Thanks, Jay.  I will certainly try to stay abreast of the FE world.  Hopefully your heads and intakes will make a huge difference in future performance gains for folks who appreciate the FE.  Joe-JDC

Tony Branda Mustang/Shelby has different FE valve covers available.  Joe-JDC

I was privileged to meet Jon at Engine Masters Challenge events, and talked with him about his beginnings into specializing in Ford racing cars and engines.  He is a wealth of knowledge and was easy to talk to about his innovation with any of his entry engines.  He allowed me to take pictures of his heads, intakes, and was eager to talk with anyone who was interested.  I just wish we had been given good gasoline for our entry in 2018 where 5 of 7 Vintage engines detonated themselves to death due to poor fuel.  I finished 2nd due to a blown head gasket due to the poor fuel.  Jon ultimately was able to tweak his entry to outscore us due to his engine having less compression and survived the ordeal.  I truly miss the EMC and meeting folks like Barry, Jon, Royce, Scott Main, and others who were so willing to share their knowledge and expertise.  Joe-JDC

I have done wet flow testing, sonic testing, and always go back to individual runner testing before finalizing the averages.  IF and I say IF the individual runner is optimized first, then opening up the manifold for all eight runners to flow through the one port, the flow will be nearly identical in flow.  I have tested that on single plane intakes, dual plane intakes, 6V intakes, 8V intakes, and TW, TR, HR 4V, HR 8V, TP intakes, etc., and every time if the one port is properly blended in the plenum, shaped with taper, the individual flow will be the same as all eight open ports.  BTDT too many times to argue any more about it.  I have flow tested Wilson CNC'd $2500.00 intakes that folks were having problems with fuel distribution on, and found as much as 80 cfm difference between end ports and center ports.  I always try to get the end ports on single plane intakes to match the flow of the center ports, and on dual plane intakes I try to get those within 5% of each ports flow.  The RPM mentioned above has a difference of less than 9 cfm between ports in a dual plane manifold that flows 383.27 cfm.  If that is not respectable, than I surrender to anyone who can do better.  Signing off.  Joe-JDC

The one thing a flow bench is helpful for is taking something as cast, and being able to modify the part in small steps to even out the flow.  It does not matter what the actual number is, but the changes made to the part/s.  If you have a head that only flows 265cfm, then bolting a stock RPM on the engine will work fine.  If you have TFS CNC'd heads that flow 320-330 cfm, then the intake needs some work.  I have taken the manifolds and using the highest flowing port brought all the other ports up to that number.  Lots of work, but it keeps the manifold velocity where it is useful and not too big.  I usually try to get the intake to flow 110% of the heads at camshaft lift for street, and upwards of 120-125% for street/strip.  Has worked well for me and many customers for the last 30+ years that I have owned a flow bench.  Joe-JDC

Interesting build, but 4.080" bore?  Joe-JDC

Before making changes to the intake, you need to know how much the heads flow, and how much the manifold runners flow.  If the manifold flows 110% or more of the head flow, then it is unnecessary to modify the intake for street usage.  Making the radius larger will only slow down the velocity in the runner because it shortens the runner's effective taper.  Joe-JDC

My recent buy of head studs from ARP had the ability to loosen the nut and remove them leaving the nut and washer in place.  You can use a T-handle or speed-handle with the proper size allen wrench to remove the stud just like a head bolt.  I personally prefer the fine thread of the ARP stud for the torque application.  Joe-JDC