I am not an engine builder by a long shot but I have read everything I can get my hands on that has technical science behind it and built the motors for my cars using DVs methods very successfully for what I want. This seem more like a DV trashing thread but if you take time and really think about the cam specs here there is very very little (none really) that I have read from DV that was disproved in this test. What I am confused about his overlap selection. He seemed to have selected a very short overlap for a test that has peak HP as a criteria based on the methods he has published. If you follow his methods from his books the top 3 winners are _exactly_ where you would have expected the best results from... low LSA and about 30-40 degrees of overlap. His selection of 24 degrees of overlap is puzzling to me unless his real goal here was something else. He has one goal of finishing up his cam selection program for the LS. If you look carefully his is the only low LSA and short duration. I am wondering if that was a on purpose to get a data point for validating his program...... He has nothing to gain at his age buy selecting a cam that looks almost identical to 3 others.
I would really like to see the graphs, numbers never tell the whole story. Based on what I have read and simulated to me that cam he selected potentially could have the most torque at the lowest RPM, it is more of a towing cam based on his terminology. What I find interesting is the wide LSA with the low overlap doing well. I would love to know what the dynamic and cranking cylinder pressures were on those and could you really have a reliable street engine with them.
Like someone said in the thread, it was fun to watch but it really doesn't tell you much without a lot more data analysis. To me this test raises more questions than answers.