uncle tony's garage gets called out by the roadkill guys

Ok, lets melt some brains... cuz you know... why not...

His test wasn't what was claimed. (technically speaking).

Chrysler made the claim several decades ago. What was around at the time.

Magnum engines ... NO.... .125 offset.... NO...

So, leaving the mildly ported heads out since there was not condition made about that AND the point was to squeeze a "couple" of HP out of something by reducing friction (I think).... I think they need to "redo" the test with an LA engine... with a completely stock bottom end.

Do I discount the test, nope, it tells me on a MAGNUM, with a larger offset, there is no benefit. Good to know honestly. I'm sure a LOT of people (including me) might have assumed "IF" it works on an LA (IF), then it should work on a Magnum.

Somewhere in these threads, i seem to remember the offset being quite a bit less than .125 so that COULD theoretically make a difference if the issue WAS/IS in fact, side load.

Now, I'm sure all the termites are are going to come out of the woodwork and say "You don't believe a DYNO, OMG..."... to which I would, no.. I DO believe it. And a magnum was tested. Cool... Now test an LA, which was and engine in existence when the claim was made. If it shows, no gain, so be it, very cool. But test apples to apples..., something close....

Heads up, I'm not debating anything about this, just tossing this out for discussion sake since there are small differences. They might matter, and they might not.

Have fun with it..