Gt,
I suggest you re-read post #24. agree it is a compromise. The trick is to make the right compromise.....
Maaaany engines use tight LSA cams & short duration, just not American V8s. This is a time to learn from others. The humble Mini Minor had factory cams with 107 LSA, 230* adv duration. They didn't detonate. Many performance cams for those engines, including factory perf cams, were on 102 LSA.
To say you would get less mid range & top end with 106 LSA is nonsense. I have seen enough cam tests to know that rarely, if ever, does wide LSA outperform narrow LSA. Look at road race engines that need tq coming out of corners & then have to accelerate to max rpm. They are always tight LSA cams.
Richard Holdener recently on you tube did a cam test on a LS engine, three different LSA's. Look it up. Pretty sure the tightest was 108 & it made more power everywhere, even with EFI.
Another example: a specific test to compare 106, 108 & 110 LSA on a 350 Chev. Identical cams ground by Isky for the test. The 110 made................3hp more. Buuuuuuuuuuuut it gave up 19 hp through the mid range. I know which cam I would be using......
More tests, in DVs BB Chev book. 468 & 572 BB engines. Both were tested with 107 & 112 LSA cams; in each case the 107 outperformed the 112 everywhere.
Sig Erson & DV worked together in the 1960s. Erson was a smart bloke, ahead of his time; he says this in his cam catalog: "A cam with closer the lobe centers will always produce more power in the midrange than a cam using the same profile & wide lobe center, & in many applications will produce more power all through the range depending on many variables such as the induction system, rod angularity & flow capacity of the ports."