Broken Crankshaft Count?

Please pick the one that you had break


  • Total voters
    183

coker6365

Coker6303's ***** Daddy
Dec 4, 2011
486
16
18
Are the Callie's durastar and compstar cranks any better then a Stock crank in design? Or is the improvement in those limited to material and manufacture process only?

Seems to lots of contradicting info out there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

From what I have seen, it is basically a stock replacement that is supposed to be machined slightly different and a little thicker nitride layer. I am not 100% sure on that though.

I believe the best solution is the narrow rod design to increase the fillet portion for added strength. I will be running a narrow rod Bryant crank this go around even though I had no issues with the new LML crank I ran. It's not worth the risk to have to build it a 3rd time for something that could have been prevented. I think the Callies is around .005" narrower where the Bryant is around .010" narrower. I don't remember the exact numbers.
 

DMAXchris

It’s only temporary!
Apr 28, 2009
2,273
2
38
43
Natrona Heights PA
if the LML crank is no stronger then why do people choose it quite a bit for their new build?

As far as the af cam goes. I can see both ends of it not being 100% proven but honestly if you've got a new build or even just doing a swap I see absolutely no reason not to run it. Even if there is a .00000000000000001 chance of it helping what's the point of not going af

Because people love jumping on the newest bandwagon. Machine work has more to do with it than anything. Also pulling oil from the 2nd galley when running twins is a terrible idea.
 

Slowmax

Build what others' won't
Aug 3, 2013
468
0
0
United States
if the LML crank is no stronger then why do people choose it quite a bit for their new build?

As far as the af cam goes. I can see both ends of it not being 100% proven but honestly if you've got a new build or even just doing a swap I see absolutely no reason not to run it. Even if there is a .00000000000000001 chance of it helping what's the point of not going af

They run the LML crank because one can be had for around $600 new. The money spent on a Af cam is a waste, when it would be more cost effective to get a proven Crank with the narrow rod design.
 

IOWA LLY

Yes, its really me
Feb 23, 2007
2,275
4
0
They run the LML crank because one can be had for around $600 new. The money spent on a Af cam is a waste, when it would be more cost effective to get a proven Crank with the narrow rod design.



Correct. I feel the same way. The crank is the problem, and a better crank design is the solution. Not an alternate fire cam.

There is tons of engines (Stock and built) with standard firing order cams that haven't broken cranks. The very very small percentage of trucks in comparison running AF cams, (and many of those have failed also) just doesn't justify the expense, or the hassle of running one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

kidturbo

Piston Tester
Jul 21, 2010
2,510
1,328
113
Somewhere On The Ohio
www.marinemods.us
I checked out the stock replacement Callies had at UCC. It's an option, from a better grade of steel vs OEM. They feel confident it's much stronger, but not on same level as the billet 4330 version. Advantage being no modification to rods required.

On a side note, I tore down a 150+ mile LMM out of a CA truck that looks to lived a bone stock life. What was impressive, all the rod bearings looked like new. Along with # 1,3 & 5 mains. However #4 was wore into second layer materials, and #2 wasn't far behind.

My GM tech buddy says that's not the first stock one with #4 & 2 mains shot he's witnessed. Last was in a LB7 he tore down. Either the factory line bore machine is way off, or the torsional twisting is enough to wear bearings out at stock power..
 

zakkb787

<that’s not me...
Sep 29, 2014
2,340
52
48
Granite Falls NC
They run the LML crank because one can be had for around $600 new. The money spent on a Af cam is a waste, when it would be more cost effective to get a proven Crank with the narrow rod design.

And this I completely understand and agree with. But what I'm saying is when both are in the equation. Why does everyone hate on af cams so much? If a new crank AND cam are going into the build why not get the upgraded crank and an af cam. Might not help any but what's the point in stock fire over alternate and vicaversa
 

LBZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Jul 2, 2007
9,903
149
63
46
B.C.
You guys make me laugh. Calling the af cam jumping on a bandwagon even though it's been proven to improve harmonics yet these new cranks which haven't been widely tested aren't?

I ask again, in a strictly DD under 700hp application, how many af and new cam combo's have broken? I can count on one hand the ones I know about. There were some near the 1000hp and that reused cranks that broke. And a couple that may have been a result of assembly or machining errors.

I'm not saying a better crank design isn't needed, but I'm not sold it alone is the answer. And at this point, it's not really affordable for Joe blow almost stock DD applications. Nor has it been tested as such.

IMO, narrowing rods may just be moving the problem somewhere else. Won't know this though until more get more miles on them.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk
 

Ne-max

I like turtles
Nov 15, 2011
3,361
64
48
Lincoln, Ne
You guys make me laugh. Calling the af cam jumping on a bandwagon even though it's been proven to improve harmonics yet these new cranks which haven't been widely tested aren't?

I ask again, in a strictly DD under 700hp application, how many af and new cam combo's have broken? I can count on one hand the ones I know about. There were some near the 1000hp and that reused cranks that broke. And a couple that may have been a result of assembly or machining errors.

I'm not saying a better crank design isn't needed, but I'm not sold it alone is the answer. And at this point, it's not really affordable for Joe blow almost stock DD applications. Nor has it been tested as such.

IMO, narrowing rods may just be moving the problem somewhere else. Won't know this though until more get more miles on them.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

Exactly. I'm at 1200+hp. Motor has a crap ton of passes on it along with 7000 milss. New lb7 crank and Af cam.

Also there is a lot more to it then those two parts. How it was balanced, what bearings, what oil, what type of use, tuning......
 

TheDirty06

New member
Sep 28, 2014
115
0
0
Horton, KS
You guys make me laugh. Calling the af cam jumping on a bandwagon even though it's been proven to improve harmonics yet these new cranks which haven't been widely tested aren't?

I ask again, in a strictly DD under 700hp application, how many af and new cam combo's have broken? I can count on one hand the ones I know about. There were some near the 1000hp and that reused cranks that broke. And a couple that may have been a result of assembly or machining errors.

I'm not saying a better crank design isn't needed, but I'm not sold it alone is the answer. And at this point, it's not really affordable for Joe blow almost stock DD applications. Nor has it been tested as such.

IMO, narrowing rods may just be moving the problem somewhere else. Won't know this though until more get more miles on them.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

I agree! I didn't go with an af cam because it's the cool thing to have. It makes sense anytime you make something run smoother it's gonna help and the af cam has been proven to help harmonics. I also agree on the narrow crank that there's just not enough proof it's the answer. That's why I went with the lml. Right now it's cost effective and if the narrow rod crank is the answer ill put one in when i get the money or mine breaks and if it does break im out $600 compared to $3k plus if a billet one goes.
 

D1rty-max

Spare some change?
Jul 16, 2015
132
0
0
Longview, TX
GM is apparently sold that a new crank design is the answer. Considering they use the same firing order with a completely redesigned crank...I'm sure the AF cam does help since it tends to make these engines run smoother though
 

IOWA LLY

Yes, its really me
Feb 23, 2007
2,275
4
0
GM is apparently sold that a new crank design is the answer. Considering they use the same firing order with a completely redesigned crank...I'm sure the AF cam does help since it tends to make these engines run smoother though



Exactly. If it actually makes it run smoother why didn't GM change the firing order also?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

zakkb787

<that’s not me...
Sep 29, 2014
2,340
52
48
Granite Falls NC
Exactly. If it actually makes it run smoother why didn't GM change the firing order also?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Why doesn't gm make them come factory efi tuned with 500hp and a triple disk converter and no emissions etc etc etc. always room for improvement.
 

wilrob

Back in the Motherland
Sep 14, 2016
366
0
16
Dallas, TX
Why doesn't gm make them come factory efi tuned with 500hp and a triple disk converter and no emissions etc etc etc. always room for improvement.

Yeah, but you have to think about it in a factory spec type of way. A hard part that can mitigate the amount of engine failures is more of a "should have been done from the factory" type deal than having every truck tuned because it "makes more power that way". One decreases liability while the other increases it. (Although EFI is a pretty reliable upgrade...)
 

D1rty-max

Spare some change?
Jul 16, 2015
132
0
0
Longview, TX
Exactly. If it actually makes it run smoother why didn't GM change the firing order also?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I correct my previous statement. According to those who run AF cams they 'Seem' to make it run noticeably smoother. But yes GM obviously didn't see it as THE fix, otherwise they would have changed it. That being said my build is consisting of both an AF cam and narrowed crank.
 

Awenta

Active member
Sep 28, 2014
4,090
2
38
CT
Why doesn't gm make them come factory efi tuned with 500hp and a triple disk converter and no emissions etc etc etc. always room for improvement.



This isn't the same comparison at all. Changing the crank (and cam if it were necessary) prevents failures and reduces blown engines and warranty repairs.

The emissions are in place because that's the law. They have no control over that.

Also they would write their own program instead of paying efi to access their own ecms. The new ones are almost 500hp. It would also require a stronger transmission which is a bigger expense. And on and on and on. Then you're going to be complaining that new trucks are 100k.

Keeping costs down and mass reliability is the goal. 99% of these trucks are used as trucks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

rcr1978

Active member
Apr 1, 2007
790
26
28
Spring Creek, NV
IMO, narrowing rods may just be moving the problem somewhere else. Won't know this though until more get more miles on them.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

For the Callies billet narrowed version the rod bearings are stock width I bought one and it uses standard off the shelf rod bearings, they do say to use the better clevite ones though. Not sure on the Bryant and others what they use.
 

zakkb787

<that’s not me...
Sep 29, 2014
2,340
52
48
Granite Falls NC
All I'm trying to figure out is why certain people are so dead set against an af cam. I get that there's virtually no gain with a used crank. But a new crank and af cam. I see no reason to get a standard fire cam if you are buying a new cam and crank as well. That's all I was trying to say. Sure they aren't proven. But neither was other stuff at some point that most of us use today.
 

wilrob

Back in the Motherland
Sep 14, 2016
366
0
16
Dallas, TX
All I'm trying to figure out is why certain people are so dead set against an af cam. I get that there's virtually no gain with a used crank. But a new crank and af cam. I see no reason to get a standard fire cam if you are buying a new cam and crank as well. That's all I was trying to say. Sure they aren't proven. But neither was other stuff at some point that most of us use today.

At this point its the price + work to install vs the supposed better harmonics. Some people say its worth it to get an AF for its benefits, others say it isn't.
Personally if it made my truck run smoother and I needed a new cam I would go AF. But at this point it seems to be a personal preference as there is still not any "concrete" data or stats surrounding them. (Though this could be argued too)
 

Chevy1925

don't know sh!t about IFS
Staff member
Oct 21, 2009
21,556
5,612
113
Phoenix Az
All I'm trying to figure out is why certain people are so dead set against an af cam. I get that there's virtually no gain with a used crank. But a new crank and af cam. I see no reason to get a standard fire cam if you are buying a new cam and crank as well. That's all I was trying to say. Sure they aren't proven. But neither was other stuff at some point that most of us use today.

your new so you never got to see or searched for all the data Jon posted a few years back.

When the suggestion of an alternate fire cam came up from Jon years back, some thought it was the "solve all out issues" fix and other saw it as a bandaid (me as one of them) and others just flat didnt think there was enough evidence to say it will fix the issue. For a long time, when places were making and selling the cams for twice that of a SF cam, people were saying all their crank issues vanished and this would stop the problem. I did not agree, i and many others still felt it was a bandaid for the real issue and was really wanting to see someone look into it and fix it. then the first crank broke with an AF cam.... it was a used LB7 crank and then it was suggested you HAVE to buy a new crank if you want to be sure it lasts. ok cool, still a bandaid imho though. So now if you have to buy a crank AND a cam, you're getting into the 2k range (at the time, closer to 2500,3k). time went on and things popped up here and there of cranks breaking, mainly used ones, with AF cams. Some will not post on this forum that have broke them with new cranks. they are out there, i know this for a fact ;).

then Callies came out with their crank using narrows rod journals to increase the meat on the journals of the crank. it has been said and factual shown on here, the main issue arises in the diameter of the crank journal. it is too small and does not have enough overlap of the mains to keep issues at bay. Guy and i believe Pat both explain this. This leads us to GM making the changes they did to the crank you see in the L5P. they changed it for a reason and its not just cause im sitting here implying all this is the reason, they are not dumb and there are a few people on this board along with me that have connections. They increased the journal diameter to help eliminate the issue. this is a tired and trued fix and is based on engine engineering. why didnt GM change the rod journal initially? well at 300hp in a lb7, ill bet you the issues never showed up and why would they care about people pushing the hp out of it we are now? then the LBZ came and GM decided to take weight from the pistons but add it to the external balancer, increasing the chances of the crank breaking. Then we start seeing a little trend happening in our own poll. GM keeps upping HP to keep up in the market and next thing you know, HP levels are coming close to 500 and now they must do something about some old engineering they are running off of.

It all comes down to budget in the end. if you want to put an AF in and a narrowed rod journal crank, go for it. if you are limited and want 1000rwhp, id do a NRJ crank before a cam as you can get the HP without the cam and still be reliable in the bottom end. If you dont want to drop the coin on a crank but want sub 1000hp numbers, it comes down to what you want to do for the cam. it can be a toss up if the cam will really help keep it together or not. im sitting on 45k miles, 600+ hp towed on and ran every time i drive it, and still on delipped LB7 pistons with 213k total, and a used lb7 crank with 213k total.

If the AF cam was still double that of a SF cam, id say there is a valid argument for not changing it depending on circumstances but they are so close to the same now, just comes down to budget and theory.


i will still say, the crank is our issue and ill never say the fix is a new stock crank and AF cam. Dale isnt far off the callies cranks with NRJ cranks may still fail, is .040 on each side enough to hold up? Kidturbos boat setup will be a true test to it and i very much look forward to seeing it. Personally, id like to see if the new GM crank will retrofit into 01-16 block with a little work and new rods. if it will, that will be a hell of an upgrade.