Fordnatics List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Brian Kelley)


Dave Williams writes:

> Back last month Circle Track did an article on rod fatigue tests.
>Bizarrely, the article was about a Ford SVO test on Ford SVO rods
>instead of Chevy parts.
>
> The article states at least twice that "stock 302 connecting rods" were
>tested, but then says they were testing SVO pn M-6200-A50. The lead
>picture shows a rod with a forging mark of C8OE-AA051, which appears to
>be a 5.0-type rod with a "flat strap" cap. Other pictures (forging mark
>not visible) show the "ridge cap" 289 or SVO rod. Other than the
>289-type caps there's no visible difference between a plain old 302 rod
>and an SVO rod.

Technically, those are "5.0" rods. During the late '90 5.0 production
they switched over to the old 289 rods. If you have a '91 or later
(and some '90s), you have these stronger rods. They can also be
ordered from SVO.. This is one of the improvements to the 5.0 that you
seldom hear about.

Brian

>And ripping apart a bunch of rods at 9500 pounds
>tension at over 9000 RPM didn't prove much, other than stock rods won't
>do 10 million cycles at that load. I'm not sure I see the point in the
>article at all, other than "gee, they had this neat machine that could
>destroy rods."

I agree. They had a great opportunity to answer a lot of questions
and I think they blew it. I wasn't able to learn much from the
article other than the obvious "buy good bolts", "torque them to the
proper spec" and "if you're serious, buy good rods".

Brian


- ---
(email redacted)

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Peter Boggini)


>Technically, those are "5.0" rods. During the late '90 5.0 production
>they switched over to the old 289 rods. If you have a '91 or later
>(and some '90s), you have these stronger rods. They can also be
>ordered from SVO.. This is one of the improvements to the 5.0 that you
>seldom hear about.
>
> Brian

Wait a minute, you can't just slap a set of 289 rods in a 302/5.0 can
you? They are longer. Did you mean to say they switched the caps?

Just curious...

peterb

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Brian Kelley)


Peter Boggini writes:

>>During the late '90 5.0 production they switched over to the old 289 rods.

>Wait a minute, you can't just slap a set of 289 rods in a 302/5.0 can
>you? They are longer. Did you mean to say they switched the caps?

Peter is correct. Only the cap was switched. The source tooling
is from 1962.

Brian

- ---
(email redacted)

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Dave Williams)


-> Technically, those are "5.0" rods. During the late '90 5.0
-> production they switched over to the old 289 rods. If you have a '91
-> or later (and some '90s), you have these stronger rods. They can
-> also be ordered from SVO.. This is one of the improvements to the 5.0
-> that you seldom hear about.

Was there a corresponding piston change? The 289 rods are 5.155" long,
the 302/5.0 rods are 5.090".

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Brian Kelley)


> I wish someone would explain why Ford went to the strap cap. I don't
>see how it can be any cheaper, and it certainly isn't stronger.

The strap cap is most certainly stronger than what they had been using
on the 5.0. At least if you can believe the engineer who works on
that project. That probably also has something to do with their
appearance in the SVO catalog. If you have information to the
contrary, I'd love to hear it.

Brian

- --
(email redacted)

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Dave Williams)


-> that project. That probably also has something to do with their
-> appearance in the SVO catalog. If you have information to the
-> contrary, I'd love to hear it.

Let's get our terminology straight before we butt heads:

strap cap: the flat cap with the balance knob, used on the 5.0

rib cap: C or U cross section cap, 221-289, early 302, and SVO


I've never seen a ribbed cap fail. I've seen several strap caps fail.
YMMV.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Dave Williams)


-> I think the confusion was indeed the terminology. My source also
-> referred to it as the "Channel cap", just to confuse things a bit
-> more..

<grin> If you find an Official Ford Terminology anywhere, I'd be happy
to call it whatever they want. "Uh, the funky cap with the
doodad-things on top..."


-> So when are you going to start casting wheels? :-)

I wish! That's outside my very modest foundry capacity, not to mention
the lathe. I could probably do some really badass kart wheels if you
wanted to go for that low rider look...