Bore vs. Stroke

Anybody read this article in the new HR mag? http://hotrod.com/toc/thismonth/
I just picked it up. Their testing would seem to support Techinspector's references to Isky (was it?) and shoot down years of hype about short stroke / high horsepower and long stroke / torque monster as well as rod length ratios. What happened Smokey? Am I'm interpeting this info correct Tech? Someone on another forum posted scans of the article.
http://home.gci.net/~jimlab/images/...une2005_098.jpg
http://home.gci.net/~jimlab/images/...une2005_099.jpg
http://home.gci.net/~jimlab/images/...une2005_100.jpg
http://home.gci.net/~jimlab/images/...une2005_102.jpg
http://home.gci.net/~jimlab/images/...une2005_104.jpg
http://home.gci.net/~jimlab/images/...une2005_106.jpg

So by having a 4.590 bore and a 5.30 stroke I should have enough?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DennyW
:) Unless you want more, :LOL:
Did you get to read the article ?

---

I'm sorry to say I did not read the article. I'm bad.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pro60chevy
I'm sorry to say I did not read the article. I'm bad.

---

The shortened version...........
==================
No replacement for displacement
==================

:LOL: :LOL: :LOL:

The second version is, The only substitute for cubic inches is MORE cubic inches. :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JerseyRodder
and shoot down years of hype about short stroke / high horsepower and long stroke / torque monster as well as rod length ratios.

---

Well, I disagree...

...in the end, it seemed to say that their testing DIDN'T really prove much of anything as they didn't control as many variables as they should have, leading to possibly MORE questions to investigate in the future.

What I think it should be refined to, and the article/test really didn't conclude though is that a big bore/short stroke will make it's peak torque values higher on average vs a small bore/long stroke which will make it's peak torque values at a lower rpm (and imo, be more street friendly)

As far as rod/stroke ratio, they failed to answer the question miserably though, and admit to as much several times. I thought it was a little disinginious how when they talked to the NASCAR engine builder, they imply that the difference in rod/stroke ratio was ~ 3hp...even though he never said such a thing. He only said and will spend considerable time and effort searching for 3hp, and that the rod.stroke relationship was "significant"...and he didn't neccessarily say this in the same sentence so, imo, it's taken completely out of context and words are used as HR would want them used, to suit their purpose. I was a little dissapointed in them for that....

...but I love seeing articles like that. I hope they go back and correct many of the variables they admitted to getting wrong and then some. Maybe do a max effort of each motor as well to show the true pluses and negatives of each, and expound on the various characteristics from idle, ease of tune, vacuum, etc to give the whole picture of what's happening...

Me thinketh thee asketh too much :)

I read those articles, and I was so bored I almost had a stroke.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Henry Rifle
I read those articles, and I was so bored I almost had a stroke.

---

:LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:

Maybe he needs to hone his reading skills a bit. And it wouldn't be advisable to be stoned whilst doing this either.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by techinspector1
Me thinketh thee asketh too much :)

---

Me thinketh thee are right, especially from the editors of Hot Rod who IMHO couldn't find thier a-- with both hands and a road map.