2.5L Rocket Stroker Engine Kit with 6 Speed Transmission (R&D)

Random comments...

Claviger said:
I have confirmation that we can get longer rods from Carrillo rods.
Click to expand...
I reckon you would need shorter rods if the stroke is increased. It may be possible to raise the gudgeon pin in the piston a bit. Crank IS ONE piece. You MAY be able to get say 6mm stroke increase if one could find a rod with a smaller big end eye and offset grind the crank 3mm. The crank would need to be hardened/nitrided before the final few thousandths are ground off. To bore out a R3 engine one would have to bore the lower part of the block so a thicker sleeve could be fitted and then make a larger diameter rebate in the top of the block surface. All of these things are possible with the addition of $$$. I have yet to find a person who would wish to pay for this.
 

Increasing bore will be insanely expensive.
 
Are you sure?
Increasing bore to 106mm - that should be no problem - will take capacity to 2495ccm. That is a plus close to 9%.
You need 3 steel liners, three pistons and a head gasket.
In Germany you can get that parts costum made at about 1500€.
Long stroke would be much more...
 
Nikasil, without it, you’d be making a big mistake. Just my opinion, but there’s a reason the Daytona 955 spins to 11,200 happily and the speed Triple, with the same bore and stroke was cut way short on RPM.

CP has already told me they can move the wrist pin upwards 4mm if requested, they’ve also said they’re able to adjust rod length fairly easily.

A set of -2mm length rods and +4mm height pistons will set you back around $1,900.
 
Last edited:
1900 and you don´t have a modified crankshaft yet.
The 1050 Triumph engines are mainly long stroked 955s. That is about the 10% it is reduced in rev limit.
I don´t think, that the lower rev limit is caused by the material of the liners.
 
I meant 955i S3 vs 955i Daytona. It was long accepted that nikasil was the primary reason they capped the 955i S3 lower, but, also the cams stopped making power over about 10,000.

It may be that as I was told is totally wrong, and the nikasil has nothing to do with RPM, but I doubt Triumph would have gone to the expense if it didn't have something to do with it.

EDIT:

Just got off the phone with Falicon, they're confident they can stroke our crank without any issues, 3mm o offset, being very attainable. Full stroking work is $545 for a dealer and $750 for a retail customer, including the regrind, chamfering the oil passages, journal polish, shot peen, and chemical treatment. Sending them a rod and piston will allow the balance it all, which is another $250, and personally I wouldn't even attempt a stroker R3 without balancing it since you're changing both rods and pistons.

So, for full stroker kit, for retail customer, we're looking at around $2,900 for the rotating assembly. When you consider the cost of top end work, it's really not THAT much to gain 5-7% torque across the board (assuming you're doing your own labor).
 
Last edited:
You are right. There was the Daytona 955 model up from 2002 that already had some 1050 features like shim under and really lovely cams.
Stock rev limit was 10800. That is 1350 over the 1050-engine limit.
Afaik already the high revving 885 S3 Daytona had forged pistons, that the lower revving models did not. I don´t know if the rods were different.
What I know about nicasil coated alloy is that is has less problems with different expansion ratios in the motor, less wear and gets rid of heat better than steel.
I have never heard about higher rev limits. But you never stop to learn...

What about taking it to 2650ccm with more bore and stroke? If you are doing pistons anway it is just the liners and gasket.
 
Last edited:
At 11,200 we found valve float on the dyno last Thursday on my 2002 Daytona. The piston speeds there are pretty low (for a bike), and the rod to stroke ratio is extremely high, the bottom end would take 12000-12500 I think.

Concerning the boring, honestly, I just plain don’t think it’s a good idea. In all the years of being a motor head guy, most bottom end problems I’ve seen with highly modified motors were traced back to boring it larger.

I could be wrong, but I think the R3 would benefit more from longer stroke than bigger bore if displacement were equal between the two motors. The valves being slightly less shrouded would be great, but, I think not as great as the increased stroke allowing for more cylinder filling.

Just my wild ass scientific guess lol.
 
One thing that concerns me (Tho' the blown Engines don't seam to have a problem) is that the Big End Journals are not that large, they are a heap smaller than the Trident ones, and that's only a small Engine.
Just what is the longevity of a bored and stroked Rocket going to be ?
Again how do the Blown Engines last ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

2.5 Static engine pressure ( compression)
Replies
3
Views
205
1olbull
Wally Kohler is looking for Rocket 3 for his sidecar land speed racer
Replies
0
Views
155
Justdad
2.5 Static engine pressure ( compression)
Replies
2
Views
156
Kevin frazier
Record run for Rocket 3 at Bonneville Speed Week 2024
2
Replies
15
Views
1K
Justdad
Newly found drone footage of my 2023 Rocket 3 crash at Bonneville Speed Week
2
Replies
18
Views
703
Idaho Red Rocket 3
Menu
Log in
Register