Re: 302 vs. 302 H.O.

Posted by Malcolm from CPE-69-76-165-154.kc.rr.com (69.76.165.154) on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 at 1:14AM :

In Reply to: 302 vs. 302 H.O. posted by cgrey8 from dialup-4.154.7.16.Dial1.Atlanta1.Level3.net (4.154.7.16) on Monday, November 01, 2004 at 11:41PM :

Unregistered Poster

Try this site.

http://www.coolcats.net/tech/advanced/ho_conversion.html

They cover non-HO to HO conversions.

-- Malcolm -- signature IZ4TE. Follow Ups: Re: 302 vs. 302 H.O. - cgrey8 12:03PM 11/02/2004 (11) Re: 302 vs. 302 H.O. - Jimmie 1:16PM 11/02/2004 (10) Re: 302 vs. 302 H.O. - Jimmie 3:04AM 11/05/2004 (0) Re: 302 vs. 302 H.O. - cgrey8 6:59PM 11/02/2004 (8) Re: 302 vs. 302 H.O. - Jimmie 11:09PM 11/02/2004 (7) Re: 302 vs. 302 H.O. and a lil on strokin' - cgrey8 1:47AM 11/03/2004 (6) Re: 302 vs. 302 H.O. and a lil on strokin' - Jimmie 2:56AM 11/04/2004 (5) Re: 302 vs. 302 H.O. and a lil on strokin' - cgrey8 2:31PM 11/04/2004 (0) Re: 302 vs. 302 H.O. and a lil on strokin' - cgrey8 9:03AM 11/04/2004 (3) Re: 302 vs. 302 H.O. and a lil on strokin' - dave 10:13PM 11/05/2004 (1) Re: 302 vs. 302 H.O. and a lil on strokin' - Jimmie 4:13AM 11/06/2004 (0) Re: 302 vs. 302 H.O. and a lil on strokin' - Jimmie 2:24AM 11/05/2004 (0) Post a Followup Name: E-Mail: ( default ) Subject: Message: : Try this site. : http://www.coolcats.net/tech/advanced/ho_conversion.html : They cover non-HO to HO conversions. Optional Link ( default ) URL: Title: Optional Image Link ( default ) URL: