Forums
Forum Tools
|
 |
04:03:28 - 04/26/2024
Dakota Performance
| From | Message |
N56629
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/15/2005
17:18:06
|
 Subject: RE: 1.7 RR for a 5.2 magnum
IP: Logged
Message:
I don't know of any aluminum RR that don't recommend modifying or using different valve covers. Of course if you take that into consideration, you might want to go with the more expensive RR. Personally, I like the idea of new valve covers, so that's a no brainer for me.
|
athenianR/T
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/15/2005
21:39:03
| RE: 1.7 RR for a 5.2 magnum
IP: Logged
Message:
I'd replace the sheet metal valve covers anyway, the mopar aluminum ones look cool! so what of they are'nt as strong as Stainless steel. ( I know, its a bad joke, just htought I'd poke fun at the previous arguement!) if you modify the factory ones, you may end up with oil problems, namely, oil splashing up around the fill hole, which can be a pain as it can ooze out trickles of oil.. if the tolerance is pretty close, you can try to double up valve cover gaskets to give a lil room, but be sure to rtv between em to prevent leaks.
|
athenianR/T
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/15/2005
21:41:17
| RE: 1.7 RR for a 5.2 magnum
IP: Logged
Message:
Oh, yeah, just thought of something to add to the previous spat over tensile strength... ever heard of aluminum connecting rods? many drag engines have em, guys. those get the crap beat out of em, and they handle the entire load from the engines pistons and crank beating on em, and hardly ever break..
|
gen1dak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/16/2005
00:45:21
| RE: 1.7 RR for a 5.2 magnum
IP: Logged
Message:
Yes, but how many miles do those aluminum rods manage to accumulate? This has been covered. Aluminum parts have the strength to do the intended job, but aren't as good for long term use. You'll note that aluminum rods aren't recommended for street use. And valve covers aren't load-bearing structures, so who cares what they're made of?
|
gen1dak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/16/2005
01:14:47
| RE: 1.7 RR for a 5.2 magnum
IP: Logged
Message:
Okay, on the stainless use in aircraft, I should have been more specific. I wasn't thinking about landing gear. I was referring to the structure beneath the skin. The landing gear is, to me, in the same area as the axles comment. And, as for the shuttle, it can fly with missing tiles, it can't fly without a wing, and the wing structure was aluminum. Could it have held up long enough if made of stainless or titanium. I don't know. I doubt that will ever be tested, but it would have held together longer, that much is certain. However, I was not opening a debate on that. If you recall, I said it was a dramatic example of aluminum failure. If you're not concerned with long-term strength, use aluminum. If you want long-term strength, and greater heat tolerance, use steel. Lemme axe ya dis. When was the last time you saw an aluminum framed bridge, building, or other load-bearing structure being built? Anyone here have an aluminum exhaust system? Aluminum crank? Aluminum gears in their axles? Anyone?......Bueller?....Bueller?.....
Hey, if it's so good, why not run down and get aluminum studs to bolt that engine together, and hold those new wheels on? Point being, it's good for some things, not for others, because as metals go, it's pretty wimpy.
|
N56629
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/16/2005
06:51:05
| RE: 1.7 RR for a 5.2 magnum
IP: Logged
Message:
"Lemme axe ya dis. When was the last time you saw an aluminum framed bridge, building, or other load-bearing structure being built? Anyone here have an aluminum exhaust system? Aluminum crank? Aluminum gears in their axles? Anyone?......Bueller?....Bueller?.....
Hey, if it's so good, why not run down and get aluminum studs to bolt that engine together, and hold those new wheels on? Point being, it's good for some things, not for others, because as metals go, it's pretty wimpy."
The same applies to stainless steel. Ok, I'll give you the exhaust on that one. And cost has nothing to do with it. People with million dollar race cars wouldn't bat an eye at using stainless for axels if they were stronger.
Just so that you are not confused where I'm coming from, stainless is stronger than aluminum, but is not as strong as alloy steel.
|
gen1dak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/16/2005
10:54:28
| RE: 1.7 RR for a 5.2 magnum
IP: Logged
Message:
No dispute on the strength of alloy steel. Does anyone make rockers outta alloy steel (just curious)?
Now, obviously there are no stainless cranks out there, or axle gears for that matter. I didn't say there were. I did say they weren't aluminum, because where strength and durability are concerned, it is not the best choice. Steel, be it alloy, stainless, or some other variant is the better choice.
|
N56629
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/16/2005
14:35:19
| RE: 1.7 RR for a 5.2 magnum
IP: Logged
Message:
Ok, just we can get this dispute over with, here is what I was disputing.
"Stainless, while still lightweight is not as light as aluminum.
And
"Stainless give the strength of steel, with most of the weight savings of aluminum.....
I didn't intend to stand in the way of your opinion of aluminum vs. steel. I don't really have a firm opinion one way or the other on that. I just pointed out that you were flat out wrong on the weight of stainless, because it is heavier than plain steel and therefore not even close to aluminum in that respect.
Hopefully, we can agree on those points.
Now, as to whether alloy steels are used in the manufacturing of rockers, absolutely. Whether they are cast or stamped, the manufacturer has to determine exactly what characteristics they need and then chose the proper alloy. "Alloy steel" is an extremely broad term.
Stamped rockers have to be formed and then heat treated. The alloy has to be very malleable yet capable of being hardened against wear. The large radii help prevent cracking or fracturing.
Cast rockers require a very different alloy. I believe that most cast rockers use an equivilent of 4000 series alloy steel. They are very strong and lighter in weight.
I'm not sure, but most aluminum rockers are likely made of 7075 and machined as opposed to cast. I've used this in making actions for bolt action rifles or handguns. Again, you will find that this all "aircarft quality" since aircraft use almost every type of aluminum alloy normally found in manufacturing.
|
gen1dak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/16/2005
16:47:48
| RE: 1.7 RR for a 5.2 magnum
IP: Logged
Message:
Yes, it is a broad term. In fact, by definition, isn't stainless an alloy steel?
|
gen1dak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/16/2005
17:04:46
| RE: 1.7 RR for a 5.2 magnum
IP: Logged
Message:
And you're missing the point on the weight issue. You cannot compare aluminum and stainless as if they were equal, and then conclude there cannot be validity to what I have said. Why? Back to my original point. The whole reason aluminum rockers have to be so much bigger, is so they will have the necessary strength to do the job. Stainless, while being considerably heavier, in and of itself, requires much less bulk to handle the same job. Therefore, while heavier, it is also roughly 5 times stronger, so can be considerably smaller, and thus, while the final weights will still favor aluminum rockers, you can have a stainless set that will be smaller, considerably stronger and long-lasting. And the weight difference, when the relative sizes are factored in, aren't as great as you'd think just by looking at the periodic table. Obviously, if you have the same size pieces, the stainless piece would be quite a bit heavier, but they're not the same size, are they? This is where the relative weight savings come into play. I did not, nor do I say now, that stainless is nearly as light as aluminum.
|
rtdkota
R/T
4/27/2005
22:43:27
| RE: 1.7 RR for a 5.2 magnum
IP: Logged
Message:
So---- what's the original question again?
;^)
Crower works-- I sell it, and use it. 100k miles on my current set (T-minus 2000 miles to go)...
More miles than any other brand out there for the 3.9/5.2/5.9L magnum engine--- Introduced in 1994---- and still going.
:^)
Sam
www.socaldakota.com
|
| | <<Original Post <<Previous Page P 2 |
|
Post a reply to this message:
Username Registration: Optional
All visitors are allowed to post messages
|
|
