[DavidBoren]

The inline six should never be scratched off the list, in my opinion. Between the 2jz and the 6bt, I think that platform has earned its place and proven its worth. I would love to see more inline six swaps, as even the all aluminum Atlas motor can handle boost and respond well.

Just something interesting I found on a big-bang-theory-esque forum discussing undersquare versus oversquare engines from a physics/math/nerd perspective;

Oversquare engines will last longer because the piston travels a shorter distance, therefore it creates less friction. The larger piston also transfers heat to the cooling system better than a smaller piston does. So an oversquare engine creates less heat through friction and transfers the heat to the cooling system better.

Apparently the heat created by friction in the piston rings increases exponentially with stroke length. So if displacement remains equal, the engine with oversquare architecture will waste less energy, every time.

It's kind of funny, or sad, that reading all the advantages of going with oversquare bore-stroke ratio does little to sway my decision to build an undersquare engine. But, I am sure I will find an excuse to build another one, and I will go the other way with it just for the sake of comparison.

Speaking of comparison, here are the two extremes of what is available using stock LS bores and strokes.

Undersquare:
359ci (3.78" bore X 4" stroke)

And

Oversquare:
353ci (4.125" bore X 3.3" stroke)

I think the difference of six cubic inches in total displacement is negligible, so it would be really cool to build and drive both to see if oversquare versus undersquare makes a difference you can feel.

PS. A "square" bore/stroke motor with a displacement of 356ci (the average displacement of the two engines listed above) would have a bore and stroke of 3.842", just to give you an idea of how over or under "square" each of those engines are.