Running a short rod motor creates alot a lot of cylinder wall stress on one side, = not good.
I was just going off of memory when a mag compared a 383 SBC engine & running the 400 5.560" rod to a 6" rod 383 engine, IIRC, the short rod engine made a bit more torque down low in the RPM range, I could be incorrect, just going from memory.
Cant believe all magizine articles, but my friend that builds mostly SBC' for a living, had dynoed tested long & short roded 383's & 400's with the same type of results.
Now he mostly builds LS engines.
The one reason the 292 has such a long rod in to is so the rod to stroke ratio wont be that bad.
The 292 engine needs to run a long rod to clear the counterweights of the crankshaft , no?
The stroke of the crank is what is giving it more torque,(longer arm = more torque) not because of a long rod.
I have heard a lot of people think that the 302 SBC have the best rod to stroke ratio.
MBHD
