Well I guess I'm wrong..

All the degree's and 100's of engines and all the time teaching engine
machine shop and automotive classes....
Just be glad I'm now only working around aircraft engines so I can't screw up
anything important.............
<grin>

Really, guess what we are saying here is somewhat the same thing..ANY
reduction in bearing loading means good things..
I just have a little trouble relating the failure of the 2.1 connecting rods
to the fact that that crank is not "fully' counterweighted...The 1.9's aren't
either, correct? so if the longer stroke (with it's non-linear increase in
acceration and big end rod loading) is NOT the reason, then WHY does the 1.9
not blow up like the 2.1?

As far as it being a racing engine?..well...the porting is better, but it's a
pushrod engine..yah ain't gunna win many races THAT way...
The 901 ("911") Porsche engine? now THAT'S a de-tuned 9or not!) "racing
engine"
The bus engine is nothing special..thre are a lot of "economy" features to
the design.
they were, as always< cutting costs and cutting corners..
My guess is that the 2.1 was a response to the NA market need for power and
they did the best they could with what they were given...they upped the
displacement 10% TOTALLY by stoking...that's a bunch!..

OK go with this...the piston is on top dead center..how far would the center
of the crank have to move (bend) to take up ALL the oil clearance? ..AND..how
come the rod bearings that I've seen don't show this "radius ride" that you
discribe?

And Wilson NC? what a dump <grin>

steve

"Hey! nice Jeep, Mister! "
"Look kid, it's NOTAJEEP! "