School me, 3.79 strokers
Lots of interesting information, I am kind of wondering why the 3.79 has faded out of popularity verses the 4.00? I would not think it is because of options offered to other manufactures. An example would be the Chevy 383 (3.75 stroke) remains very popular, even though he 4.00 seems to the more prevalent with the Ford crowd. If the 3.79 worked well, why the shift to 4.00?
Well, post 17 gives a very good discussion of why no one should be using a 4 inch stroke in anything. Unless you have enough cylinder head to feed it. And they don't. There isn't a head capable of actually doing the job that has OE architecture. Period. Doesn't matter whose name is on it, what the claimed flow numbers are.
I've built my share of 400 inch small blocks in all three varieties. Built many Chevys that were over 420 inches. They are all severely RPM limited or the cam to make them pull and make power is horrendous. You can easily see this on a dyno. Since most guys don't dyno, they think just because the valves ain't floating they are still making power.
When you are induction limited, longer strokes and the lower Rod to stroke ratio is a killer.
If, and it's a big if, you can get enough induction on them, then it's ok. As I've posted several times lately, the 632 Chevy with the right induction will make power well past 8000. 20 years ago, that would have been unheard of.
IMO, if you are using a production head, the stroke limit should be the 360 stroke. And you should try and get as long a rod in it as you can.
Over that stroke length, you need at a minimum a W2 head. And it needs some work. Or a W5.
