Living with a 2.21....

As to the Scr I back-calculated the 130psi to; 8.5@ 1000ft, at in ICA of 60*, and 8.3 @ sealevel which yields a VP of100....... at least 33 points below a stock teener (133 for 1969), and 15 points higher than a slanty (85 for 1969). Both at sealevel, and both the highest compression oem examples.
I, probably as most of you, don't want to flat-out call this a bad combo, cuz in this application it's not. The saving graces are 1) it is 95% for a hiway cruiser, and 2) you gotta love the 3-2 downshift at 65 mph!
I built a similar combo back in the 80s, and it was a worse combo......... cuz it was a DD city car, with 2.73s. I had the same results; namely gutless on take-off but getting better with rpm , then back to being a dog on the 1-2 upshift, but a fantastic 3-2 downshift at 50/55 for passing. I put a 2800 in it and that was no big help. That was a low-compression 1973 block with 340 top end and cam. But when I put the 318 cam and heads back on it, then that 2800 was pretty sweet. And 3.55s completed the transformation.
That engine was also pretty sweet with the TTI's and 4.30s and a stick. I still have it, lo these several decades later.

There are some ppl here on the FABO forum that I look forward to hear from and their intelligent advice that is tempered yet straight to the point. Your thoughtful replies come with hard data that support your claims and not just biased commentary with hands off experience. You have replied to virtually every Post I placed. All with a perspective that is hard to refute. I welcome your expertise despite you're Canadian. You see, my first wife was from Fredericton, NB Canada. Lasted less than a year and to this day I hate her with every fiber of my being.... :) But that is another story for another day...

This build is a DD with 95% Highway as you stated and I enjoy the performance and MPG at highway as I built it for highway driving.

If you read the last line of my original post... this is going to change....

As I compose this reply I am looking at the 8 3/4 rear housing that will find it's way behind Moby.

One of your replies to another post of mine gave me hard data that recommended the use of 3.90 in the rear for my current engine configuration. I agreed as that is exactly what I came up with.

But how will I address the highway driving? I have that figured out too. You'll have to wait and see. It won't be the conventional OD...

My Canadian Friend, I wish you well....