>First a question: Do longer rods help to reach higher rpm?
>Seems to me longer rods would have more mass and lead to lower
>revs. If this is so why don't you just do this to the 2.0
>block?
>
>ok, now my concerns.
>
>1) Cams, we have no form of variable valve control and we
>already start to lose power over 5k rpm. In order to make any
>power at 12000 rpm you would need one mean nasty set of cams,
>problem with this is you will have shitty low rpm performance
>and bad idle.
>
>2) Tranny, I dunno how much on an issue this is, but trannies
>have a limit too. The automatic tranny is redlined at 6500
>rpm, now even if you have a manual, none of the synchronizers
>are designed to shift at 12k rpm.

HEEHEH..

#1) USE A BIG CAM.. this would be a race engine not something you'd want to street.. aka.. if someone took an eclipse/neon into an all-motor race.. chassis's are cheap now..

2) no one in their right mind would use an automatic with an engine like this.

As for the long rods.. it changes the rod ratio.. the longer the rod, the less extreme the force vector on the crank journal is.

On a piece of paper.. draw a line vertically that's 2" long.. and one 90 degrees to the base 1" long.. the bottom line is the crank journal.. the top of the vertical line is the piston pin.. now connect the two..

Now draw a line 1" longer.. notice that the angle has decreased in relation the the crank journal and piston pin.. the more vertical, the easier it is to apply force. the big end of the rod still moves the same distance.. but the force vector from the explosion is reduced.

Long Ti rods

-- WheatKing

-- DSM Junkie --
4 - 1G talons
4 - Avenger/sebrings
1 - Jeep to tow em home when they break