Builders: Square engine, Over Square, or Under Square for you?

Three small block stroker combos have always impressed me: 383 Chev, 4XX Chrys, 347 Ford. They seem to punch above their weight compared to standard engines of the same cu in. What they have in common is shorter rod/stroke ratios.
Here are some actual numbers.
Max tq is applied to the crank when the rod is at 90* to the crank throw. On a short rod engine, this occurs higher in the bore, where the expanding gas has more force. With a 3.00" stroke & 4.5" rod, the crank is 1.26" down the bore; with a 6" rod it is further down the bore at 1.32". The short rod has an effective CR of 6.97 v 6.74 for the long rod.

As for the ring friction difference between different r/s ratios, yes the short rod has greater acceleration at the start & finish of the stroke. But it tapers off in the middle part of the travel, whereas the long rod maintains the acceleration level for longer.

One of the most interesting engines built was the winner Jon Kaase built for an EMC contest. Based on a 400 Ford. 4" bore & 4" stroke. He chose a very short rod that yielded a very short 1.49 r/s ratio. Engine had a medium sized FT cam & made 663 hp. At 2500 rpm, it was making 478 ft/lbs of tq.

It seems Chrys recognised that for engines that go to higher rpms, & work in the high rpm range, a long rod is better; for the 426 hemi, they lengthened the rod when they already had the shorter wedge rod.