Numbers make sense. I agree with them totally.........So where was I wrong? I said the 2276 w/ its shorter rods made its peak power higher in its rpm range than the 2387 or 2500 does. Thats the same thing your barrage of confusing numbers represents.

2276 w/ 5.5 rods = rodlength/stroke ratio of 1.70
2387 w/ 5.7 rods = rodlength/stroke ratio of 1.68

In your own words: Higher the ratio, the higher the rpm where peak hp is attained. Same thing I said, without throwing all the paperwork at somebody. I knew nothing about your formula, but apparently it holds true to what I just expressed in seat of the pants, first hand driving experience and how the motor FEELS. I just dont know where your 25.4 came from, and I dont care. I care about what I know to be true from trying different combos.

Enlighten me, because I fail to see where your numbers are any different than what I previously said?

Not necessarily long rod=less rpm, but longer rod=peak hp at a lower rpm............and vice versa.

thanks guys for all the info i guess im gonna get the crank reground from the 84 vw journals to a 86 cheby journals and go with cb 5.7 h-beam rods, 110 cam, straight cut gears, 1.25 rockers, cb 044 heads, weber 44's,and heavy flywheel, sound like a good combo to yall ?

what size exhaust do yall recomend and can i re-ring and then re-use my pistons and jugs or do you think i will need a different set due to stroke changeing and maybe rod length change ?

sorry for all the questions i growed up around garages and shadetree mechanics and have pretty much done my own work on every engine ive had.

i built a 1915 before and it is still running strong after all the use and abuse its been through but these strokers are little different with all the options on stroke and rod length and shims that you can use

_________________
Just Stand On It!!!!

Chris

Sounds all good to me except the heavy flywheel, makes it slower to light it back up if you gotta step in and out of it on a hill, but its all in what you like I reckon.

I like 1 1/2" exhaust on any woods motor above 1915.

Same pistons you used with the 84 stroke will work, "B" pistons. But everything else is gonna be new or reconditioned, I would opt for new p&c's probably, but thats just me. Old ones probably be fine .....if no vertical scarring in cylinders or, if there's no hair line cracks you might not see until engine heats up, or if none of the cylinders are eggshaped, or etc, etc,etc.

Sorry ky but you are backwordes on this . the stroke of the by the rod on the. 5.7 in 2387 is short comparde to a 2276 & 5.5 . call me Larry 812 584 7644.

Not lookin for a pissin match here, but I dont really follow what you were trying to write in your sentence "the stroke of the by the rod" . Doesnt matter. I know I like the 5.7s better in a 2387 than 5.5s. I tried both in the same motor, nothing else was changed. It pulled harder at less rpm with the 5.7s, period. Dont need any math to know the difference it made.

The question was.... what rods would anyone recommend for a 2387 woodsbuggy engine. My opinion is 5.7s. We can 'bench race' and talk all the engine theory you want, but that wont change the fact my buggy went better with 5.7s when it was hookin hard and pullin on the engine. And it wont change the fact that my wife's 2276 w/ 5.5s makes its most power higher in its rpm range. Theory dont matter to me as much as what works does.

I'm not denying you know yer stuff, I just call it like I've seen it.

OK call me one night & will have beer & talk on the phone . & yes i like 5.7 in 3287

what size valves do yall think i need to run im thinking its got 40 x 35.5's but not sure ?

if i need bigger i can get that done if have headwork (porting) done if those are fine i may just run them as they are

_________________
Just Stand On It!!!!

Chris

Those size valves will be fine. You will actually get a much faster air speed through the head with those valves. This equals great throttle response. Try them, you will like.

_________________
________________________________

Buy the best and cry once.