I'll try not to rehash (ohhh, but it is sooo hard!!!!
)
You keep giving the CIS credit whenever you compare your oversized 3.4 to a 3.2. If you were to say that it makes more sense (and fewer cents) to invest in capacity then in sophisticated injection systems -- I'd agree with you!
But you always start with the premise that it is the CIS by some magical properties which allows you to get the performance that you are -- and this just ain't true!!!
If you were to compare a CIS'd 3.2 to your Varioramed 3.2 (as you off handedly did) you'd find that the Varioramed engine would outperform the CIS version every single time. Will a Varioram'd engine outperform a CIS'd engine by more then (3.4/3.2 - 1 = ) 6.25%? No.
So if the choice is increasing the engine's capacity by 6.25% or buying a Varioram system -- the question would be which is cheaper? If the P&C's plus any headwork is cheaper then a Varioram, get the extra cc's. If the Varioram is cheaper, get that.
As far as the CIS is concerned, you can see the strengths and weaknesses of the system in your charts.
Strengths: It self-adjusts for any changes in capacity (which by definition means changes in torque output).
Weakness: It is airflow limited and so at engine speeds above the peak torque point, the CIS will ultimately limit HP since it can only flow so much air through the system. Take a look at the higher end of the RPM range (5200 RPM and above) where the torque and HP for the CIS'd engine falls off a cliff while the smaller 3.2 engine keeps on pulling.
Basically it is not a fair comparison to compare engines of two different sizes and conclude that the performance is due to the CIS. Using the same logic, you could say that aluminum cases are comparable to magnesium cases because the aluminum 3.4 liter has comparable performance to the magnesium cased 2.7 RS engine. Imagine that, aluminum cases make just as much HP as magnesium cases!!!
That statement completely ignores the fact that the RS engine is significantly smaller then your 3.4 liter, but also weighs significantly less. The reality is that they are two different approaches to solving a problem (how to hold the cylinders and support the crankshaft) with each have different strengths and weaknesses. There is nothing special about either aluminum or magnesium that allows it to produce more HP.
So the premise of this thread -- "An interesting look at CIS" could have just as well been "An interesting look JE pistons" or "An interesting look at aftermarket pistons" or just about anything else and been equally valid.