Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?

Print Thread

Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"? [Re: J_BODY] #2709009 10/21/19 08:34 PM 10/21/19 08:34 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 15,439 Val-haul-ass... eventually B BradH OP Taking time off to work on my car
BradH OP Taking time off to work on my car B Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 15,439 Val-haul-ass... eventually	Thanks for everyone's replies, even if there isn't a consistent result seen. It'll be another IIWII deal, but I had to at least ask.

Entire Thread
Subject	Posted By	Posted
Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	BradH	10/21/19 03:52 PM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	madscientist	10/21/19 04:24 PM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	Locomotion	10/21/19 04:24 PM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	BradH	10/21/19 04:32 PM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	CSK	10/21/19 04:41 PM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	topside	10/21/19 04:58 PM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	Cab_Burge	10/21/19 05:08 PM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	GY3	10/21/19 08:02 PM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	70AARcuda	10/21/19 08:06 PM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	polyspheric	10/21/19 11:45 PM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	plycuda	10/21/19 11:59 PM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	J_BODY	10/22/19 12:14 AM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	BradH	10/22/19 12:34 AM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	GY3	10/22/19 01:04 AM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	B3422W5	10/22/19 01:14 AM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	CMcAllister	10/22/19 01:22 AM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	Bad340fish	10/22/19 04:07 AM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	70AARcuda	10/22/19 04:25 AM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	BradH	10/22/19 10:31 AM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	Den300	10/22/19 10:37 AM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	pittsburghracer	10/22/19 12:15 PM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	J_BODY	10/22/19 12:49 PM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	an8sec70cuda	10/22/19 02:53 PM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	340Cuda	10/22/19 05:50 PM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	Ray408G3Hemi	10/22/19 07:28 PM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	DoctorDiff	10/23/19 03:47 AM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	BradH	10/23/19 10:32 AM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	skrews	10/23/19 11:41 PM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	AndyF	10/24/19 03:28 AM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	BradH	10/24/19 10:34 AM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	CSK	10/24/19 01:03 PM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	second 70	10/24/19 03:55 PM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	SportF	10/24/19 06:28 PM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	BradH	10/24/19 06:48 PM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	SportF	10/25/19 12:53 AM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	justinp61	10/25/19 01:17 AM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	skrews	10/25/19 01:26 AM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	madscientist	10/25/19 02:07 AM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	AndyF	10/25/19 01:28 AM
Re: Strange S-60 more efficient than 8.75"?	BradH	10/25/19 03:09 PM

Moderated by Al_Alguire, Hotwheelsjr, moparts, not_a_charger, RangerDan440, tboomer

Hop To