Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Was\:\s+Oil\s+preferences\s+Now\:\s+1600cc\'s\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Was\:\s+Oil\s+preferences\s+Now\:\s+1600cc\'s\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. Was: Oil preferences Now: 1600cc's (score: 1): Author: "Bill Miller" <millerb@netusa1.net>; Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 22:33:00 -0500; You can Offset Bore it..... Expensive but possible. (and it requires a good machinist.....) Bill Very interesting, indeed. In order to squeeze 1600 cc from a Spit 1500 engine one would have to bore e; /html/spitfires/2000-05/msg00342.html (8,272 bytes)
2. Re: Was: Oil preferences Now: 1600cc's (score: 1): Author: Laura.G@141.com (Laura Gharazeddine); Date: Wed, May 10 2000 0:30:03 GMT-0600; Yes Bill, costly-and time consuming. But, doable. Remember too, when Dave was building this engine, he was doing it all himself, for himself. And he's got a fully tooled shop at his disposal-it's not; /html/spitfires/2000-05/msg00346.html (10,158 bytes)
3. RE: Was: Oil preferences Now: 1600cc's (score: 1): Author: Davies William-qswi646 <QSWI646@email.mot.com>; Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 09:04:23 +0100; Certainly. I spoke to John Kipping a few years ago when he was rather pleased with the 1700cc (I think) Triumph engine he had built. TSSC members will already know that the club has been offering 16; /html/spitfires/2000-05/msg00348.html (8,836 bytes)
4. Re: Was: Oil preferences Now: 1600cc's (score: 1): Author: Joe Curry <spitlist@gte.net>; Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 07:22:27 -0700; I remain skeptical! The numbers just don't add up. you can't bore an engine past acceptable tolerances and stroking a 1500 borders on lunacy. I demand to see proof!!! :) Joe; /html/spitfires/2000-05/msg00352.html (9,376 bytes)
5. RE: Was: Oil preferences Now: 1600cc's (score: 1): Author: Davies William-qswi646 <QSWI646@email.mot.com>; Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 15:42:09 +0100; There's quite a few of us been discussing this at local TSSC meetings. None of us really wants one of these engines, but we all want to know how they've done it. Apparently, the project ISN'T linked; /html/spitfires/2000-05/msg00353.html (9,098 bytes)
6. Re: Was: Oil preferences Now: 1600cc's (score: 1): Author: Barry Schwartz <bschwart@pacbell.net>; Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 08:14:26 -0700; engine past acceptable tolerances and stroking a 1500 borders on ** Spitfire engine allowed for well over 1600cc's but the 1493 was settled upon. I believe that the increase would have come from str; /html/spitfires/2000-05/msg00354.html (8,321 bytes)
7. Re: Was: Oil preferences Now: 1600cc's (score: 1): Author: Joe Curry <spitlist@gte.net>; Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 08:42:57 -0700; The stroke seems like the only place that could be accomplished. ANd you are right, I cringe to think that the already too long stroke was increased!!! But then as long as you keep the revs down unde; /html/spitfires/2000-05/msg00358.html (9,654 bytes)
8. RE: Was: Oil preferences Now: 1600cc's (score: 1): Author: "Bill Miller" <millerb@netusa1.net>; Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 13:46:12 -0500; Sorry to take so long replying to you, I wasn't ignoring you, I was out of town for work. I tried a quick search, all I came up with was info on a BMC A series engine. Same principle though. This gu; /html/spitfires/2000-05/msg00414.html (8,499 bytes)
9. RE: Was: Oil preferences Now: 1600cc's (score: 1): Author: Roger Elliott <relliott@cjnetworks.com>; Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 15:05:37 -0500 (CDT); As I understand it the Spitfire engine was based on the 948 Herald engine and was increased to 1500 (boy were those original engines over engineered). The Midget ended up using the Spitfire engine ma; /html/spitfires/2000-05/msg00427.html (8,772 bytes)
10. Re: Was: Oil preferences Now: 1600cc's (score: 1): Author: Joe Curry <spitlist@gte.net>; Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 13:26:06 -0700; Roger, Actually it goes back even further than that. The roots of that engine were in the Standard Eight which had an 803 cc version. The bore was 58 mm with a stroke of 76 mm The 948 was a bored out; /html/spitfires/2000-05/msg00432.html (9,524 bytes)
11. RE: Was: Oil preferences Now: 1600cc's (score: 1): Author: "Mitchell, Douglas (D.B.)" <dmitchel@ford.com>; Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 08:28:54 -0400; Joe, Actually it is 1493 cc engine, not 1496. But I am sure that you knew this, just that your fingers have a mind of their own. ;) Doug Mitchell mailto:dbmitchell@bigfoot.com '73 Spitfire 1493 (tem; /html/spitfires/2000-05/msg00473.html (9,074 bytes)
12. Re: Was: Oil preferences Now: 1600cc's (score: 1): Author: Joe Curry <spitlist@gte.net>; Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:26:34 -0700; Caught me! My fingers don't work as fast as my brain sometimes. THe trailing 6 was left over from the 1296 listing, but what's 3 cc among friends! :) Joe; /html/spitfires/2000-05/msg00483.html (9,545 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 12
Page: [1]