In addition to the reduction in bending resistance, using a smaller rod journal also runs a slight risk of unmasking an oil passage in the crank cheek - instant boat anchor.
It may also "bump" the location of an oil hole away from the original point of exposure which is safe unless it's no longer completely under the rod (on a V engine it might also wind up centered between the rods - also bad).
Has anyone had this experience?
I'm really curious about the Langdon motor, because if the math is right (description is correct) it may be assumed that:
1. it's safe to go down the entire 1/4"
2. the Dodge rod has enough beam to handle a big piston if treated with some respect
3. the smaller rod bearing has enough load capacity for 200+ hp
4. the very short CD needed to run this long rod is more or less safe: if the 302 deck is 11.0625" (a guess, probably not smaller than this), the piston CD is 1.000" at zero deck (gasket thickness only for quench + safety).
The piston may have been run with the dome height cut down, but I don't know of any big bore piston with even 1.25" CD.
This suggests that the math is not correct and the stroke is less than 4.25", or that's not the rod used, etc.
If the stroke change was only 1/8" (journal goes from 2.31" down to 2.125", but the full offset wasn't used), the rod might have been the Chrysler L6 265, which is only 7.75" long. That gives a CD of 1.25", still not easy, but easy-er.
