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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*MGC\s+\+\s+engine\s+swap\s*$/: 5 ]

Total 5 documents matching your query.

1. Re: MGC + engine swap (score: 1): Author: "mgamgb" <mgamgb@ihug.co.nz>; Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 12:43:50 +1300; With that engine bay, would an MGC be a candidate for an engine swap? One of the Nissan 6 cylinder + 5 speed comes to mind. Ian f; /html/mgs/2006-11/msg00076.html (7,170 bytes)
2. RE: MGC + engine swap (score: 1): Author: "Dodd, Kelvin" <doddk@mossmotors.com>; Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 15:50:54 -0800; The Red Rooster was a quite famous MGC Roadster with Sebring Flares and a 3.5L V8. The chassis is eminently suitable, but the cars are rare enough that it would be a shame to butcher a nice one. driv; /html/mgs/2006-11/msg00077.html (7,661 bytes)
3. Re: MGC + engine swap (score: 1): Author: "Andrew B. Lundgren" <lundgren@byu.net>; Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:57:05 -0700; There are few C's as it is. As long as the C engine is good, don't chop the car. There are enough B's around to modify one of those first. The B and C engine bay are similar, I imagine you would have; /html/mgs/2006-11/msg00078.html (7,862 bytes)
4. RE: MGC + engine swap (score: 1): Author: "Dodd, Kelvin" <doddk@mossmotors.com>; Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:22:16 -0800; The front suspension and brakes on the MGC are far more competent than an MGB, so there is a very good reason for choosing the C chassis over the MGB. But I agree that it is a shame to modify a C if; /html/mgs/2006-11/msg00079.html (7,901 bytes)
5. Re: MGC + engine swap (score: 1): Author: Rjdisi@aol.com; Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 21:52:09 EST; There are enough B's around to modify one of those first. The B and C engine bay are similar, I imagine you would have more problems to overcome that would make the bay modification a simple part of; /html/mgs/2006-11/msg00082.html (6,939 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 5
Page: [1]