Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*carb\s+conversions\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*carb\s+conversions\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. Re: carb conversions (score: 1): Author: Terry Thompson <firespiter@yahoo.com>; Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 07:03:22 -0700 (PDT); To be specific, two 1.25" carbs doesn't equal a 2.5" carb. The circular area of the throttle disc is calculated as pi*r(squared). For two you'd have to add them then recalculate in reverse to see wha; /html/spitfires/2001-09/msg00016.html (7,796 bytes)
2. Re: carb conversions (score: 1): Author: Joe Curry <spitlist@gte.net>; Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 17:16:04 -0700; But the 2 1.25" SU's with their combined 2.12" area is still better than the single 1.5 ZS with 1.766", right? Joe; /html/spitfires/2001-09/msg00019.html (7,954 bytes)
3. Re: carb conversions (score: 1): Author: Dan Buettner <danb@thelittlemacshop.com>; Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 20:05:37 -0500; Yes - and no. Depends on the size of the engine, among other things. Carbs have to be sized appropriately to the motor. If one were to put a pair of really stinkin' big SUs on a Spitfire motor, I wo; /html/spitfires/2001-09/msg00020.html (8,338 bytes)
4. Re: carb conversions (score: 1): Author: Joe Curry <spitlist@gte.net>; Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 18:41:09 -0700; The question wasn't whether 2 1-1/4" SU's would work but rather would they deliver more air/fuel than a single 1.5 ZS. And because of the increased choke area, that would definitely be true without q; /html/spitfires/2001-09/msg00021.html (8,920 bytes)
5. Re: carb conversions (score: 1): Author: Trevor Boicey <tboicey@brit.ca>; Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 22:56:35 -0400; I agree, and it also depends on what you mean as "better". Peak power is a nice thing, but I suspect most of us want our LBCs to be something we can live with on a day to day basis. Easy starting, at; /html/spitfires/2001-09/msg00022.html (8,180 bytes)
6. Re: carb conversions (score: 1): Author: Nolan Penney <npenney@erols.com>; Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 21:01:27 -0400; Yep. Which leads me to suspect the ZS's bad rap has more to do with it's lousy manifold design then anything else. Especially the later ones that had the narrowed down manifold runners.; /html/spitfires/2001-09/msg00037.html (8,213 bytes)
7. carb conversions (score: 1): Author: "George Parker" <ygpz4re@hotmail.com>; Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 20:55:37 -0400; To the lister who wants to change his CD150 for dual SUs (sorry I forgot who it was): Others may disagree, and I'm always interested in more educated opinions than mine, but if you have a 1500, then; /html/spitfires/2001-08/msg00465.html (7,263 bytes)
8. Re: carb conversions (score: 1): Author: Joe Curry <spitlist@gte.net>; Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:20:52 -0700; I have a Mk1 Spit with a Modified 1500 engine that does just fine with a pair of 1-1/4 carbs from a Mk3 Spit. In fact it goes like stink! And Kas Kastner will tell you that he was able to generate 1; /html/spitfires/2001-08/msg00466.html (7,717 bytes)
9. Re: carb conversions (score: 1): Author: Dave Chu <dave@ece.concordia.ca>; Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 23:58:10 -0400; I would disgree with that. I have an 78 Spit that had the CD150 and a non functioning hot water choke. After spend around 2 years trying to get that setup to run right I got my hands of a dual SU HS2; /html/spitfires/2001-08/msg00471.html (8,787 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]