This is basically what I am getting at as well. The passing point really hits home. I was cruising down the highway and got stuck behind a tractor doing ~65 (which was the limit but I usually run 70-71). We started going up a hill, and with my car in 6th, it literally didn't have the power to maintain speed, and started slowing down.
Not that I can't deal with it, but it was definitely eye opening to just how much these cars DON'T have down low. And this was before the gears, so I am certain it would be better now. But, my 2003 golf has no issues lugging up a hill without a downshift, for comparison sake. It actually feels faster passing without downshifting.
Now, is this an acceptable tradeoff for how much more top end power I have? Absolutely. Am I inclined to make it much worse to get a few more up top? Not really, but I would give up SOME. Hence why I want to see results. I don't have as much money to burn as other members probably do. $1500 is a lot of money to put down for something that may not benefit my driving experience.
Here's the link to the article, and the specs on the motor. Stock heads, unfortunately. I actually got to speak with the writer before the results came out (they were just finishing testing at the time) and after this came out, I knew why he said "don't get in a hurry to swap your stock one out."
https://www.hotrod.com/articles/gian...id-92mm-tb-jpg