Actually, my 156mm Oliver billet I-beams weigh 585g. I-beams don't need to be heavy. It's easy and inexpensive to fabricate a strong, heavy I-beam. It isn't so easy or inexpensive to fabricate a strong, lightweight I-beam.

 

besides you, who else makes a high end H beam for the 4g63? My point was that most others use an I beam, must be a good reason for it other than cost.

 

Carillo makes one that I posted a few posts up. Check out Kouzman's 2.0 engine using stock 150mm size Carillo's revving to 9000rpm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gA4a...layer_embedded

 

I've seen 9k on Eagles in the 4G63.

I'm not saying that discredits the Carillo rods by any means, just doesn't prove much.

I personally like the design aspects of Oliver rods. I haven't looked into how well they actually hold up though as the stock block is fine for my interests.

 

If you prioritize lowering reciprocating weight in the engine, a high-end H-beam is a good option. If you want ultimate piece of mind, a heavier I-Beam may be what you are looking for.

I wonder how much more freely an engine would rev with a 560 to 590 gram rod compared to the heavy 700+ gram rods I see some people run.

 

Probably depends on what ECU.

I'm running the QM clutch and no B-shafts yet a stock motor with a standalone would still rev quicker. The factory ECU is going to mask a lot of improvements you make here.

Just my opinion anyway.

 

Because? Higher definition in load cells or something else?

 

I noticed a huge increase in engine respone when I had a PTT twin disk in my car than when I had a stock clutch. Going back to stock made me depressed! The car felt completely ****ty immediately after the clutch swap. It did however drive a billion times nicer for a DD.

 

It has been a while since driving a stock clutch car...
What are we talking about though???

Oh yeah, H-beam vs I-beam...

 

For the costs involved in a motor build I would not skimp on the rods. I have however seen eagles make 700+whp so it is possible. Most built motors fail due to external factors not due to the quality of the parts. I have Honda GS-R's with a 1.55 R/S ratio using manley h beams revving 9K all day at just under 600whp and no issues with the rods.

 

honestly speaking, an I and H are actually the exact same thing, you actually just load the beam on a different axis.....

as many of us engineers know, the 'I' is the strongest shape beam and you can calculate that... so I don't understand the point of the girder statement, you load an 'I' beam sideways and it aint gunna be so strong in comparison..... in addition as many has stated, what about metalurgy and manufacturing processes... its really hard to compare the geometry of a rod.

 

Look at any set of structural or architectural drawings and you'll find that UB universal beams are hands down the most common structural steel used in construction! The I beam in con rods just has less toe which isn't practical in a building sense and hence if your gonna talk building then it's H beam every day of the week. If the I beam in a con rod sense had more toe then it'd be an H beam on its side and the two would be the same thing. Having said that it doesn't help or equate to purpose or suitability in an engine as there isn't a short toed structural beam in building!