3.58 stroke x 340 main (rods/pistons?)

Saw this. SCAT Engine Components 9-340-3580-6123 Scat Cast Crankshafts | Summit Racing
Thinking about a rebuild to up compression in a '73 340. Hmm.

Objective: Hot Street driver/cruiser Iron stroker that leans toward an all shelf parts list (ie. ductile iron rockers like 273's, 6.123 rod, shelf piston). Daily driver! Old school vibes, ala vintage anodized blue Direct Connection valve covers, vintage DC air cleaner, LD340. Think F.A.S.T. for a Day 2 build. No high lift, tall valve cover, tunnel ram, .... This hypothetical build would be sneaky fast car played off as "just" a relatively, unassuming, stock appearing 340 4-speed. Also, this hypothetical "fun" having wouldn't be from racing other cars. The fun for this car would be personal enjoyment driving. This is for corner ripping, down shifting, fast acceleration, and twisty roads.

Scope of conversation: Identify parts compatibility using stock or, at least, OE spec parts using a 3.58 stroke in a 340. Discuss characteristics, benefits, disadvantages of the stokers that allow for shelf pistons and rods. Not trying to get into building particular combo but the parameters of this hypothetical build is an iron head that is ported to achieve the air flow that the extra stroke wants. Intake would be worked as well. Regardless of cam, other than to say this is a hypothetical street car built for everyday driving.

Off Limits:
"Just get a 360". Re: 340 in hand. Numbers to the car.
4" + stroke. Re: Not against them just gaming out the 3.58 340 crank that is currently offered by several vendors. Another reason MAY be because if you go 4" then that pushes the whole program to outgrow the restrictions/limit of an iron head.

Some of my starter questions:
When using a 3.58 stroke crank in a 340 do you use a oversize 360 piston and a 6.123 rod? I'm thinking this is a stupid question. Or, at least a simple answer. Compression height would be what a stock 360 compression height is? Would the air flow needs this stroker be the same as an over-bored 360?

Alternatively, I see 3.51" strokes on 340 mains too. I have read that you can use a 6.123 rod and a factory low compression piston to achieve +.100 above deck and can machine to suit. Wouldn't a stock piston be a really heavy choice? The hypothetical engine is a 73 340 and could theoretically just change the crank?

This is what my machinist buddy did on a set of X-heads. Could have kept going but for that particular engine that's what funding, time, and needs allowed for. I'd look for similar or better on a set of J's, Z's, or O's too.

Lift----------Intake-----------Exhaust

.100 _______80________ 63.81
.200 ______134.4_______115.15
.300 ______187.7 ______161.42
.400 _______224 _______179.3
.500 ______236.8 _______190.7
.600 ______256.7 _______193.7


@AJ/FormS This pair with the Commando A833 discussion. You were calling for the engine to be rebuilt. This is a thought into how I should approach that build.

3.58 340 crank = $364 ;Cheaper than an internal balance 3.31 replacement crank
Eagle SIR 6.123 rod = $385
Pistons: Open chamber and 92 octane. Streetable compression.