Perhaps you should review your own post on page 10 of this thread (post #93)

 

And I believe I later said that I read through it too quickly, and misunderstood what he'd done. Yes, a little late, not ten degrees, and definitely not with a retarded exhaust cam. With the duration as short as it is, 110 degrees is well within the realm of acceptability, although my personal choice would be 106. With all your cam and engine building experience, would you concur, or can you dispute any of my assertions about his fallacies?

 

Your post - #639 - pertaining to the question of doing the MCM with a high performance cam..

Your assessment below is "spot on" with what we experience with the MCM - A steeper AND broader power band..

 

I'm really enjoying the conversation. Just wish all the participants could be in the same room with a large blackboard so they could graphically as well as verbally present their viewpoints. Naturally, I'd want to be there too.

 

Nope, Neanderthals don't venture too far outside their cave..There's Cro-Mags everywhere now days..

 

I would like to know how many, if anyone is running the MCM with the 351 BB? I know he told me to run stock timing but I suspect that he's unfamiliar with the mod and erred on the side of precaution. So how many with a BB kit are running the MCM?

 

This has already been discussed, there will be insufficient valve clearance with the mcm and bb351.

 

Yes but why? If the deck height is the same why would there be piston valve contact? Can you provide a link to the discussion?

 

It was discussed here in this thread. No valve contact, just no advantage to doing it. Marcelino put an edit in his first post to that effect. The fine tuning of cam timing didn't do as much for the 351 or 331. Nothing about valve contact with pistons.

 

You didn't read the first one adequately, otherwise you'd realize his comment on the desmo had to do with not floating valves at 13,000 rpm, not timing.

Point is he found a way to get the timing adjusted by experimentation and actually posted a dyno run showing results exceeding the known stock results from magazines (aka he may not have run a stock baseline or else he didn't scan and post them, but rather used the one done by the media). Most engine builders in most hot rod magazines only show one dyno run in an illustration, some don't even show that. So I don't see any issue with charting.

In one post you said changing 10° was nothing, I take it that meant in clearance, which was later proven to be adequate. You now say you would alter it by 4° to 106° as ideal.

Now the catch - with your expertise, what should the performance difference between the stock 110°, your 106° and Marcelino's 100°? You are making it sound like Marcelino did not get those dyno results and those who altered their timing did not experience what they say they did. Clarify what you actually are saying with more than comments. State specifics, tell us what should happen.