- 1. [Shotimes] Bondurant 3.0L (score: 1)
- Author: "Joe Masters" <miethos@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 21:52:21 -0500
- Anybody have a Bondurant engine from FPS in their SHO by chance? I haven't heard any feedback on these ever and I was just curious about them. I'm looking for a new engine for my 93 mtx and i just wa
- /html/shotimes/2006-07/msg00372.html (7,220 bytes)
- 2. Re: [Shotimes] Bondurant 3.0L (score: 1)
- Author: Mark Nunnally <marknunnally@alltel.net>
- Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 22:56:02 -0400
- If you are going to the trouble of swapping motors, find a j-yard 3.2L. Might as well pick up 15 cubes... Mark _______________________________________________ Shotimes mailing list Shotimes@autox.tea
- /html/shotimes/2006-07/msg00373.html (7,849 bytes)
- 3. Re: [Shotimes] Bondurant 3.0L (score: 1)
- Author: "Rick Glass" <cmysho@comcast.net>
- Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 22:00:09 -0500
- I don't recall ever hearing of FPS having any of the Bondurant engines.....I personally don't think it would be of any benefit to use either way. The best thing would be to look into doing a 3.2 upgr
- /html/shotimes/2006-07/msg00374.html (8,407 bytes)
- 4. Re: [Shotimes] Bondurant 3.0L (score: 1)
- Author: Ian Fisher <dataflash@yahoo.com>
- Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 20:08:43 -0700 (PDT)
- AFAIK there isn't anything different about them than a regular SHO engine. If you need to do an engine swap you may as well do a 3.2 swap. Swapping in a 3.0 seems counterproductive when a 3.2 swap yi
- /html/shotimes/2006-07/msg00375.html (8,098 bytes)
- 5. Re: [Shotimes] Bondurant 3.0L (score: 1)
- Author: Mark Nunnally <marknunnally@alltel.net>
- Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 23:16:30 -0400
- Other than they had the crap run out of them? :) mark _______________________________________________ Shotimes mailing list Shotimes@autox.team.net http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes
- /html/shotimes/2006-07/msg00376.html (7,033 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu