Something must be wrong here because, contrary to common sense, a
hundredweight is NOT 100 lbs, but 112 lbs. This would give 2038.4 lbs,
which seems more realistic. I was going to look this up in the old R&T
road test for an actual measurement, but my cat has me pinned at present,
so I'll find it later.
wizardz had this to say:
>Thanks for the simple.. straight answer James
>
>Paul Tegler
>1973 BGT
>North of Annapolis, South of Baltimore
>email: wizardz@toad.net
>http://www.amdyne.net/~ptegler/mgmain.htm
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: James <bmedus@texas.net>
>To: wizardz <wizardz@maxinter.net>
>Cc: mgs@autox.team.net <mgs@autox.team.net>
>Date: Thursday, May 13, 1999 2:01 PM
>Subject: Re:
>
>
>If I did my math correct it is 1820 lbs.
>
>cwt -> kg 45.36
>lb -> kg .4536
>
>hmmm 18.2 cwt....1820 lbs....is that correct?
>
>wizardz wrote:
>
>> anyone know the curb wieght of an MGB....other than the 18.2 cwt
>> spec?
>>
>> ...come on now.. who uses '100 stone wieght measurements anymore?
>> late's have it in pounds people!
>>
>> Paul Tegler
>> 1973 BGT
>> North of Annapolis, South of Baltimore
>> email: wizardz@toad.net
>> http://www.amdyne.net/~ptegler/mgmain.htm
>
>
>
--
Max Heim
'66 MGB GHN3L76149
Runs great,
looks particularly bad since some SUV clown backed into it.
If you're near Mountain View, CA,
it's the red one with the silver bootlid.
|