engine id

[61bone]

[^]here we go again. I got someone (my wife) to hold the dial indicator so it wouldn't move and here's what I got. The stroke measures out to 3.250. If this engine is actually a 54 that would indicate a 232, right? So, are there any indicators of the manufacturing date cast in the engine block like in the valley or under the bell housing? There aren't any I could find on the outside.
Maybe I ought to replace the fake blower with a real one[]. The 7.50 comp ratio of the 232 is just about perfect for that. With 10 lbs of boost that would make the equivalent of about 450ci. Now, how good is the bottom end of this motor. Would it be up to 350 hp @ 5000? The 2" rods and 2.5" mains seem a little on the light side, but I don't have the width of them and that would have some bearing on it. [:I]
Sorry I ask so many questions, I usually do my own research on these things but there is so little info to research I just have to ask someone who has actual experience with what I am doing.
Thanks again guys.

where there's foo there's fire

[Roscomacaw]

That lower end's EASILY capable of the HP you mentioned! This is proven on a regular basis with a number of ass-kick Stude racers!
Did you happen to notice if the piston tops were dished? If not, this would at least rule out a standard 289 version.
The 232's heads had little bitty ports and valves. To a knowing eye, they're readily identifiable. How about the casting # that's right above the center exhaust port?[:I]

Miscreant at large.

[61bone]

the head casting no. is 52772

where there's foo there's fire

[Roscomacaw]

Actualy, you're short a digit with that number but it's close enough to assume those heads are for a 232. Read that: highly restricted breathing capabilities. Even Stude realized that with the introduction of the next generation V8 engines in '55. The 224 and 259 that debuted that year, got redesigned heads with vastly improved breathing to them. '55 also saw smaller lifters incorporated to cut the weight of the valve train down.
All this noted, the 232 is not a slug for it's day. It was well-respected when it debuted. And save for a problem with the cams in the earliest editions, it served well for the four years Stude used it.[^]

Miscreant at large.