Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Larger\s+Valves\s+in\s+a\s+TR\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Larger\s+Valves\s+in\s+a\s+TR\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. Larger Valves in a TR (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 17:48:30 EST5EDT; Ooops. Forgot to list DISPLACEMENT! There ain't no relpacement for displacement! 87mm bore liners. Free (no bottom end loss) torque. YMMV. Christopher M.Lillja Marketing Associate Princeton Universit; /html/triumphs/1999-02/msg01343.html (6,366 bytes)
2. Re: Larger Valves in a TR (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 20:16:08 -0600charset="iso-8859-1"; Are there any disadvantages to stroking the engine to about 2.8L? Would this be harmful to the rod bearings, or anything else in the bottom end. Then how about enlarging the intake and exhaust valve; /html/triumphs/1999-02/msg01358.html (7,009 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]