I seen the You tube video by D.V. awhile back and he has an interesting approach. I din't recall the specifics, but I think one of his comments was adjusting LSA to work with the car combination, not specifically to the engine.
I think he mentioned wider LSA so the car is not so violent out of the hole, then making more upper RPM power?

I reread DV's lsa article and applying his theory to my 511 with 2.200 intake valve, 4.375 bore and 12.5:1 compression it looks to me 108-110 lobe separation should work pretty good with this combo. In fact I believe dwaynes cam should work quite well in this combo(270/276@50-110). If i ever replace it I would go 108 before I would go 112 and with faster lobes and a tad more lift.

the 272/278 @ 0.050" in 110 LSA (HXL Lobes) pulls really smooth, but thinking I should have used a different exhaust lobe profile, or maybe just run 1.5:1 ratio rocker arms on the exhaust side vs the 1.6:1 ratio I'm running now.

That's what I did(1.6/1.5) and i'm thinking maybe I should have ran 1.6 on both as my exhaust flows 70% of my intake flow. From what I read/hear they should be 75/80%.

My take on it...a mild street motor that you're more concerned w/ street manners than speed...use a wide LSA.
Big cubes, big heads, and/or high rpm narrow powerband...use a wide LSA. Smaller engines that turn a lot of RPM use wide LSA too.
This is NA of course. Power adders change things. I'm no expert, but I've tried a few things over the years. Best thing I've done was talk to Dwayne Porter and learn from him.

A moderately headed 511" engine like the OP has is not one I'd consider a wide LSA for. Put some B1/MC heads on it, a tunnel ram, and a BIG cam to spin some RPM and it'd likely want something wider.
My 572 w/ heads flowing 430 cfm hemi heads only has a 112 LSA in it. My 446" w/ 340 cfm Indys uses a 108 LSA.

After trying that wide LSA cam in my 440 years ago and being disappointed w/ it, I talked to several other cam manufacturers for a recommendation. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM recommended a 108 LSA cam for that combo.

I’d love to see a dyno test, for any make of motor, that saw any kind of real power gain, where the only change was the exhaust rocker ratio....... in a combo where the exhaust port wasn’t just horrible(relative to the intake port), or way too good for the application......... and the cam wasn’t just flat out wrong for the combo.

In other words....... nothing appears out of place or way off for the combo...... you do nothing but swap the ex rocker ratio...... and see a worthwhile improvement.

So, this may seem like apples and oranges here, but my experience with dynoing dohc engines, where changing lsa is easily done on back to back pulls, shows that THE most important cam timing event is intake centerline. It doesn’t matter whether it is NA or boosted/ nitrous. LSA on these engines seem to have minor effects when in normal ranges when NA. Much more pronounced on nitrous, a bit less so on boosted(turbo) never tried a supercharged example.

I agree, not worth the investment for little if any gain. If I ever change the cam, that would be the time for an exhaust lobe change if I thought it would be an improvement.

What are the trends you have seen moving the intake centerline?

I have a 348" small block built for NHRA SS/BS. It has 15:1 compression and is restricted to a 750 CFM carb. I have been messing with this engine for a long time.

A well respected cam guy at Comp recommended a more modern cam for it, it was ground at 115 LSA and was to be installed at 113.

On the dyno the engine made a little more power than the old cam, both were over 700 peak HP. However the guys at the shop that dynoed it thought the lobe center was wide for that engine.

The guy I had been working with at Comp left and I was assigned another. The new guy kinda wondered about it also and reground my old cam at no charge. The regrind had a LSA of 110 and was installed at 109.

On the dyno with the reground cam the engine made about the same peak HP but made more power and torque at all RPM levels below peak.

Your mileage my vary...

I played Rocker Ratio Roulette a number of years ago and found the only gains came from increasing the intake ratio. Adding the higher ratio did nothing to improve the on-track performance, which surprised me at the time because it was a single-pattern cam that looked (on paper) like it could use more valve lift on both sides.

This is exactly what I've found over the years. It's funny how the words always mouthed are "I don't care about peak HP I want bottom end" and "peak HP means nothing...its area under the curve that matters".

And yet, if the customer thinks the LSA is too "narrow" he will squeal his brains out and the cam gets changed out for a wider LSA, which means the timing had to change to do that. Doesn't matter that the area under the curve took a beating. Doesn't matter that the car would be quicker in the gear change because the CORRECT LSA made the middle of the HP curve fatter.

Doesn't matter. The customer is only right all the time when it comes to underwear and bras. J. C. Penney made a statement and the morons have run with it.

I was taught a long time ago to focus on the first 100 Ft. of the drag strip by Joe Alread (RIP) who was a many time NHRA SS national record holder and sponsored by Mopar back in the days before he quit drag racing due to NHRA politics

Comparing different LSAs between split duration and single duration cams doesn't
Work well. The extra duration on the exhaust side increases overlap, effectively making it a narrower LSA cam for three out of four events.

How did the HP look after peak? Curve after matters as well. I think as a general rule, if you compare hp only up to peak hp, the narrower lsa, and move advanced ICL will be the winner. But I don't think best ets come from shifting at peak, at least for me.

I thought Hod Rod did something like that. I don't recall the results. Off to the Googles!

I would think there would be more detriment to performance if the exhaust valve wasn't opened long enough vs being open too long a period of time. 1.5 vs 1.6. Just a thought

One of David Vizard's articles on rocker ratios had a test where increasing the exhaust ratio when the cam events had been "optimized" already resulted in a loss of power everywhere below the HP peak, and only a minor improvement above it. IIRC, his comment was that was a typical outcome if you're using a cam that has extended exhaust duration vs the intake.

Just the opposite of what I thought. ok, the combustion gas pressures are so high when that ex valve opens it doesn't require much of an opening to get out and the piston is helping it. The higher the compression ratio the better for evacuating the gases and getting fresh charge back in with a more complete fill. That's why i'm pushing my compression to 12.5-13.0:1. I may have to switch over to E85. With the E MW Victor head how many thou off per cc? Edel tells me .005, but not so sure with what I read over on another site.

Here's the gist of Vizard's article, since I don't see it online and am not sure I still have the magazine after The Great Car Magazine Purge of 2014 (or somewhere around then):
1. Intake more sensitive to lift, given sufficient duration, and generally "more lift is better"
2. Exhaust more sensitive to duration, and it's possible to have too much lift and/or rate of lift that causes losses in power
3. If you start with an "optimized" set of valve timing events and lifts, then start increasing rocker ratios (or go to significantly more aggressive lobes, I suppose), then your effective overlap triangle increases and it can require spreading the LSA to compensate
4. Too little overlap is worse than too much from a power perspective (doesn't take into account issues w/ excessive overlap w/ closed exhaust systems, though)
5. If you have to spread the LSA to get the desired driveability, what you probably need is a shorter duration cam on a tighter LSA to achieve the same overlap triangle and restore the lost torque from delaying the intake closing event

Please note that I'm not saying this is "The Truth", only that it's what DV discussed in that particular article. He also tends to be so focused on SBC and BBC that IMO he states things that don't necessarily apply verbatim to other brands/architectures of engines.