What about valve size to piston surface area? given the same bore, but a shorter stroke; it seems logical that you would get better cylinder filling with a shorter stroked engine vs. one with the same bore and a longer stroke.

The concept goes a long way to explaine what an engine like the 289/302 is so very close to the same horsepower of much larger engines. Obviously the longer stoke engine will reach its horsepower and torque peak earlier. Butthat isn't the point. Strictly speaking of horsepower, a smaller engine, built right, should have a higher horsepower potential (cubic inch to cubic in) given the same valve sizes/restrictions.

Better breathing equals better volumetric efficency. This is a case were...given limits on head design, valve sizes. number of valves...smaller might not only be more efficent...it could actually be better.

Any one remeber the 350 Olds engines of the 60's and 70's? They were street terrors, more so than the larger 400-455.
[addsig]