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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Big\s+Healeys\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. Big Healeys (score: 1): Author: s883351@minyos.xx.rmit.OZ.AU (John Taylor [The Banshee]); Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 13:18:47 +1100; Why did almost all of the AH 3000's have 2700cc (approx) engines, and only the Mk 1A (?) have a "real" 3000cc engine (approx)? BTW, does anyone know anything about the Healy Frogeye (the new improved; /html/british-cars/1991-01/msg00130.html (7,334 bytes)
2. Re: Big Healeys (score: 1): Author: tobin@hercules.acsu.buffalo.edu (Mike Tobin); Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 9:32:02 EDT; I think the 100/6's had the 2700 unit and all the 3000 had the _real_ 3000 (2,912 ccs) motor. At any rarte once they started with the bigger engine they never went back to the smaller one. Whne I fi; /html/british-cars/1991-01/msg00154.html (7,133 bytes)
3. Re: Big Healeys (score: 1): Author: jmuller@stardent.com (Jim Muller); Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 10:27:54 EST; About this bizness of the Healey motor going into the MGC... Isn't it L. Porter's book that ways that many people think they used the old 3000, but in fact they didnt, that the MGC 3000 was a fresh d; /html/british-cars/1991-01/msg00180.html (6,670 bytes)
4. Re: Big Healeys (score: 1): Author: sfisher@wsl.dec.com; Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 10:22:31 PST; Well, it was and it wasn't. When it became apparent that the Big Healey would be unable to meet upcoming US smog and safety requirements, BMC began looking into a replacement for their 3-liter, 6-cy; /html/british-cars/1991-01/msg00192.html (11,859 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]