This question is not specifically aimed at Honda engines, but given that this is one of the few sites populated with people with a clue, I decided it is best to ask here.

I have heard a lot about crank steered -- the crank/big end of a rod does not have much lateral movement while the pistol does -- and piston steered -- the pistol/small end of the rod is rather tight while the crank/big end has some lateral play -- but I do not know the advantages of each. What do you sacrifice by choosing one vs the other? When would one be better than the other and why? Is one preferable in a, say, high revving engine like a Honda compared to a low revving one with massive piston diameters?

 

If you had loose side to side clearance at the crank to connecting rod how would you build any oil pressure?

I think the only thing I have found that used the piston for management of thrust loads in the connecting rod were shitty high rpm oil less air compressors with single sided cranks.

You have any examples of internal combustion engines that use the piston for thrust management? I can't think of any. Even pressed together roller bearing cranks in dirtbikes have thrust bushings on the big end of the rod.

Why put the additional load on the smaller wrist pin and relatively fragile piston? You are also adding load to an area that does not have pressurized oil being force fed to it.

 

The only thing I found in short notice is an article comparing the rods of an older version of an engine to the new one here https://ozvolvo.org/discussion/919/b...oto-comparison. In the pictures, the old one, pistol steered, is on the left. The right one is crank steered. Short of the left piston being much longer than the right one and having circlips on the piston pin, I do not know much.