Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[FOT\]\s+1\.5\s+$Stromberg$\s+head\s+with\s+1\.625\s+$S\.U\.$\s+intake\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[FOT\]\s+1\.5\s+$Stromberg$\s+head\s+with\s+1\.625\s+$S\.U\.$\s+intake\s*$/: 5 ]

Total 5 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [FOT] 1.5 (Stromberg) head with 1.625 (S.U.) intake (score: 1): Author: Bill Babcock <BillB@bnj.com>; Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 13:41:21 -0700; /html/fot/2006-07/msg00046.html (8,447 bytes)
2. Re: [FOT] 1.5 (Stromberg) head with 1.625 (S.U.) intake (score: 1): Author: Tony Drews <tony@tonydrews.com>; Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 19:16:17 -0500; As I understand it, the reason the big port head has big ports is that they ran a ball mill into the ports - basically a factory chamfer. - Tony Drews; /html/fot/2006-07/msg00056.html (8,603 bytes)
3. Re: [FOT] 1.5 (Stromberg) head with 1.625 (S.U.) intake (score: 1): Author: N197TR4@cs.com; Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 23:48:49 EDT; And removing that mfg operation might have been a cost reduction proposal with an employee suggestion plan. We have seen that a lot in the big factory.; /html/fot/2006-07/msg00060.html (7,450 bytes)
4. Re: [FOT] 1.5 (Stromberg) head with 1.625 (S.U.) intake (score: 1): Author: malaboge@aol.com; Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 00:49:51 -0400; I seem to recall that the later smaller port head actually ended up makin mo' power than the big port model. You would be better off changing the intake to the later style to match the head. The ear; /html/fot/2006-07/msg00061.html (8,511 bytes)
5. Re: [FOT] 1.5 (Stromberg) head with 1.625 (S.U.) intake (score: 1): Author: Bill Babcock <BillB@bnj.com>; Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 09:01:14 -0700; I didn't ask the critical question "is the head ported" but it sounds like it isn't. You don't need to machine the head further, a die grinder is an easy way to match the edges. As long as you don't; /html/fot/2006-07/msg00065.html (10,285 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 5
Page: [1]