Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Regarding\s+Weber\s+Fuel\s+Economy\s+\-Reply\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Regarding\s+Weber\s+Fuel\s+Economy\s+\-Reply\s*$/: 11 ]

Total 11 documents matching your query.

1. RE: Regarding Weber Fuel Economy -Reply (score: 1): Author: Kenneth Scott <KSCOTT@holycross.edu>; Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 07:53:54 -0500; Four years ago I replaced my single Zenith carb with a Weber down draft. Since that time I have performed absolutely no adjustments on the carb in about 40,000 miles of driving. I do clean it frequen; /html/mgs/1997-03/msg00437.html (8,745 bytes)
2. RE: Regarding Weber Fuel Economy -Reply (score: 1): Author: Ross MacPherson <arm@unix.infoserve.net>; Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 11:11:17 -0800; Not to cast aspesions on the Weber (never had one=don't know) but in my experience with the `76 B in my past, a bucket and hose would be better than the Zenith. It was removed and discarded seconds a; /html/mgs/1997-03/msg00450.html (9,455 bytes)
3. RE: Regarding Weber Fuel Economy -Reply (score: 1): Author: mmcewen@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (John McEwen); Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 12:29:21 -0500; Hi Ken: Futher to your comments, I have a '70B roadster with SUs and overdrive. The engine is completely stock and original with about 50,000 miles. I get between 32 and 34 mpg Imperial on the highwa; /html/mgs/1997-03/msg00453.html (9,283 bytes)
4. Re: Regarding Weber Fuel Economy -Reply (score: 1): Author: britcars@juno.com; Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 15:29:36 EST; On Tue, 11 Mar 1997 14:10:47 -0500 Jeremy DuBois <jer@thlogic.com> Enough Zenith bashing!!! When they are rebuilt properly (remember, the youngest on an MGB - recent repros not included - is 17 years; /html/mgs/1997-03/msg00457.html (10,213 bytes)
5. Re: Regarding Weber Fuel Economy -Reply (score: 1): Author: thomas_pokrefke@juno.com (Thomas J Pokrefke); Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 17:06:06 EST; get 38 and Yea, but how often do you replace the hampsters? :) Thomas James Pokrefke, III 1970 MGB thomas_pokrefke@juno.com http://ocean.st.usm.edu/~pokrefke; /html/mgs/1997-03/msg00470.html (9,387 bytes)
6. Re: Regarding Weber Fuel Economy -Reply (score: 1): Author: RJohn50603@aol.com; Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 20:48:54 -0500 (EST); << we had a 77B on test, fitted with a rebuilt Z-S, new catalytic converter, fresh tune-up, etc. Not only did it run nicely, our smog machine said it was producing Zero emissions! That's right, no hy; /html/mgs/1997-03/msg00482.html (9,416 bytes)
7. RE: Regarding Weber Fuel Economy -Reply (score: 1): Author: Randy Rees <randyr@starwave.com>; Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 18:28:07 -0800; I find zero emmisions hard to beleive. In our state (Washington) I had a car that did not pass emmisions beacause the HC was too low and the state claims that indicated a malfunctioning emmisions sys; /html/mgs/1997-03/msg00485.html (11,321 bytes)
8. RE: Regarding Weber Fuel Economy -Reply (score: 1): Author: Bert Otten <Bert.Otten@nni.nl>; Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 10:25:34 +0100; There you have it! When do you finally stop using those silly measures. Imperial gallon vs. US gallon, statute mile vs. nautical mile, slugs stones, ounce, pound, feet, inch, barrel and whatever! Wh; /html/mgs/1997-03/msg00495.html (10,322 bytes)
9. Re: Regarding Weber Fuel Economy -Reply (score: 1): Author: GOFASTMG@aol.com; Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 13:02:03 -0500 (EST); << but Weber down draft vs. Zenith is no contest. >> Zenith vs. a gas soaked rag on the manifold. Again, no contest; /html/mgs/1997-03/msg00507.html (8,898 bytes)
10. Re: Regarding Weber Fuel Economy -Reply (score: 1): Author: Ross MacPherson <arm@unix.infoserve.net>; Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 11:09:38 -0800; SNIP Lawrie, While I respect your knowledge and experience I wonder about this: "quite well"- no, "adaquately"- maybe. I bought a `76 B brand new, maintained it as per the owners manual, had it in fo; /html/mgs/1997-03/msg00513.html (10,301 bytes)
11. RE: Regarding Weber Fuel Economy -Reply (score: 1): Author: Randy Rees <randyr@starwave.com>; Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 16:07:22 -0800; Yes! the problem was a bad seal between the cat. and the rest of the tailpipe. That is why we had low emmisions as the exhaust did not all get to the sensor. I would think that maybe something like t; /html/mgs/1997-03/msg00529.html (10,051 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 11
Page: [1]