Had a bit of bad luck

[Scoobum]

You can put 800 to the rear tires on a junkyard 6.0 litre all day long without hurting it. Matt pushed his junkyard 6 litre to just over 1000 to the back tire before it bent a connecting rod. Only thing he did to that engine was widen the top ring gap, new valve springs and an aftermarket cam and a cheapass turbo. He never even used a torque wrench.

[earlbrown]

You won't have to zero deck your block with my slugs.  I can make the CH put the crown at your exact deck height and you can leave all the metal on it (and not have to pay for the decking)

[TexasT]

That is a big advantage to me. Getting to zero deck without the block getting cut. 

I'm off to search a forged crank that will drop in. Not really into figuring out the dampner and flexplate balancing thing. I guess any crank shaft place could do it but that just adds to the cost. 

[earlbrown]

If you have a lathe, you can just knock off the weight and convert it to neutral balance (and balance it by itself).    Flexplates are cheap.

If you're worried about a 'drop in', might be best to stick with stock stroke.  Going stroker will require checking a lot more stuff (which you should check anyway)

[TexasT]

Yes, stock stroke. Didn't want to complicate it more than necessary. 

[TexasT]

https://www.cnc-motorsports.com/eagle-4140-forged-steel-crankshaft-buick-38l-v6-523136255967.html

SO, I'm doing some surfin and came on this one that sez external balanced and is cheaper on the surface with the machining seemingly done.
Any thoughts on this one?

[Scoobum]

Contact Steve V on the other board. I'm sure he's used these cranks. It may/may not be drop in and he'll know the pros/cons of these cranks. This is gonna be an expensive build when all is said and done.

[nocooler]

If you are going to buy a crank and pistons, spend the extra $$$ and get some good rods. You are going to be paying for a balance job either way. I agree with Brad you want the thickest cylinder walls possible. 

I know the Buick doesn't like to rev high - but I think some of the tuning tricks used to keep stock bottom end LS stuff alive could be applied. 

[TexasT]

I guess I just can't see why I need better rods other than the stock ones are thirty yrs old. I've not seen one break. It is the block or the crank that seems to have probs. 
I will message Steve v and see what he thinks. He sure puts out some nice vids on trans assembly. I see he is doing a couple v6 builds with some crap mass rebuilder cores on FB. 

[Scoobum]

I had a 4.1 block with thots on building it. After going into the water jackets in the .030 over 109 3 times I learned my lesson and sold the 4.1.

I ran a .020/.30 stock crank in the .030 over 109 and a std/std in the standard bore with zero issues...and I beat on both those engines every weekend at the track. Both engines had all the internals magnafluxed and both rotating assemblies were balanced. Stock junk is as durable as it gets.

[TexasT]

Beatings at the track is different than street driving it. I'm just trying to get the crank flex to a minimum as I have seen plenty of main webs busted out of stock blocks. And I believe the crank moving all over the place is what does it. The billet main caps are nice to try and control that flex but a stiff forged crank that doesn't flex would be better than trying to control the 30yr old stock noodle. And if it is a drop in piece it will save the machining cost too. And for <$500 for a new crank, it seems like a bargain.

I have also been looking for a short stroke billet crank but I'm not holding my breath. I'm a fan of big bore for breathing and unshrouding the valves. The cubes can be made up for with more boost. Ken W is pushing 38psi through his with a good tune on the gnecu, e85 and his new intercooler. Stock bottom end. He posted some six sec runs from yesterday at the track. Plus the shorter stroke puts less force on the piston walls. More of a straight up and down motion.

Good stuff. Keep the ideas coming. Helps me work through the plan.

[reality]

. Plus the shorter stroke puts less force on the piston walls. More of a straight up and down motion.

That's the theory but is there any proof of that.

Engine masters did a dyno test on that and essentially no difference in HP

[earlbrown]

The evidence is basic geometry.

[reality]

Yea I was thinking rod length not stroke. My bad.

[earlbrown]

Rod length will change the angle only slightly.   Moving the rod journals closer to the main centerline will straighten it right up.

Make the stroke 0" and there will be no side loading at all.