Worth doing your sums re deck height, barrel shims, etc, or you can end up with really whacky compression ratios.
A wise man told me Compression ratio not above 7.9 - 1 Based on my 1776 experience with an engle 110 - I say a big fat NO to that, although the cam may not be to be blame
Compression is determined by 4 things,stroke, piston size,or bore and head cc,thats the only things you put into the equation.Deck height can also effect.
You’ve forgotten deck height but I agree the static CR is adjusted using the parameters you describe – but that’s not dynamic CR and you need to decide what static CR to put into the equation. A standard cam with little overlap will work well at say circa 8:1 static CR but 8:1 on a cam with a lot of overlap would be a poor performer. This explains the difference between static and dynamic CR and the affects a cam has. http://garage.grumpysperformance.com/index.php?threads/dynamic-vs-static-compression.727/
But the cam does change the static compression ratio that you aim for - and is adjusted as you describe.
Gusbus runs a CR of 8.1:1 based on the calcs taken from the John Maher website using methods described in the Wilson book, that's a type 4 though but it goes very nicely
I haven’t looked but I’ll be very surprised if John used the same cam and CR for all the engines he built. There is a very big difference between the cam you’d select for an engine used for racing and one used to push a bus along. And you can’t use the same CR for all cams, for instance a Scat C65 cam that you might choose for a racing engine works well with a CR of 10:1 to 11:1. A Scat C20 that you might use for bus engine 7.5:1 to 8:1.
