To: | "Spridget List" <spridgets@autox.team.net> |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: 1275 vs 1500 in a RB Midget |
Date: | Tue, 3 Jan 2006 13:20:41 -0600 {sentby:smtp 192.190.246.2 authed with dbl@chicagolandmgclub.com} with any abuse report |
References: | <db70ed736ebeb020f60950b1c560f2a1@ocotillofield.net> <C5C6EDEA-7E03-452B-8619-F7A6A0686D3E@rio.edu> |
> The other reason may be to compensate for the power loss due to > increasing emissions equipment requirements. And yet another reason that I have heard is that, faced with the expense of making two engines of similar application comply with the US emissions nonsense, BMC decided to standardize on the larger of the two. At least the Spitlump fit in the Midget and we didn't just sit and watch them go to Canada like the Mini. David Lieb 1972 Midget |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: Strange, flaky listing on ebay, Unknown |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: 1275 vs 1500 in a RB Midget, Unknown |
Previous by Thread: | Re: 1275 vs 1500 in a RB Midget, Unknown |
Next by Thread: | Re: 1275 vs 1500 in a RB Midget, Unknown |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |