INTERNAL ENGINE MODIFICATIONS Valvetrain |Heads | Strokers | Design | Assembly

Stroker guys: How much oil do you burn?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old May 8, 2006 | 09:41 AM
  #11  
TurboGibbs's Avatar
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,257
Likes: 0
From: Decatur, AL
Default

Originally Posted by zippy
The main reason that the ring seal issue comes about on a stroker is the location of the rings. When you make the rod longer and add stroke, you end up pushing the piston rings up high on the piston. The closer the rings are together, the less effective they are. Another problem with making the stroke longer and adding a longer rod is that the piston skirt is much shorter. A short skirt piston commonly doesn't go up and down perfectly centered. It allows the piston to rock slightly as the piston is pushed up and pulled down. This exact same thing showed up when GM decided that the classic 454 wasn't good enough for the heavy duty trucks and they built the 496. The 496 uses the same bore as the 454, but they brought the stroke from 4.00" to 4.37" and added in a longer rod. Right from the release of the 496 there has been oil consumption issue's and yet the 454 was pretty much a solid running engine that had to be worked even harder than the 496 due to it's lower hp and torque rating, yet didn't have oil consumption issue's.
I have read that one of the causes is with the oil ring being within the wrist pin hole. More oil is exposed to the oil ring, from the back side, and that in turn lets more oil past it. Don't know if this is true but it sounds good? I remember years ago when the ford guys were stroking a 302 to a 347, they were having an oil consumption problem so most would stay with a 331 due to the oil ring position being more favorable.
On the heavy duty trucks topic GM for years hasn't used the 454 in the larger than 1 ton trucks due to reliabilty issues with the longer stroke. The 366 and 427 tall deck big blocks were used to allow for a taller piston and 4 rings.
The tension of the oil rings of the gen 3 engines is definately lighter than the gen 1 due to the thinner 1.5, 1.5, 3.0mm rings. I am still amazed at how light the tension is on the oil rings especially. This, I am sure, contributes to the oil consumption.
Reply
Old May 15, 2006 | 05:55 PM
  #12  
mjcotroneo's Avatar
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (13)
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
From: uptown dallas
Default

must be gen3 cuz mine dont burn it either, NONE at all.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
BROKE-aSS-BLAZER
GM Parts Classifieds
7
Oct 13, 2017 03:50 PM
lukn4trbl355
INTERNAL ENGINE MODIFICATIONS
7
Oct 21, 2015 11:19 PM
Staggered 02
Member Feedback
6
Oct 9, 2015 05:19 PM
sTNT971
FORCED INDUCTION
6
Sep 26, 2015 04:22 PM
lxcoupe
GM Parts Classifieds
3
Sep 25, 2015 12:36 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:13 PM.