David120

for the basics i would say that they covered up with the unique entrance gaps and i have used a routine one to create new gaps for the staples) then I force the choice thru and curved them over.

Unless you have to get rid of the surprise systems, why do you strategy to go with a coilover installation that contributes a metal support under your car when you are trying to preserve weight? Just seems odd to me. I cannot believe that an MII revocation is less heavy than a frequent coilover kit, like the TCP or International Western packages. At $2485 and $2584 respectively, they're less expensive too. But you don't get a holder & pinion with those packages. But you could buy one later on, and propagate the expenses. . . . . .

The surprise systems were the same, except that the 428 vehicles got supports welded onto the surprise systems to deal with the extra pressure of the engine. Remarkably, I believe the 390 vehicles in 67 and 68 did not get the surprise structure supports, just the 428's. I've always observed nothing but advantages of that function. . . . . . . . .

Are the pulleys the appropriate size? Too little of a turn lever (and/ or too huge of a energy guiding push pulley) and the push would not create enough stress to function effectively at low motor rate. . . . . . . . . .

I'd individually would really like to develop a 302 clevor. Right now i just have to many 351C's on side. Besides, even if I did develop a cleavor, I do not need anything to fall it in presently. . . . . . . . . .

Those do look awesome but from the position of the picture they look a little more rectangle than rectangle. From straight from the back again are they more rectangle shaped? Still a awesome cost for stainless-steel guidelines. . . . . . . .