OK, OK, you caught me. Poor terminology. I typed that as I was sitting
listening to a droning speakerphone, pretending to be a valid part of a
pointless conference call.
Perhaps I should have said "I understand that better airflow can be a good
thing, and I think the DCOE's do that, dont they?" I'm not as fluent at the
weber lingo yet. I've never DRIVEN a carbureted car before, let alone owned
one. That's what happens when you get your license in 1985 in a family with
no older cars.
I tell you, I love this list, I can send an email before I leave work, and
have ten responses before I get home.
I got alot of good comments from alot of people. Yes, I am guilty of "MORE
IS BETTER" americanism. That sick "While I'm in here" mentality is probably
not the best thing for my first go around.
Larry Hoy suggested that if I wanted zip, essentially, flogging the four
cylinder horse was an exercise in futility, That I should Go V8. I've been
surfing the web reading about conversions, Including Roger Parker's page at
http://www.mgcars.org.uk/v8_conversions/rogv8.html. Since he suggests people
wanting a chrome bumpered v8 buy a rubber bumper car and convert the
bumpers, I think that's a bit more work than I had in mind.
So I think I'm going to do what seems to be a common thread in responses and
take this engine to 67 specs. Now, can someone elaborate for me exactly what
that means?
-Chris
P.S. - Bentley manual and the Burgess book are on order and will be here
shortly.
On Tue, 03 Oct 2000, Bill Schooler wrote:
> Chris,
>
> Once you get and read Peter's book, I think you'll realize that what you
>wrote,
> above, i.e., "The 1950cc bore job (0.60 over?) looks like fun. The Crossflow
> head makes
> sense. Dual DCOE's make sense. A nicely tweaked cam, new valves, a new
> header and exhaust." DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!
________________________________________________________________________
| Chris Thompson ct@cthompson.com |
| 1973 MGB http://cthompson.com/mg/ |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|