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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*the\s+most\s+esoteric\s+question\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. the most esoteric question (score: 1): Author: "Gregg Baker" <gbaker@customcpu.com>; Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:30:39 -0800; I'm in the process of gathering up parts to finish my rebuild on the 1969 MGB (5 main) and have run onto a problem that even Moss tech can't answer. I am having to put in a rebuilt crank and trying t; /html/mgs/2003-04/msg00860.html (7,537 bytes)
2. Re: the most esoteric question (score: 1): Author: Max Heim <mvheim@attbi.com>; Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 16:43:15 -0700; I'll start by saying I have no specific info on this situation. But it seems to me that the only limitation on bushing length would be the depth of the hole. So I don't see any problem with the 1.5"; /html/mgs/2003-04/msg00861.html (8,360 bytes)
3. Re: the most esoteric question (score: 1): Author: David Councill <dcouncil@imt.net>; Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 19:50:58 -0600; All I know is that my 72B's crankshaft, formerly from my 71BGT, has used the smaller ones for the past twenty years. I always thought it was a bit odd that the bushing was flush with the outer end of; /html/mgs/2003-04/msg00863.html (7,751 bytes)
4. RE: the most esoteric question (score: 1): Author: "Dodd, Kelvin" <doddk@mossmotors.com>; Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 08:42:20 -0700; This is a very good question, and I was hoping someone would come up with a good answer. The factory had two different part numbers, but there is no indication why, or when there was a change. The s; /html/mgs/2003-04/msg00885.html (8,061 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]