[Anderson Port Development]

Originally Posted by john marcella

The long and short of it is he didn't want to be involved in your guyses own personal goals / your way/ your parts. He was going to have money and effort into making your guyses stuff work and then money and effort into making our way work.
Bottom line is none of it matters because the real plan in the end was to go the highport route as that looked to be the most cost-effective way to get almost where he wanted to go. We both felt that the CV head would be a lateral move versus high port and pistons and rocker gear could remain the same as what he already had.

And i I'm very much aware of concerns he had for myself , as well as yourself if he took that deal. And I wasn't really concerned then, just like i dont care now.
What I do care about now is the fact that my friend is gone. And out of respect for him I won't have people or a group putting words in his mouth and suggesting what he may or may not have wanted to do cylinder head wise( for their own credibility).
I know you don't think you are doing this and you don't want people to think you're doing it and you'll say you're not doing it, but you are.

In the end that CV deal was off the table ( for whatever reason) and the real plan was high ports and a sheet metal manifold.

... No that is certainly not my intention, I'm simply stating what Mike had said to me is all, nothing more ...

[Half-Inch Stud]

Tom,

I printed & read the two papers i found in you Post 265 link, and am left wondering how, why, wth those Papers has to do with the U.S.A. based MIT, or the latst thinkng on variable runner lenght, or plural CYL intake configurations.

The only things learned from the India-author is there are 4 engine Sim Tools that exist, and seem to correlate on predicts.

The FORD 4.6 L manifold or GM's 3.8 L V6, would be a good startingpoint.

Anyways, were those India-papers like a geek-bait joke?, or did i pull the wrongk papers?