grumpyvette

http://rides.webshots.com/video/3026513330101149359WVpyxw

you may be correct on the 4 valve, my computer screens not very clear, but that could be correct

too bad its not continued thru the full exhaust and valve overlap sequence, it goes thru the first three strokes ,intake, compression, power but the exhaust strokes missing

lox -aaah-hatch-eeee is the comon way its pronounced

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5815350492893860613&hl=en obviously a modern HEMI or similar engine due to the valve arangement

I thought you guys might enjoy reading these two posts on a similar subject post on a differant site MY ORRIGINAL POST I get asked why the 301/302-327-331 sbc engine, is just not seen as comonly any more, the basic reason is the 283-327 they were built from is no longer as comon as the current 350 basic core engine the 383-396-401 gets built from, as the 350 sbc is far more comon. just some info guys....theres a GOOD REASON why the 302 is less than popular compared to a 383-401 stroker built from a 350 basic block. THERES NO way a 302 with its 3" stroke and the higher stress on the valve train that rpms over 7000rpm that the 302 sees will match the results and dependability a 383-396-401 stroker combo with its 3.75"-3.875" stroke and under 6500rpm valve train stress will produce lets say a 302 can produce 1.25-1.4 hp per cubic inch, you can do the same with a 396 sbc your looking at say 410 hp for the 302 and a similar 396 sbc costing almost the same will produce 535 hp with the same hp per cubic inch WITH LOWER VALVE TRAIN STRESS, its a FACT your far more likely to have valve train problems at over 6500rpm than under that rpm theres also a much faster ramp up on the torque curve with the larger displacement. we USED to build 301-327-331 sbc when the cylinder heads flow limited the effective displacement that could effectively be fed, those days are long gone, with the current aftermarket heads. example http://airflowresearch.com/articles/article031/A-P1.htm http://www.chevytalk.org/fusionbb/showtopic.php?tid/131229/ http://www.bracketmasters.com/small_block_stroker_383_cu.htm http://airflowresearch.com/articles/article014/A14-P1.htm http://airflowresearch.com/articles/article016/A16-P1.htm btw USING A HYDROLIC LIFTER VALVE TRAIN in a 302-331 SBC thats built for MAX HP,is about as useful as snow shoes on a snake ID also point out the differances in bearing sizes and the difficulty in building good compression with flat top pistons with the shorter stroke combos http://www.mortec.com/journal.htm http://www.mortec.com/borstrok.htm in a correctly clearanced and ballanced lower assembly, piston speeds should almost always be UNDER 4000fpm with correctly reworked stock type parts , or 4500FPM with all forged aftermarket race quality parts, if you expect the lower assembly to live a decent life span, thats, between 8000-9000rpm on a 302 and 6400-7200 rpm with a 383 so as you should see, its far more likely the valve train is the weak link that determines the RED LINE since the cars engine speed is usually restricted to the rate of accelleration of the car due too the engine being locked into driving the drive train,the larger engine has a slight advantage in accelleration wioth equal rear gears but in the real world youll run 3.73:1-4.33:1 rear gears with a 383 and 4.56:1-5.13:1 with a 302, making the crank accelleration rates similar. personally Ive never seen any advantage to spinning a smaller stroke engine to higher rpms, to make power, the stress on the valve train and lower assembly tends to cause more parts failures, its a whole lot easier to control valves at 6000rpm than at 8000rpm, and it gets darn expensive when pistons kiss valves. at 8000rpm the valves open and close in each cylinder 67 TIMES A SECOND, your approching absurd enertial loads and control problems well under that at 6400 rpm where the valves open and close at 53 times a second http://purplesagetradingpost.com/sumner/techinfo/350%20chevy%20engine.html heres some info for the guys wanting a stroker/carb combo here are the specs: of a well built 383 4-bolt 350 block bored .60 over eagle 3.75" crank eagle 6" h-beam rods wiseco forged flattops with total seal rings--12.5:1 comp. custom ground comp solid roller 251/260 duration @.50 640/653 lift with the 1.6 roller rockers 109 LSA and 106 ICL huge brodix single plane--(main reason for "low" tq??) 750 dominator carb worked over, not sure of cfm (another reason for "low" torque?) dart pro 1 215cc heads ported with 2.05/1.60 valves hooker super comp 1 3/4" headers NOS plate system full msd ignition and 10.4mm taylor wires electric water pump, electric fuel pump, and electric fan the motor also has stud girdles and a rev kit and i went with all forged internals so i can "spray" the poo-poo out of it. 522hp/498tq heres a well built SBC 406 · Block, 509, +30, Zero deck, Blanked water passages, Clearanced oil ways, Lifter valley vents, ARP main & head studs, Durabond cam & Clevite 77 main bearings. · Crank, Scat 4340 forged steel, 3.75”, internal balance, Pioneer SFI balancer + ARP bolt. · Rods, Comp. Products 6.00” H beam bronze bushed + ARP bolts Clevite 77 bearings. · Pistons, SRP #4032 flat top, 5cc relief, Speed Pro plasma moly file fit rings. · Complete rotating assembly balanced. Including - Flywheel, Clutch, Balancer & Crank pulley. · Heads, AFR 210 Race Ready, 76cc, 2.080/1.600 valves, drilled for steam. FelPro #1014 gasket. · Cam, Comp. Cams ‘Magnum’ #12-450-8 (286HR) Hydraulic roller. 230/230 @ .050, .377 lift 110 LSA 106 ICL. · Pushrods, Howards Cams heavy wall 5/16” 7.4” long. · Rockers, Pro Magnum roller, 1.6, 7/16” stud. · Lifters, Pro Magnum hydraulic roller. AFR Hydr-Rev kit. · Comp Cams Springs #950 + #740 retainers installed at 1.875” · AFR rev kit, AFR stud girdle. · Lube, Melling M99HVS pump, Canton 7qt 5 trap pan with inbuilt windage and scraper, Cooler, Accumulator, oil stat, remote filter. · Holley 800cfm #4780C, 1” spacer, Victor Jr single plane. · Static CR 10.32, Dynamic CR 7.9. · Quench 0.0415” (Gasket .039” + .0025” down hole). · MSD Pro Billet Street Dizzy, MSD 6AL, MSD Blaster 2 coil, MSD 8,5mm leads. RPM BHP Torque 3800 367.3 507.7 3900 384.0 517.1 4000 395.1 518.8 4100 407.9 522.5 4200 418.9 523.8 4300 429.4 524.5 4400 439.6 524.7 4500 449.6 524.7 4600 462.1 527.6 4700 467.4 522.3 4800 476.6 521.5 4900 485.4 520.3 5000 489.2 513.9 5100 498.5 513.4 5200 496.0 501.0 5300 506.1 501.5 5400 508.4 494.5 5500 508.7 485.8 5600 505.6 474.2 5700 505.8 466.0 5800 505.8 458.0 5900 494.6 440.3 6000 491.9 430.6 "grumpy: Sorry pal...but your theories don't seem to fit in real life. Might I refer you to this website: http://www.z28camaro.com/oldrel.html And here's some data for you to chew on: TECHNICAL DATA VIN number 124378N411100 Build Date 04A (first week of April) Color Corvette Bronze Interior Code 712, black standard Car Shipper Shipped on April 11, 1968 to Ammon R. Smith Auto Company, York, PA Engine Data Cubic Inches, 302 Cylinder heads #3917291, completely stock, no porting allowed! Stock rocker arms & valve springs Intake 302 aluminum intake, casting #3917610 Carburetor Holley, #4053, 780 CFM 4bbl Camshaft Crane, .480 inches lift, 272 degrees duration, valve lash, .016-.016 Pistons GM 302, .030" oversize Horsepower 456 @7700rpm Rear Tires 9" x 30.0" Hoosier's Rear axle & ratio 12-bolt, 5.57 Richmond Pro Gears Clutch 10 inch, three finger from Advance Clutch Technology Shift Points 8200 RPM BEST ET 10.80 @122.30mph Now for a FACTUAL explaination of why the 302 isn't seen any more. It's really quite simple. People who drive cars on the street are more interested in tork than in horsepower and 1/4 mile performance, and they'd rather have creature comforts than put up with a REAL race engine. They want to sense the FEEL of power, rather than actually go fast. A 302 like the one built above would NOT be "fun to drive" for most guys today. You have to bring the RPMs up pretty high to pull away from a stoplight. It's going to require something other than pump gas to run good. Fuel economy will be pretty shitty. It won't run for ♥♥♥♥ with an automatic transmission. And things like air conditioning are out of the question. The 302 Z-28 engine is a RACE ENGINE that was adapted to the street. In stock form it put out closer to 350 horsepower than the 290 it was rated at from the factory. And reaching 400+ horsepower is not all that difficult with this engine. The 302 engines were actually pretty long-lived in both drag racing and Trans Am applications. It was quite normal for drag racers to come off the line at 8000+ RPM and just dump the clutch and power shift all the way through the 1/4 mile at those same high RPMs. And the Trans Am engines, much like the 358 CI NASCAR engines of today, LIVED at 8000+ rpms for HOURS at a time. As you can see, Dave Strickler uses a STOCK valve train and was shifting at 8200 RPM. No weak link there at all. Many guys today think they have to have gold plated roller rockers and all kinds of whiz-bang aftermarket parts to make a SB Chevy run good. I blame the magazine ads and media for that. It simply ISN'T true. Perhaps you should check your theories with real life before propagating myths Dep " my responce "first were talking about street/strip engines here, THAT YOU CAN BUILD USEING THE STOCK BLOCK AND HEAD DESIGN THAT CAME IN THE CAR and not applications where you expect to tear down and inspect or refurbish the engine every few weeks at the most, Ive built enought engines and seen enought engines raced to know EXACTLY what Im refering too! and in the combo you put forward there would EASILY be an additional extra 80-100 hp if the engine had been fitted with a 3.75 or 3.875" stroke rotating assembly, and having it run 1000rpm-1500 rpm lower in the rpm range, and of course the correct cam installed with slightly less durration and a tighter LCA. NO! Ill stick too FACTs and EXPERIANCE!:thumbsup: you may feel that spinning an engine 8000rpm is a valid option, but its only a matter of time before that stock valvetrain self destructs, nascar engines are HARDLY a valid comparison,and if theres anything stock about MUSHROOM base lifters and the rest of the valve train comonly used in nascar or similar engines with parts like in a 18 degree cylinder heads HONDA size CRANK JOURNALS or SB2.2 canted valve heads, I can,t think of it! BTW was & is very comon for TRANS-AM and NASCAR teams to replace/rebuild engines after every race, hardly ideal charicteristics in a performance application where you want to drive a street/strip combo for years at a time with only minor maintinance like plugs and oil changes. an engine that can live AT 8000RPM for " HOURS AT A TIME" is BOTH A myth, (THEY MAY HIT 8000RPM BUT THEY DON,T average 8000RPM for " HOURS AT A TIME" ) AND AN ENGINE CAMMED TO MAKE POWER AT THAT RPM WOULD HARDLY BE, ideal for a corvette youll be building for street strip use and Im very sure even DAVE Strickler , would not suggest it as a first choice for an engine you occasionaly race, but depend on for at least occasional transportation or short trips, and the ONLY REASON the trans-am guys sellected the 302 displacement was the CLASS RULES LIMITING THEM TO 305 CID/ or 5 LTRS. if that rule was not MANDATORY they would have vastly prefered the 377 displacement SBC like the earlier racing corvettes in the early 1963-5 grandsport cars BTW theres not a single major component in a current NASCAR engine that you can use from your first gen SBC, and the only reason anyone I know uses a stock valve train is rules MANDATING its use or cost factors http://www.howstuffworks.com/question588.htm http://www.usatoday.com/sports/motor/nascar/2007-04-10-chevy-engine_N.htm http://www.pressbox.co.uk/detailed/Business/Team_Chevy_Introduces_New_Racing_Engine_115115.html current NASCAR TECH ENGINE.....$35,000 AND UP It's a 358 ci and is totally unrelated to the previous SB2 derived Chevy NASCAR engine. It has wider bore spacing (4.5 versus 4.4) for better coolant and oil circulation, easier to reach front-mounted distributor; six (rather than five) bolt cylinder heads to improve sealing and reduce distortion; a higher mounted cam lifting shorter and stiffer pushrods; cast-alloy rocker covers that incorporate integral oil galleries; carbon-composite timing cover; symmetrical LS style valves in place of the SB2's mirrored layout."

for those guys that think high rpms are the way too go....,think about this, in a correctly clearanced and ballanced lower assembly, piston speeds should almost always be UNDER 4000fpm with correctly reworked stock type parts , or 4500FPM with all forged aftermarket race quality parts, if you expect the lower assembly to live a decent life span, thats, between 8000-9000rpm on a 302 and 6400-7200 rpm with a 383 so as you should see, its far more likely the valve train is the weak link that determines the RED LINE since the cars engine speed is usually restricted to the rate of accelleration of the car due too the engine being locked into driving the drive train,the larger engine has a slight advantage in accelleration with equal rear gears but in the real world youll run 3.73:1-4.33:1 rear gears with a 383 and 4.56:1-5.13:1 with a 302, making the crank accelleration rates similar, or higher with the 302. personally Ive never seen any advantage to spinning a smaller stroke engine to higher rpms, to make power, the stress on the valve train and lower assembly tends to cause more parts failures, its a whole lot easier to control valves at 6000rpm than at 8000rpm, and it gets darn expensive when pistons kiss valves, keep the engine operating well within its safe/ low stress speed,limits and it will last far longer, at 8000rpm the valves open and close in each cylinder 67 TIMES A SECOND, your approching absurd enertial loads and valve train control problems well under that at 6400 rpm where the valves open and close at 53 times a second

IM IN AWE! and AMAZED! THANKS!!!!!!!!!

I used to build a few road racing engines, and while wide rpm ranges can be handy, responsive and near instant torque and accelleration the larger displacement can provide generally (with the correct gearing) alows LESS gear changes and faster accelleration out of the corners, and more effective compression brakeing off the throttle,building a valve train that lives over about 6000-6500rpm tends to become far more expensive, especially over 7500rpm and up

I get asked why the 301/302-327-331 sbc engine, is just not seen as comonly any more, the basic reason is the 283-327 they were built from is no longer as comon as the current 350 basic core engine the 383-396-401 gets built from, as the 350 sbc is far more comon. just some info guys....theres a GOOD REASON why the 302 is less than popular compared to a 383-401 stroker built from a 350 basic block. THERES NO way a 302 with its 3" stroke and the higher stress on the valve train that rpms over 7000rpm that the 302 sees will match the results and dependability a 383-396-401 stroker combo with its 3.75"-3.875" stroke and under 6500rpm valve train stress will produce lets say a 302 can produce 1.25-1.4 hp per cubic inch, you can do the same with a 396 sbc your looking at say 410 hp for the 302 and a similar 396 sbc costing almost the same will produce 535 hp with the same hp per cubic inch WITH LOWER VALVE TRAIN STRESS, its a FACT your far more likely to have valve train problems at over 6500rpm than under that rpm theres also a much faster ramp up on the torque curve with the larger displacement. we USED to build 301-327-331 sbc when the cylinder heads flow limited the effective displacement that could effectively be fed, those days are long gone, with the current aftermarket heads. example http://airflowresearch.com/articles/article031/A-P1.htm http://www.chevytalk.org/fusionbb/showtopic.php?tid/131229/ http://www.bracketmasters.com/small_block_stroker_383_cu.htm http://airflowresearch.com/articles/article014/A14-P1.htm http://airflowresearch.com/articles/article016/A16-P1.htm btw USING A HYDROLIC LIFTER VALVE TRAIN in a 302-331 SBC thats built for MAX HP,is about as useful as snow shoes on a snake ID also point out the differances in bearing sizes and the difficulty in building good compression with flat top pistons with the shorter stroke combos http://www.mortec.com/journal.htm http://www.mortec.com/borstrok.htm

I placed mine just forward of the rear bumper area/ under the rear of what would be the trunk or gas tank in most cars, (in my vette its the rear spare tire carrier its mounted in_) yeah, no spare tire I carry several cans of FIX-A-FLAT and a CELL PHONE and have a tow service contract

"I wish I had with a nut on one end so I could use air tools to turn the crank" sounds like a few minutes with a welder , and some careful planning would cure/grant that wish! weld one of these where the handle was, after cutting it off, them weld a deep socket to the handle that slides over the nut,and drill a hole thru both the socket and nut,to drop a pin thru so you can use the tilter either with or without the handle attached http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=94460 making the crank handle easy to remove and an air ratchet wrench also an option

BTW theres some basic combos that give dependable and consistant results, when you vary the sellected components a good deal from known matched combos youll seldom have a good combo, simply because , that theres certain requirements that must be met to reach certain hp levels given the restrictions imposed in current engine designs look over these, notice that if you were to make an extensive spread sheet that certain compression ratios and cam durration, and head flow rates tend to result in almost expected results, and your kidding yourself if you think you can vary the results a great deal from what most of the better engine builders can produce, its part art! but its mostly science http://www.strokerengine.com/TrickFlowCombo.html http://www.airflowresearch.com/articles.php http://www.chevymania.com/dyno/ http://www.ryanscarpage.50megs.com/combos1.html http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/7610/dyno.htm

not EXACTLY.. you need too set a HP goal and RPM BAND that you want to operate in, then youll need to match the other engine requirements to meet that goal, displacement, compression ratio, fuel octane, type of intake, head flow rates, exhaust design/size, cam lift/durration,rear gear ratio,trans gearing ,ETC. COMPONENTS SELLECTED ,MUST THEN BE MATCHED TO REACH THE GOAL, and if your smart you set the goal a bit higher than youll need so you don,t need to be in perfect tune to reach it!

not a problem! glad to assist any and all of you gentelmen

BTW http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=41563 these are very similar to what I used (6) of on the engine crane

THANKS BRAAP! DO you have the same info on the big block chevys, GEN III LS1 LS7 ETC. , CHRYSLER HEMIS and or other engines???????? BTW heres more info on dinensions, weights and oil passage locations http://www.enginefactory.com/chevdimensions.htm http://www.tciauto.com/Products/TechInfo/trans_dims.asp http://www.ridgenet.net/~biesiade/Specs.htm http://www.carnut.com/specs/engdim.html http://www.wagoneers.com/FSJ/tech/Engines/swapchart.html http://www.gomog.com/allmorgan/engineweights.html http://www.35pickup.com/mulligan/weight.txt

similar things happening to most of us, brings the fact to our attention ,that having an extinguisher or two handy in the garage is a good idea.

most larger BOAT/MARINE stores or ACE HARDWARE stores carry them

for many years Ive used an engine crane in the shop to pull engines, and it became very obvious that some mods to the system were darn near MANDATORY, adding an engine leveler and swivel to your engine crane makes things far easier adding a swivel like this between the leveler and crane GREATLY AIDS THE ENGINES REMOVAL, AS IT PREVENTS THE TENDENCY OF THE ENGINE HANGING ON A CHAIN TO CONSTANTLY WANT TO SWING BACK INTO A SINGLE LOCATION, BUT DON,T GET STUPID or CHEAP, GET THE 3400lb rated one not the 1200lb size (REMEMBER YOULL BE UNDER THAT ENGINE SOMETIMES) youll need two of these rated at similar load strength[/b] ever engine crane Ive ever seen came with crappy steel wheels about 2.5"-3"in dia. " the reasons are obvious they are cheap ,and theres clearance issues for the cranes legs if your pulling an engine when the cars NOT up on jack stands, now I can,t see how you can access all the necessary bolts without the car being up on serious,& sturdy jack stands or a lift, so with that in mind I got out the air/die grinder and removed the tack welded steel wheels and added (6) 8" solid rubber wheels on swivels, rated at 600 lbs each yeah, the crane will no longer slide under a car thats not up on jack stands, but then I can,t think of a single reason to use a crane to remove an engine when the cars NOT UP ON JACK STANDS because youll need access to all the bolts holding it in durring the process and youll need to support the trans " , YET,ANOTHER GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHY A WELDER IN THE SHOP COMES IN HANDY(welding on new wheels) this made it SO MUCH EASIER to use its amazing:thumbsup:

http://store.summitracing.com/partdetail.asp?part=NAL%2D12498793&autoview=sku http://www.sdparts.com/product/12498827/TurnKeyZZ572720R720HP572DragRaceCrateEngine.aspx THERES OTHER very close, CHOICES , BUT the object was NOT to say it was a bargin, but to point out a NEW option FROM EDELBROCK,most guys don,t yet know about, BTW heres what appears to be a good deal also look AT THE 620 CID DISPLACEMENT AND 550 DISPLACEMENT OPTIONS http://www.ohiocrank.com/enginekits.html ive got the tools, for most operations, Ive built over a hundred engines, and I know a bunch about which local machine shops can,t be trusted, and do crap work. Ive priced out similar engine builds , your kidding yourself if you think the average guy paying average machineshop costs and buying parts retail will save much over those crate engine prices, yes theres theoretical advantages to building your own combo. you can sellect each component,sellect better quality parts , take more time to do the detail work to tighter tollerances,and use parts you may already own, vs getting what the crate engine provides,which in most cases is not the best parts available, but you also take the chance of sellecting miss matched components and don,t get the warranty the crate engine provides if theres one. and the "WHILE IM AT THIS...TENDENCY" tends to push the price up and get you into trouble that may prevent you ever driving the car of your dreams or any car for that matter if it gets way out of hand! Ive HAD over 700Hp in as corvette that was rarely street driven, yeah! it can be done and yes everyone that can afford to do it probably should at least once own a truely powerful car, not practical, but something youll REMEBER all your life........and yeah I regret selling the car but hey, life and finances take un-intended swings and at times you do things youll regret but have few choices at the time

http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive_new/mc/crate_engines/victor_650.shtml http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive_new/mc/crate_engines/pdf/555CrateEngine.pdf http://store.summitracing.com/partdetail.asp?autofilter=1&part=EDL%2D49555&N=700+115&autoview=sku

Ive run a gear drive cam for many years,Ive installed dozens of gear driven cams, while the advantages are small( slightly more consistant ignition and valve timing) and the disadvantages (more engine noise) are at times a P.I.T.A., as it can cause knock sensors to retard timing, the B.S, I constantly hear repeated about harmonics in the valve train has NEVER been the slightest problem, ON ANY ENGINE IVE EXAMINED, OR BUILT,..Ive also used buckets full of CLOYES true roller chains cam drives .I hear this gear dives suck crap,constantly, but have YET to find a verifiable example that on closer examination did not turn out to be caused by some OTHER factor, like sloppy clearanceing or bad valve train geomety, the wrong valve springs,etc. if you prefer a chain drive thats fine! both drive systems work if correctly installed, but don,t think one is vastly superior, if you think chains are stabile, watch one dance and flail around with a strobe light at 6000 rpm on a dyno some time after cutting a hole in the timing cover and valve covers and glueing a lexan window on them cover to check. youll be supprised at the number of guys that blame a gear drive for a valvetrain failure that could not tell you if thier lives depended on it, the valve springs coil bind height, the valves seat loads on the springs, loads at full lift, flex/deflextion of the rocker studs at full lift, piston to valve clearance, or how to degree in a cam, their retainer to valve seal clearance at max lift, what will result from retarding the timing 4 degrees, and have never seen a rocker stud girdle or shaft mounted rockes, or understand setting valve lash or even know how to install a cam button, yet those same guys are the first in line to swear harmonics in the valve train caused the valves to hit the pistons, hell most guys cant tell you if they run 7 or 10 degree valve keepers or the spring seat thickness on the spring seats used on thier aluminum heads, and have no idea of the coil bind clearances and retainer to spring shoulder dia. etc. theres a good deal more to a valve train that slapping parts to gether and spinning it over with the timeing gears alighed DOT-TO-DOT and expecting it to run correctly

a dana 60 came in several high performance mopar big block cars, several brands of pick-up trucks an vans a 10 bolt rear had about a 7.5"-8.2-8.5" ring gear( depends on version) a chevy 12 bolt has about a 8 7/8" ring gear ford had a 9" ring gear in some larger cars the dana 60 has a 9.75" ring gear, and is much stronger than any of the others

gear spread sheet that comes in handy THANKS TO 1FATGMC http://purplesagetradingpost.com/sumner/bvillecar/bville-spreadsheet-index.html THE 3.73 RATIO, PUTS SLIGHTLY MORE USEABLE POWER, DURRING A RUN TO THE PAVEMENT, (ASSUMING YOUR RUNNING THE SUSPENSION AND TIRES TO LAUNCH HARD) KEEP IN MIND youll spend over 90% of the time in the 3500rpm-6500rpm band durring a race, exactly where your 383 is cammed to run HERES OTHER INFO LINKS http://www.wallaceracing.com/reargear.htm http://users.erols.com/srweiss/calcmph.htm http://users.erols.com/srweiss/calcrpm.htm http://users.erols.com/srweiss/calcrgr.htm http://users.erols.com/srweiss/transc.htm#tabtop http://users.erols.com/srweiss/transc.htm#Auto