===========================
Well Vito....I am not 80 but at 64 I guess I'm getting there ..
However
I disagree with you on the engine types..I know the difference and
like it as it is..And  with the new Cafe standards I bet you get your
wish for a high teck ohc 4 valve engine in another 10 years but the
100,000 price tag is ginna be even more...

Bob G.

Be careful what you wish for 'cause it might come true....

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/10/01/gm-may-debut-6-2l-v8-with-overhead-cam-design
-in-2011/

I'm a helluva lot closer to age 80 than Bob G.
but, share his approach on this.  (I'd say that
Bob G. has demonstrated wisdom, well beyond his
limited years.)   -- maybe there's hope for the
boomers after all!  (8-)

I must admit that quad-valve is a 'new and
revolutionary' concept.  But, cut my teeth with
OHC on an AlfaRomeo in the late '50s.

Corvette owners do manage to, "muddle through"
with high reliability, good gas mileage and
respectable performance without running at 8500 rpm.

The only good reason I see for going your route
is in a formula environment with a hard
displacement limit.  Below 6000 rpm, pushrods
work fine and give the suspension and styling
guys some design slack.

The blown Mustangs have done well on the street
and in the marketplace and have been profitable.
 I can't fault Corvette for adopting what's
worked well for Lingenfelter or Callaway.  Us
'old farts' might tend to say that they borrowed
the idea from my 'bride's' Buick.

As far as 'doing more' than just a blower, how
about an "off road" Nitrous option?

At one time, I felt as you do but, as I've
listened to the various OHC-quad analyses I have
to agree that it's a natural for mid- or
rear-engined configurations.

If you value engine "features," better to spend
your bucks on a Cadillac or Lincoln or, better
yet, an Infiniti or 350Z.

--
pj