Not saying it was right, but I ran the 1.120 for 10 years, my brother's on 11 years.

I don't believe that is correct. The dwell will be the same at either end (TDC or BDC). It is a circular/trigonometric function with angular rates.

I don't think anyone asked but what is the combo your thinking or referring to?

I will address it this way. The longevity using a 1.120 pin height and 6.535 rod would be from minimizing piston rocking / skirt wear during max rod angle deflection as opposed to a shorter rod and taller pin height. Ring seal benefits do come into play though. Would I jam the longest rod in the bore to maximize dwell? No, but there might be an optimum I'd target.

For a drag car reversion isn't an issue, and tears downs are likely to occur more often (depending on builder motivation and finances), so the combination chosen is likely the one that yields max HP / results.

I'm not sure there is an absolute correct answer, but I prefer minimizing rod angles so that the rod spends more time going up and down the bore rather that pushing sideways at the extremes.

even the so call experts couldn't agree,,

i think most builders of marine engines use proven combination,s that last the longest rather than reinventing the wheel and spending stupid money for little or no gain,jmo.if you want to build a 800 inch engine that changes everything as you do whatever it takes to fit it in the block and keep the rings from coming out the bottom of the bore.

Darin Morgans take on the topic

"Most people tend to overgeneralize this issue. It would be more accurate to compare different rod-to-stroke ratios, and from a mathematical stand-point, a couple thousandths of an inch of rod length doesn't really change things a lot in an engine. We've conducted tests for GM on NASCAR engines where we varied rod ratio from 1.48- to 1.85:1. In the test, mean piston speeds were in the 4,500-4,800 feet-per-second range, and we took painstaking measures to minimize variables. The result was zero diff-erence in average power and a zero difference in the shape of the horse-power curves. However, I'm not going to say there's absolutely nothing to rod ratio, and there are some pitfalls of going above and below a certain point. At anything below a 1.55:1 ratio, rod angularity is such that it will increase the side loading of the piston, increase piston rock, and increase skirt load. So while you can cave in skirts on a high-end engine and shorten its life, it won't change the actual power it makes. Above 1.80- or 1.85:1, you can run into an induction lag situation where there's so little piston movement at TDC that you have to advance the cam or decrease the cross-sectional area of your induction package to increase velocity. Where people get into trouble is when they get a magical rod ratio in their head and screw up the entire engine design trying to achieve it. The rod ratio is pretty simple. Take whatever stroke you have, then put the wrist pin as high as you can on the piston without getting into the oil ring. What-ever connects the two is your rod length

Super Chevy or hot rod did a 377" comparison. Power was identical.