Victor A. Deming
Member
This is not a sex question!!!!!!...... Just curious if any of you 409 specialist have tried a 3.76" stroke with a 6. 535" rod? Or should I stay with the 4" stroke and 6.385" rod?
But if you can make the same power at a lower RPM then it would be recommended by all that you do so. RPM's costs money and costs more in wear and tear as well. To each their own but there is no replacement for displacement.If you're looking for quicker higher rpm,then go with the shorter stroke.Using the 6.385 rod will allow a lighter piston which helps.As to peak hp,not that much but it will require more rpm to get there.The same with torque,you're going to lose some and what you do have will peak higher.Generally the engines peaks will be moved up by 500 rpm per .250 inch reduction in stroke all else remaining the same.A gear change may be inorder.This is like the old big block 427 vs 454 debates.
Tell that to some of these 2000 hp turbo 376 cu motor guysBut if you can make the same power at a lower RPM then it would be recommended by all that you do so. RPM's costs money and costs more in wear and tear as well. To each their own but there is no replacement for displacement.
Again, the 380ci turbo guys are laughing at the 376ci guys. LOL!Tell that to some of these 2000 hp turbo 376 cu motor guys
I have ran the 3.76 stroke and 6.535 long rod combo since the mid 1990's. It seems to get down the track ok.This is not a sex question!!!!!!...... Just curious if any of you 409 specialist have tried a 3.76" stroke with a 6. 535" rod? Or should I stay with the 4" stroke and 6.385" rod?