On 08-Aug-97, James Charles Ruwaldt wrote:
>I can understand your point that Webers are better if you're referring to
>mechanical flaws in ZS's, causing them to wear out faster than they
>should. However, everyone seems to think Webers give engines that much more
>power they're worth $900 or more they cost. My ZS's give plenty of
>power. Of course, I've never raced it.
>By the way, the Moss catalogue makes a note that changing the emissions
>system is illegal. That's quite understandable, but it implies that
>replacing your fuel system with something more powerful is in itself
>illegal. Is that only true if the change makes your car fail emissions
>testing, in which case you wouldn't be able to register it? Or, if you
>live in southern Indiana, I assume you can put whatever polluting system
>you want on your car, and they probably won't do anything to you, if
>you're so inclined.
>Jim Ruwaldt
>'72 TR6 CC79338U(being restored)
>Bloomington, IN
>On Fri, 8 Aug 1997, Chris Lillja wrote:
>> B. Webers are better. Ball bearings and seals on throttle shafts.
>> Pump type acceleration enrichment....but can't afford 'em... :>)
>> Christopher M.Lillja
>> Marketing Associate
>> Princeton University Press
>> Tel:609 258 4900
>> Fax:609 258 6305
>>
Having recently undergone Colorado emmissions testing with the Weber DGVs for
the first time, I was suprised (and pleased) to find that the car actually
runs cleaner with the Webers. I got a reading of 2.28% CO at idle. The limit
in the Denver area is 4.5%. I don't recall the numbers for the HC readings but
they too were well below the max. I just squeaked by last years testing with
ZS carbs.
Mark
|