Tom, I think in all fairness of testing, we have seen that both Hank and Larry have brought up valid points regarding the closed chamber heads, in that they seem to be of the opinion, that with this chamber design, a 1.84" valve, and not a 1.94" seem to yield a better combo, as opposed to a 1.94" valve in a large chamber head or small chamber one, is this correct Hank or Larry. And if so, then maybe to exhaust all efforts to try to either confirm or dismiss this claim, we should throw one of those heads into the mix of testing for the 250 engine, just to say we did explore that claim, so we also can say we didn't overlook the possibility that there might be something to it. And if we still see that the 1.94" large chamber head still shows superior HP and torque gains over the 1.84" valve closed chamber head, then we can in all fairness say that we see no benefits to the closed chamber heads at all, having seen conclusively there is no gain potential with the closed chamber head.
I will also say that there was at least one pair of head comparisons we did try, that we knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that one head had a tremendous flow gain over the other, and we saw ZERO HP gain whatsoever between the 2 heads. One head was bone stock with the bolt bosses still it the head, the other head was the same style head with the same size valves and had lumps installed....so never base expectations solely on flow readings. Do you agree Tom that this would be a final test to make the small vs. big chamber head debate a done deal, as far as the small chamber head having any benefits over the big chamber, or do you think we have done enough with this topic.
