Peachyracer

Thank you! I didn't know that's the way they came. That will work
perfectly if I decide to spend the money. I'm going to check into the
blueprint idea first though I think. I bookmarked that page so I can go
back to it for part numbers. Now the goal is to find out how high I can
twist that motor up to.
Pete


"c" <c@me.org> wrote in message
news:guctc.24493$zn.7071@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> Just so you know, there are more modules available for that unit. The ones
> you listed are the ones included with the box. Here is the page that shows
> the modules available:
> http://www.msdignition.com/rpm_10.htm
>
> Chris
>
> "Peachyracer" <eyes_up@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:TTbtc.15126$eH1.6664165@newssvr28.news.prodig y.com...
> > Thanks, Bill. I'll do that for sure. I was just wondering what the
> redline
> > was to see if I could even use a rev limiter that was preprogrammed at
> those
> > numbers, and also to see if anybody knows what the actual red line was
so
> > the motor doesn't get "vented" or otherwise damaged prematurely.
> >
> > Thanks again, I (and I'm sure countless other guys) appreciate all the
> input
> > you give to this forum.
> > Pete
> >
> >
> > "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> > news:40B52071.9D926AC6@***.net...
> > > Then you wouldn't be using it would you? You get the least bang
for
> > > the buck in ignition parts. Buy a book on how to blue print an engine.
> > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> > >
> > > Peachyracer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi guys. I'm thinking about putting an MSD-6al into an '82 AMC 360
> > motor.
> > > > This ignition has a rev limiter which can be programmed for 3000,
> 6000,
> > > > 7000, and 8000. I'm just wondering what the red line is on this
motor
> > and
> > > > if I do the MSD, which pill should I use. I'm thinking 6000 is WAY
> > high,
> > > > and 3000 is WAY low. Any thought?
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Pete
> >
> >
>
>

Peachyracer

Thank you! I didn't know that's the way they came. That will work
perfectly if I decide to spend the money. I'm going to check into the
blueprint idea first though I think. I bookmarked that page so I can go
back to it for part numbers. Now the goal is to find out how high I can
twist that motor up to.
Pete


"c" <c@me.org> wrote in message
news:guctc.24493$zn.7071@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> Just so you know, there are more modules available for that unit. The ones
> you listed are the ones included with the box. Here is the page that shows
> the modules available:
> http://www.msdignition.com/rpm_10.htm
>
> Chris
>
> "Peachyracer" <eyes_up@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:TTbtc.15126$eH1.6664165@newssvr28.news.prodig y.com...
> > Thanks, Bill. I'll do that for sure. I was just wondering what the
> redline
> > was to see if I could even use a rev limiter that was preprogrammed at
> those
> > numbers, and also to see if anybody knows what the actual red line was
so
> > the motor doesn't get "vented" or otherwise damaged prematurely.
> >
> > Thanks again, I (and I'm sure countless other guys) appreciate all the
> input
> > you give to this forum.
> > Pete
> >
> >
> > "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> > news:40B52071.9D926AC6@***.net...
> > > Then you wouldn't be using it would you? You get the least bang
for
> > > the buck in ignition parts. Buy a book on how to blue print an engine.
> > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> > >
> > > Peachyracer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi guys. I'm thinking about putting an MSD-6al into an '82 AMC 360
> > motor.
> > > > This ignition has a rev limiter which can be programmed for 3000,
> 6000,
> > > > 7000, and 8000. I'm just wondering what the red line is on this
motor
> > and
> > > > if I do the MSD, which pill should I use. I'm thinking 6000 is WAY
> > high,
> > > > and 3000 is WAY low. Any thought?
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Pete
> >
> >
>
>

Peachyracer

Thank you! I didn't know that's the way they came. That will work
perfectly if I decide to spend the money. I'm going to check into the
blueprint idea first though I think. I bookmarked that page so I can go
back to it for part numbers. Now the goal is to find out how high I can
twist that motor up to.
Pete


"c" <c@me.org> wrote in message
news:guctc.24493$zn.7071@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> Just so you know, there are more modules available for that unit. The ones
> you listed are the ones included with the box. Here is the page that shows
> the modules available:
> http://www.msdignition.com/rpm_10.htm
>
> Chris
>
> "Peachyracer" <eyes_up@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:TTbtc.15126$eH1.6664165@newssvr28.news.prodig y.com...
> > Thanks, Bill. I'll do that for sure. I was just wondering what the
> redline
> > was to see if I could even use a rev limiter that was preprogrammed at
> those
> > numbers, and also to see if anybody knows what the actual red line was
so
> > the motor doesn't get "vented" or otherwise damaged prematurely.
> >
> > Thanks again, I (and I'm sure countless other guys) appreciate all the
> input
> > you give to this forum.
> > Pete
> >
> >
> > "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> > news:40B52071.9D926AC6@***.net...
> > > Then you wouldn't be using it would you? You get the least bang
for
> > > the buck in ignition parts. Buy a book on how to blue print an engine.
> > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> > >
> > > Peachyracer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi guys. I'm thinking about putting an MSD-6al into an '82 AMC 360
> > motor.
> > > > This ignition has a rev limiter which can be programmed for 3000,
> 6000,
> > > > 7000, and 8000. I'm just wondering what the red line is on this
motor
> > and
> > > > if I do the MSD, which pill should I use. I'm thinking 6000 is WAY
> > high,
> > > > and 3000 is WAY low. Any thought?
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Pete
> >
> >
>
>

L.W.(=?iso-8859-1?Q?=DFill?=) Hughes III

Hi Dave,
I remember they called it "designed" horsepower rather than the
actual brake horsepower, like you Brits used. I always felt it was
pretty close, though, except for the 352" Fords for '58 were detuned for
some reason, but left overrated at three hundred horse. Anyway, during
that time it was manufacturers that establish their power rating, and
that's what drag racing fix their stock and factory experimental classes
by. So, when Ford advertised the supercharged '57 Thunderbird at three
hundred horsepower and it actually developed four hundred at the rear
wheels, it make it drag racing best that year. You'll be able to tell
what you have for horsepower by plugging in your weight and quarter mile
elapse time at: http://corvetteactioncenter.com/tech/tools/horse.html
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Dave Milne wrote:
>
> Do you know if those figures gross or net hp, Bill ?
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

L.W.(=?iso-8859-1?Q?=DFill?=) Hughes III

Hi Dave,
I remember they called it "designed" horsepower rather than the
actual brake horsepower, like you Brits used. I always felt it was
pretty close, though, except for the 352" Fords for '58 were detuned for
some reason, but left overrated at three hundred horse. Anyway, during
that time it was manufacturers that establish their power rating, and
that's what drag racing fix their stock and factory experimental classes
by. So, when Ford advertised the supercharged '57 Thunderbird at three
hundred horsepower and it actually developed four hundred at the rear
wheels, it make it drag racing best that year. You'll be able to tell
what you have for horsepower by plugging in your weight and quarter mile
elapse time at: http://corvetteactioncenter.com/tech/tools/horse.html
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Dave Milne wrote:
>
> Do you know if those figures gross or net hp, Bill ?
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

L.W.(=?iso-8859-1?Q?=DFill?=) Hughes III

Hi Dave,
I remember they called it "designed" horsepower rather than the
actual brake horsepower, like you Brits used. I always felt it was
pretty close, though, except for the 352" Fords for '58 were detuned for
some reason, but left overrated at three hundred horse. Anyway, during
that time it was manufacturers that establish their power rating, and
that's what drag racing fix their stock and factory experimental classes
by. So, when Ford advertised the supercharged '57 Thunderbird at three
hundred horsepower and it actually developed four hundred at the rear
wheels, it make it drag racing best that year. You'll be able to tell
what you have for horsepower by plugging in your weight and quarter mile
elapse time at: http://corvetteactioncenter.com/tech/tools/horse.html
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Dave Milne wrote:
>
> Do you know if those figures gross or net hp, Bill ?
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

L.W.(=?iso-8859-1?Q?=DFill?=) Hughes III

Hi Dave,
I remember they called it "designed" horsepower rather than the
actual brake horsepower, like you Brits used. I always felt it was
pretty close, though, except for the 352" Fords for '58 were detuned for
some reason, but left overrated at three hundred horse. Anyway, during
that time it was manufacturers that establish their power rating, and
that's what drag racing fix their stock and factory experimental classes
by. So, when Ford advertised the supercharged '57 Thunderbird at three
hundred horsepower and it actually developed four hundred at the rear
wheels, it make it drag racing best that year. You'll be able to tell
what you have for horsepower by plugging in your weight and quarter mile
elapse time at: http://corvetteactioncenter.com/tech/tools/horse.html
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Dave Milne wrote:
>
> Do you know if those figures gross or net hp, Bill ?
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ