spitfires
[Top] [All Lists]

Spitfire engine performance upgrade guide...

To: spitfires@autox.team.net
Subject: Spitfire engine performance upgrade guide...
From: Dale Seeley <DSeeley1@rochester.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 20:48:57 -0400
IMPRESSED does not entirely cover my feelings about this list.  In
addition to receiving excellent advice as fast as I can ask for it, I
feel I've finally found an automotive list populated by adults who treat
each other as if they were face-to-face, rather than millions of miles
of internet connection apart.  It's nice to see the disagreements
discussed until everybody is able to understand both sides, misinformed
or not, and more importantly, nice to see people say "I might be wrong,
I'm sorry".

If only I could impress upon you the importance of editing replies, the
more popular/controversial threads nearly fill a digest with only one or
two messages.  Recently, the messages are getting to be 5 to 6
generations deep, some over a hundred lines long...

However, I much prefer wading through an unedited reply than watching
people act like little kids (I have several), as has become quite
popular on many of the other lists I read.

On more relevant Spitfire content, the white '78 (#FM0029U) has finally
made it's way into my garage.  Once I've finally chosen/purchased a new
top for it (advice welcome!), installed it (love the install page I
found on someone's website!), and placed the big red ribbon and bow on
it, I'll present it to my wife who will hopefully enjoy it.  While
poking around it today, I've learned it has a Cannon (sp?) manifold,
some sort of Weber carb, and a '4 into 1' header.

Have fun,
Dale

>From: Bradley D Richardson <bradrichardson@juno.com>
>Subject: Re: [spitfire-enthusiast] Re: New Spitfire engine performance
guide on line

>I for one am IMPRESSED.

>Brad

>=====================

>On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 11:43:37 -0700 "Jeff McNeal" <jmcneal@ohms.com>
>writes:
>Paul Tegler is not to blame for my earlier rant and I owe him an
apology.
>I'd also like to explain why I was upset and the misunderstanding that
>prompted m

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>