Interesting question
Power to weight ratio, baby!!!hell, years ago when i had a very stock 360 choked down with 273 manifolds in my 64 valiant it would out run a certian 70 hemi charger. he was running mid 14's and i was running low 14's...
Back before Allen Johnson stopped racing prostock, he tested both heads on his genIII race Hemi. He found about 1.5 hp difference favoring the IEIEIEIE head so the argument for hot spot of 2 exhaust valves together is debatable, but unlike a hemi, the small block is small and if you went to a canted valve head, it may make a difference in ports missing head bolt and pushrod holes. Its a debatable topic and who knows why nascar does the things they do. For instance car of tomorrow. I don’t follow nascar, no dodges, I’m out. No stock bodies, I’m out.
Definitely red x time
And that brings us to our present point. There are some things about the third gens I've gotten my hands into that I liked. I see enough potential in that platform for the aftermarket to develop a set of DOHC heads and front gear drive arrangement for it.
Design the intake like the big blocks so you don't have to drain the coolant when you change intakes.
How so on the rod to stroke ratio. You take up the difference of say 0.5" in the piston compression height. Stroke and rods stay the same.
I believe that a 9.200" deck height was mentioned, the only way that the 360 could be is to have a shorter connecting rod, otherwise the compression height would be really short. Also the 360 couldn't be stroked to a 408 as the compression height would be less than 1.300". Either way I totally disagree with a shorter deck height especially by .400.
With a 360 crank and rod you'd have a piston pin height of 1.287", it's not meant for stroker V8's I meant to give shorter strokes a shorter pistons. Why ford has 2 deck heights 289/302 vs 351. Same as our B vs RB and even /6.
Not true at all. 9.2-6.125-2=1.075. Plenty of room for a metric ring pack in a stroker with a less expensive 6-1/8 Chevy rod and a lighter .927 piston pin. Look at some of your SBC race and even production LS “hockey puck” slipper skirt pistons that don’t even have an inch of compression height. Just because these engines came from the past doesn’t mean we have to keep superseded technology in them to try to go fast… however, I’d also like to state that the simplest reality of why we do have a lot of things we’d like to see changed in the LA design is because the retrofit and modification to the LA design was done with the least amount of tooling changes necessary to keep the short term profitability in check. I’m sure that the engineers (William Weertman especially!) who worked on the project never imagined the design would be around long enough for it to be developed into the later update of the V6 and magnum variants. If engineering had known beforehand how long the LA was going to be produced for, it’s probable that engineering would have implemented some of these improvements in the original redux of the A platform. A shorter deck height would have paid for a lot of tooling changes over time with the reduction in iron use.
Oil pans are deeper in the trucks and vans, by one qt. They just don't fit in the cars that are stock.
I understand what you're saying
