Joe, I agree with you; however, finding +.060 pistons in my ECZ-A 292 block, I took it for granted that the crank would have to be ground as well, and the EBU rods would need to be reconditioned (resized/w ARP rod bolts). For those reasons, I decided to spring for Mummert's stroker rods and have the rod journals offset ground to increase the stroke. Watching John's video, "Building a Better 312" no doubt had something to do with it. Had I acquired a free, standard-bore, standard/standard B9AE block & EC crank before buying stroker rods, I might be going in a different direction. 

Gas mileage? How many of us are using our Y-block-powered cars as their daily drivers? Considering the number of miles on Ted's Customline, he might be one of the few exceptions. 

Ford pretty much solved the cracking webs problem by reducing the torque from 130 ft.lbs to 90.

John - "The Hoosier Hurricane"

John.  Thanks for reminding us that you are using bored main journal 292 blocks for your engines.  That’s just one more way to use the 312 crankshaft in a 292 block.  And while the blocks may be potentially weaker in the main web area as a result of boring the main journal holes larger, the crankshafts are indeed stronger with the larger mains.

It must be remembered that Ford went to reinforced mains in the blocks starting with the C1AE blocks and continued that practice with the C2AE blocks.  Having never seen a C1AE block used for 312 production, I’m going to say that the 312’s used the B9AE block up until the C2AE blocks came out.  Probably in an effort to streamline both costs and production, 312 production switched to the C2AE castings and discontinued the practice of having its own block. The earliest C2AE block used for a 312 that I have come across was dated May 1962.  To date, I have not seen any cracking issues with the main webbing in any C2AE blocks used for 312 production.

Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)

At what point does reduced journal overlap become a concern when stroking Y-block crankshafts by offset grinding the rod journals? It seems to be a common practice.

 In addition to whatever horsepower gains that can be had, one must consider the increase in torque as well. 

You can turn a stock crankshaft rod journal down to the Honda 1.880" size and keep the stock or near stock stroke.  I have a 3.310" stroke Honda journal in my 303Y and use a Crower 6.400" connecting rod.  So far it has made 463hp on the dyno at 7100 rpm.  We have tested 4 different sets of heads and 2 camshafts and several different intake manifolds and carbs.  The latest version is set up for the street and makes 437hp @ 6400 rpm.  To try to stroke the crankshaft at the Honda journal size, you would uncover the oil passage and weaken the crankshaft too much to be reliable IMO.  Going to the SBC 2.000" journal and stroking either the 292 or 312 crankshaft is an easy way to gain stroke and make torque.  A perfect 312 crankshaft can be stroked to 3.600" or more in the hands of a savvy crankshaft grinder.  Going to an undersize SBC bearing will allow even more stroke.   Joe-JDC      

JDC