Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Destroking\s+U20\s+eng\.\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Destroking\s+U20\s+eng\.\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. Destroking U20 eng. (score: 1): Author: Lafoxparts@aol.com; Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 18:08:18 EST; What do you all think of destroking a U20 with a1600 crank and boring it out back toward 2L size. I believe in some apps it might be worth while. Let me know what you think, please be kind. Respectf; /html/datsun-roadsters/2001-03/msg00731.html (6,654 bytes)
2. Re: Destroking U20 eng. (score: 1): Author: "John F Sandhoff" <sandhoff@csus.edu>; Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 17:17:25 -0800; It was asked: IMHO, what a deal: the power of a 1.6 and the expense of a U20 :-) And remember - the R crank is an inch too SHORT for the U20 block! I can't possibly imagine _any_ good reason to do th; /html/datsun-roadsters/2001-03/msg00752.html (6,867 bytes)
3. Re: Destroking U20 eng. (score: 1): Author: Ronnie Day <ronday@home.com>; Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 16:05:29 -0600; I know a couple of others have already weighed in, and while I may even understand a bit why (using longer rods?) you're thinking about this, the cost/benefit ratio has to be way out of whack. First; /html/datsun-roadsters/2001-03/msg00799.html (7,339 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]