One of the most influential engine theory books I ever read was called "the design and tuning of competition engines" by Phillip H. Smith

http://www.bentleypublishers.com/product.htm?code=G140

One thing I read almost 30 yerars ago now has been proven to me time and time and time again....the longer the stroke the shorter distance the motor wants the carb from the intake valve....Part of the reason I always felt the Street Dominator worked so well on long arm strokers is the comparatively short straight "line of sight' shot at the valves compared to say the longer taller victor manifold.....now this may not be the reason that the 337 seems to work better in this application but it may be. Runner length for a given port cross-section produces wall friction at high velocities, long runners are very beneficial for torque production....anyone who's ever driven a 5.0 mustang (3" stroke) can attest to that....but once the stroke (and piston speed) is there any runner length beyond "optimum" becomes a resitence. Strokers by and large generate so much low end (based primarily on volume and especially PISTON SPEED) that they really don't need a lot of runner length.

Back in the 80's when the 500" Pro stocks first started covering up their manifolds a big part of that was the trend toward shorter runners and larger plenum areas and was a big departure fro mthe 70's technology tunnel rams. RPM's (again piston speeds) were going up and up and runners got even shorter.

Anyway, I thought I'd throw that in....plus it gives me another chance to ask Andy about the Dyno chart question...'cause we all know peak power don't really tell the story like the torque curves do....especially with wide spaced geared automatics!

PS. Mike Jones is local to me...coincidentally I've been thinking about getting with him on my next roller project