Direct Connection ( Mullen LA ) heads

I’m saying (and MO a explained it in more depth than I’m going to do here) is that you leave way more on the table than you think by using low lift.

As for hard on the valve train...that’s crazy. It’s 2021. The springs are better than ever. So are pushrods. And anyone with a smattering of gumption can correct their rocker geometry, which is where most valve train failures happen.

The GM guys are running .750 lift on the street and do it very reliably. Why should the Chrysler guys not benefit from higher lifts? You let the port do the work. You can run less seat timing, keep the same @.200 timing and make more power.

It’s the same with RPM. Chrysler guys are stuck at 6000 or maybe 6500. With a good oil pan and some careful prep work 7500 is easily doable. And that’s more horsepower. The gain from 6500 to 7000 is pretty good. You can also use a bit more gear with RPM and a loser converter, which BTW converter technology has gone through the roof.

So when you start adding up the gains from more lift, some RPM, gear and converter you are talking about some really big improvements.

For some, the minimal effort isn’t worth it. For me, it always is because the few extra dollars spent upfront pays big dividends in the end.
This information confirm my knowledge type of casting or design it is very strong at low lift numbers and benefit from more duration. I realizing compression is a consideration but it would help you extend the RPM range while decreasing un desirable angles and possibly unstable valve train. If we were talking about Apache heads or ls'cathedrals I would say yes and jam those valves to the Moon but we're not? 6,500 or 7,000 is one thing 8,500 or more it's night and day.
This engine is for a Vintage Super Stock class also and not a street vessel !