. I'm a simple minded surveyor who's pretty good with numbers. With that said, you don't need brains to know that a UZ just wasn't meant for what we want it to do we've all seen the stock blocks demise over and over again when it's boosted and pushed. I just dont see where the argument is. So what if some guy twisted a rod the wrong way, so what is some guy is offering to twist a rod the right way and be all scientific about it (I mean no disrespect, all of you seem very well educated) we already know the outcome and have for a while. Instead of testing what we already know use your knowledge and expensive educations to design new performance parts for the UZ.
I'm just sayin...
I'm just sayin...
07-15-09, 01:17 PM
#79
Wow this thread is like a soap opera. People getting mad at each other, people not understanding each other, this thread would be awesome if not for all that. I honestly don't think the stock rods need to be tested for anything as everyone ALREADY knows that they are not very strong. If you want baller power from a UZ you gotsta build it. I'm no mechanical engineer or fancy lawyer or any of that stuff. I'm a simple minded surveyor who's pretty good with numbers. With that said, you don't need brains to know that a UZ just wasn't meant for what we want it to do we've all seen the stock blocks demise over and over again when it's boosted and pushed. I just dont see where the argument is. So what if some guy twisted a rod the wrong way, so what is some guy is offering to twist a rod the right way and be all scientific about it (I mean no disrespect, all of you seem very well educated) we already know the outcome and have for a while. Instead of testing what we already know use your knowledge and expensive educations to design new performance parts for the UZ.
I'm just sayin...
I'm just sayin...
07-15-09, 02:11 PM
#81
Rookie
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just read the whole tread, very good read. My opinion on the test is that yea it was not tested the way that it would happen in a engine but at the same time take this test for what it is, 4 rods all twisted the same way and the uz was the one that broke out of the 3. All the others just twisted so i mean im no engineer so i have no idea what this means but i would think the engineers should, it should mean something i think. And i think that just from looking at it there is one oddball and thats the uz. just my $2.00 from joe nobody with a stock sc300 so take my opinion on an old thread for what ever u think its worth.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
