Carrillo rods

CBXChris, I may be wrong but I think that turbo motors are easier on rods. A normally aspirated engine will see a different environment in the cylinder, while a turbo engine is almost always trying to fill the cylinder. Also, a turbo engine will usually see a much lower rpm ceiling than a N/A or even N2O engine. I'm sure that Jay could explain what I'm attempting to say here....
 
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that RPM can kill rods (tension and expansion loads), and to get more HP out of a given displacement usually means more revs. Of course the bigger the motor the less RPMs it needs, but then you run into a lot of force being applied to a larger piston/bore. A turbocharged engine makes good power at a "low" rpm, so rpm caused rod failure is not as much as an issue. However, the load applied to the top of the piston is greater, so better rods MAY also be required in a turbo engine as well. Again, I'm sure that Jay could explain what I'm trying to say here much better than I can....
 
About rod strength (or weakness) in a N/A or Turbo'd engines, here is an excellent article written by Corky Bell of Bell Engineering Group, Inc & Cartech Mfg:

"The net result of hours of calculation revealed the outstanding picture that an engine's loading spectrum was composed of TWO independent forces; the inertia loads generated by piston accelerations up and down the bore, and the power loading of burning gasses pushing down on the piston, creating power. A summary of the calculations revealed the following interesting points:

1) Inertia loads just to turn the engine at the readline are HUGE.

2) Power loads are so small by comparison that they are relatively insingificant.

3) A typical engine will have almost FOUR TIMES greater compressive inertia load at its Bottom Dead Center (BDC) crank position than the maximum power induced compressive loading from fuel ignition just at or before Top Dead Center (TDC).

4) An engine will fail a conrod ONLY at Top Dead Center (TDC) on the exhaust stroke, when inertia causes tension (rod stretch). At this point, there is no offset to the inertia load from power loading whatsoever (allowing the rod to snap).

5) An engine designer will be interested in two loads: the inertia load at Top Dead Center (TDC) and the inertia load at Bottom Dead Center (BDC). POWER IS OF NO CONCERN!

6) Power loading does NOT become significant, relative to the inertia loads, until the original power is increased by a factor of approximately four.

7) Inertia loads increase with the square of the RPM......NEVER EVER, over rev an engine.

8) At the time of the engine cycle when the power loads are the highest in compression, the inertia loads are very high in tension. Interestingly, these two loads SUBSTRACT in absolute magnitude, one in tension and the other in compression.

Since the inertia load is FAR higher, the opposing power load only tends to REDUCE the sum of the two loads. Increase the power load (higher compression, supercharging or turbocharging) and you will observe the very interesting result of substracting a bigger piece from the dominant inertia load at TDC, thereby reducing the overall load in the conrod, REDUCING rod stretch (tension).

The argument Summed to this: when increasing the power output of an internal combustion engine, keep the RPM at a reasonable limit and INCREASE the combustion pressures to almost anything and the net result will be little increase in the structural loading of the engines internal components (generally the rods = weakest link). Basically, power loading will NOT even tickle an engines internals."

Any Questions??? (maybe I shouldn't ask!). Rustie............
 
Billy;

Virtually all the cylinders that come through our shop for repair because of rod failure are 1127 GSXRs, and there are a bunch. We sell more Carrillos for 1127s than all other models combined.

It is definatly a (stock ) rod and crank killing motor.

Jay
 
Thanks Rustie, I knew RPMs killed rods, but I didn't realize that cylinder pressure was such a non-factor. One other thing to keep in mind is piston weight. A lighter piston assembly can likely rev higher safely, but use caution when bore size increases dramatically, as weight MAY become a factor.
 
Jay I would have to disagree about the 1127 rods. Only Failure I have seen was from bolt failure. I had no problem for years with them. Changed the bolts and sprayed a 1216 motor with 140hp shot for a season no problem.
 
I would have to disagree about Suzuki rods. I don't think I have seen any motor break more rods than the 1127 GSXR. Well maybe the old sohc Honda 750.

Jay
 
I'd really like to see someone comment on the stock Busa rod's that has ANY negative experiences with them to date.

I've talked with three different Busa engine builders that say these stock rods are a lot better then the water pumper rods.

They are saying that Suzuki really did some home work with the stock rods.

And a two of them said that they had no plans on useing any aftermarket rods unless they were build some kind of Turbo setup.

But as we all know.....we all can't be the same, can we?
 
Back
Top