Return-Path: <Lehanover@aol.com>
Received: from imo-m28.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.9] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.5)
  with ESMTP id 595321 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 07 Jan 2005 22:44:09 -0500
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.137.9; envelope-from=Lehanover@aol.com
Received: from Lehanover@aol.com
	by imo-m28.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r3.8.) id q.19a.2d858339 (4262)
	 for <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>; Fri, 7 Jan 2005 22:43:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Lehanover@aol.com
Message-ID: <19a.2d858339.2f10b0e7@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 22:43:35 EST
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: which engine
To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 138

In a message dated 1/7/2005 7:10:50 PM Central Standard Time, 
atlasyts@bellsouth.net writes:

<< On 1/7/05 8:05 PM, "Paul" <sqpilot@bellsouth.net> wrote:
 
 > I need to query the group....which might be the best choice of engines 
(going
 > non-turbo)....a street ported 4-port with high compression rotors, or a 
street
 > ported NA 6 port with high compression rotors?  I could do it either
 > way....just don't know if one has advantages over the other.  Thanks in
 > advance for all input and suggestions.  Paul Conner
 > 
 > 
 > Third Gen. Turbo :)
 > Bulent
 
The 4 port is it for power hands down.

Lynn E. Hanover