Why didn't the factory use "stroker" specs ?

[Racer57]

Never really thought about it before. But if strokers are so great, why didn't the various factories do it ? Less durability ? If that's the case, then why do it ? I do not mean to come across like an azzhat, I'm just curious because I've never heard anyone say anything about it.

 

[Chryco Psycho]

Essentially Ford & GM did , if you look at the engine block diamentions the others used very short & light blocks .
For example a small block Chev can use a 6" aftermarket "long" connecting rod while the LA Mopar uses a 6.125 Con rod standard .
The Mopar blocks are far taller , also Longer rods also slow the piston at TDC & BDC this allows more time for complete combustion , this equals better fuel efficiency .
By using a shorter piston & retaining the longer rods you can easily increase the stroke while maintaining better rod ratio over the other brands & reduce rotating mass . Longer rod ratios also lower the side loading of the piston at high rod angles reducing wear .
So basically the engineering is better in the Mopars & even stroked reasonable they have better results from other brands .

 

[Mr Cuda]

Strokers. Personally, I am not a fan. The factories made 3, the ford 400, which is a horrible engine and the chev 400 had 4"x4" bore and stroke.
They came out as a crutch to make torque and move weight in the low compression era.
The most famous stroker is the 225 slant six. Its also the most oversquare at 3 1/8 bore and 4 1/8 crank.
The slant is the best stroker because the factory gave it enough block height to get a proper piston skirt, rod length to go with the stroke.
There is a tradeoff, (negative) to put more crank in a block with making the piston skirt shorter.
But hey, strokers are a cheap way to put more cubes under the hood. More torque moves weight.