Missed on this combo?

If you had reversion going on,(no saying you did on didn't)having a smaller intake port would break up the exh air trying to go buck up your manifold. aka my have given you more bottom end. So may have been if you had installed a carb spacer that was designed to control reversion. There are all kind of trick/bandaids(depending on how you look at things) That could have improved this combo.

This is Just my opinion but if you get the chance to re test these head, with their improvements. Let Brett Miller and anyone who is or was involved in these heads, along with the cam manufacturer of your choice, design a better cam.
Think about this. you have already had a custom cam built and have data on two different heads(dyno pulls) to build a better mouse trap.
The only negative to this approach is that it won't be apples to apples test...................

EDIT talking about using a smaller intake mouth then the head. In reverse the air hits the wall made by the smaller manifold mouth.
You know man, I'd love to re-test the heads. Or even the better 255 version, but for some reason these guys want nothing to do with me. Geez man, I was pretty damn decent about the whole thing and so was Rod. I think the other dude is running the show on this whole head program.

I told Rod I have the perfect test bed ready to go. Right here, right now. I'm more than willing. I just think after this dilemma Mr Miller is going figure it out and probably build his own shortblock for testing. I think it's just I'm nobody. He can't very well have his stuff tested by nobody. Some people feel that way.

I wish I would have tried those damn Edelbrocks with a Victor 340 intake. I had one close by and didn't even give it a chance. Also wish now that I didn't sell the Eddy's so quickly. The guy that bought them is happy as a fat kid on cake.