340 Vs 360

1971 340 (underrated) at 275hp and 340 foot pounds or torque. 10:1 compression and yes a larger cylinder bore at 4.04 vs. the 360 at 4.00.

1971 360 made 255hp and 360 foot pounds of torque at a mere 2400 rpm. This is with less than 9:1 compression (like 8.7) and using a 2bbl. carb.

What happens when you add compression (say equal to the 340) to the 360?

I still say that if you take the same car down to similar specs including engine combination, rear gear and trans, my money would be on the 360. We aren't talking a smaller engine with forced induction here of any kind. Then any comparison becomes apples to oranges. An engine isn't a thing but a glorified air pump. The more air you can send through it, the more efficient it becomes.

A smaller engine with the right parts is more capable than a larger with mismatched parts of course but my scenario involves a similar build.

Torque is still king on the street and I can't be convinced that the stroke doesn't make a difference. Cubic inches or cubic dollars. There would be no market for stroker kits if it didn't make a difference.