I think I'm detecting some flack directed at me, it's really hard to tell when "people" don't come right out and say it. I'm not smart that way.
But if that's true, then in response to it, I can only say that I'm on the Op's side no matter how my thoughts/comments are interpreted. I offered suggestions that can take a ho-hum combo, to be a dynomite streeter, irrespective of absolute power. As we all know, at least I think we all know, that for a streeter, absolute power is not the primary goal. Altho, more or less "free" power, in my books is never a bad thing.
Everything I offered was in discussion form, attended by examples. Nowhere did I say to do such and such, or else.
Look, in 1998 when I built my engine, there was NO machine shop willing to build my engine my way, even tho they all made good coin building successful race engines. So I had one shop do this and another do that,etc, until I had what I wanted, and then assembled it myself. Which turned out to be "a" pattern, if not "the" pattern, for many guys after me, including some guys right here on FABO, and even one big-name business built and hyped his version..
I came into this, at a time in history, when this type of street engine was in it's infancy, and my homework just happened to work.And I think the results speak for themselves. Now everybody builds; tight-Q ,alloy headed, powerhouses.
But I get that not everybody goes down the same path; some go the old way, and some the new way. I just thought, that since the engine was blown apart anyway, well you know what I thought.
To the Op;
We're pretty much all friends here, and I for one, do not hold grudges, and try not to venture into uncharted for me territory. Sometimes I do get over-zealous, like in the N&P forum, and sometimes it spills over into other forums. But, I'm always willing to make and keep the peace.
If it is the case, that Rusty is pointing to me, I will gladly bow to his expertise, and without any hard feelings.
But in the future, I will continue to sing praises for tight-Q.