But you DID want me to repeat it. So, since that engine no longer exists, then it's on you to pop for the cost of another, otherwise STFU. You're really getting tiresome to listen to. You're too ignorant to undertstand what one cam has in common with another and how it's not just the cam that limits power, but both the heads, intake and carb as well. You're too focused on the cam to see the rest of the story. :
Ho hum. Ignorant is a word for someone who doesn't know. Now what your doing, knowing better yet still arguing about it, is the textbook definition of stupid. The funniest part about all this is not once have you mentioned the lobe separation for a single one of this other cams you have tried to hide behind. You have only mentioned lift and duration. Here's a 45 second research I did for you.
Simply put, the lobe center of a cam controls where the power curve is applied. The tighter the lobe center, the lower the rpm range; the wider the lobe center, the higher the rpm range. The rpm range is also known as, or refer to as the power band. In general, two degrees of lobe center is equal to approximately 500rpm. Therefore, if a cam with a 110* lobe center has a power range between 2500-6000 RPM, the same cam with a 112* lobe center would have a power range of 3000-6500 RPM. Conversely the same cam with a 108* lobe center would have a power range of 2000-5500 RPM.
So what this means, if you don't understand it, is you can have a cam with the similar lift and duration, BUT different lobe separation, and the rpm range will be different. Maybe now you stop comparing apples to oranges when using the wrong numbers ? Probably not. But at least other people will understand if they didn't before, even if you still don't. This is why your argument with a boss motor is just moot.
Everyone else B-cam motor in the world drops at about 6k, but yours. Reminds me of a movie called "My cousin Vinnie." "Did you get this cam from the same guy who sold Jack his bean stalk beans ? Maybe the laws of physics cease to exist in your motor ?"
Look at the Boss 302. Look at it's cam profile. Pretty damned close to the B cam's specs, even though it was a flat tappet grind. Ever wonder why Ford installed rev limiters on these motors? You had weekend racers blowing up motors, pushing them to 8 grand on the track. Oh, but wait, that's not possible with a .477 lift, 290* advertised duration cam.
It won't pull that hard.
Anyhow, untill you send the check, just be content to shut up about what you're too smart to figure out.
Again, comparing the wrong numbers. I would imagine ford put rev limiters on it, for the same reason they still do today. Because there is always some moron who thinks because it revs that high, it's actually making power. It's a warranty thing. Any engine will always rev higher than it makes power.
I guess you didn't read what you posted.
The rpm limit for any combination isn't limited to just one part only. If you had ANY experience with engines, you'd know that. Just as with 10secgoal, you're stuck on one aspect and fail to see the whole picture.
It's called a weak link. You gather MANY parts to get maximum power. Or royally screw up one part, and it's all junk. That being said, build a 408, monster heads, 2in primaries, and throw in a stock 289 cam. Kinda the same thing as building a 7500 rpm motor, and using hyd lifters and a cam that peters at 6k.But I guess if you didn't focus too much on that one part, it would still make power to 8k right ? Because believing in the wrong cam will make it perform. Com'mon Morpheus, this isn't the Matrix. Maybe your Neo and we don't know it. Guess that makes me Agent Smith huh ?
FWIW, customers engine, linked comp hyd lifters, popped the clips out of 4 lifters, revving to 6800. But now we have your engine, that revs, I mean, pulls to 7500, doesn't collapse the lifters, or ruin them, and doesn't have valve float. Your eyes have actually turned brown because your so full of **** David.Like I said, I may be the one who has gotten tired enough over the years of seeing you spew this garbage from your mouth enough to say something, but not the only one laughing. Maybe we can have a mod put a disclaimer in your sig, then you can continue to tell stories of grandeur and run your suck anyway you like.
Ok, genius, you just linked a statement saying: "the tighter the lobe center, the lower the rpm range". Now you're going to get the uninformed confused here. It SHOULD read, the lower the INTAKE center angle is, the lower the powerband will be. The way it's worded is clearly going to confuse LCA with LSA. Which are two different things. Could it be that the cam I had was installed more with the LCA higher than others ? That would change the rpm band, according to what the paragraph you linked to implied. Or do you want to back off from that now? I cannot tell you where the LCA was set, I never degreed the cam. Neither could you tell you wern't there. So you're shooting in the dark here claiming it couldn't have pulled up to 7500. You seem to make a lot of statements that way here. 
Since you're the worlds foremost and knowledgeable engine builder. 
