Thanks for the info, I have posted on advanced a couple times when I have had pertinent information. I'll look for the thread you are referring to. Best as I can recall it is in relation to the Engine Dyno used that the Carb Shoot-out. MLR is the best reference there as he is co-inventor of the system.
My inertia experience is at the rear wheels in relation to my Superflow Chassis DYno, and I would be happy to discuss that anytime with anybody that wants to.
I don't post a lot on theory because the projects I do on a daily basis are what is happening right now at the rear wheels. What I do is take theories and either prove them or disprove them and add them to the list on my logic trees. When I have time I go back and push further for myself in an effort to learn why something failed or why it succeeded as I get paid on a regular basis to develop doo-dads for folks.Good example, I have developed a really nice header for 604 crate engines, I want to see what a change will do for version 5 of this header so I have Joe the header builder build me 3 variations of the same header and test them. I prove my theories as one of the 3 will always be better than the rest and it may not be the one that I thought it would be, that is why I don't write a lot about theory because 50% of the time it ends up being wrong. I try to eliminate that and only discuss the stuff I have done that makes power.
I had a theory on Boosters for 604 Crate Carburetors, I built 5 different versions of the same 750 carb and tested them on Johnny Pruitts' DTS, Darrel Gabriels Froude, Willy's SuperflowChassisDYno and my SuperflowChassisDYno, the different carbs have also been tested and have won National Events in Fastrak, Ne-Smith and UMP it took about 6 months total to get it done and I now know what works best. As far as what worked best, it was the carburetor that supplied the best fuel emulsion for the vacuum draw of the engine, just for those who will understand all of my testing was done at 5psi at the bowl, with a bypass on the fuel rail back to the tank.
Did you have a particular question related to Chassis DYno?
If you are doubtful of 100HP per liter you might want to step out of the 70's and check out some of the new import numbers as Honda has a 200HP 1.8 liter, that runs on pump gas with a pretty small camshaft and gets 30mpgs. I think the Subaru is around 230hp on 2.5L NA engine, and I know of a couple that have run at Commerce that were close to 275 with cams & porting plus a new FI map.
The engines I am referring to are, race engines with particular care taken to match the intake manifold, camshaft and exhaust system with Helmholtz-Resonant tuning. If you have the proper FFT equipment you can tune an engine just like an instrument as the air flow responds just about the same way in an instrument, speaker and race engine.
I did one of my original FFT projects about 20 years ago with a guy name Jim Fueling, after a cold beer and some jottings on a napkin at Superflow in Colo.Springs I got invited out to CA to work on a Salt Flats project that was stalling fuel in the intake manifold of as Salt Flats Quad4 for GM R&D. After the installation of a couple electronic piezo tweeters to jolt the fuel supersonic with ultra high frequency energy the results were pretty amazing on the dyno ( it was over 100hp gain right off the bat, and more once we introduce larger injectors ) and on the Salt Flats. Did not make the Salt Flats test but it broke the old record by over 30 mph.
AIR is air, it don't know the difference!!!
Camshaft is a big part of your problem. Over 300* is absolutely unnecessary and as I stated before I am sure you are running wide lobe separation to fill in for absence of torque when your valve opening and closing sequence off. 8500rpms is workable with cams in the 275-285* range and 255-265@.050", if you have proper valve positioning in the head, decent intake and exhaust system with proper cylinder to cylinder scavenging. In any race engine known to man, you can almost never open the intake valve too soon, most engines also respond to early exhaust closure to maintain cylinder pressure so you have to balance those 2 requirements to minimize your losses.
Valve positioning in a flat combustion chamber like Mini, Ford 2.0, Fiat etc can be as much as 30HP on 150HP engine.
As far as cams go, roller wheel diameter in comparison to flat tappets is a not an easy comparison. You gotta go way big on a wheel to make up for big flat tappets. If you measure duration at the valve on your engines you will come to understand camshafts a whole lot better.
Rollers are better on wear and longevity in most cases but it is hard to beat a good flat tappet on area under the duration curve for similar size lifters and duration.
I would personally select a roller all else being equal because I can cram a bigger/better valve spring in there to control the valvetrain.
More is always better!!! Most of the time.