Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*NO\s+EFI\s+or\s+crank\s+fired\s+ignition\s+\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*NO\s+EFI\s+or\s+crank\s+fired\s+ignition\s+\?\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. NO EFI or crank fired ignition ? (score: 1): Author: dferguso@ebmail.gdeb.com; Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:42:34 -0400; NO EFI or crank fired i really dont see how this relates to aerodynmically challeneged body styles of 49-81. also, im sure that many records have been set with 49-81 body styles using efi/ crank trig; /html/land-speed/2000-06/msg00219.html (8,064 bytes)
2. Re: NO EFI or crank fired ignition ? (score: 1): Author: V4GR@aol.com; Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:00:26 EDT; I have a crank trigger ignition and I fail to see the horsepower advantage. It isn't any more expensive than a full MSD unit. I like it because of packaging and being able to run the same ignition on; /html/land-speed/2000-06/msg00220.html (7,817 bytes)
3. Re: NO EFI or crank fired ignition ? (score: 1): Author: dferguso@ebmail.gdeb.com; Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:17:34 -0400; I have a crank trigger ignition and I fail to see the horsepower advantage. thats not the point-horsepower advantage or not- totally irrelavent. point is why now outlaw the use of efi / crank trigger; /html/land-speed/2000-06/msg00221.html (8,116 bytes)
4. Re: NO EFI or crank fired ignition ? (score: 1): Author: "Thomas E. Bryant" <saltracer@awwwsome.com>; Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:46:34 -0700; I believe the intent is to have a class where people could run a low budget car without having to compete with high tech gadgets. Sounds like a good idea to me. Anyone who is now running a vehicle of; /html/land-speed/2000-06/msg00227.html (9,193 bytes)
5. Re: NO EFI or crank fired ignition ? (score: 1): Author: "Keith Turk" <kturk@ala.net>; Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:05:37 -0500; Hey Darrel.... Doug.... Bet you a Soda Pop my Alcohol impaired ( read Gas/ fuel ) can spank that Blown Alcohol Rat Motor with More Cubes then God... and Yeah I will Deliver the Soda Personally ON ICE; /html/land-speed/2000-06/msg00228.html (10,288 bytes)
6. Re: NO EFI or crank fired ignition ? (score: 1): Author: V4GR@aol.com; Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 20:27:21 EDT; Tom; There is no way this saves money. What about my VEGA? Do I have to lose the Electromotive unit ($600) and spend $700 on a state of the art MSD? Suppose I have a 62 Buick Skylark and want to up g; /html/land-speed/2000-06/msg00229.html (8,189 bytes)
7. Re: NO EFI or crank fired ignition ? (score: 1): Author: "Thomas E. Bryant" <saltracer@awwwsome.com>; Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:43:37 -0700; As I understand Warner's proposed class, your vega would still run in the class you now run, these are additional classes that the more stock unit can run. Tom; /html/land-speed/2000-06/msg00230.html (8,442 bytes)
8. Re: NO EFI or crank fired ignition ? (score: 1): Author: V4GR@aol.com; Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 20:57:13 EDT; Tom; So I can run my Vega in either class but your coupe is to old to run with the semi vintage cars and must run with the new cars? That would be true if you had a more stock body and ran Altered. I; /html/land-speed/2000-06/msg00232.html (7,899 bytes)
9. NO EFI or crank fired ignition ? (score: 1): Author: dferguso@ebmail.gdeb.com; Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 07:41:07 -0400; i must be confused- lets just say - as an example- that keith turk is running EFI on his altered camaro, just for an example. now if the modified category is now split at 49-81 and 82+, and EFI is no; /html/land-speed/2000-06/msg00239.html (8,333 bytes)
10. Re: NO EFI or crank fired ignition ? (score: 1): Author: evelyn thomas <bikerschoice@worldnet.att.net>; Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:24:38 -0500; What this really seems to be about is a combination of those with aerodynamically challenged cars and technologically challenged minds wanting to stay competitive. Although I can understand the want; /html/land-speed/2000-06/msg00243.html (9,151 bytes)
11. Re: NO EFI or crank fired ignition ? (score: 1): Author: "Thomas E. Bryant" <saltracer@awwwsome.com>; Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 07:02:36 -0700; I met with a great deal of opposition when I first showed up with my car on the Salt with the rear wheels tucked into the wheel wells. (Of course George Fields had been running his car for a few yea; /html/land-speed/2000-06/msg00245.html (8,822 bytes)
12. Re: NO EFI or crank fired ignition ? (score: 1): Author: Wester S Potter <wspotter@jps.net>; Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:41:57 -0700; This reminds me of the questions and complaints Don West had fifteen years or so ago when he came to the salt with a Monza body. He had the full streamlined nose for the car that was built by Chevrol; /html/land-speed/2000-06/msg00246.html (10,106 bytes)
13. Re: NO EFI or crank fired ignition ? (score: 1): Author: "Dan Warner" <dwarner@electrorent.com>; Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:12:02 -0700; The SCCA/IMSA nose and rear fenders for Monzas were never intended to be legal for us. The IMSA copy you could buy from the showroom was legal - neither worked in our application. The new category w; /html/land-speed/2000-06/msg00248.html (11,190 bytes)
14. Re: NO EFI or crank fired ignition ? (score: 1): Author: "Thomas E. Bryant" <saltracer@awwwsome.com>; Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:22:44 -0700; I just gave a presentation on Land Speed Racing to the Rotary Club today. While preparing for this, I was thinking about how it used to be. When I first started running Bonneville, our poster boaste; /html/land-speed/2000-06/msg00254.html (9,039 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]