340 Vs 360

frosty_the_punk said
The point of that bench racing comparison with multiple strokes was to demonstrate that RPM *isn't* king.

I don't think it is king but at least just as important as torque hp wise as torque, most seem to think or act like it's some kind of byproduct of little importance, since just about everyone is on the torque is king bandwagon. Instead of hp is a ratio of torque and rpm and different cids are gonna be a different ratio. Obviously efficiency comes into play and vary those ratios.

frosty_the_punk said
Incrementally reducing stroke will require you to run more RPM to achieve the same horsepower but it sure as **** won't make *more* horsepower.

Depends on the top end it's probably gonna favor one of them, not necessarily the largest one.

frosty_the_punk said
As a general rule, whenever you are working on an engine platform with multiple different displacement offerings available, and top end and valvetrain components are interchangeable between.

The best practice for making horsepower is to start with the biggest displacement you can. And build from there according to the required application.

For most builds I'd agree, but really it's goal dependent and if most followed that we all would have at least a 440 in our car, if 20 cid is s big deal between 340/360 than 32-80 plus got to be a bigger deal over 360/408.

frosty_the_punk said
There may be the occasional exception to the rule, but it's extremely rare to increase potential horsepower by reducing displacement.

I would say cause generally larger engines have larger bores.