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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*MGB\s+Tube\s+Shocks\s*$/: 32 ]

Total 32 documents matching your query.

1. MGB Tube Shocks (score: 1): Author: "Phillips, Frank" <fwp@ufl.edu>; Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 13:49:13 -0400; I've invested several hours in archive browsing time reviewing tube shock conversions. I plan to do this at some point in the future as my lever arm shocks leak badly. It seems a common opinion that; /html/mgs/2000-10/msg00189.html (7,872 bytes)
2. Re: MGB Tube Shocks (score: 1): Author: "Ptegler" <ptegler@gouldfo.com>; Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:35:56 -0400; http://www.teglerizer.com/mgstuff/tubeshocks.htm for my experiences and comments on the conversion. Paul Tegler wizardz@toad.net http://www.teglerizer.com List, I've invested several hours in archive; /html/mgs/2000-10/msg00193.html (8,616 bytes)
3. Re: MGB Tube Shocks (score: 1): Author: Ajhsys@aol.com; Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:51:14 EDT; << BTW, my B is just a street car that I love to drive hard, not autocross or race. >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - It would seem to me that having your lever shox rebuilt would be less expensive, M; /html/mgs/2000-10/msg00195.html (7,760 bytes)
4. RE: MGB Tube Shocks (score: 1): Author: "Larry Hoy" <larryhoy@prodigy.net>; Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 13:03:31 -0600; Two things to consider. All of the tube shocks available have less travel than the lever shocks do. The gas filled tube shocks support the car, as opposed to the hydraulic shock which only reacts to; /html/mgs/2000-10/msg00197.html (9,291 bytes)
5. Re: MGB Tube Shocks (score: 1): Author: Enrique Claure <spanlab@ceibo.entelnet.bo>; Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 15:31:30 -0700; Frank, I have the conversion in my MGB and I love it. Enrique; /html/mgs/2000-10/msg00201.html (7,545 bytes)
6. Re: MGB Tube Shocks (score: 1): Author: WSpohn4@aol.com; Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 10:10:56 EDT; So what's wrong with rebuilding your Armstrongs, or buying new? Tubes offer no real improvement over them, especially for the street, they wear out sooner, and many of the front conversions would del; /html/mgs/2000-10/msg00239.html (8,858 bytes)
7. RE: MGB Tube Shocks (score: 1): Author: "Larry Hoy" <larryhoy@prodigy.net>; Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 08:52:50 -0600; Here, here. I just removed my tube shocks and installed the orginal Armstrongs. I bought rebuilt armstrongs from Moss. Great ride. Larry Hoy; /html/mgs/2000-10/msg00242.html (9,845 bytes)
8. RE: MGB Tube Shocks (score: 1): Author: Gordon Bird <gb@the-bdc.com>; Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 12:42:36 -0400; I've never been able to figure out the fascination with tube shocks. My armstrongs are going strong, even on my A, and they could be as old as the car for all I know. I have never even considered tha; /html/mgs/2000-10/msg00258.html (8,020 bytes)
9. RE: MGB Tube Shocks (score: 1): Author: "Larry Hoy" <larryhoy@prodigy.net>; Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 11:09:42 -0600; I think it is a $ issue, if you do the "do it yourself" conversion it basically is the cost of the tube shocks, which are much cheaper than the lever arms. Of course there is the "gee whiz" factor. L; /html/mgs/2000-10/msg00260.html (9,037 bytes)
10. Re: MGB Tube Shocks (score: 1): Author: "Ptegler" <ptegler@gouldfo.com>; Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 13:15:23 -0400; Historically... the beauty of the tube shock conversion is nothing more than $$ cost. Any reasonable set or rebuilt Armstrong's (ones that will at least last you 20K miles!) are still going to cost y; /html/mgs/2000-10/msg00263.html (8,935 bytes)
11. RE: MGB Tube Shocks (score: 1): Author: "Phillips, Frank" <fwp@ufl.edu>; Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 14:25:52 -0400; Well, I did not intend to start "one of those threads" but... Yes, it is an issue of cost. I do not wish to close the door on putting lever shocks on my B but have MANY other items to spend money on.; /html/mgs/2000-10/msg00272.html (9,182 bytes)
12. Re: MGB Tube Shocks (score: 1): Author: "Ptegler" <ptegler@gouldfo.com>; Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 14:58:05 -0400; I went the tube shock route, yep... than had Peter C. and the guys rebuild my Armstrong's. Swapped the Armstrong's back in. Accept for a bit of roll stiffness (non flex of the shock tubes via they wa; /html/mgs/2000-10/msg00278.html (9,417 bytes)
13. Re: MGB Tube Shocks (score: 1): Author: WSpohn4@aol.com; Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 15:13:17 EDT; arms. You mean when people look at it and say "Gee whiz what a cheap bastard you are!", or "Gee whiz, what neat shocks" -always assuming of course that they are lying under your car at the time, so t; /html/mgs/2000-10/msg00284.html (8,660 bytes)
14. Re: MGB Tube Shocks (score: 1): Author: Ajhsys@aol.com; Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 15:23:41 EDT; << Yes, it is an issue of cost. I do not wish to close the door on putting lever shocks on my B but have MANY other items to spend money on. I would rather go inexpensive but safe on the rear shocks; /html/mgs/2000-10/msg00287.html (9,772 bytes)
15. Re: MGB Tube Shocks (score: 1): Author: Charley & Peggy Robinson <ccrobins@ktc.com>; Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 15:17:57 -0500; Hay Bill, My '69 B has a tube conversion in front. It was on there when I bought it over 2 yrs ago. Works well. But anyhoo, the original poster was asking about the rear conversion. CR; /html/mgs/2000-10/msg00294.html (8,293 bytes)
16. Re: MGB Tube Shocks (score: 1): Author: "Jesse Robinson" <jesserobinson2@hotmail.com>; Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 20:53:53 GMT; I agree totally. ...since everyone is talkings about shocks, I have a 70 B with the original shocks that have been badly abused i.e. never oiled for about 15 years. Needless to say, they are 'shot-to; /html/mgs/2000-10/msg00296.html (8,661 bytes)
17. Re: MGB Tube Shocks (score: 1): Author: Ajhsys@aol.com; Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 17:07:45 EDT; << ...since everyone is talkings about shocks, I have a 70 B with the original shocks that have been badly abused i.e. never oiled for about 15 years. Needless to say, they are 'shot-to-@#*!' Can I s; /html/mgs/2000-10/msg00297.html (9,547 bytes)
18. Re: MGB Tube Shocks (score: 1): Author: JustBrits@aol.com; Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 19:54:10 EDT; << (Is it shox or shocks? Or shoos and shox? :-) >> Shocking, Allen, shocking!!! Ed; /html/mgs/2000-10/msg00306.html (8,219 bytes)
19. Re: MGB Tube Shocks (score: 1): Author: ATWEDITOR@aol.com; Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 20:24:42 EDT; << Historically... the beauty of the tube shock conversion is nothing more than $$ cost. >> Wait just a minute. I can't believe all of your pro-lever shock people like having the rear end do those ne; /html/mgs/2000-10/msg00309.html (9,343 bytes)
20. Re: MGB Tube Shocks (score: 1): Author: Bob Shaw <shaws@mlcltd.com>; Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 19:27:05 -0500; I have run them both ways. My MGA is running the original lever action shocks. My wife's GT is still running the tube shock conversion, but it is being converted back when we refurbish the car this w; /html/mgs/2000-10/msg00310.html (10,044 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]