In a 2.6L using high compression, high boost and a 40r, 42r, or equivilant is it better to use a light rotating assembly or a strong one? An engine like that will produce torque upwards of 700ft lbs and torque breaks parts. Take that along with high cylinder pressures, high compression and bad rod angle would it be smart to use aluminum rods, light pistons, and a butchered crank? Therein lies another problem though, the 2.6L already has high piston speeds so using stronger and heavier weight cranks, pistons, and rods will increase the speed a large amount. So basically wether you use heavy strong parts or light moderately strong parts, you're screwed? Is this a safe analysis? Pros and cons of each option?

 

Which 2.6L are you thinking about ?

 

I think he is referring to the 4G64 with Brian Crower 106mm crank. The best case scenario with this build would be a 156mm rod and move the pin up 9mm which will give you a rod stroke ratio of 1.47...not too far off from the 4G63 2.3L set-up's 1.5 rod stroke ratio. I have been looking into this build also and have surmised the best alternative would be to use a custom Carrillo Pro-H beam rod with the carrillo rod bolt option which would weigh in at 575g. and according to carrillo, is indestructable. Then use a Custom JE Piston with the pin moved up 9mm and it would weigh 380g with pin. I have spoken to both of these manufacturers, so this seems very doable. Then bolt on a Twin scroll manifold and a Borg Warner 95-79....

 

Old thread bump.

There is a reason BC uses a 6" rod, there is simply not any space left for a longer rod. With the 6" rod there is still some clearance issues in the bottom of the cylinder wall. If you take out more material than neccesary then you will hit an oil channel.

 

Not a popular choice for sure.

Carlos

 

Yeah, 106mm stroke is not for people afraid of heights