Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*94hp\,\s+1800cc\s+vs\s+1622cc\s+\-\s+etc\.\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*94hp\,\s+1800cc\s+vs\s+1622cc\s+\-\s+etc\.\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. RE: 94hp, 1800cc vs 1622cc - etc. (score: 1): Author: jello@ida.net; Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:33:12 US/Mountain; I just can't avoid chiming in here because I have: A 1958 MGA with a three main 1800 motor and early MGB rear axle ratio, A 1967 MGB with a five main 1800 motor and overdrive, A "Pesky" porsche - 196; /html/mgs/2002-09/msg00931.html (8,240 bytes)
2. Re: 94hp, 1800cc vs 1622cc - etc. (score: 1): Author: ATWEDITOR@aol.com; Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 14:25:17 EDT; << it was 340 this morning - and I was plenty warm >> I'll bet you were. Jay Donoghue /// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool /// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive; /html/mgs/2002-09/msg00934.html (6,873 bytes)
3. Re: 94hp, 1800cc vs 1622cc - etc. (score: 1): Author: jello@ida.net; Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 13:05:04 US/Mountain; Ok, on my computer that was a degree symbol - 34 degrees Farenheit this morning, and I was warm. /// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool /// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive; /html/mgs/2002-09/msg00938.html (7,120 bytes)
4. Re: 94hp, 1800cc vs 1622cc - etc. (score: 1): Author: WSpohn4@aol.com; Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 15:44:37 EDT; Using the 3.9 diff significantly lowers performance of the A, while enhancing it's capability for extended high speed touring. Nice that it is still faster than the B, even so. I used to run my MGA i; /html/mgs/2002-09/msg00941.html (8,627 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]