Whoa man, I'm not trying to bash you. You clearly have an understanding of these engines beyond most but I think anyone considering this project should hear both sides of the debate. Oh and I've been living in the south-east for a little over a year now, learning the lingo as I can.
Please also understand that there is a LOT of misinformation out there about these engines. I'm not going to pretend I have all the answers, I could be wrong on almost everything I say. I'll readily admit it if the time comes but I have done a LOT of research into these engines and have something of a duty to present my findings. I've heard everything imaginable about these engines. The pistons are forged. The rods are forged. The rods are "at least" shot peened at the factory. The water pump cavitates. The pistons are hypereutectic. Which of these statements do you believe? They've all been presented by more than one person.
That aside, and I don't expect you to reply to this, but what you've shown is a different part number between SC and NA. This is a known and I've run into the press vs. floating pin issues before. I mentioned that previously in this post. What you didn't prove is any difference in manufacturing procedure, and beyond making them look the same. As for them being interchangable, I'll be happy to sell you the same piston for all S1 SC engines and I bet they'll bolt right in. Same for the NA. I won't, however, sell you a SC rod to go in a NA but that's not because I think they're beefier.
What I'm debating is that they're beefier and/or hypereutectic and/or forged. Some time ago I took an SC piston and rod combo and sent it to three different shops for their thoughts, along with my own. Every one of them said they're standard cast. Of course since hypereutectic is a form of casting, who knows maybe they are, but I highly doubt it as the hypereutectics in the SII were touted as an upgrade by GM. You can read about it on their media archive website yourself. Why brag about hypereutectics in the SII when they've had them in there all along? Marketing gimmick or was it really an advancement? Along the same lines why brag about hypereutectic when they used to be forged?
Here, for your reading and I'll post a few quotes about the rods:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...28/ai_88130081
"GM switching to p/m connecting rods for popular V-6 powertrain"
"The decision by GM to replace the cast iron rods in its Series 3800, 3.8-liter V-6s represents another victory by the powder metal industry, which is battling precision-forged rods made from steel bar stock for future connecting rod applications in the domestic automotive engine market."
There's a few more good bits in there for you to read. Of course a press release by GM doesn't automatically mean I'm right, but it surely can't be ignored.
One of your statements leads me to believe we're working on two completely different playing fields. "however, that was not the original design or intent!"
Of course not! But neither was a higher duration camshaft, or roller rockers, or a smaller SC pulley, or ported heads. Heck not a single performance upgrade was their original "design or intent" but should that stifle the performance community? Would the 350 design have died off years ago if people only followed the design intent of the factory? The word "stroker" would surely never have been coined.
As for it not being practical, that statement doesn't really fit in light of the people that HAVE done it. If you give me your email I'll send you video of a conversion driving around. Sure it still has a lot to prove in terms of reliability, but who upgrades their engine with only reliability in mind? Ask anyone at the track if "stuff breaks."
My thought is if you think you can do it, and want to, do it! Ask the community for whatever help they can provide but I think the community has a responsibility of sorts to provide the best information possible and not just say "no" based on a personal thought. If you're going to stand up and say something, be sure you're on a firm ground.