Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*NO3\s+in\s+a\s+B\s+\+\s+turbo$s$\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*NO3\s+in\s+a\s+B\s+\+\s+turbo$s$\?\s*$/: 10 ]

Total 10 documents matching your query.

1. Re: NO3 in a B + turbo(s)? (score: 1): Author: S & M Barnes <barnesms@swbell.net>; Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:15:43 -0500; Mayan I throw in a small additional question to try and acquire some of the vast spread of knowledge here? If I should happen to be considering adding a little power to a 1967 B engine and had decide; /html/mgs/2001-07/msg00674.html (8,336 bytes)
2. Re: NO3 in a B + turbo(s)? (score: 1): Author: James Nazarian Jr <jamesnazarian@netzero.net>; Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 16:17:33 -0600; I don't claim to be an expert on forced induction, but I'll do my best My guess is that a blow through is the most fuel efficient, but probably trades that for all out power. The reason being that th; /html/mgs/2001-07/msg00677.html (10,706 bytes)
3. Re: NO3 in a B + turbo(s)? (score: 1): Author: S & M Barnes <barnesms@swbell.net>; Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:38:53 -0500; "James Nazarian Jr" Stated........ I have seen some home-built systems that use this rev range, they tend to use very small turbos which run out of puff at about the 3 - 4k range which to me seems id; /html/mgs/2001-07/msg00678.html (9,073 bytes)
4. Re: NO3 in a B + turbo(s)? (score: 1): Author: "JustBrits" <justbrits@home.com>; Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 18:51:05 -0500; <<do you agree? Nope. Lets "watch" your motor "blow"!! <VBG>!! Ed /// /// mgs@autox.team.net mailing list /// (If they are dupes, this trailer may also catch them.); /html/mgs/2001-07/msg00679.html (7,409 bytes)
5. Re: NO3 in a B + turbo(s)? (score: 1): Author: James Nazarian Jr <jamesnazarian@netzero.net>; Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 18:09:37 -0600; <VBG>!! james On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 06:51:05PM -0500, JustBrits profoundly declared: /// /// mgs@autox.team.net mailing list /// (If they are dupes, this trailer may also catch them.); /html/mgs/2001-07/msg00680.html (7,624 bytes)
6. Re: NO3 in a B + turbo(s)? (score: 1): Author: "Dave Munroe" <dave@munroe.ca>; Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 21:16:35 -0300; I agree with Jim, regarding his assertion that a turbo or turbos would not give you enough "boost" at the RPM range you are looking at to justify the expense and effort. I don't think, however, that; /html/mgs/2001-07/msg00683.html (10,656 bytes)
7. Re: NO3 in a B + turbo(s)? (score: 1): Author: Dan DiBiase <d_dibiase@yahoo.com>; Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 09:26:25 -0700 (PDT); Strangely enough, I was perusing the pics gallery on the MGCC pages - and found a picture of a turbo'd B! Here is a link - http://www.british-cars.org.uk/kimber/pics/richmg5.jpg It was noted that the; /html/mgs/2001-07/msg00710.html (7,855 bytes)
8. Re: NO3 in a B + turbo(s)? (score: 1): Author: "Dave Munroe" <dave@munroe.ca>; Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 15:15:06 -0300; Yeah, but if you look at the "rebuit" photo, it looks like the turbo is still there, blowing through a Weber into a standard Weber intake manifold........what's up with that? Dave -- Original Messag; /html/mgs/2001-07/msg00716.html (8,303 bytes)
9. Re: NO3 in a B + turbo(s)? (score: 1): Author: Dan DiBiase <d_dibiase@yahoo.com>; Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:04:04 -0700 (PDT); Yeah, I noticed that too - I thought maybe he just disconnected the plumbing but left the turbo there for a 'wow' factor! Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.; /html/mgs/2001-07/msg00721.html (7,863 bytes)
10. Re: NO3 in a B + turbo(s)? (score: 1): Author: "Dave Munroe" <dave@munroe.ca>; Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 16:07:57 -0300; That occurred to me also...cheap thrill! Dave -- Original Message -- From: "Dan DiBiase" <d_dibiase@yahoo.com> To: "Dave Munroe" <dave@munroe.ca>; "S & M Barnes" <barnesms@swbell.net>; <scottinarl@ho; /html/mgs/2001-07/msg00723.html (8,295 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 10
Page: [1]