Street 360 W/.528" P.S. Cam

Jim,
Have known you & Keith for decades. I am at Killara.

Jon Kaase is a multiple EMC winner & has designed heads for 460 Fords. He is a 'thinker', a leader, not a follower.

You cannot claim dyno comparisons do not equate, & then quote your own dyno numbers....They are either relevant or they are not.

The reason I mentioned the Kaase engine is because a lot of people think 106 is 'tight'. So what would 98 be if 106 is tight!!!!

Kaase's engine [ 403 cubes, less than yours ] went against all the 'rules'. Had short rods, not long rods, had less exh duration, not more, 246/238 @ 050; & the tight LSA didn't go over a cliff after peak hp like many tight LSA cam opponents claim will happen.

The 403 Ford made 663 hp @ 6000 rpm & dropped a mere 11 hp by 6500 rpm.
It was making nearly 500 ft/lbs of tq [ 478 to be exact ] at 2500 rpm. Not bad for 400 CI & NA. Sounds like it would be a great street engine!!!

I can do the same in 2nd gear with my car: floor the throttle & tach needle hits the stop. So what does that prove? My cam is 106 LSA, yours is 112.......
If you are going to compare the effects of LSA changes, then you need to test cams that are identical.....except for LSA for an apples to apples comparison. They need to be ground by the same cam company, the same lobe series. Anything else is meaningless. That is why I posted numerous examples in this thread of just that: LSA change only. And the result is obvious.