Yeah the low deck manifold choice for that combo with a MW would have to be better than the Indy single plane. It seems with all the low decks out there someone would come up with a solution other than a near MW ported TM-6 or RPM, dual planes are a Bee-otch to port all the way through.

I joke about the Olds motors, I've built a few nice ones over the years and spoke literally a dozen times to Joe Mondello (RIP) about stroker motors. I just don't care for a hair trigger (instant face shredding torque) torque curve that causes tire spin, and a small intake duration combined with a small port and a long stroke is the recipie for that, it's the tractibility of it. Long stroke motors tend to have a lot of crank degrees of dwell where the piston really aint moving much up or down and if you don't have a nice big intake tract to feed it it runs out of breath pretty fast. With an olds you could put a huge ported single plane on a 10:1 455 and still pull a 32' travel trailer, just so much torque. Just "Case in point" the olds W-30 spec cam used a huge (something like 308 degree seat to seat) duration cam just to try to get those motors to rev into the 5000+ range. and they still made GOBS of torque.

Fast you were the one that brought to my attention (and you are right) that at a certain point with a big motor the cylinder just wants AIR/fuel to charge it....and port volume becomes as critical in many ways as flow and velocity, after all we know the port cross section really determines the mean flow and the maximum torque RPM a motor can breath to before restriction becomes a choke. My "logic" was with a small flow window (lift and duration) a 2.25" intake valve has a lot more cubic flow area than a 2.14" at the same duration, you also stated and I 110% agree that in the old days we used to hang the valve open higher and longer (lift and duration) on the old 906/915/452 castings and sacrifice powerband broadness (torque band) to get a little better high RPM breathing. I've always thought a standard 906 port window was about right for a 383 but comparatively small for a 440, so it's comparatively tiny on a 500". Heck I mildly worked W2 port will outflow all but the best standard B motor ports and is about the same cross section and does it with a smaller valve. To me it's not only the size, it's the fact that at least the -1 has a raised runner with a better angle at the valve, thats where dry flowbenches don't tell the whole story. it's easier to get air or smoke to turn around a bend than it is FUEL in suspension.

so point being...I'm not doing this to argue "recipies" as much as I am trying to keep the discussion going...semi intellectually. Hope you know me well enough to by now (over what, 15 years now) to see that. I'm devil's advocating for readers that may have "learned" certain assumptions.

Will the TF's make an awesome 500" motor for that Charger? Without a doubt, I wish I had them for several of my old iron headed motors way back when....I just think the cam specified will definately come up a little short of breath...and the "best combination" had to be chosen from the parts in hand.

BTW I notice on the victors that the 'StageVI style" raised port intake spacers are effectively cast in to the heads, got me thinking...it owuld be very expensive but it may be feasible to come up with a combination of careful bridgeport milling to both the heads AND an RB manifold (like a 440-2D or a 337) to where an RB manifold could be made to fit. They are cast into the Indys as well but that would be a ton of chips to accomplish.

I try to write in a way that maybe somebody out there reading is wondering about a certain aspect about this or that, to me the fun in this is the sharing and bouncing back and forth of ideas and concepts, never anything personal...Like friendly debates at a bar over a beer and a cocktail napkin, lol!