-
Hey Guest!
British Car Forum has been supporting enthusiasts for over 25 years by providing a great place to share our love for British cars. You can support our efforts by upgrading your membership for less than the dues of most car clubs. There are some perks with a member upgrade!**Upgrade Now**
(PS: Upgraded members don't see this banner, nor will you see the Google ads that appear on the site.)
Hey - did you know if you click on the title of a thread it will take you to the first unread post since you last visited that thread?
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
What is going on with this con rod?
- Thread starter jackag91
- Start date
Share this page
Scott_Hower
Luke Skywalker
Offline
Balancing, on the cheap. Stress riser though. Not the best way to lighten a rod.
It (the holey con rod) came from the factory that way! Some time around 72 they were modified with the same part number.
When I pulled apart the engine which came with my Herald I found 1 con rods with hole and 3 with out holes.
Apparently your engine was also rebuilt sometime in history and a new con rod was needed so they used the later version.
Here is the answer I got from John Kipping regarding the holey rod: (originally discussed on the Yahoo Herald forum)
<span style="font-weight: bold">Sorry for late reply, shouldn't be a problem to reuse a mixed set as in they are all the same part number. If you were really keen weighing would be good but not really necessary.
John Kipping.
Yisrael Sundick wrote:
> Engine has definitely been rebuilt since it was
> rebored. There are also a selection of position #s on
> most of the conrods. Looks like this engine was built
> up out of parts from the scrap pile.
> The "holed" conrod was on the 4th cyl.
> As I understand, it should be the same weight, and
> that I should just reuse in the same position.
> Thanks
> Yisrael
>
>
> --- John Kipping wrote:
>
>
>> It shows someone has rebuilt the engine as the con
>> rods with holes in are a later (post 72?) variant but with the same
>> part number. Hence they are all interchangeable. All the original rods have
>> the position number etched on, if I was a betting man I would put money
>> on number 3 being missing. the number is on a ground bit of the
>> outside of the big end part.
>>
>> John Kipping, with broken hand - making typing even
>> slower than usual.
>>
>>
>>
>> yisrael_sundick wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi
>>> Why does one of my con rods have a hole drilled in
>>>
>> it near the big
>>
>>> end? The other 3 all are holeless. Was this the way
>>>
>> that they were
>>
>>> balanced? The hole goes all the way through the
>>>
>> rod.
>>> Is this acceptable, or has it been exessively
>>>
>> weakend? There are no
>>
>>> signs that it is bent, and the bearings had even
>>>
>> wear indicating that
>>
>>> it is not twisted.
>>> Yisrael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> </span>
When I pulled apart the engine which came with my Herald I found 1 con rods with hole and 3 with out holes.
Apparently your engine was also rebuilt sometime in history and a new con rod was needed so they used the later version.
Here is the answer I got from John Kipping regarding the holey rod: (originally discussed on the Yahoo Herald forum)
<span style="font-weight: bold">Sorry for late reply, shouldn't be a problem to reuse a mixed set as in they are all the same part number. If you were really keen weighing would be good but not really necessary.
John Kipping.
Yisrael Sundick wrote:
> Engine has definitely been rebuilt since it was
> rebored. There are also a selection of position #s on
> most of the conrods. Looks like this engine was built
> up out of parts from the scrap pile.
> The "holed" conrod was on the 4th cyl.
> As I understand, it should be the same weight, and
> that I should just reuse in the same position.
> Thanks
> Yisrael
>
>
> --- John Kipping wrote:
>
>
>> It shows someone has rebuilt the engine as the con
>> rods with holes in are a later (post 72?) variant but with the same
>> part number. Hence they are all interchangeable. All the original rods have
>> the position number etched on, if I was a betting man I would put money
>> on number 3 being missing. the number is on a ground bit of the
>> outside of the big end part.
>>
>> John Kipping, with broken hand - making typing even
>> slower than usual.
>>
>>
>>
>> yisrael_sundick wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi
>>> Why does one of my con rods have a hole drilled in
>>>
>> it near the big
>>
>>> end? The other 3 all are holeless. Was this the way
>>>
>> that they were
>>
>>> balanced? The hole goes all the way through the
>>>
>> rod.
>>> Is this acceptable, or has it been exessively
>>>
>> weakend? There are no
>>
>>> signs that it is bent, and the bearings had even
>>>
>> wear indicating that
>>
>>> it is not twisted.
>>> Yisrael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> </span>
Brosky
Great Pumpkin
Offline
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]So, Brosky, I was looking at your site and all of your rods have holes there too. What were you thinking? devil
Bryan[/QUOTE]
Brian,
Obviously I wasn't thinking very well. I honestly did not remember those holes being in mine. Now that was rather stupid of me, wasn't it? I guess the sight of one all by itself threw me off and the dead brain cells caught up with me. My bad!
Bryan[/QUOTE]
Brian,
Obviously I wasn't thinking very well. I honestly did not remember those holes being in mine. Now that was rather stupid of me, wasn't it? I guess the sight of one all by itself threw me off and the dead brain cells caught up with me. My bad!