Large bore - short stroke engine configuration

[BruceA]

Im looking at a new engine for one of my cars. The car is set up for an SBC engine (I know Im treading carefully in Ford country here!)

Id like to do a 4.125 bore with a 3.25 stroke and 6" rod combination (this will give me around 352ci). The car is light in weight with a manual gearbox. Im looking for something with revs more than stump pulling low down power. Should I just go with a 4.0 bore and 3.5 stroke (standard 350ci) or the option I had at the start of this?? Im looking for around 4-450 hp.

What do the reader think??

 

[Woody]

Hi Bruce,Greetings to the winterless north.
450hp with the combo you listed above is as easy as falling off a log
Over square engines, large bore and short stroke, always feel better with good throttle responce. Ask some old hot rodders they always have good stories about a screamin 327 Chev or a famous 289 Ford.:thumbsup:
Either way if you want to make it reliable paint it BLUE:laugh:

 

[Jac Mac]

Go with the big bore shorter stroke combo, the shorter stroke is easier on oiling, & reciprocating parts & the big bore helps flow past the valves due to unshrouding etc. Dont skimp on the valve train, its going to spend more time at the upper rev range.

Edit: you can run a longer than 6" rod in that combo- 6.250 rod & 1.125 piston are relatively common parts.

 

[Terry Oxandale]

I was the biggest fan of the 289's high-reving potential (RPMs ruled!), even with the OEM crank and rods...UNTIL I built a proper but economical stroker (the shortest stroker on the market with the longest rods - 383 cid) 351W. I had to cut back the red-line from 8k to 7k, but Lord, it pulled soooo hard. I'll probably never build another 289 after that experience.