Guys using NON turbo cranks,how fast are you?I know you're out there!

sixgun86gn

six offender
Joined
Feb 10, 2002
This thread is to ask others like me who have built their motors with naturally aspirated 231 cranks.That means non turbo.I have gonne 11.69 so far and am in need of some fuel system upgrades right now I know a few that are faster than me,but I want you guys to post up please.:D
 
Best I went in wifes car was 11.48@116 with a NA crank and no caps, on ET streets.

Car has TA61, 009s, test pipe, Duttweiller neck on stock IC, 200 with shift kit, Pat's 10"3200 stall LU conv, deltagate in crossover.

Car is always filled with C116 and run a Jim Testa race chip.

HTH.
 
Now thats what I'm talking about.Someone on here before told me they went in the 11.30s with one.I really want to know if anyone has run in the 10s with one reliably.I just want to show that a turbo crank is not needed to go fast.
 
I like having the turbo crank in my buick motors but my big block chevy does not have a radiused crank they didnt make them and it lives in the 10s at 7200rpm all 3 years now with no problems ,I think you will be ok.
 
I got laughed at in another thread for saying a NA crank is just as good for most applications.Thanks guys keep them coming.I know of many stock crank ford and chevy motors running deep into the 10s and they never had any rolled fillets.Matter of fact the SBC crank has smaller journals than our cranks.
 
I wouldn't hesitate to use an NA crank if I couldn't get a Turbo crank. They're good at least to my power range and into the 11s, I'm sure. I've seen posts about turbo cranks breaking........anyone break an NA crank lately?
 
Banning Cohen has gone 10.97 so far on a NA crank. I think that this list is kind of like the 9 sec 109 block club with about a half-dozen members. It can be done with perfect tuning but no margin for error. Just remember all those who drove over their rolled-fillet cranks in the 11's and 10's when something went a little wrong.
 
I know tuning has alot to do with the life of the crank.But was it the crank breaking or the block in those instances?
 
I'm sure plenty of either have happened - the block flexes letting the crank flex letting it break, or the crank flexes putting extra stress on the webbing/cap and they break. Given the successes with girdles I think that the block is more of a limit than the stock rolled fillet crank, but step up to a billet or forged crank (with girdle) or step down to a non-rolled fillet crank (without girdle) and I don't know. A typical machine shop bill to clean, check, prep, and assemble a shortblock (including new pistons and bearings) is $2000-$3000 depending on where you are, what pistons you use, and exactly what machining is done - spending $200 more for a rolled fillet crank adds 10% or less which sure seems like cheap insurance to most of us.
 
Originally posted by sixgun86gn
I got laughed at in another thread for saying a NA crank is just as good for most applications.Thanks guys keep them coming.I know of many stock crank ford and chevy motors running deep into the 10s and they never had any rolled fillets.Matter of fact the SBC crank has smaller journals than our cranks.
I didn't see where anyone laughed at you, or even said that one can't go fast with an n/a crank. Several of us do dispute your statement that "the rolled fillet thing really has no proof behind it".

Tom
 
i also have a na crank, il guess ill find out next season if it will hold up cause jim testa guaranteed me ill get well into the 11s but didnt say he guaranteed i wouldnt break nothing. oh well , we will fi nd out.:D
 
Originally posted by sixgun86gn
I know of many stock crank ford and chevy motors running deep into the 10s and they never had any rolled fillets.Matter of fact the SBC crank has smaller journals than our cranks.

V-6s?.

There's a whole bunch of difference between firing pulsations 90d apart vs 120d apart.

It would seem odd for GM to spend the extra money for rolling the fillets if it really wasn't needed.
But, then again in the higher HP applications, having the crank remain slightly more flexible might be a good thing, up until a point.
 
i forgot to say that i was told by rons custom auto not to push the motor past 12.00 or i will be sorry. i think jim testa told me he snapped one in half.:eek: :D
 
thats what i say, if it breaks, oh well. since ive had my car it seems to me that i got more money in transmissions than my motor.:D
 
cranks

In regards to a Chevy crank not having rolled fillets. Better take a closer look at a Buick Turbo crank and compare how much material is actually holding it together ( between the throws )as compared to other cranks that have both rods on the same journal.
Not much material there. I have a 2 piece BMS crank that broke between #1 and #2
 
11.72 @119
stock 4.1 with crap pistons, stock nylon timing gear, and nittos-

car had te45a and 50s and reds 107 chip, leaving off idle

BW
 
I ran 11.30's many times with a NA crank and a TA-49 @ 25 psi boost and never had a problem. I never knew it was a NA crank until after a few yrs of running the engine but never had a problem. I made a few mistakes tuning it to that point and mine didn't break. 15 psi launches on slicks too!!:D I'd run one anytime if machined correctly. Frank;)
 
Top