Again, back (almost) to the top where I listed...

1. Lower flowing heads with better velocity can peform as well as -- or better than -- higher flowing heads with less velocity... IF used with the appropriate application

2. Impressive flow #s won't help as much for limited-displacement applications that aren't able to take full advantage of the head's potential

>> I think it's reasonable to believe that all of the MW-port heads in the MM Engine Challenge flowed at least as much as, and likely more than, my standard-port heads, and there's no doubt that Kaase's P51 heads flow 20-40 CFM more across virtually the entire lift curve. Yet... I don't think in either the MM Engine Challenge or the Ford 466 build that the heads used were being utilized to their full potential. Stick the Kaase P51s on a 500++ engine and the HP #s jump waaay up over this test.


3. It's a balancing act of optimizing what you have (or are required to use) and minimizing the compromises that go along with it

>> Cam profile vs spring load required vs durability vs RPM vs... whatever you want to add here


4. Be careful what you wish for

>> I got a 750 HP 440 pump gas engine!!! Uh... did I mention I need to use a 6K-stall 8" converter on the street so it can get outta of its own way at the track?


5. The numbers on the dyno may not translate to the numbers on the ET slip... or, at least, not the way you were expecting them to

>> I picked up 40 HP with my new heads and cam!!! And because my torque curve is lower everywhere except the last 500 RPM below peak HP, the car may actually not ET any better unless I change converters and/or gearing cuz the power has shifted up the RPM curve.