I was wondering what the sizing difference is between the S50US crankshaft counterweights would be versus the M52B28 US Counterweights.
I was originally planning to do a nice straightforward 2.8 build, but the ( admittedly cheap) 2.8 crankshaft I purchased turned out not to be very straight nor balanceable, so I am now being creative and looking into other potential options.
It looks like I can simply use a thicker head gasket on the block and get away with the S50US crankshaft ( ~86mm, i read 85.8 somewhere also) and a thicker MLS head gasket. With this I would hopefully not have to machine down the counterweights and this save a decent amount of money on a stroker. Obviously rod ratio would worsen some (from 1.54 to 1.51, still better than s52US's 1.506) but I imagine it would work.
I've read multiple places that the S50/S52 US counterweights are smaller than the M52b28 US counterweights, but am curios if it is enough of a difference to affect the previously mentioned application. It would need to be at LEAST 2mm smaller diametrically just for the increased size, not to mention the normal machining that is needed.
I was originally planning to do a nice straightforward 2.8 build, but the ( admittedly cheap) 2.8 crankshaft I purchased turned out not to be very straight nor balanceable, so I am now being creative and looking into other potential options.
It looks like I can simply use a thicker head gasket on the block and get away with the S50US crankshaft ( ~86mm, i read 85.8 somewhere also) and a thicker MLS head gasket. With this I would hopefully not have to machine down the counterweights and this save a decent amount of money on a stroker. Obviously rod ratio would worsen some (from 1.54 to 1.51, still better than s52US's 1.506) but I imagine it would work.
I've read multiple places that the S50/S52 US counterweights are smaller than the M52b28 US counterweights, but am curios if it is enough of a difference to affect the previously mentioned application. It would need to be at LEAST 2mm smaller diametrically just for the increased size, not to mention the normal machining that is needed.
Comment