Quote from SKeown on 12/21/11 at 19:10:15:

 
It's because you're loved steve, we would miss ya if something happened.  
 
Seriously though, i meant no offense, do what ya want. And no, i wouldnt be calling a track official on you or anybody else for that matter.  
 

 You know, something I find perculiar, why is stickshifter editying djohnson's post, at 17:39:54 which doesn't jive anyway???
 
 SKeown

I recommend buying a a jerico because it is the only oem style tranny out there that will hold up...
You can obtain your goal with that tranny and a low 1st gear and shift it clutchless..That with your engine now would atleast be 10.0s imho...
 

Quote from Hurst390 on 12/21/11 at 23:02:55:

 
 I intend to give the T-10 a fair chance first, then who knows? Besides I feel shifting clutchless is for sissys, along with nitrous oxide. Anyway T assured me I would run 9.80's!! He's the one that insisted I go this route.
 
 SKeown

Quote from tsanchez on 12/21/11 at 23:38:19:

 
 Talk about sissyfied. I do realize that's not really a word...LOL
 
 If my heart survives, it wont permit it! Actually it should still be pretty good, when I ran marathons and cycled, my waiking BPM was 36-38 if I wasn't over training.
 
 You know, when I began this post I was sure I would face an onslought from the brand X forum, I just regret Pappy cain't join in, he's more fun than the rest put together.
 
 SKeown

 Kevin, you've tipped you're hand, wacky ideas and flawed logic can only come from my argueing the centered rod deal, but it's an honor to have you're permission to come here. BTW, you're car does pretty good too.
 
 SKeown

"I don't see 9.80's with the changes you've mentioned but I've been wrong before."  
 
 I know, that's a wild expectation. I've seen gobs of power unleashed before with similiar changes, but nothing along those lines. Changing converters in the S10 did provide an instant .4 reduction in times though, I was shocked.
 
 One of the Schneider bros had BA do additional work on some already ported Indy heads, he saw a .35 gain on the first pass afterwards, and that car was already in the mid 9's.
 
 If the changes make enough additional power to allow the 2.64 low gear to work, who knows? My car has allways done best once in high gear, with a best 60' of 1.45. If I can trim a tenth there, I can see very low 10's anyway.
 
 I'm convinced my current heads have me bottle necked, the additional 29 inches, .5 bump in compression and more cam only gave me .28 and I had to catch perfect air for that. I had tried a number of things that made no difference at all, that was reminiscent of a dragster I had decades ago. Once I corrected a fuel supply problem it took off, that was after changing cams, gearing and everything else with no positive results.
 
 The idea of an automatic repulses me, but one properly setup would likely help too. Ann's 69 AMX for instance.
 
 SKeown

 To be honest I'm not sure, but the McCorkle bros claimed 10.20 once, which they admitted could have been a timing error, being it was considerably off their normal times.  
 
 Naturally clutches then were harder on drivelines too, particularly with the heavy flywheels most were running. I know Jones Rambler's S/S car had a 50# flywheel, and they did some super wheelies, but my car with a complete flywheel/clutch assembly weighs slightly over 27#'s and it's 1/2 second quicker than theirs.  
 
 I do recall their car arrived with a 2.23 low gear tranny, once it was converted to a 2.64 ratio that was the biggest improvement they achieved. Poor Butch, Robbie and Blackie the mechanic weren't really geared for racing and were constantly plagued with silly problems. They did however manage a MPH record along the line.
 
 From what I can gather, the AMX's tended to MPH good in relation to their times, I know mine does.
 
 SKeown