I did not read all of the posts from what you posted Damon, but I did see some snippits that were incorrect. The fact is, that the longer the rod, the longer it stays parked in the TDC and BDC positions. I could NOT find anything that was not true in what I know in Vernons statement, but there are some other things I would like to address. First, the longer rod, will increase bearing life right? Well, in a high RPM engine, Yes. The piston speed and speed of the rings is what wears on a 347. Ask Brian Denton if you dont believe me. His first season before the orange car had the graffix on it went through the engine in one season. Mike (York) and I were talking about it after Brian left the shop. You see, the piston speed on the street car will not overcome the rings there, but it does need to have time to not spin the hell out of it if it is a race engine. Next, there IS a MINIMUM rod ratio for engines. It is supposed to be 1.57 (I think) to 1.6. That is supposed to be the optimim for factroy stuff. In the past I had always heard you could get more HP out of 289 rods in the 5.0 eingine making it a long rod combo. Never did it nor did I ever meet anyone who knew of it or had done it. Lastly, REV slower? Where did that come from? If the weight is down on the combo, there is the same weight on the counter balance. The piston speed its self is slower, BUT THE CRANK IS MOVING THE SAME SPEED. The rod ratio that is short, simply *whips* (for a lack of a better term) the piston/rod. The longer ratio actually has the piston stopped longer since it stops at more of an angle on the crank. If you think you can tell a differenc in the way it revs, check out the SC shootout and watch Dan Sly click off some mid 12 passes.
And 68coug, the larger the displacement the shorter the rod in effect having a short ratio combo.
If anyone wants to add to this or pick it apart, please do. This is not an attempt to belittle anyone either, it is a discussion. Just need to get that said and out of the way first.
Chris