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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Specs\.\s+please\?\s*$/: 32 ]

Total 32 documents matching your query.

1. Specs. please? (score: 1): Author: "Jeff Webster" <carfindr@tiac.net>; Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 08:27:51 -0400; Hi there, Would someone be kind enough to e-mail me the oil capacity for the back axle and the gear box of my 58 Plus 4. It has the Moss Box. (I know I could normally use the dip stick and fill the r; /html/morgans/1999-04/msg00144.html (7,478 bytes)
2. Re: Specs. please? (score: 1): Author: jpavone@vanstar.com; Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 05:56:57 -0700; My book states 2.1 Imperial pints for the 3HA rear axle. I believe an Imperial pint is slightly greater than a regular one. Dunno about your gear box as mine is from the Ford Family. regards, John 59; /html/morgans/1999-04/msg00145.html (7,970 bytes)
3. Re: Specs. please? (score: 1): Author: scott.barrie@CIMtegration.com (Scott Barrie); Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:07:14 -0500; There are those of us who would have written that: "a regular pint is slightly greater than a U.S. pint"...... :-) An Imperial pint is 20 ounces. Cheers Scott Barrie '63 Plus Four; /html/morgans/1999-04/msg00146.html (7,642 bytes)
4. Re: Specs. please? (score: 1): Author: "Stuart J. Ross" <stuross@nac.net>; Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 10:20:01 -0400; That's because the bloody Brits were exploiting the poor Yankee colonists back in the 18th century. But we showed 'em, didn't we! Now we drive their Morgans and they have 20 oz pints and drink Budwis; /html/morgans/1999-04/msg00147.html (8,393 bytes)
5. Re: Specs. please? (score: 1): Author: Dave.Vodden@uk.ecitele.com; Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 16:22:03 +0100; As a "Bloody" Brit (I cut myself shaving) I have always been puzzled by this disparity of standards and I can think of only the following possible explanations 1 Some sensible person thought that a p; /html/morgans/1999-04/msg00148.html (10,528 bytes)
6. Re: Specs. please? (score: 1): Author: Sean Boyle <Sean_Boyle@MENTORG.COM>; Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 15:12:24 +0000; ...but not as good as a good whiskey!; /html/morgans/1999-04/msg00149.html (7,549 bytes)
7. Re: Specs. please? (score: 1): Author: LSelz@aol.com; Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:38:41 EDT; We revolutionaries still have an awful lot of British in us. We revere British sports cars and motorcycles, we use a railway gauge that is traceable back through the spacing of Roman military chariot; /html/morgans/1999-04/msg00150.html (8,373 bytes)
8. Re: Specs. please? (score: 1): Author: "J.D. Welch" <jdwelch@datawing.com>; Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:19:54 -0600; OK. To digress even further... Recently there was a gathering of brewers from around the globe. At the end of the first day of grueling lectures, some chaps decided to head for the local pub for a pi; /html/morgans/1999-04/msg00151.html (8,808 bytes)
9. Re: Specs. please? (score: 1): Author: RCooperman@aol.com; Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 20:13:19 EDT; We still need to honor the globalization of spelling as a favor to us yanks. Richard Cooperman '67 Morgan 4/4 RHD; /html/morgans/1999-04/msg00152.html (7,928 bytes)
10. Re: Specs. please? (score: 1): Author: toad <toad@storm.ca>; Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 20:55:46 -0400; And don't forget the American warship is still a Jackie Fisher design. Who was Jackie Fisher? Anybody know?? Toad; /html/morgans/1999-04/msg00153.html (8,857 bytes)
11. Re: Specs. please? (score: 1): Author: "William G. Lamb, III" <lambroving@worldnet.att.net>; Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:50:48 -0400; My Lord, we are an old bunch! Jacky Fisher might have been the biggest proponent of H.M.S. Dreadnought, but it was Percy Scott who figured out how to get some use out of the thing, (Father of modern; /html/morgans/1999-04/msg00156.html (9,179 bytes)
12. Re: Specs. please? (score: 1): Author: TrmpetDave@aol.com; Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 23:46:10 EDT; <<Some canny Yankee found that he could label a drum "Contains 50 Gallons" when in fact it only contained 40.>> Actually, since the American fluid ounce is larger than the Imperial, it is a 60 gallon; /html/morgans/1999-04/msg00158.html (8,450 bytes)
13. Re: Specs. please? (score: 1): Author: "F Kuzyk" <fkuzyk@cgocable.net>; Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 23:51:29 -0400; A good assessment. While Lord Fisher was the proponent for "Fear God and Dread Nought", it was Vittorio Cuniiberti who came up with the theory for all-big-gun battleships. The US BBs of the Iowa cla; /html/morgans/1999-04/msg00159.html (11,186 bytes)
14. Re: Specs. please? (score: 1): Author: Dave.Vodden@uk.ecitele.com; Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 08:50:00 +0100; You mean an ounce of water doesn't weigh an ounce any more? Or do you guy's use heavy water :-) something new every day... Dave Vodden; /html/morgans/1999-04/msg00162.html (8,207 bytes)
15. Re: Specs. please? (score: 1): Author: Ben Palmer <palsy@bellatlantic.net>; Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 03:59:49 -0400; Dear Dave: There is a difference between fluid ounces (volume) and ounces of weight. There are 12 troy ounces in a pound of gold. Although a troy ounce is heavier (in grams) than an avoirdupois ounce; /html/morgans/1999-04/msg00163.html (8,980 bytes)
16. Re: Specs. please? (score: 1): Author: Dave.Vodden@uk.ecitele.com; Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 11:12:19 +0100; Very Interesting Ben My GCE Ordinary level engineering science (which differed only from physics in using random units rather than a consistant SI set of units) had it the other way round. The pound; /html/morgans/1999-04/msg00164.html (11,282 bytes)
17. Re: Specs. please? (score: 1): Author: gdm@po.cwru.edu (David McCoy); Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 07:55:57 -0400 (EDT); The slug refered to by "Eric" as a unit of mass was described This is all very well and good, but I am confused. Does this have anything to d owit hthe phrase ".....why don't you go pound sand......; /html/morgans/1999-04/msg00165.html (8,788 bytes)
18. Re: Specs. please? (score: 1): Author: ARoman4047@aol.com; Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 08:13:25 EDT; ....Brilliant exigesis- Now if we could figure a way to market this properly... Let's see; measure the pounds feet of torque in "our" system = an 8/10 ratio or a 20 percent increase in engine torque; /html/morgans/1999-04/msg00166.html (8,946 bytes)
19. Re: Specs. please? (score: 1): Author: Dave.Vodden@uk.ecitele.com; Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 13:21:03 +0100; Your pound of sand to be pounded is probably impounded in the pound!! Dave Vodden gdm@po.cwru.edu (David McCoy) on 22/04/99 12:55:57 Please respond to gdm@po.cwru.edu (David McCoy) To: morgans@autox; /html/morgans/1999-04/msg00167.html (9,131 bytes)
20. RE: Specs. please? (score: 1): Author: Gerry Willburn <Gerry.Willburn@trw.com>; Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 07:17:28 -0700; I heard once that in the course of a long race that Stirling Moss lost as much as 14 pounds. It just proves the old adage that: "A rolling Moss gathers no stone." Gerry; /html/morgans/1999-04/msg00171.html (9,864 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]