With respect, the thread is called a test. Obviously $200 savings is a drop in the bucket, but it's still $200

The point of the test is to find out if it's possible to make power with a turned crank, which the OP has pretty soundly done. My car lasted about 15K with a turned crank before I blew it up (Engine failure was unrelated to the crank) It's also possible that the smaller bearing journal and the lower bearing speed that goes along with that is actually beneficial. (Given the small difference, though, I doubt it.)
In the end, more data can only be beneficial to the community.

 

THANK YOU! Somebody that actually got the point of the thread and doesn't take the thread completely off topic. It wasnt about the money it was to prove a point that a turned crank can handle any HP you throw at it if you do it right.

I clearly stated numerous times that for peace of mind you should spend the extra couple hundred and get a new one..so why do people keep repeating it? This was a test to benefit the community and possibly educate people.

-Mike

 

I have to say, now that I'm rereading this thread, doing a "test" like this is pretty ballsy. My cut crank was put into a car that was still running a stock VIII turbo. What you're doing is something worlds apart from that. Kudos, I guess lol

 

I ran a double turned crank at .02 off on even more power in a DSM supporting an HX52. People are worried because they simply don't know any better.

To the OP, your dyno was scheduled for 3 days ago... How'd it go?

 

I wouldn't exactly finger anyone for 'not knowing any better'. They recognize that turning the crank has implications where the induction hardening and rod journal fillets are concerned, which we are fairly certain to be why the factory says "no".

The reservations expressed here are understandable, because few are willing to take chances with a part that is so critical, and whose destruction can take basically the entire engine with it. It's just not expensive enough for most to justify taking a chance, but for those who do, you have the ethical and moral support of everyone.

Just a bit of perspective.

 

Seeing as how I have to catch crap from everyone, every time I post something.....

The test is ridiculous. The break in is ridiculous. That is the slowest break in I've ever seen and a waste of time and fun factors.

I can tell you with complete certainty after building God only knows how many 4g63's if the machine shop is worth using at all a turned crank is no worse than a new stock crank. We build engines weekly with turned cranks, put them on the dyno and run them flat out to maximum RPM and boost levels within 10 pulls and send them down the road in customers cars that go for years and years and years.

There is no debate to whether a turned crank will hold up, they will absolutely.

 

Well there you have it.

 

To those of us who have built lots of motors, this is common knowledge but you should know that common knowledge around these parts is about as 'common' as common sense..

 

BTW, no offense intended by my input.

 

I always get excited when I see David buschur has replied to a topic I have taken an interest in. It's just very obvious that he forgets more in a normal month than I'm likely to ever learn.

 

yeah that crank will break 2.3 piston speed an bunch of boost ticking time bomb ,seen it to many times sorry

 

Break in half? I highly doubt that will happen. I think it will show signs before.

 

So how is this lasting? Also what does your 10/10 mean? .010 over on crank and rods?

 

.010" undersized on main and rod journals. The bearings are made thicker to make up the difference in size.

 

you heard it first from MR b himself. this is beneficial to me because im picking up my freshly built evo viii next week. 9.5:1, h beams, grinded cranked, king bearings, arp mains.