2.5l myths and differences.

[92 s10 project]

My 26" monitor does pretty good at displaying these monstrosities we are calling paragraphs pretty well.

Either way you put down the info Stroker, it is very well worth the read.

Like I said before I was expecting to have to figure out all of this the hard way and you have given me so much inspiration that I actually want to pursue a build like this.

Thanks again, keep it coming!

[Steady Eddie]

Stroker---

Keep it coming..this is a "sticky" and as such, it will not ever go away (I hope)...

You are like a green thumb gardener and the "seeds" you are planting will sprout 3 Liter Iron Dukes.

I had always hoped that "out there" was a Member that had been there and done that, with regard to the Marine 181 crankshaft swap.

And you are it...

And just to prove to you that we are really reading your info, I offer this:

You do not have a "NON-aspirated", 374 HP SD motor, you have a NORMALLY-aspirated SD motor, with Weber Carbs...
(no Turbo, and no Supercharger boost)...

Keep it coming...

[Steady Eddie]

Stroker--

In your last post, you *hinted* at some things about the "flexi-flyer" OE crankshaft.

Will cryo-freezing the OE crank strengthen it?? If forged pistons and forged connecting rods will toughen up the OE bottom end, would that not be another way to do it??

[StrokerS10]

Quote: Originally Posted by Steady Eddie

Stroker---

Keep it coming..this is a "sticky" and as such, it will not ever go away (I hope)...

You are like a green thumb gardener and the "seeds" you are planting will sprout 3 Liter Iron Dukes.

I had always hoped that "out there" was a Member that had been there and done that, with regard to the Marine 181 crankshaft swap.

And you are it...

And just to prove to you that we are really reading your info, I offer this:

You do not have a "NON-aspirated", 374 HP SD motor, you have a NORMALLY-aspirated SD motor, with Weber Carbs...
(no Turbo, and no Supercharger boost)...

Keep it coming...

SteadyEddie

Your right "Normally Aspirated" not "Non Aspiated" You get an"A" for the day!

[StrokerS10]

Quote: Originally Posted by Steady Eddie

Stroker--

In your last post, you *hinted* at some things about the "flexi-flyer" OE crankshaft.

Will cryo-freezing the OE crank strengthen it?? If forged pistons and forged connecting rods will toughen up the OE bottom end, would that not be another way to do it??

SteadyEddie

I honestly dont know a thing about cryo-freezing sounds interesting though.

My concern would be that it might in fact strengthen it but make it brittle at the same time, but dont really know. I guess maybe I am a little too old school.

I still prefer a stroker through. Build one that way and you will never go back.

And I meant "Aspirated" not "Aspiated" Geez wrong twice in a row!

[Steady Eddie]

Stroker--

Here's a link to the Shop where 90% of the NASCAR guys get their parts cryo-frozen:

http://www.metal-wear.com/Cryogenic%...%20Racing.html

Specifically, it says that it will strengthen a cast crankshaft.

All I'm suggesting here is using cryo-treatment to gain a bit more life out of an OE crankshaft. We know (from reading the posts on here) that the OE Code E head (for example) quits flowing at about 4500 RPMs. This is due to the stock port casting design and is NOT valve float. Weak valve springs (simply worn out) enter into the picture, but can be "cured" by using a fresh set of Code A valve springs.

Then, after cryo-treatment, if a guy put an Aftermarket vibration damper on the front crankshaft snout, the bottom end might live to 4500 RPMs.

Not a stroker, but maybe an alternative. Just a thought.

The treatment price is $125, cheap enough to gain some confidence.

[Steady Eddie]

double post delete....

[StrokerS10]

Steady Eddie,

I checked the link and that definately sounds like a great way to strengthen

the 2.5 crank. Wish GM had done something like that that from the get go.

That with a "good" set of rods might safely allow you to run as high as 5000

rpm but as you know there is only one true way to find out (any Guinea pigs

out there?). I probably only use the 1988 and newer crank though.

You are right about the head flow though. I was going to talk

about what ive done in regards to that in a later post. It involves the "A"

code 485 or 514 head (but can be done to the "E" 642 head as well), some

pocket porting, Oldsmobile 350 1.84" intake valves and SBC springs. Probably

good for about 5000 or so rpm in a 3" stroke Duke. That head with the cryo

crank and aftermarket rods would make a good combination shy of stroking.

Think torque though, thats the key. StrokerS10

[Steady Eddie]

Stroker--

I agree 100% with your comment about a stroker crank delivering torque.

I also agree with your statement about the whys of an OE cast crank. That being lightness and economy.

Here is a link to a "rubber" 151 Iron Duke vibration damper:

http://www.damperdudes.net//popup_image.php?pID=169

I have read that many consider the dampers with the viscous fluid (oil) in them create shock and sometimes make an already weak crank more likely to break. I looked a long time to find a serpentine belt damper that contained rubber vs. fluid.

This one is $71...really cheap insurance, I think..

[StrokerS10]

Steady Eddie
A harmonic damper is "good insurance" for any crankshaft like the 2.5

especially when you are going to use it at a higher rpm. As an example I

remember when the early 283 Chevy V8s had no damper at all. All 283

crankshafts were forged steel and on the two barrel low performance (low

rpm) engines there was only a "flange" for the pulley(s) to attach to but

nothing to dampen (absorb) the vibrations (just like the Duke). GM

determined that with such a short stroke (3" like our Duke motors) and at low

engine speeds a damper was unnecessary (also the forged crank could take

about anything you could throw at it). A four barrel (or higher hp) 283 did

have a damper which also happened to be the same one used on the lo-po

327. The hi-po 327 got an even larger damper. When I was circle track

racing in the 80s and 90s one of the "tricks" that I did with my 350 engines

was to use the 283 "flange" instead of a damper (of course these engines

were also very highly balanced). The reason you can get away with this in

this type of racing is because you are accelerating quickly to max rpm just

for an instant and then back down again. You are never really "holding" it at

any high rpm for any real length of time thereby not allowing the crank to

create much, if any, in the way of harmonics. Without the heavier damper

the engine can rev quicker (also part of why the Duke has no damper)

which was of course why I did it in the first place. On the street however if

you, for example, down shift to pull a hill and hold your rpm "up there" for

awhile a damper will give the harmonics "a place to go", hence the need for a

damper.


IIRC the damper you are referring to originally came on the 87 -88 Fiero. I

believe it can also be used on all 87-92 2.5s with a serpentine belt.


As an interesting side note the man that owns Damperdudes (the

Anderson CA company you referred to in your link), in the 1970s-80s sold

antique furniture in Redding California under the name of "Bobs Barn". In the

back room of his furniture store he developed a process whereas you could

"rebuild" dampers by removing the rubber between the two pieces and by

holding the two halves in a fixture force (I think it is vulcanized rubber or

maybe just urethane) in the gap and allow it to cure. This was an

inexpensive alternative to buying a new damper. I live very near

Damperdudes and have used his dampers for years, what a

coincidence!

[Steady Eddie]

Stroker--

Would a set of four, forged rods made for a 301 Pontiac V-8 work in an otherwise stock Iron Duke?? Reason for asking is that I (like so many other Members) are having a helluva time
finding an Aftermarket Supplier for the Duke, and I suspect that the forged rod option for the 301 might fit. And if they do fit, they should be easier to find (think Turbo 301 Firebird)....the forged pistons are not so much of a problem...

[StrokerS10]

Steady Eddie

I believe you are right about the 80-81 turbo T/A rods. Non-turbo 77-81 301s used the exact same connecting rod (casting # 324) as the 77-86 151. The 87-93 151s used casting #987. I believe the later rod was .001" longer for some reason. They both shared the same bearing as the 301. The 80/81 Turbo 301 used "Armasteel" for the connecting rods instead of cast like our Dukes. However I am not 100% sure if all the rod dimensions for the "turbo" engines rods are exactly the same as the "Non turbo" engine. I really dont know for sure. I do know that the crankshaft in the turbo engine was ground with larger fillets and therefore the rods may be chamfered more (at least on one side) as well. If that is the only difference the rods should work fine. StrokerS10

[StrokerS10]

Well school is in session again and by Eddie's previous question he must have looked at the calander this morning and saw that today was "Connecting Rod Day" (first Thursday after Mothers Day). So today we will talk about connecting rods in a "Stroker" Iron Duke (S10) block.

With the Pontiac Super Duty Four crankshaft:

The SD4 crankshaft was available in five different strokes 2.6", 3.00", 3.25", 3.625" and 3.937".
The 2.6" crank can use a 5.7" rod but a 6.00" or longer rod is preferred.
The 3.00" crank should use a 6.00" or longer rod.
The 3.25" crank must use a 6.00" or longer rod or you will pull the wrist pin too low in the cylinder at the bottom of its stroke.
The 3.625" crank must use a 6.200" or longer rod for the same reason as the 3.25" crank.
Dont even think about the 3.937" crank in the Duke block as it would need a rod at least 6.350" long and that combined with the extremely long stroke crank would only leave you about .86" for the pistons compression height. Not at all practical for a street engine.
One of the best features of the SD4 crankshaft is that it accepts off the shelf large journal 2.1" x .955" Small Block Chevy rods.

The 153 Chevy II/Marine crankshaft:

The 153 crankshaft has the same 3.25" stroke as one of the SD cranks but uses 2.0" x 1.035" rod journals. The only factory rods that will fit this crank are the Chevy II/Marine 5.7" rods which are too short for the Duke block.
Enter Crower Enterprises. They have an off the shelf Sportsman 6.00" rod available for pressed or for floating wrist pins for about $325. I use the full floating version with a Speed Pro H620P (or HC620P) dished 350 Chevy piston. With some slight milling of the tops of these pistons you can build a stroker Duke with 9 to 10-1 compression (with the Duke head). More if you use the Chevy 345P flat tops.

The 181 Marine crankshaft:

This crankshaft shares the same 1.035 rod journal width as the 153 crankshaft but has a larger 2.1" diameter journal. You can turn the journal down to 2.0" but you would still need a 6.200" or longer long rod. There are no factory or off the shelf rods, that I know of, long enough that will fit this crank other than the marine 5.7" rod. Well...... sort of.

There seems to be three different versions of the 181 marine crankshaft:
1) The "early" (74-93) two piece rear main seal crank.
2) The "late" (94-99) one piece rear main seal crank.
And
3) The "really late" (2000-2005) one piece rear main seal crankshaft.

Crankshafts #1 and #2 each have the same 2.1" x 1.035" rod journals of which I know of no off the shelf rods available with the proper length. Crankshaft #3 I have not had in my hands "as of yet" but have read where the rod journals were machined (although with the same casting # as crank #2) for a .955" (SBC?) wide rod. If this is the case, rather than using "Custom" rods with the two earlier 181 crankshafts, you might be able to use off the shelf SBC 6.200" or 6.250" rods with the "really late" crankshaft. Yet to be determined!

As you see the combinations can get somewhat complicated when "Stroking the Duke" (somehow that just doesnt sound right). However as long as you understand what you are trying to accomplish with regards to the wrist pin location, building a 2.7 or 3.0 liter Duke is not impossible.

Maybe next time we will talk about heads and such. All you've got to do is ask! StrokerS10

[lesterl]

More.... Please......

[rallen]

thats awsome. i wish i had this info when i still had my 2.5 s-10

[92 s10 project]

Still loving it, cant wait to hear more. I have had a hard time posting anything as I have moved and no longer have internet access unless Im working.

Keep it coming, I may not be posting, but I will be reading.

[raven1962]

Not to cause trouble, but if the stroke is longer, using the stock piston, the rod has to be 1/2 the difference in stroke shorter to keep the piston from smacking the head. Using the stock rod, with a stroker crank, requires that the piston pin be moved higher in the piston(same 1/2 the diff.). Move the pin too far and you interfere with the rings...

[Steady Eddie]

raven---

Welcome to our Forum!

We like "thinkers" and you are one.

Because of the issues you have raised, I do not "think" that any stroker S-10 Iron Duke could be built, using the stock OE pistons. Aftermarket pistons, such as the ones from Keith Black, have the correct wrist pin locations to work.

In any re-build the price difference between building for strength vs. OE is minimal. I'd go forged pistons and forged rods and cyro treat the (cast) crankshaft, and add a rubber donut harmonic balancer to the crankshaft snout.

The strongest engine blocks are the 1988 and up blocks, but even then, the maximum piston over bore size is 30-thousandths over. Any more than that, and the block is weakened.

The strongest OE cast cranks are also the later ones, and should be cyro treated.

As stated in an earlier post, the OE headflow signs off at about 4500 RPMs. An effective rev limiter.

[98layinframe]

Anyone ever get the head extrude honed for better flow and higher power band thru the RPM's? I have since sold both my 2.5 motors.. but im still considering this on the extra 2.2 i have sitting around for my daily.

[lesterl]

Big diff between the 2.2 head and the 2.5 head.

[98layinframe]

yep sure is... whats you point? Im not saying has anyone swapped the heads out, im asking if anyone has ever extrude honed a 2.5 or a 2.2 head.

Id love to see a honed and ported head, long tube header, cryo treated crank, nice rods and pistons all with a fully balanced bottom end 2.5 spinning up to 6 - 6500 RPM pulling hard the whole way thru. That would be interesting.

[raven1962]

Yes the stroker can and has been done, it does require aftermarket rods and pistons. I'd like to have one, someday. Maybe get the heads ported and use a Hillborn type short-track fuel-injection system? Weber side draft carbs? I think the main restriction is the intake manifold. Either set-up should work. Maybe a good RV cam...? Hard part is if you have to meet CARB... Out here, in Texas, it's easy to bypass the smog stuff, for now.

[Steady Eddie]

I don't understand everything I know about "extrude honing"..

How does one control how much material is removed from the ports?? How much is enough or too little?? If you go too big, the flow velocity falls off, and the head flow is ruined. If you go too small, then you are not much better than OE...

The stock, "crossflow" head is fairly well engineered as is. That being said, people like me, with no flow bench, can gain some by using a Dremel Tool and match the intake and exhaust manifolds (and head ports) to the gaskets, by carefully enlarging the ports.

You can "move up" to a 48mm TBI 700 Series off a Corvette
"Cross Ram" dual TBI model, and gain some flow there. It is not bigger enough to "tip-over" the Prom Chip, either. The OE fueling tables (and O2 sensor) will handle the bigger throat butterfly. The opening in the intake manifold will have to be hogged out, using the 48mm gasket for a pattern, to keep the larger butterfly from hitting....this mod ain't much, but it IS a gain.

Of all the OE valve springs used over the years, the OE Code A valve springs have the highest resistance to valve float. And they fit the Code E head.

It has been reported, in this Forum, that there are no fueling tables written in the Brainbox, past 6000 RPMs. It has also been stated, that there IS a fuel pump (engine RPM) shut off point, programmed in. No where can I find this number. It is not in the Factory Service Manual (Helm 1990), either.

But all of this means nothing if the headflow flat-lines at 4500....

[max1million]

With an extrude hone they push a somewhat viscous abrasive through the ports. As it flows through the restrictions cause more pressure and wear (from the abrasive), and port is smoothed out overall. While the total amount of material removed could be controlled (abrasive, flow rate, time), this lacks the control of where the material is removed from, but with less individual effort. I believe it is meant as a compromise between stock and full professional port and polish. A simple port matching could be added (if not included) to this.

I believe similar result can be accomplished at home with a Dremel (or similar). Remove the small casting bumps, make the others more gradual taking some off the top, and generally just smooth the port overall. Add port match. Less money, more effort.

I have done a similar minimal porting to head at home previously (during a rebuild install). I left the ports sanded but unplolished. Instead of matching full gasket opening I matched to new aftermarket intake ports which were already pretty clean. Also just smoothed seams in or near throat of the carburetor used (rebuilt). It wasn't on a duke but in general it can apply to any engine.

[92 s10 project]

I dont know about anyone else but I am still jonesing for 2.5 stroker info.

I hope we see stroker s10 back on here sometime to teach us more, he has been gone for a bit.

I am still without internet for 98% of my week and now that Im out a job I wont be getting it anytime soon, so even though I am not around the forums, the s10 project still continues.

[StrokerS10]

Well Ive been away for awhile, havent had a day off work in over a month but Ive got a few minutes to spare right now.

In no way can you install a longer rod in the Duke (or any engine for that matter) without using a piston with an equally shorter "compression

hieght" (distance from the center of the wrist pin to the top of the piston) without it significantly increasing your compression ratio and having the

piston smack the cylinder head. In other words if you use a rod say .250" longer in a given engine you must use a piston with a .250" shorter

compression hieght to retain the same compression ratio (assuming you use a piston with the exact same dome or dish shape as the piston you are

replacing) .

When you increase the stroke of an engine it gets even more complicated. As

an example if you increase the stroke of any given engine and you even decrease the piston's compression hieght by 1/2 the total stroke increase (in

order to keep the same piston "deck hieght" as before stroking) and you even use a piston with the exact same dome or dish shape as before stroking you

will still dramatically increase the compression ratio of the engine due to the fact that it is now taking a larger volume of mixture (from the stroke

increase) and compressing it to the same volume that the unstroked engine had. Therefore with a stroked engine you must either decrease the pistons

compression hieght or decrease the dish/dome volume of the piston or a combination of both in order to keep the compression ratio of the engine

where you want it to be. However be aware, a piston deck hieght that is too low in the cylinder will not properly "squish" the mixture in the cylinder head

and therefore not burn correctly and may even promote detonation.

Now please PLEASE dont anyone take offense from what I am now going to

say: If you dont fully understand compression ratio, piston deck hieght, piston compression hieght, how to calculate compression ratio, how to cc

heads and pistons, rod to piston relationship and just about everything else there is to know about engine dynamics (which is all common sense to a

professional engine builder) then DO NOT TRY TO DESIGN AND ENGINEER YOUR OWN STROKER ENGINE! YOU WILL SCREW UP! NOT MIGHT, WILL!

So I will make it as simple as I can for you.

If you use the 3.25" stroke crank in the Duke use a 6" rod (preferably the

Crower Sportsman 153 Chevy rod) with the 350 Chevy piston that I mentioned before (Speed Pro H620P), shave .045" off the top and you will

have a 9-1 compression ratio engine (at least with the 88 and newer cylinder heads ["A" or "E" code]) that will run on 87 octane pump gas. Shave less and

you will have a higher compression ratio and will need to use a higher octane fuel. You must however shave at least .020" or so or the pistons will be too

close to the head at the top of its stroke. Unshaved they will be about .015" out of the bore at the top of its stroke. If it is a daily driver commute type

vehicle RUN 9-1 IN THIS ENGINE!

If you use the 3.6" stroke crank use dished 383 Chevy pistons (the ones

designed for a 6" rod in the 383) with a 6.25" custom made connecting rod (there are no off the shelf 6.25" rods that will fit this crank) and have the

tops shaved as necessary to achieve 9-1 compression (or to whatever ratio you want to try). The amount you will need to shave will depend upon what

brand piston you start with as they all vary some with respect to the dish volume and compression hieght.

Machining the tops of pistons is common amongst racing engine builders and not very expensive to have done. With any piston you still must leave

enough material between the top of the piston and the first ring land or it can break. This dimension will vary depending upon the material of the piston

that you are starting with as well as the overall design of the piston.

I cannot find my notes as to what piston to use or how much to shave for

the 3.6" crank. Besides without a Super Duty head I dont believe that size cubic inch Duke will rev much above about 3500 rpm as the stock heads are

very restrictive.

When I have more time I will tell you about the "A" code heads, intakes and

what valves to use with the 3.25" Duke for a good street engine but not today. Stroker S10

[oscarxj]

So i am new to the forum I picked up a 1990 s15 that has the 2.5. I have read there is a A and E. How can u tell the difference. I need to put a new head on so I would be nice to know if there is a difference. Thanks.

[92 s10 project]

There is a difference betwee the A and E code heads and you can tell by the VIN number. I wanna say its the 6th character in the VIN, it should be an A or an E. In your case as long as the motor is original it should be an A code.

[92 s10 project]

Sorry I gotta correct myself, sorta, 1990 was sort of a bastard year and could be either or, most likely an E code though, I have only seen 2 '90s with A codes.

[Steady Eddie]

Quote: Originally Posted by 92 s10 project

Sorry I gotta correct myself, sorta, 1990 was sort of a bastard year and could be either or, most likely an E code though, I have only seen 2 '90s with A codes.

===========================
Jason---

I always thought that the 1991s were the bastard year model and that all 1990s were Code Es????

Reason: I have a 1990 GM Service Manual and everything in it is for the Code E...

[92 s10 project]

That very well could be. I dont have my main computer running (where the good stuff is saved) or internet at the house so I have been using whatever internet I could get lately and have been pulling everything out of memory instead...not always the best thing lol.

[Steady Eddie]

Quote: Originally Posted by Steady Eddie

Stroker--

In your last post, you *hinted* at some things about the "flexi-flyer" OE crankshaft.

Will cryo-freezing the OE crank strengthen it?? If forged pistons and forged connecting rods will toughen up the OE bottom end, would that not be another way to do it??

==========================



Here (inside the red circles) is where the 1988-up OE crankshafts have the extra strength...over and above the older cranks.

It is the extra mass or the gear that drives the oil pump.

[estin]

Holy crap....my eyes hurt.....i originally clicked this forum because i wanted to see about getting as much torque out of my 2.5 in my samurai...i had wanted to go with my 88' 2.5,a 3.0 merc crank,6" I-6 rods,and some custom pistons,along with a turbo blowing around 10pds,and some head work.But now i am more confused than when i started.

[estin]

so is this crank what i am looking for ?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Mercr...r#ht_983wt_939

[Steady Eddie]

estin--

Please do not buy a used crank from a yard.

No matter what crank it is, for what motor, you will still need to check it out for straightness and wear. Your best bet is to buy one that is already re-built, and accept no crank that has been turned down, more than a "10-10" on the rod and main journals.

[Steady Eddie]

Looking at timing gear failures here, I wondered why there was not one post about a big gear, stripped teeth, timing gear failure on a Code A engine...now there might have been such a post, and I just simply missed it.

I did know that GM and Pontiac had improved and strengthened the OE gear sets...

But maybe this is the real reason for the new found life:

http://www.s10forum.com/forum/f104/c...-plate-410129/

Thanks go to Member 85s10Eric for posting this..it is gem, and shows that GM was improving the engine to the bitter end.

[estin]

Strokers10 ? I wanna here more....

[92 s10 project]

Same here, hopefully hes just working hard and will post back when he has the time.

If you post it, they will build...

[Steady Eddie]

Stroker---

Waiting here for some of your cylinder head mods...

Hoping you have the time...

[91s1076]

K i have heard it done ive heard myth and fact


I have a 91 s10 2.8 5speed can a 96 cavi motor go in there bolt up to transmission with lil work if not how much ive heard computer all kinds of stuff

lil insight please

[estin]

wrong thread bud. You want 60 degree v6 forum.

[slow s-dime]

im sorta new i just got a 91 vin a 2.5l to put in my 88 vin e regular cab s10 is there anything else i need to get for it to run proparly or is it a direct bolt in.

[Steady Eddie]

Quote: Originally Posted by slow s-dime

im sorta new i just got a 91 vin a 2.5l to put in my 88 vin e regular cab s10 is there anything else i need to get for it to run properly or is it a direct bolt in.

=======================
slow--

This all depends..the Code A is the best of the best, and in many respects is a completely different engine (from the Code E)..

Pontiac called the Code A engine the "L-38 H.O." (H-igh O-utput)..

You should be aware that "some" of the Code A parts carry a different Part Number than the equal, but different, Code E parts.

I have not done this swap, so this is all conjecture on my part. But, the ECU/PCM Brainbox is different, and the Prom Chip has a different set of .bin programming codes in it...the engine bay wiring harness is different, too..sometime, along in these year Models, GM went to a different type of plug-in, for at least the fuel injector itself, so you may need the PCM and the engine bay wiring harness.

...*mechanically* this swap is a direct fit, meaning that the motor mounts and etc. are a hassle-free
conversion.

What you want is the gain in horsepower that you will get from doing this swap, and to achieve that, you need the brainbox and maybe the engine bay wiring harness from the donor Code A rig...

[Steady Eddie]

slow--

OTOH, you can keep your '88 Code E TBI and sensors and use your '88 ECU/PCM Brainbox, and then you will have an easier time of it. Your OE wiring harness will then fit, but you wind up with a bastard combo, not really a Code E and not really a Code A, either.

Your engine WILL enjoy the benefits of the "better" Code A cylinder head, but will not have ALL of the 13 horsepower difference between the two engines......

I have spent HOURS, combing the Internet, looking in the Dirt Track and Fiero Forums, trying to find where the Code E and Code A are different, one of these differences is the TBI itself...BTW, the Fiero never had a Code A motor...

[slow s-dime]

thanks im getting all the parts of my bosses old truck so i might b able to get everything i need because he is puting a 4.3 in to it.

[estin]

So,has anyone heard from stroker ?

[Steady Eddie]

Quote: Originally Posted by estin

So,has anyone heard from stroker ?

=============================

Nope..but he's the man...

S.E.

[Lilchief]

Just a few questions here. Will the 3.0L mercruiser crank work in a 91 vinR motor? I was wondering about the oil filter in the oil pan, balancing shafts and oil pump or was that just in 88? If that's not compatable how about a 87 block, think it had DIS,ext oil filter,no balancing shafts and roller cam. This would all be going into my 88 Fiero coupe.

[lesterl]

I think the VIN R is a shorter block and the crank would NOT work IIRC.

[Lilchief]

From what I've been told the shorter block is the vin U. The vin R is suppose to be a direct drop in for a 88 Fiero. Just wondering about putting a stroker crank into that block.