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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Rover\s+crank\s+specs\-reply\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. Re: Rover crank specs-reply (score: 1): Author: "The Becketts" <hillman@bigpond.com>; Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 22:58:59 +1000; Hi Randall, I did qualify my statement to say that - see below. My assumption that combustion chambers space was part of the engine capacity appears to be wrong. It certainly doesn't appear to be par; /html/buick-rover-v8/1999-05/msg00000.html (7,103 bytes)
2. Re: Rover crank specs-reply (score: 1): Author: David Kernberger <dkern@napanet.net>; Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 18:39:20 -0700; 4/13/99 Tom, The distance in question is definitely the same for the Rover 3.5, Buick Special, and Olds F-85. It seems very unlikely to me that it would be any different for the Rover 3.9, Buick 300; /html/buick-rover-v8/1999-04/msg00029.html (8,793 bytes)
3. Re: Rover crank specs-reply (score: 1): Author: lark@world.std.com (Lar Kaufman); Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 23:41:43 -0400; . . . True. We've already got someone on buick-rover-v8 stuffing a Buick 350 crank (3.875" stroke) into a P76 block, which requires minimal clearancing and turning down the mains. And other lists I'v; /html/buick-rover-v8/1999-04/msg00031.html (8,957 bytes)
4. Re: Rover crank specs-reply (score: 1): Author: Peter Kent <pkent@skynet.net.au>; Date: Wed, 14 Apr 99 16:48:40 +1000; I have measured a 3.5 litre P5B (10.5/1 comp) piston, it's compression height was 1.865" (and a P76 piston was 1.375" (different block height, stroke, rod length and 9/1 comp)).; /html/buick-rover-v8/1999-04/msg00032.html (7,788 bytes)
5. Re: Rover crank specs-reply (score: 1): Author: tjoyner <tjoyner@frontier.net>; Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 09:50:33 -0600; Glenn, would the same piston mods work if I were to stuff the 4.2 crank into a 3.5 block( ie, on a 3.5 piston?)? And, as I don't know formulas all that well what kind of displacement would we be look; /html/buick-rover-v8/1999-04/msg00033.html (9,015 bytes)
6. RE: Rover crank specs-reply (score: 1): Author: Simon Sparrow <Simon.Sparrow@wang.co.nz>; Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 08:50:23 +1200; I read in David Hardcastle's book that the P76 pistons were dimensionally identical to the 3.5 Rovers - is this not the case? I have measured a 3.5 litre P5B (10.5/1 comp) piston, it's compression he; /html/buick-rover-v8/1999-04/msg00034.html (8,139 bytes)
7. RE: Rover crank specs-reply (score: 1): Author: Peter Kent <pkent@skynet.net.au>; Date: Thu, 15 Apr 99 10:21:49 +1000; Dear Simon I read in David Hardcastle's book that the P76 pistons were dimensionally identical to the 3.5 Rovers - is this not the case? I had written: I have measured a 3.5 litre P5B (10.5/1 comp) p; /html/buick-rover-v8/1999-04/msg00035.html (8,107 bytes)
8. Re: Rover crank specs-reply (score: 1): Author: David Kernberger <dkern@napanet.net>; Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 18:25:53 -0700; 4/14/99 Lar, Now there's a very interesting question indeed!!!! I have never seen any mention of Oldsmobile interchange possibilities anywhere. I hope we can get some interesting response to that. C; /html/buick-rover-v8/1999-04/msg00036.html (9,372 bytes)
9. Re: Rover crank specs-reply (score: 1): Author: lark@world.std.com (Lar Kaufman); Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 17:03:49 -0400; Regrets for dropping out of sight in the middle of a (now stale) discussion but law school has consumed me and won't spit me out until late May (I sincerely hope that it lets go of me then...). More; /html/buick-rover-v8/1999-04/msg00053.html (8,125 bytes)
10. Re: Rover crank specs-reply (score: 1): Author: lark@world.std.com (Lar Kaufman); Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 13:05:28 -0400; It's quite easy to figure out displacement if all you do is change the stroke. Your current displacement is 100%. Multiply that times the percentage of additional stroke, and add that to your origina; /html/buick-rover-v8/1999-04/msg00054.html (8,091 bytes)
11. Re: Rover crank specs-reply (score: 1): Author: "The Becketts" <hillman@bigpond.com>; Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 07:36:49 +1000; displacement. I don't think this is true - assuming we mean displacement to include combustion chmaber space as well. If we mean displacement to only mean that volume displaced by the pistons as they; /html/buick-rover-v8/1999-04/msg00079.html (8,766 bytes)
12. RE: Rover crank specs-reply (score: 1): Author: Randall Young <randallyoung@earthlink.net>; Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 20:12:13 -0700; I beg to differ. Displacement is exactly that : displacement. How much volume the pistons displace in one complete revolution. Combustion chamber volume (which normally takes into account the shape; /html/buick-rover-v8/1999-04/msg00082.html (9,880 bytes)
13. Re: Rover crank specs-reply (score: 1): Author: David Kernberger <dkern@napanet.net>; Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 22:12:02 -0700; ** Ron, Interesting subject. Let me try to clarify (or muddy?) the waters some-- I am not sure just what the various terms you use mean in Australia--I am sure there are some differences compared to; /html/buick-rover-v8/1999-04/msg00085.html (10,702 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 13
Page: [1]