IHC/IHC Digest Archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ihc] Which 392 makes the best builder?

To: "ROCKY LEAR" <rockylear@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <ihc-digest@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ihc] Which 392 makes the best builder?
From: "Allan Ericson" <lowvolt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 21:51:29 -0700
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
References: <000c01c38189$48b61120$43849041@rocky>
Reply-to: "Allan Ericson" <lowvolt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-ihc@xxxxxxxxxx

Neither engine has a strength advantage over the other. The cranks are the
same. So are the cams and bearings and rods.

The non-IC engine can be given a big compression boost cheaply by using 345
heads. Some people like that approach, but I don't. I like the stock IH
engines. If I want something different, I will use something that has a far
lower weight to horsepower ratio.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ihc] Which 392 makes the best builder?
  - From: ROCKY LEAR

References:
- [ihc] Which 392 makes the best builder?
  - From: ROCKY LEAR

Prev by Date: Re: [ihc] Which 392 makes the best builder?
Next by Date: [ihc] IHC Digest Advertisers: regular posting
Previous by thread: Re: [ihc] Which 392 makes the best builder?
Next by thread: Re: [ihc] Which 392 makes the best builder?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Home | Archive | Main Index | Thread Index