8) Its great to have you here,FalconSedanDelivery, it's great to have someone with the years of hard earned experience. You are an asset to everyone, becasue your focus is the issues, not the periferals.
Not trying to be picky, but in this case, the point of order is that on production English, Aussie and early Argentian Ford I6's, the carbs were set up with the float bowl forwards. The 2V Aussie intake was designed for a Stromberg WW 2-bbl carb, non staged, exactly the same as the local Australian 302 Cleveland carb. According to my 1990 article, it was designed by Ford, and tested by ex Repco development engineers brought into Ford Australia in the late sixtees before the 250 2v engine was finally introduced in 1971. So the 250 2v I6 ran the same carb as the 302C V8, ran the same quarter mile times, and yielded better fuel consumption, despite the I6 being rated at 170 hp grss verses 240 hp gross for the 302 Cleveland
Chrysler Australia used the same technique of using a V8 carb on there 245 and 265 2-bbl sixes, whic ran the same Carter/Email carb as the 318 2-bbl.
All of them had float bowl forward intakes, and they worked better because they never suffered fuel surge.
I totally accept the 1-3 and 4-6 fuel distribution issue, FalconSedanDelivery, and do not dispute an iota of your experience or technical point of order. It is just not a primary issue in the case of a six cylinder Falcon or Valiant leaning up to 7 degrees through a tight left hander in a car race, the fuel surge of a carb mounted with is float bowl parallel to the engine centreline is impossible to cope with unless you have modern Holley 2300/4150/4160 jet extenders or a better float design. 2-bbl Falcons and Valiants got raced extensively in oval track, and worked very well with this set-up, and its advantages outweigh its disadvantages.