Don:
I am hardly an expert, but that has never stopped me from shooting
my mouth off =:-o
My reading leads me to believe that the simplicity and tunability
of the SUs are the reason for LBC owners' fascination with them. No more
power out of the box, but if you add a cam, header, etc, then tweaking
the SUs is trivial because of the large selection of needles and jets.
There are other needles available for the ZS carbs, but they are
hard to find. I would think the later adjustable ZS carbs would at least
partially offset the SUs tuning options, but maybe not.
One thing I have already observed that makes me think that the
SUs are better: They do not use a rubber diaphragm in the vacuum chamber.
They use a metal piston, so you need not worry about a puncture or that
the diaphragm will get tired or hard, affecting your mixture curve. For
that reason alone I am inclined to believe that they are superior.
I understand that SU has (had?) a patent on the metal vacuum piston,
so ZS had to go with a rubber diaphragm. Does anybody know different?
Cheers,
Vance
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-6pack@autox.team.net [mailto:owner-6pack@autox.team.net]On
Behalf Of Don Malling
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 5:45 PM
To: jonmac; 6Pack
Subject: Re: TR6 capability
jonmac and List,
I get the impression that in Europe and the UK it is felt that the SU's
are much better than the ZS. For example, Roger Williams suggests the
replacement of the ZS with SU.
This doesn't seem to be common practice here in the US. I have the
general impression that many in the US don't see a big difference
between the SU and ZS.
Would anyone care to comment as to why this difference of opinion exists?
Don Malling
|