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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*WWA\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. re: WWA (score: 1): Author: "S. Allen" <scottallen3663@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:22:06 -0700; Can I throw in my 2p? First I've had it on very good authority, (my father who is a second generation MG owner) that the tube shock conversions were not to be done simply because the car wasn't engin; /html/mgs/2005-09/msg00082.html (7,347 bytes)
2. Re: WWA (score: 1): Author: Max Heim <max_heim@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:17:28 -0700; "...wasn't engineered for it" is a pretty vague reason... I mean, most MGs weren't engineered for radial tires, either, but that doesn't stop folks from fitting them, and for good reasons. That said,; /html/mgs/2005-09/msg00083.html (8,728 bytes)
3. Re: WWA (score: 1): Author: Eric Erickson <eric@erickson.on.net>; Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 12:16:35 +0930; ... and this is the problem. People normally see a big improvement - but only over shocks that were pretty broken to start with. For any real comparison they would need to seriously try levers in as-; /html/mgs/2005-09/msg00084.html (7,816 bytes)
4. Re: WWA (score: 1): Author: "James Schulte" <schultejim@msn.com>; Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 23:00:56 -0400; I've had both tube and lever. For daily driving, even spirited driving, the originals rebuilt are safer and just as good as tube. Have you really looked how the tube shocks are engineered for these; /html/mgs/2005-09/msg00085.html (9,611 bytes)
5. Re: WWA (score: 1): Author: Eric Erickson <eric@erickson.on.net>; Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 12:55:59 +0930; Ok, I tore the front sway bar out - but at least that wasn't the lever-arm shocks that broke :-) Eric '68MGB MkII Adelaide, South Australia; /html/mgs/2005-09/msg00086.html (7,139 bytes)
6. re: WWA (score: 1): Author: "S. Allen" <scottallen3663@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 07:59:32 -0400; "...wasn't engineered for it" is a pretty vague reason... I mean, most MGs weren't engineered for radial tires, either, but that doesn't stop folks from fitting them, and for good reasons. I thought; /html/mgs/2005-09/msg00087.html (8,555 bytes)
7. Re: WWA (score: 1): Author: Don Malling <dmallin@attglobal.net>; Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 12:28:23 -0400; Do these comments against tube shocks only apply to the front suspension or to the rear as well? I put tube shocks on the rear of my MGB and they seemed fine. I would agree that the tube shocks I hav; /html/mgs/2005-09/msg00089.html (8,037 bytes)
8. Re: WWA (score: 1): Author: Max Heim <max_heim@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 10:02:53 -0700; Hmmm, sorry to have got you riled up. But since the conversion kits (or at least the one I have) use the EXACT SAME MOUNTING POINTS and apply the stresses to the exact same section of the unibody and; /html/mgs/2005-09/msg00090.html (9,500 bytes)
9. Re: WWA (score: 1): Author: Charles & Peggy Robinson <ccrobins@ktc.com>; Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:55:03 -0500; My '69 B has tube shocks in front. Not my idea, I bought the car used and they were already on it. In my setup there's a shock tower bolted on top of the lever shock. The bolts go through the lever s; /html/mgs/2005-09/msg00114.html (8,094 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]