Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*TR6\s+capability\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*TR6\s+capability\s*$/: 22 ]

Total 22 documents matching your query.

1. TR6 capability (score: 1): Author: "Navarrette, Vance" <vance.navarrette@intel.com>; Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:35:31 -0800; Perhaps it is not quite as amazing as you think. He is my $0.02, and if I am smoking rope, well... It would not be the first time. Most of the cornering and handling improvements in the last 30 year; /html/6pack/2003-11/msg00238.html (10,239 bytes)
2. Re: TR6 capability (score: 1): Author: "Robert M. Lang" <lang@isis.mit.edu>; Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:31:16 -0500 (EST); Without beating a dead horse... I will not argue all your points, but I will point out one extremely important factor: the modern tires are truely amazing, but you still need to optimize the contact; /html/6pack/2003-11/msg00239.html (8,867 bytes)
3. Re: TR6 capability (score: 1): Author: Greg Dito <dito9561@bellsouth.net>; Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:55:22 -0500; I think we're in general agreement here, and I know that most rice rocket owners have no idea as to what a six cylinder TR is capable of, no less than the fact that most think our officially antique; /html/6pack/2003-11/msg00240.html (9,225 bytes)
4. Re: TR6 capability (score: 1): Author: "Philip E. Barnes" <peb3@cornell.edu>; Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:13:30 -0500; The one area that needs the most work in a TR6 is chassis rigidity, or lack thereof. Current production cars are extraordinarily stiff, which makes the handling quite predictable. You'd have to go a; /html/6pack/2003-11/msg00241.html (7,758 bytes)
5. Re: TR6 capability (score: 1): Author: "Robert M. Lang" <lang@isis.mit.edu>; Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:49:12 -0500 (EST); Agreed. I've posted to this list and others about the Triumph TR6 "flexible flyer" characteristics. c ya, rml -- Bob Lang Room N42-140Q | This space for rent Consultant MIT unix-vms-help | Voice:617-; /html/6pack/2003-11/msg00242.html (8,469 bytes)
6. RE: TR6 capability (score: 1): Author: "Shawn J. Loseke" <sloseke@holly.colostate.edu>; Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:26:33 -0700; Which is why the TVR 2500M is even more drool worthy in my opinion. Loads stiffer tube chassis wrapped in fiberglass. Un-equal length double A-arm suspension front and rear and the mechanical symphon; /html/6pack/2003-11/msg00243.html (8,748 bytes)
7. RE: TR6 capability (score: 1): Author: "Joseph Grant" <z28quetzal@mindspring.com>; Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:59:16 -0500; About fuel injection sir, I disagree with you. Fuel injection ensures an exact 14.7 to 1 fuel ratio, something that cannot be said about carburetters. Plus the fact that fuel injection will deliver; /html/6pack/2003-11/msg00247.html (9,822 bytes)
8. RE: TR6 capability (score: 1): Author: "Navarrette, Vance" <vance.navarrette@intel.com>; Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:27:48 -0800; I think we are going to agree to disagree on that one. Fuel injection offers no more ultimate power than a good carburetor. The advantages to EFI are numerous, but ultimate power is not one of them.; /html/6pack/2003-11/msg00248.html (10,242 bytes)
9. RE: TR6 capability (score: 1): Author: Mark Hooper <mhooper@pix-cinema.com>; Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:39:45 -0500; Hey Joe: So are our cars... :^) Mark Vance, About fuel injection sir, I disagree with you. Fuel injection ensures an exact 14.7 to 1 fuel ratio, something that cannot be said about carburetters. Plus; /html/6pack/2003-11/msg00249.html (8,992 bytes)
10. RE: TR6 capability (score: 1): Author: "Robert M. Lang" <lang@isis.mit.edu>; Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:38:35 -0500 (EST); [stuff about _stock_ PI cars deleted for brevity] The record for a TR6 engine is 252 HP at 8000 RPM's. This was an "all out" race engine with all the tricks, so it was 12.5:1 (more or less) and the m; /html/6pack/2003-11/msg00261.html (9,295 bytes)
11. RE: TR6 capability (score: 1): Author: Mark Hooper <mhooper@pix-cinema.com>; Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:26:37 -0500; Hi Robert: Why would anybody bother fixing up a TR6 engine like this? It is so far from stock that it has no LBC value. Is it just to keep the approximate look of the TR engine bay? Why not just put; /html/6pack/2003-11/msg00268.html (9,865 bytes)
12. RE: TR6 capability (score: 1): Author: "Robert M. Lang" <lang@isis.mit.edu>; Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:17:10 -0500 (EST); Drawn Out Metal? It's the seemless tube used to build roll cages in race cars. Light and strong. Relatively light, that is. rml -- Bob Lang Room N42-140Q | This space for rent Consultant MIT unix-vms; /html/6pack/2003-11/msg00270.html (9,126 bytes)
13. Re: TR6 capability (score: 1): Author: "Mark J. Bradakis" <mjb@autox.team.net>; Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:39:06 -0700; DOM = drawn over mandrel, a method of forming a seamless tube from liquid mjb.; /html/6pack/2003-11/msg00271.html (7,993 bytes)
14. RE:TR6 Capability (score: 1): Author: MJSUKEY@cs.com; Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:53:13 EST; "Why would anybody bother fixing up a TR6 engine like this? It is so far from stock that it has no LBC value" Mark, I guess beauty is in the eyes of the beholder (or something like that) I would tend; /html/6pack/2003-11/msg00275.html (9,068 bytes)
15. RE: TR6 capability (score: 1): Author: "Robert M. Lang" <lang@isis.mit.edu>; Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:51:41 -0500 (EST); Hi. This is the sort of question to which there is no single, easy answer. But in a vain attempt to shed some light on the issue, let's try this. To some of us, the TR6 is the greatest car ever made.; /html/6pack/2003-11/msg00279.html (11,943 bytes)
16. RE: TR6 capability (score: 1): Author: Mark Hooper <mhooper@pix-cinema.com>; Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:18:40 -0500; Thanks for the very informative feedback Robert. BTW, I wasn't trying to say that the 250 HP TR6 isn't an LBC, what I meant was that I didn't feel that an engine that modified was a lot different fro; /html/6pack/2003-11/msg00280.html (8,422 bytes)
17. Re: TR6 capability (score: 1): Author: "jonmac" <jonmac@ndirect.co.uk>; Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 08:36:51 -0000; At the risk of arriving late in this topic (I'm only in digest mode) some thoughts of PI cars based on personal experience and ownership of them for thirty odd years. The power difference between inj; /html/6pack/2003-11/msg00302.html (10,603 bytes)
18. Re: TR6 capability (score: 1): Author: Don Malling <dmallin@attglobal.net>; Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 20:44:55 -0500; jonmac and List, I get the impression that in Europe and the UK it is felt that the SU's are much better than the ZS. For example, Roger Williams suggests the replacement of the ZS with SU. This does; /html/6pack/2003-11/msg00303.html (11,288 bytes)
19. Re: TR6 capability (score: 1): Author: "Greg Dito" <dito9561@bellsouth.net>; Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:57:22 -0500; When I communicated with Peter Cox of Moss Triumphtune some months ago he brought up the SU vs. ZS decision and referred to the metering choices on ZS carbs as "pathetic" when trying to optimize car; /html/6pack/2003-11/msg00304.html (9,918 bytes)
20. RE: TR6 capability (score: 1): Author: "Navarrette, Vance" <vance.navarrette@intel.com>; Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 07:55:23 -0800; I am hardly an expert, but that has never stopped me from shooting my mouth off =:-o My reading leads me to believe that the simplicity and tunability of the SUs are the reason for LBC owners' fasci; /html/6pack/2003-11/msg00322.html (9,356 bytes)

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