The quick short answer: the engine should rev up faster but there are other considerations as mentioned in the other responses. Loss of
    torque from the engine can be compensated for by the transmission, differential and tires. And of course where the rubber meets the 
    road is the real key. 
  

  From  My experience  the  only time  you would want to use a short  stroke  large  bore is  in a class were the engine  size is limited and  your  going  for a High  Horsepower per Cubic inch.   Like what was done in the early Trans am Racing small engine big bore  short stroke  and  rev the  heck out of  it!

Big numbers were seen at high RPM but they were hard on  parts!

Keep  the valve train in mind.  Getting enough spring on a flat tappet to run continuously at 7500rpm is another story much less 8000.  Lobe dynamics, valve and retainer weight etc. are gonna matter.   8000 is no problem with TI valves, but pricey.
    The block is too tall to consider destroking one.  Rod choices and piston compression height just get to weird.  A stock 292 has a 3.3" stroke and a 6.324" long rod, thats about where current nascars are today. Only problem is 1.785" compression height for the 292 will have weight and equilibrium problems vs 1.1" or less  compression ht. for a current nascar.  Lengthening the rods will hurt the low end and mid range in a small displacement motor.
  Build a relatively conventional bottom end  2.1" or 2.0" pin  3.3" to 3.44" stroke .  Keep the rev band between 7000-7300. Save money to get the top weight off the motor to lower your CG,  heads, intake, carburetor, timing cover should be aluminum, kill'em  with corner speed just as effective as straight aways.
 Make sure you have close ratio, gear box,,  rpm climb in the down shifts will eat a valve train alive
 Rotating mass in the driveline is big, accelerates quicker, slows down quicker, 9" is not necessarily the hot ticket.

http://ford-y-block.com 

20 miles east of San Diego, 20 miles north of Mexico

If you don’t mind my asking, what sort of road course racing are you looking at? Vintage, track days, running the canyons for fun? What kind of chassis is it going in?

Here’s a link to Spencer’s bird. It doesn’t include running the original at Bonneville.

https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2013/08/09/a-bird-in-the-hand-both-doane-spencer-thunderbirds-head-to-auction/

miker
55 bird, 32 cabrio F code
Kent, WA
Tucson, AZ

Dill.  The thinking for building an appropriate y-block engine for road racing seems to have been very well explored, laid-out, and discussed by knowledgeable Forum members on this thread.

Coupled with this are your earlier statements in this thread:
1)  'I want to use as many decade correct parts as possible but would like it to be able to withstand the abuse.'
2)  'I want to strictly race this car on a road course style application.'

Therefore the question:
Besides the engine, what else is needed to create a successfully competitive road course vehicle?

I'm sure there are numerous considerations having to do with the chassis, such as suspension, steering, and braking.
Yes, but coming back to optimizing the output of the engine, the key would seem to be staying in the upper area of the engine's torque curve.  The transmission provides THE means to do that.
I can't think of a period correct Ford 3 speed or 3 speed w/ overdrive transmission that you should consider for a road race course.

Sooo . . .  Consider bending your thinking a bit and compromising by selecting a modern 6 speed transmission for the engine and chassis that you are going to use that will connect with your y-block.
I'm not one to advise you on what ratios would be optimum for the engine build you're considering, the vehicle weight you will be working with, or the tire size you might select, but I'm suggesting that to take advantage of wherever the upper torque curve is for the engine you build, you want the transmission to allow you to stay in that engine speed area while you traverse the road course.  A six speed transmission may be exactly what is called for to make your vehicle perform competitively.  Some six speed trannys have double overdrive gears in them!

Click the link below for sample offering from Modern Driveline in the TREMEC line . . .
http://transmission.moderndriveline.com/speed/pc/viewcategories.asp?SFID=7%7C%7C1&SFNAME=Application%7C%7CPattern&SFVID=42%7C%7C2&SFVALUE=Ford%7C%7C6+speed&SFCount=1&page=0&pageStyle=p&idcategory=3&VS1=0

IF you don't need that much gear ratio flexibility, you could look at a 5 speed transmission.  Click the link below for sample offering from Modern Driveline again in the TREMEC line . . .
http://transmission.moderndriveline.com/speed/pc/viewcategories.asp?SFID=7%7C%7C1&SFNAME=Application%7C%7CPattern&SFVID=42%7C%7C1&SFVALUE=Ford%7C%7C5+speed&SFCount=1&page=0&pageStyle=p&idcategory=3&VS1=0

Final drive ratios will likely end up being what drives your selection of a particular 5 or 6 speed box. Hope this helps you with your project!  


NoShortcuts
a.k.a. Charlie Brown
near Syracuse, New York

Like Ted mentioned, the offset ground crankshafts have had zero trouble when using the 2.000" journal.  Also, I would stay with the best torque plate honed small bore possible.  I prefer to keep the intake valves as small as possible to get the flow needed to save on weight, and unshrouded.  Just last year I ported a set of big and little -G heads with 1.925/1.510" valves for a forum member, and was able to get 226/235 cfm on the intakes, and 167/170 cfm on the exhaust.  I just completed a set of 113 heads for myself with 2.000/1.550" valves that flow 256/260, and 170/170 cfm.  These heads will go on a smaller bore, hopefully in the 3.830" range.  Camshaft selection depends on a lot of variables, like car weight, gear ratios, transmission type, road speed, tire sizes.  Ted, or John, or one of the vendors may be able to help with camshaft selection when you know all these factors.  Joe-JDC


JDC

I’m with Joe on concentrating on torque production rather than peak horsepower numbers.  Unless you are restrained by a given set of rules on the cubic inch limitations, then bigger is typically always better.  If hitting the typical limit of 1.5 HP/cubic inches for a normal high performance build, then making the engine larger simply results in larger power numbers.  I do deal with engines that are limited by the rules on the cubic inches and in those cases, the engines are made to be within a couple of cubic inches of the maximum allowed to permit making as much power as possible and still be ‘legal’.
 
I do a large number of offset ground crankshafts for different engines and a good balance job goes a long way in insuring the durability of those crankshafts.  Crankshafts can be offset ground for less or more stroke depending upon what’s required.  The problem with offset grinding for more stroke is that the amount of offset between the main and rod journals is decreased (less actual cross-section of material) and that potentially weakens the crankshaft at the various filets with crankshaft flex being the root of the problem.  On my end, I’ll offset grind an oem cast 312 crankshaft with a 2” rod journal while also turning the mains down to a 292 journal size.  Zero issues to date doing this but FoMoCo didn’t do it for a reason and that reason centers around the amount of offset between the rod and main journals.
 
There were some basic engineering rules back in the day and maintaining a given amount of offset in the journals was a standard practice.  When the 312 Y-Block was introduced, the crankshaft received an automatic increase in the main journal size to maintain that journal ‘offset’ value.  GM broke that rule in 1967 with the introduction of the 350 and paid dearly with that with a number of broken crankshafts that year.  Comes 1968, the GM 350 engine has the larger main journals and the crankshaft breakage problem is resolved.  GM introduces the 400 SBC in 1970 and with lessons learned from the 1967 experience, the main journal is once again increased to keep the journal offsets at that minimum required value.  With the advent of better materials, journal offset amounts have since allowed to be decreased thus allowing for additional stroke without increasing the rod and/or main journal size in which to compensate.  Racers being the innovators that they are, did take the 400 crankshafts, turn the mains down to the 350 journal sizes, and shoved them in the 350 blocks for a cheap 383” stroker back in the day.  Those crankshafts are now readily available as an aftermarket piece with zero durability issues using more modern materials.
 
For Y's in general, I try to limit bore sizes to 3.860” and only go that far after sonic testing the cylinder walls.  Core shift in the block castings is an issue with most engines.  Be cautious in going the larger intake valve route as air flow can actually diminish with the larger sized valves due to shrouding at the edge of the cylinder walls.

Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)

Joe-JDC that is exactly what I wanted to know, Thanks a lot! Would you still consider an offset ground cast crank to hold up against road race/extended rpm type abuse? Or should I look for steel? Also, should I still attempt the bigger bore (3.875”) to unshroud the bigger 2.02” 113’s valve? Or.... keep the 3.81” bore I have and use an original set of ECZ-G’s ported (unposted)with 1.927” I and 1.6” E..?if you don’t mind, what would a typical cam spec look like for a stock car engine of that time?

DiLL

Joe knows just what he's talking about, if you will look at the racing forum you will see my current dragster build (iron heads), I looked at the short stroke and large bore but I was not interested in turning a Y Block Ford into a sbc chv, I see no advantage to the large bore and short stroke other than to be able to fit a larger set of valves.

I am going to go against the grain here and say that for road racing, I would build as much torque as possible, and keep the velocity through the heads as fast as possible everywhere on the road course, and keep the rpms down in a manageable band where you can use the torque to your advantage.  Then gear the rear differential to make use of the added torque.  In my younger life, I worked with a shop that did stock car racing, and we found that coming off turns and corners with torque was a lot quicker than trying to play catch up in the straits with higher rpms.  I would much rather have a Y block that would make 30 more lbft torque in the middle of the rpm range with a road race engine than having a few more horsepower in the last 500 rpms of the tachometer.  JMO, but to move out of curves quickly, you need torque.  I would use the longest stroke possible, with the longest rod possible, and the shortest piston pin height to get the cubic inches needed for the class you plan on racing.  This is strictly for a road race build where you have hills, curves, and cubic inch limit.   Joe-JDC

JDC