587 HP 360

Posted By: dartman366

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 03:37 AM

I had a 4800 stall TCI that was behind my 365, X headed non stroker and it went 11.18 @118.5 in my 3200# dart at the time,,so yeah, that converter is hurting you,,also I switched from a low first gear 904 to a std first gear and actually picked up some 60ft time and helped down track.

Posted By: 70AARcuda

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 03:40 AM

even with the tight converter you think the mph would be up higher..

122mph is about right for a 10.90s pass...

Posted By: pittsburghracer

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 05:45 AM

Pretty sure the Indybrocks come with a 2.05 valve. When you upgraded the valves did you stick with that size or jump up to a 2.08 valve. When I see a head stall like that on a flowbench and start backing up its usually a high airspeed issue. I'll bet its well over 400fps over the short-turn. With your 712 lift cam you are well into the affected area. The flow numbers you posted are in the area of what a ported set of heads with a 2.02 valve usually end up with. A 5200-5500 stall convertor would really help out at that weight (3400). I don't know how you guys make a small-block Duster weigh that much.

Posted By: skrews

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 11:12 AM

Quote:

Pretty sure the Indybrocks come with a 2.05 valve. When you upgraded the valves did you stick with that size or jump up to a 2.08 valve. When I see a head stall like that on a flowbench and start backing up its usually a high airspeed issue. I'll bet its well over 400fps over the short-turn. With your 712 lift cam you are well into the affected area. The flow numbers you posted are in the area of what a ported set of heads with a 2.02 valve usually end up with. A 5200-5500 stall convertor would really help out at that weight (3400). I don't know how you guys make a small-block Duster weigh that much.

Used 2.055 Ferrea hollow stem int. and 1.6 24* tulip exh. The few other worked over Eddy sbm castings flowed on this bench didn't flow as good as these, and they all supposedly flowed over 300. One set by Shadey Dell, another by some guru I never heard of, and a set of cnc ported non offset rocker castings.
I didn't check, but I imagine the lift at the valve is less than theoretical after .014 lash and .030 or so from the 59* lifter angle loss and parts deflection. Likely seeing .670ish lift which is just about where the head stalled (.650).
All steel car and a fat guy behind the wheel=heavy sled.

Hopefully the car and the driver lose some weight this winter.

Posted By: viperblue72

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 11:21 AM

My Indybrocks stalled at .600 lift also. I agree there is more left in it.
Thanks for sharing.

Posted By: Dunnuck Racing

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 11:40 AM

Can you post up your dyno sheet? Not trying to take a dig at you,but the calculator I use comes up with closer to 500 hp based on your performance and weight .
Just curious as to what the entire pull looks like,your peak numbers come in around the correct rpm for the port volume and cam used from what I can see.
Depending on how efficient your converter is,you may lose a little mph going to a higher stall.

Keith

Posted By: bwhackd34

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 01:06 PM

I agree! Could either be in the port itself or over a poorly shaped radiused inlet..if you can put your finger lightly ANYWHERE on the radius inlet and pick up flow it is probably a poorly shaped and the flow is separating....

Posted By: B3422W5

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 04:41 PM

Quote:

Pretty sure the Indybrocks come with a 2.05 valve. When you upgraded the valves did you stick with that size or jump up to a 2.08 valve. When I see a head stall like that on a flowbench and start backing up its usually a high airspeed issue. I'll bet its well over 400fps over the short-turn. With your 712 lift cam you are well into the affected area. The flow numbers you posted are in the area of what a ported set of heads with a 2.02 valve usually end up with. A 5200-5500 stall convertor would really help out at that weight (3400). I don't know how you guys make a small-block Duster weigh that much.

My old car( 70 Duster), at one time weighed 3400 or a hair more, 300 pound driver, mild steel cage, all steel car, frame connectors, bench seat, etc, etc. Real easy to weigh that much in an all steel caged car, especially with a 100 pound bench seat in it.
Had it across the scales at multiple tracks.

btw, i agree with Keith, i would expect a 587 horsepower car at that weight with a 904 to run 10.40's sorted out.

Posted By: pittsburghracer

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 05:52 PM

I keep forgetting about all us fat drivers. Matts duster weighted 3050# without him at Norwalk. All steel 1970 duster except a real heavy 6 pak fiberglass hood. Caged (not moly), frame connectors, 727, rear seat, one stock bucket seat and one race seat, spare wheel tub removed but replaced with steel floor, full 12 gallon fuel cell, stock glass and non lightened steel doors, caltracs and springs.

Posted By: B3422W5

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 06:00 PM

Quote:

I keep forgetting about all us fat drivers. Matts duster weighted 3050# without him at Norwalk. All steel 1970 duster except a real heavy 6 pak fiberglass hood. Caged (not moly), frame connectors, 727, rear seat, one stock bucket seat and one race seat, spare wheel tub removed but replaced with steel floor, full 12 gallon fuel cell, stock glass and non lightened steel doors, caltracs and springs.

Sounds about right....mine had the back seat, front bench, factory hood, full factory gas tank, s/s springs,727, stock brakes all around, and my big butt in it.....lol

Posted By: 340B5

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 06:11 PM

Thats the first under 400 inch combo w/Indybrocks I've seen that runs good. Too much head for a basicly stock 340 IMO. I agree, a 5300-5500 converter would help.

Who ported the Indybrocks?

Posted By: Performance Only

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 06:54 PM

I would have to wonder if something had changed since the dyno tuning. If it truely makes 587 HP, i would think you'd be considerably quicker and a bit more MPH. The performance indicates it's more like 500-510 REAL HP.

Posted By: CSK

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 08:31 PM

Quote:

I would have to wonder if something had changed since the dyno tuning. If it truely makes 587 HP, i would think you'd be considerably quicker and a bit more MPH. The performance indicates it's more like 500-510 REAL HP.

with 587 it should be 128 ish mph

Posted By: Locomotion

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 08:45 PM

Is it just me or does anyone else feel that there is too much "big stuff" for only 365 cubic inches under 7,000? I had to re-read the cam lift!

If you don't have enough cubes and rpm to get the velocity up in all the "big openings", it's not going to fill the cylinders efficiently. Peak HP numbers aren't as important as the "area under the curve" to accellerate the car. More torque is needed.

I agree 100% that a looser converter will help.

I can't help but wonder if the Air-Gap would actually help accelleration more than the Super Victor. But I'm sure changes would be required to optimize the carb for the different intake.

At the track, jet for mph and pump cams & squirters for 60'.

Sorry, but just trying to offer some constructive criticism.

I've never had an engine on a dyno and am use to spec limits. But I've found that leaning on the conservative side with specs tends to produce better results than the other way.

Posted By: pittsburghracer

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 08:58 PM

I would use a victor over a super victor on an engine that small. I put a super victor on my 408 and it took a lot of porting to get it to come around. I got it in a package deal and after playing with it I would never buy one again.

Posted By: skrews

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 10:09 PM

I have to wonder about the Super Victor my self. It killed TQ under 4500 and I mean killed (30 or 35# campared to AirGap). I think it's a great intake in the right application ie circle track or 400+ ci drag. My little ci low comp motor can barely use it. Would like to try the AirGap with a 2" Wilson tapered spacer. In subsequent testing on my 440HP spare parts 360 the 2" Wilson was about 10HP better than the open 1" when run on the same AirGap intake. I believe the HP is legit, its just that its in a poor chassis for the engine combo. Put this in the more typical sub 3000LB car, with a good converter, trans brake, at a bit lower elevation track and it would move.

Posted By: justinp61

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 10:23 PM

IMO for that engine a Weiand X-Celerator would be a great intake.

Posted By: Brian Hafliger

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 10:30 PM

Quote:

I have to wonder about the Super Victor my self. It killed TQ under 4500 and I mean killed (30 or 35# campared to AirGap). I think it's a great intake in the right application ie circle track or 400+ ci drag. My little ci low comp motor can barely use it. Would like to try the AirGap with a 2" Wilson tapered spacer. In subsequent testing on my 440HP spare parts 360 the 2" Wilson was about 10HP better than the open 1" when run on the same AirGap intake. I believe the HP is legit, its just that its in a poor chassis for the engine combo. Put this in the more typical sub 3000LB car, with a good converter, trans brake, at a bit lower elevation track and it would move.

There are alot of things that can affect mph that's for sure. When I first started running my w2 headed 360 duster it went 119mph and made right at 500hp. Once I changed the alignment up front and ran more tire psi in the rear I gained 2mph!
So mph is not always an indicator but more like a guage that can be off once in a while.
I'll bet the SV intake is hurting gear changes.

Posted By: perfmachst

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 10:33 PM

theres a guy with a 1972 340, cuda, FS/A, 3325#,stock intake, , carb, small valve heads, 9.0 cr, hydcam, ran 10.97 @ 120MPH. looking at charts, etc, this motor made 445 HP. according to same charts, 587 HP, @ 3200#, should run 9.97 @ 133 MPH. we have a friend with a 340 duster, full stock car, weighs 3345 with driver- 200# =3145.dyno must be very generous?????

Posted By: pittsburghracer

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 11:08 PM

Quote:

theres a guy with a 1972 340, cuda, FS/A, 3325#,stock intake, , carb, small valve heads, 9.0 cr, hydcam, ran 10.97 @ 120MPH. looking at charts, etc, this motor made 445 HP. according to same charts, 587 HP, @ 3200#, should run 9.97 @ 133 MPH. we have a friend with a 340 duster, full stock car, weighs 3345 with driver- 200# =3145.dyno must be very generous?????

Aren't they all. How many times on this site alone see GREAT dyno numbers and very disappointing track numbers.

Posted By: dodgeboy11

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 11:52 PM

Is anyone else worried about the cast eagle crankshaft at those power levels? I know it's stock stroke and stronger than a 4" arm but still, my 4" eagle broke at under 480 hp. Didn't dyno that one but the 440 in the truck now made 485 and it's faster than the 408 was. Just concerned for you, would hate to see your testing cut short because of a crap crankshaft.

Posted By: skrews

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/01/13 02:33 AM

Quote:

Is anyone else worried about the cast eagle crankshaft at those power levels? I know it's stock stroke and stronger than a 4" arm but still, my 4" eagle broke at under 480 hp. Didn't dyno that one but the 440 in the truck now made 485 and it's faster than the 408 was. Just concerned for you, would hate to see your testing cut short because of a crap crankshaft.

Bought the crank years ago before the Eagle cast crank reputation was well known.

4" steel crank, and some 13.7 Wiseco pistons are in the works for the season after next.

Attached picture 7526988-IMG_0111.JPG

Posted By: onebaddakota

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/01/13 02:15 PM

My 410 magnum made 581HP@ 6100. With a race weight of 3475lbs it ran 10.50s@125 with 3.91 gears,28" tire and a 4800 stall. So I think you're leaving something on the table.
Tom

Posted By: patrick

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/02/13 03:47 PM

Quote:

Is anyone else worried about the cast eagle crankshaft at those power levels? I know it's stock stroke and stronger than a 4" arm but still, my 4" eagle broke at under 480 hp. Didn't dyno that one but the 440 in the truck now made 485 and it's faster than the 408 was. Just concerned for you, would hate to see your testing cut short because of a crap crankshaft.

I was thinking the same...for stock stroke, why go with a suspect chinese eagle cast crank over a stocker?

Posted By: Duner

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/02/13 04:14 PM

Quote:

How many times on this site alone see GREAT dyno numbers and very disappointing track numbers.

Only the timeslips matter.

Posted By: Streetwize

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/02/13 05:15 PM

I agree the vert seems to be holding that great combo back quite a bit, you need more stall/flash....so long as you don't loose too much top end efficiency in the process.

The cam has a lot of lift for the .050 duration, are you running higher than a 1.6:1 rocker to get there?

Your thread is also very telling about the Eddie airgap, I can see that the cross section becomes a restriction to the torque peak which in turn lowers the hp trajectory in a predicable manner....great stuff and very telling info. you can sometimes only discover this on dyno tests where you have plenty of head flow and cam (i.e., proportional to the motor size) to get there to find the bottleneck.

I'd be tempted to run the Victor 340 on it to get another good side by side, the SV will help a 360 more so than a 408 I think since the SV runners are longer and the stroke of the 360 is shorter. The opposite tends to be true when the stroke is long the motor doesn't need additional runner length (for a given X-section) to make adequate mid range torque and the longer runner will then tend to be a gradual restriction above the VE/torque Peak.

Posted By: Brian Hafliger

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/02/13 06:11 PM

Quote:

Only the timeslips matter.

Well yes and no...if you have a certain amount of power from dyno testing, you have data!
Now you take that, and then compare to the track data....yes it can be a dyno that is generous, but if you start looking at the WHY this and that you may discover problems or areas that need attention.

I agree if mph is low, there's a power issue possibly but WHAT is the issue? Not enough fuel delivery, spark, what changed from the dyno???
Type of fuel, timing, jetting, spacers?

Is the converter garbage allowing 500 or more rpm through the traps than should be? There should be alot of data to look through and compare with other racers to maybe find the problems if there are any.
Just my observation I guess...

Posted By: skrews

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/03/13 09:26 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Is anyone else worried about the cast eagle crankshaft at those power levels? I know it's stock stroke and stronger than a 4" arm but still, my 4" eagle broke at under 480 hp. Didn't dyno that one but the 440 in the truck now made 485 and it's faster than the 408 was. Just concerned for you, would hate to see your testing cut short because of a crap crankshaft.

I was thinking the same...for stock stroke, why go with a suspect chinese eagle cast crank over a stocker?

At the time the Eagle crank was cheaper than having a stocker sent out for crack check, stroke equalizing, and indexing. As I said earlier this was before the Eagle cast crank reputation was well known. Would not buy a cast Eagle crank again. Thinking I might just tear this thing down and do the 4" steel crank. Don't want to ventilate the pan.

Posted By: skrews

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/03/13 09:52 AM

Quote:

I agree the vert seems to be holding that great combo back quite a bit, you need more stall/flash....so long as you don't loose too much top end efficiency in the process.

The cam has a lot of lift for the .050 duration, are you running higher than a 1.6:1 rocker to get there?

Your thread is also very telling about the Eddie airgap, I can see that the cross section becomes a restriction to the torque peak which in turn lowers the hp trajectory in a predicable manner....great stuff and very telling info. you can sometimes only discover this on dyno tests where you have plenty of head flow and cam (i.e., proportional to the motor size) to get there to find the bottleneck.

I'd be tempted to run the Victor 340 on it to get another good side by side, the SV will help a 360 more so than a 408 I think since the SV runners are longer and the stroke of the 360 is shorter. The opposite tends to be true when the stroke is long the motor doesn't need additional runner length (for a given X-section) to make adequate mid range torque and the longer runner will then tend to be a gradual restriction above the VE/torque Peak.

1.6 rockers intake/exhaust. I wish I had a few other intakes to try when it was on the dyno. M1, Victor, Xcelerator would all have been interesting to try. Keep us posted on the AirWolf 220 headed beast. Wish those had been around when I bought the IndyBrocks.

Posted By: skrews

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/03/13 11:54 AM

Quote:

Awesome of you to share your combo and listen to the criticism on it! definitely helps guys like me learn something hearing all the different perspectives on how to cut the cake

I will say though that I still think your car runs HARD for what it is, regardless of whether or not there is the opinion it leaves something on the table...Thats only 10:1 compression and 365ci in a 3400lb car going high tens!!! I love it

I figured it would be cool to share my build too don't see many like it, but I guess you gotta have thick skin to post up anything on this site

. Guess that will teach me to share anything around here.

You encounter all sorts on the internet, some with logical objective input to complete hacks and every thing in between. I wanted to get my street car in the tens with a stock stroke motor on pump gas, and I did. Not the usual 4" crank, W series headed cookie cutter motor that everyone does these days (although I can't deny its the better way to go). I'm sure this motor would run mid to lower 10s in a better chassis, but in my car it does what it does. Doesn't mean the motor isn't making the power, just means the motor is a poor fit to the chassis.

Posted By: dannysbee

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/03/13 02:51 PM

It's all in the presentation. If you had posted it as a stock stroke 10 second 3400 lb street car you would have been recieved in a whole different light. But the claim of 587 hp and running high 10's at 122 in a 3400 car unfortunitly is contradiction that invites this type of post on the Internet. Does your car run good for what it is absolutely. Does it have room for improvement, most new combinations do. At least you got some input for possible improvement in your performance.

Posted By: deaks

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/03/13 02:59 PM

As long as the advice is constructive, you can only move forward.
With tinkering, small mods and some good advice from here, my car has gone from mid 10's to the time in my sig.
I estimate my car to be close to your hp figure.
Mick

Posted By: justinp61

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/03/13 03:09 PM

Quote:

some with logical objective input to complete hacks and every thing in between.

That pretty much suns this place up

. Hard runing 360, keep at it, I like many others are sure theres more in it.

Posted By: dannysbee

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/03/13 03:12 PM

The idea run for a car with 122 trap will be 1.51 60' and 10.86. You are real close to thar mark right now. That tells me your converter is in the ball park for the power you are making. I would make sure my fuel system was up to snuff as that would kill the mph. What are your 660' numbers?

Posted By: Streetwize

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/03/13 04:12 PM

Skrews,,

What is the grind number of that Cam and what converter is that? The too tight for a 360 might be just right for a certain 414.

My own combo will be less than optimized due primarily to the chassis only fitting a 1 5/8" header. Not worth the $$$ to build something custom and I know these already fit...so. I bought the Airwolfs mainly so I could wring another 500 RPM out of the powerband and hopefully keep them for a later project. I did fit the headers with a larger 3 1/2" collector which should help a little but it's still far from Ideal. And with the header limit there's not much point putting a longer duration cam in it, but the Airwolfs do flow about 30 cfm better than my old heads even with the modest lifts....so maybe your cam ( or something similar to it ramped up another 6-8 degrees and installed straight up) with the higher lift but less seat to seat might make as much or more useable torque and power than my longer but lower Cam Motion 266/269 .585/.570 lift.

I think on your own motor I'd also be tempted to test a cam with another 6 degrees of .050 duration and put it it at 102, you could probably hit 600 with no appreciable loss of torque on the bottom. A 255 @.050 solid roller is typically just as streetable as a 249 and you can always loosen the lash a tad. The 3.58 stroke is pretty forgiving of a slight 'overcam' much more so than a 340's 3.31" stroke anyway. 249 is not particularly 'big' And the 255 would move the sweet spot up only about 200-300 rpm...Just 'tweaking out loud'.

You'll ALWAYS get a point of view on Moparts, but it's up to you to figure out what's useful and what's BS. Some really smart and experienced people on this site...and some that are....well, not so much. Notice I didn't use the word 'opinion', that's because the word (by definition) implies that everyone who gives an opinion is QUALIFIED to HAVE ONE!

Posted By: dartman366

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/03/13 05:55 PM

Quote:

Skrews,,

What is the grind number of that Cam and what converter is that? The too tight for a 360 might be just right for a certain 414.

My own combo will be less than optimized due primarily to the chassis only fitting a 1 5/8" header. Not worth the $$$ to build something custom and I know these already fit...so. I bought the Airwolfs mainly so I could wring another 500 RPM out of the powerband and hopefully keep them for a later project. I did fit the headers with a larger 3 1/2" collector which should help a little but it's still far from Ideal. And with the header limit there's not much point putting a longer duration cam in it, but the Airwolfs do flow about 30 cfm better than my old heads even with the modest lifts....so maybe your cam ( or something similar to it ramped up another 6-8 degrees and installed straight up) with the higher lift but less seat to seat might make as much or more useable torque and power than my longer but lower Cam Motion 266/269 .585/.570 lift.

I think on your own motor I'd also be tempted to test a cam with another 6 degrees of .050 duration and put it it at 102, you could probably hit 600 with no appreciable loss of torque on the bottom. A 255 @.050 solid roller is typically just as streetable as a 249 and you can always loosen the lash a tad. The 3.58 stroke is pretty forgiving of a slight 'overcam' much more so than a 340's 3.31" stroke anyway. 249 is not particularly 'big' And the 255 would move the sweet spot up only about 200-300 rpm...Just 'tweaking out loud'.

You'll ALWAYS get a point of view on Moparts, but it's up to you to figure out what's useful and what's BS. Some really smart and experienced people on this site...and some that are....well, not so much. Notice I didn't use the word 'opinion', that's because the word (by definition) implies that everyone who gives an opinion is QUALIFIED to HAVE ONE!

I agree with Wise on both counts,,1 the cam tweeking sounds logical to me, but I am still learning the technical aspects of cams and all that go's along with it.
2.It's very hard to read somthing on an open forum like this and know just how a person is trying to get their point across, I have met some of these guys and found in person they are very personable and willing to help in any way,,reading some statements on here you don't always get that warm and fuzzy feeling, I for one appreciate what you are doing because you have gone several steps beyond what I did with my first stock stroke 360, and I mean stock, stock crank, stock rod's, hyper pistons and home ported J heads

keep up the good work.

Posted By: 1Fast340

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/03/13 06:10 PM

Quote:

another pic

good running 360,i realy like stockstroke engines for some oddball reason

i would bet that that engine would aprreciate some more compression (real close to 11:1 if the pumpgas will tollerate it with real good squish)and headers with alitle shorter primarys (around 32"-35" i believe that those hookers are somewher close to 42") not putting your combo down stockstroke smallblocks that is streetable running in the 10�s in a somewhat heavy A-body is good in my book

587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 03:03 AM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 03:04 AM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 03:12 AM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 03:24 AM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 03:32 AM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 03:37 AM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 03:40 AM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 05:45 AM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 11:12 AM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 11:21 AM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 11:40 AM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 01:06 PM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 04:41 PM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 05:52 PM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 06:00 PM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 06:11 PM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 06:54 PM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 08:31 PM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 08:45 PM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 08:58 PM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 10:09 PM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 10:23 PM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 10:30 PM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 10:33 PM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 11:08 PM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 12/31/12 11:52 PM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/01/13 02:33 AM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/01/13 02:15 PM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/02/13 03:47 PM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/02/13 04:14 PM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/02/13 05:15 PM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/02/13 06:11 PM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/02/13 06:19 PM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/02/13 07:52 PM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/02/13 09:24 PM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/02/13 11:43 PM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/03/13 12:18 AM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/03/13 12:24 AM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/03/13 09:26 AM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/03/13 09:52 AM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/03/13 11:54 AM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/03/13 02:51 PM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/03/13 02:59 PM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/03/13 03:09 PM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/03/13 03:12 PM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/03/13 04:12 PM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/03/13 05:55 PM

Re: 587 HP 360 - 01/03/13 06:10 PM