Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Engine\s+wts\s+and\s+fast\s+Fords\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Engine\s+wts\s+and\s+fast\s+Fords\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. Engine wts and fast Fords (score: 1): Author: Jack Emery <jemery@mint.net>; Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 17:57:25 -0500; The 215 block weighs 51 lbs or so. It is an easy one hander. The Ford is not. The biggest reason that I stayed away from the Ford is it is a front sump motor. Even with the 'Bird oilpan you can not r; /html/mgb-v8/1998-11/msg00041.html (8,339 bytes)
2. Re: Engine wts and fast Fords (score: 1): Author: "Mike Hartwig" <mhartwig@cbu.edu>; Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 17:50:26 -0600; As far My little bro and I got some high compression 9.6:1 pistons for our Rover motor. We got them from a parts house here in Memphis for the Buick 215. They weren't flat top though, so I guess the; /html/mgb-v8/1998-11/msg00042.html (8,555 bytes)
3. Re: Engine wts and fast Fords (score: 1): Author: DANMAS@aol.com; Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 12:59:06 EST; Jack, Thanks for the info. That would make the Ford at least 76 pounds heavier. If it weren't for that, the Ford engine would have long ago replaced the Chevy as the number one choice for early stree; /html/mgb-v8/1998-11/msg00048.html (8,529 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]