Why would I question Chrysler? Well, we've covered all that before but...for one thing, the proof is in the pudding. Their stock design is limited and needs to be improved upon. Second, their decisions were often guided by sound engineering but sound engineering that had an overlay of cost accounting and the demands of mass production. I'm fine with Chrysler's work on stock engines but we're going beyond that. As for their 'race' engineers, I find that every time I open one of their books, it leaves a lot to be desired. Incomplete information. Outdated information. I actually was thinking the other day, 'I should really toss these books out...they're nearly useless and reference a bunch of parts no one has been able to buy for 3 decades, even if you wanted them.'
The biggest crime I find in many instructional texts (not just Chrysler) is the lack of depth they offer. It drives me nuts when they say 'drill this passage to .187' and 'remove this valve' WITHOUT TELLING YOU WHY. When they give no background, it's nearly useless. I'm there to accomplish a goal, not play guessing games.
As to the crossover....again, Larry and everyone else tell you to do it but give very little if any supporting information. So my obligation to believe what they tell me is zero. I find a lot of times someone will recommend a mod and by the time it gets to my ears the reason 'why' has completely changed. I have one book by him and nowhere does he say the crossover is due to velocity needs. Even if it did say so, it's meaningless to me unless he provided some background in how he knows it. Any technical 'fact' needs to come with proof if I'm gonna believe it.
Last...we all know those experts blew up lots of engines, even to the end of their careers. To top if off, they had a large supply of parts, often free. I don't.
That's racing....you hear a bunch of stuff and you have to decide what's good and what's BS. But there's a lot more BS than good.