Re: John Stricker's engine post

To: procyk19@domain.elided (Chris and Ranae Procyk)
Subject: Re: John Stricker's engine post
From: cookiedan@domain.elided (Daniel Nees)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 09:07:52 -0500 (EST)
Cc: ihc-digest@domain.elided (ihc_submit)
Content-Disposition: Inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
In-Reply-To: "Chris and Ranae Procyk" <procyk19@domain.elided>'s message of Wed, 9 Dec 1998 08:55:51 -0500
Reply-To: cookiedan@domain.elided (Daniel Nees)
Sender: owner-ihc@domain.elided

Chris,
   The BB article was about the engine that the Cohmers built for Terry
Kuhl. They used the 304 because of a SHORTER stroke, thus giving more
RPM's because of the shorter turn around of the pistons. So, wouldn't a
shorter stroke make for more RPM's?

Dan Nees
cookiedan@domain.elided
The
"Good" 1979 Scout II  345/auto 
The
"Bad" 1971 Scout II 304/T-18 
And the
"Ugly" 1979 Scout II 345/auto 

http://members.tripod.com/~IHCaholic/scoutindex.html

Prev by Date: John Stricker's engine post
Next by Date: EngineQuestion
Prev by thread: John Stricker's engine post
Next by thread: Re: John Stricker's engine post
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Home | Archive | Main Index | Thread Index