[Plays with cars]

Thank you Andy. Very well put. I was trying to figure out how to incorporate some of those thoughts into my reply but it was turning out much less eloquent than you put it. I understand what you are saying about VE and agree, but because the speed of the flame front increases in the combustion chamber as RPM increases (presumably because of increased turbulence) my experience has been that an engine is more susceptible to detonation at lower operating speeds. While the VE of the E and S do appear to be better than a T, their peak torque occurs at higher RPMs. Dynamic compression seems to be a good measure for recognizing the relative inefficiency of agressive cams at low RPMs where an engine is at greater risk for detonation.

I may be way off, and I would appreciate you feedback if I am, but my line of thinking was to seperate the variables contributing to detonation that are physically built into the engine based on component choices from the ones that are externally changable/adjustable variables and then prioritize them based on their effect and evaluate the likelihood for detonation. Following this line of thinking I prioritized the physical engine variables as:
1 - static compression ratio - at 10.3:1 I suspected I was at risk for detonation
2 - dynamic compression ratio - the basis of my question, was the 'E' cam profile agressive enough to reduce low speed detonation risk.
3 - cam timing - my cams were timed at the extreme end of the spec range on the retarded side effectively reducing DCR.
4 - port sizes - also impacting VE differently as RPM changes. Mine have been opened up to mid-way between T/E and S specs to increase high speed breathing and reduce low speed velocity which should reduce cylinder filling at low speed.
5 - cylinder cooling - not much to be done here. The block has piston squirters to cool the piston crown.
6 - by now the variables remaining affect on detonation seems it would be minimal: port profile optimization, combustion chamber shape, piston crown shape, ..

So, I figured I was at risk with the high static compression but with appropriate choices could reduce the dynamic compression ratio to a reasonable level. Seems like that is in a reasonable range so now I need to start thinking about controlling factors outside of the physical engine.

I mentioned I am planning to run a distributorless electronic ignition system and will be able to program the ignition curve with much better resolution than was available with the distributor. I'm hoping to really acheive some good throttle response while retarding where needed to manage detonation. With the system I am looking to use I am able to program two curves into the ECU and switch between them easily. I'm planning a pump gas curve and a race gas curve. Any thoughts on an advance curve?

Great discussion. Always hoping to understand the theories better and apply them to acheive a superior result.