Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*1296\s+engines\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*1296\s+engines\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. 1296 engines (score: 1): Author: "MikeC" <mikech@sprynet.com>; Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 18:55:44 -0600; Which 1296 engine is considered to be better and why? The early ones with the smaller diameter crank journals(1967-70) or the later ones with the larger diameter crank journals(1971-72). Thanks MikeC; /html/spitfires/2000-05/msg00760.html (6,446 bytes)
2. Re: 1296 engines (score: 1): Author: Joe Curry <spitlist@gte.net>; Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 18:30:39 -0700; I guess it depends on who you ask. I'd say that the early ones are better for two reasons: 1. The later ones (according to Kas Kastner) were redesigned by MG engineers after the merger with BMC. 2. T; /html/spitfires/2000-05/msg00762.html (7,028 bytes)
3. RE: 1296 engines (score: 1): Author: "James Gambony" <BritBits@tiu.net>; Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 21:40:26 -0500; That's interesting that an MG engineer is blamed for the consolidation in the tooling... the "official" reason given for the big bearing 1296 was to rationalize the machinery (the late 1296/1593 sha; /html/spitfires/2000-05/msg00765.html (8,683 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]