Yeah, 8125..theoretically using 500", I mistakenly used my own 517" @ 6500 in the calculation, came out to 8401 @ 400...sorry

Actually, I think it might be higher that 8125 as a very good port on a short stroke motor might actually acheive a higher VE at the same "mathematical" airflow, in that respect even though the torque would drop, it would do so at a proportionally slower rate and if it could still gain rpm the power peak would likely be higher. That's part of why short strokes are favored in high RPM applications.