[miller91]

Originally Posted by Ronnieroadster

Is this like what goes up must come down? All kidding aside.

Experience as to bored compared to stroke compared to square/over square can anyone really give their experience with all of that?
What you need to do is put together an engine masters type of competition if there were individuals interested in entering the results/discovery's could then be preserved. The rules would need to have a cubic inch limit then how you go about getting to the chosen size would be the entry's choice.

Just deciding the cubes limit would be an interesting challenge for whoever is chosen to be the competition committee. This could be a costly endeavor for anyone interested in competing. It could be interesting none the less.
Ronnieroadster

Originally Posted by frnkeore

It wouldn't be to hard to test a square vs a under square combo. You could even test a over square but, the cranks would expensive.

The combo's would be:
3.202 x 3.750 = 241.58
3.375 x 3.375 = 241.55
3.440 x 3.250 = 241.65

Or
3.19 x 4.00 = 255.75
3.44 x 3.438 = 255.63

I don't think there would be any difference in HP for the last two but, there might be some slight difference over the 3.75 stroke, in reduction of friction.

The friction reduction is why Ford came out with the short stroke OHV engines, in '52 & '54 and they advertised it, in their adds. They continued on with it in '60 & '62 with the Falcon 6 and Fairlaine V8.

The Mobil Economy Run was important in those days and I think that might have, had something to do with it.

Originally Posted by Charlie ny

The 2nd and 3rd motors in my '41 pickup were fairly close in spec.
#2....3 3/4" crank ,bored .06 and a set of slightly milled EAB heads..I had to down shift to second 1/2 way up my test hill
#3.....4" crank, bored.08 and set of EAB heads that I spent hours on matching the comb chambers to the actual piston crown ending up with .040 clearance (with head gasket installed) between the crown and the chamber. No down shifting required on my test hill. Interesting here ,this motor labored some 1/2 way up but as the grade
level slightly it began to accelerate and pull to the top.
Ron Halloran and John Lawrence will have invaluable insight here. Things like piston speed and rod angularity begin to influence the bottom line ,which escapes me.
Charlie ny

Originally Posted by Ol' Ron

The closes I came to having a "Square" engine was a 3 5/8 de-stroked crank and 3 3/8 pistons Sold them before I had a chance to run it. However, the only ay to compare it would be on a dyno run with a similar size engine. The short stroke "MIGHT" rev alittle higher, so the torque curve might shift a little.

Well, thanks everyone who responded with knowledge and wisdom.

I grew up up reading 40's and 50's (B&W and early color) HRMs that I bought at some expense for teenager at flea markets. Still have'em. Now I am careful with "hot rod" posts here...but as stocker flatheads will in future need at least boring, and frankly you can hide anything in a "stocker" my post hoped to initiate conversation and coax out opinions from the pros as to the possibilities towards preserving and enhancing drivability. And learn while having fun listening to positive folks.

Thanks Ronnieroadster, Frnkeore, Charlie ny (PM'd you about my Mallory) and Ol' Ron...who inspired my thought process on the de-stroked V8's.

Wonder what the madmen short-trackers did with the very oversquare little V8-60?

Cheers, S