<VV> Rods

[Ray]

The caps were also redesigned to provided increased clearance to accomodate the longer stroke of the 64-69 engine. 


RCS



On Apr 5, 2013, at 8:43 PM, jvhroberts at aol.com wrote:

> 
> All Corvair rods are the same length. What's different is the non turbo rods for the 140 and 145 CID engines aren't as beefy as the turbo 145 and all 164 CID rods. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Roberts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian <bmoneill at juno.com>
> To: VirtualVairs <VirtualVairs at corvair.org>
> Sent: Fri, Apr 5, 2013 7:17 pm
> Subject: <VV> Rods
> 
> 
> In looking at the Clark's catalog for rods for a LM engine, I noticed that they 
> list lightened/balanced rods and list one number for 64-69 all and the same 
> number for 62-83 turbo. I know there is a difference in length between EM and LM 
> rods.  I thought that 62-63 stroke was 2.60 and 64-69 was 2.9.  What gives?  How 
> can the 
> _______________________________________________


On Apr 5, 2013, at 8:43 PM, jvhroberts at aol.com wrote:

> 
> All Corvair rods are the same length. What's different is the non turbo rods for the 140 and 145 CID engines aren't as beefy as the turbo 145 and all 164 CID rods. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Roberts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian <bmoneill at juno.com>
> To: VirtualVairs <VirtualVairs at corvair.org>
> Sent: Fri, Apr 5, 2013 7:17 pm
> Subject: <VV> Rods
> 
> 
> In looking at the Clark's catalog for rods for a LM engine, I noticed that they 
> list lightened/balanced rods and list one number for 64-69 all and the same 
> number for 62-83 turbo. I know there is a difference in length between EM and LM 
> rods.  I thought that 62-63 stroke was 2.60 and 64-69 was 2.9.  What gives?  How 
> can 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> _________________________________