[E-Type] Re: Webers vs SU - power

In a message dated 98-09-14 00:30:13 EDT, you write:

<<
Come come now Dan, you KNOW the Webers significantly improve the
performance of almost ANY of the old british iron, let alone the E-Type
with its “short of real breath” SU’s. I’m a fan of SU’s, really, but
when it comes down to it they just can’t compete with the performance of
the cars with the Webers fitted, even it they are a little troublesome.
Overall, problems with the Webers PALE in comparison to the other myriad
problems every owner of an E faces keeping it on the road. Fact is man,
the Webers make the car fly, the SU’s make it simply run well.

Les. >>

SU’s produce more power than Webers on an E- type. See the XKU catalogue .
They will sell you either system, but say they get more power with the SU’s.
Gran Turismo’s E- Type was handicapped by specifying 1 3/4 SU’s some years
ago- they still ran away from the competition. Unless you have a dyno and
computer you will lose power, probably mostly in the mid- range, with webers.

Doug

DHarr13177@aol.com wrote:

SU’s produce more power than Webers on an E- type. See the XKU >catalogue . They will sell you either system, but say they get more >power with the SU’s. Gran Turismo’s E- Type was handicapped by >specifying 1 3/4 SU’s some years ago- they still ran away from the >competition. Unless you have a dyno and computer you will lose power, >probably mostly in the mid- range, with webers.

Intresting. Then the E must be almost unique in british iron. Almost
every upgrade in performance for almost ANY old iron I can think of,
specified Webers. They were THE choice of the enthusiasts?? There simply
wasn’t anything else around that could deliver the goods. Also, the
Lotus Elan (hemispherical combustion chambers, DOHC etc.) came with
Webers as standard equipment. Jag’s even used them in racing. There are
a host of cars that used these to get the metal moving. So, did everyone
get it wrong. Is the good old “Single Union” really the performance
carb, or am I missing something. Sorry of this sounds a bit off, but
some of this makes no sense to me at all.

Les.

Les.

Hi Les and fellow Jaguarphiles

I agree with some of what you say. All the configurations of various cars
(not just Jaguars) I have seen in recent years where Webers have been
fitted, have had extractors fitted at the same time and gas flow work in the
head, and usually reprofiled cams and changed ignition arrangements.

The engine’s capacity (to my non engineering head) to suck in the extra
fuel/air mix available from the Weber conversion would seem to me to be
restricted by the engine’s capacity to streamline this increased flow
available, through the head, and exhaust the combustion by-products (also
increased) more efficiently. Hence the need for larger valves, smooth gas
passages in the head and a more efficient tuned and free flow exhaust
system.

This produces extra power and torque from the combustion process. I’m no
engineer, but it seems logical to me that if you don’t increase the engine’s
capacity (ie primarily gas flow) to deal with what the Weber has on offer,
then there is little point in adding the Weber. The SUs were designed to
operate with the rest of the XK package as it stands. I suspect that the
changes in engine systems required to take advantage of the Weber’s
characteristics would equally enhance the performance of an SU equipped
engine.

(am I dumb…or simply dumber? ;o)

Noel Annett
68 2+2 E Type
68 Daimler Sovereign (420)
66 Daimler 2.5L V8
84 BMW 528i
Canberra, Australia> DHarr13177@aol.com wrote:

SU’s produce more power than Webers on an E- type. See the XKU
catalogue . They will sell you either system, but say they get more
power with the SU’s. Gran Turismo’s E- Type was handicapped by
specifying 1 3/4 SU’s some years ago- they still ran away from the
competition. Unless you have a dyno and computer you will lose power,
probably mostly in the mid- range, with webers.

Intresting. Then the E must be almost unique in british iron. Almost
every upgrade in performance for almost ANY old iron I can think of,
specified Webers. They were THE choice of the enthusiasts?? There simply
wasn’t anything else around that could deliver the goods. Also, the
Lotus Elan (hemispherical combustion chambers, DOHC etc.) came with
Webers as standard equipment. Jag’s even used them in racing. There are
a host of cars that used these to get the metal moving. So, did everyone
get it wrong. Is the good old “Single Union” really the performance
carb, or am I missing something. Sorry of this sounds a bit off, but
some of this makes no sense to me at all.

Les.

Les.

I tend to agree with Noel (this isn’t unusual Noel!!)

I have both Weber and SU carb’d Jag engines…for the ease of tuning,
consistent running, reliability for the street, and general tractability, the SU
wins hands-down in my books. The Weber does have an accellerator pump, which is
of benefit in certain instances, and are the carbs we use on the race
engines…on the D-replica we used Webers, more for effect than any special
performance reason. On Lou’s E-type (that’s my wife’s car)…I will be using the
HD-8’s…

In terms of performance gains, Noel is again right…head porting (that is just
simple port matching) combined with lumpier camshafts and a freer flowing
exhaust and re-curved distributor is all you need to “wake up the ponies”…in
my opinion…

Tom Owen
Toronto Canada
91 XJ-40
97 Predator D-Type replica
70 OTS
66 3.8S
75 TR-6

ANNETT,Noel wrote:> Hi Les and fellow Jaguarphiles

I agree with some of what you say. All the configurations of various cars
(not just Jaguars) I have seen in recent years where Webers have been
fitted, have had extractors fitted at the same time and gas flow work in the
head, and usually reprofiled cams and changed ignition arrangements.

The engine’s capacity (to my non engineering head) to suck in the extra
fuel/air mix available from the Weber conversion would seem to me to be
restricted by the engine’s capacity to streamline this increased flow
available, through the head, and exhaust the combustion by-products (also
increased) more efficiently. Hence the need for larger valves, smooth gas
passages in the head and a more efficient tuned and free flow exhaust
system.

This produces extra power and torque from the combustion process. I’m no
engineer, but it seems logical to me that if you don’t increase the engine’s
capacity (ie primarily gas flow) to deal with what the Weber has on offer,
then there is little point in adding the Weber. The SUs were designed to
operate with the rest of the XK package as it stands. I suspect that the
changes in engine systems required to take advantage of the Weber’s
characteristics would equally enhance the performance of an SU equipped
engine.

(am I dumb…or simply dumber? ;o)

Noel Annett
68 2+2 E Type
68 Daimler Sovereign (420)
66 Daimler 2.5L V8
84 BMW 528i
Canberra, Australia

DHarr13177@aol.com wrote:

SU’s produce more power than Webers on an E- type. See the XKU
catalogue . They will sell you either system, but say they get more
power with the SU’s. Gran Turismo’s E- Type was handicapped by
specifying 1 3/4 SU’s some years ago- they still ran away from the
competition. Unless you have a dyno and computer you will lose power,
probably mostly in the mid- range, with webers.

Intresting. Then the E must be almost unique in british iron. Almost
every upgrade in performance for almost ANY old iron I can think of,
specified Webers. They were THE choice of the enthusiasts?? There simply
wasn’t anything else around that could deliver the goods. Also, the
Lotus Elan (hemispherical combustion chambers, DOHC etc.) came with
Webers as standard equipment. Jag’s even used them in racing. There are
a host of cars that used these to get the metal moving. So, did everyone
get it wrong. Is the good old “Single Union” really the performance
carb, or am I missing something. Sorry of this sounds a bit off, but
some of this makes no sense to me at all.

Les.

Les.

In a message dated 98-09-15 03:39:34 EDT, you write:

<< The SUs were designed to
operate with the rest of the XK package as it stands. I suspect that the
changes in engine systems required to take advantage of the Weber’s
characteristics would equally enhance the performance of an SU equipped
engine. >>

Noel;

You are correct, power is a package deal, a chain from the air inlet to the
exhaust tips. It really is a “weak link” thing if the exhaust side is at it’s
maximum capacity then adding several hundred additional cfm capacity at the
carbs will do nothing.

Besides, opening the bonnet and looking at those 3 SU’s is part of the E-type,
I would never change it, but I even like the Moss box.

My car is 35 years old, some listers cars are older and some are newer , but
how many of us use all the power available as stock?

Scott
63OTS 877074
CT

I did a conversion for my 1980 Spitfire. The Zeniths were driving
me nuts; they were either too rich or too lean and the idling was
terrible. The car did loose some oomph! at 0 to 30 mph but if you floored
it on 4th it was much nicer than before. I miss that low end power
but all in all I am satisfied as the car is as reliable as any new car out
there. It starts at half a crank at freezing temperatures. On my '69 E
the idling is bad but bearable for some reason and there are no
starting problem. If you want to mess with these beasts, look up
Roger Garnett’s excellant writeup on the SOL list at British Cars Web
(http://www.team.net:80/sol/).

Best Wishes
Zahid> -------------------------------------------------------------

| Zahid Ahsanullah, Intel Austin Design Center |
| StrongARM, SA1100, SA1500 design |
| Email: @Ahsanullah_Zahid |
| phone: 512-306-7421 |
| pager: 1-888-796-6346 |
| email to pager: 8887966346@skytel.com |
| fax: 512-306-7441 |
|
|
|" One night in the mirror I saw a movie star, |
| so I flew to hollywood in neighbors car." |

–Dada–

it seems logical to me that if you don’t increase the engine’s
capacity (ie primarily gas flow) to deal with what the Weber has on offer,
then there is little point in adding the Weber…

Your post makes a lot of sense, Noel. I couldn’t help putting it in the
same context as Bjarn’s excellent post under the “Sad Times” thread: what
are we trying to do with these cars? If we are interested in squeezing
modern-day performance out of a thirty year old car, we should forget
Webers and fit fuel injection. If we are interested in maintaining the
cars true to the spirit of their age, we should keep the SUs.

For me the triple SU arrangement has an aesthetic beauty with a classic
appeal; I feel exactly the same about the car. While a Weber installation
also has an aesthetic appeal, it is more aggressive and muscular - more in
keeping with the image of contemporary Corvettes and Mustangs.

With respect to Les’ comment about Webers and the Lotus Elan: the various
Elan models used Webers, Strombergs and Dell’Ortos. Minor changes to cams
and cylinder heads were made to suit the carb such that power output
remained unchanged.

Martyn
'67 2+2 (just love those triple SUs, but each to his own)
Victoria, BC

Noel, everything you mention is fine, except I disagree with the notion
that you must re-engineer the head in order to use Webers.
Re-engineering the head would most likely do the car some good, even
with the SU arrangement. The Webers improve things on the “standard”
engine because they simply allow the engine to breath better, and THAT
excludes the obvious performance advantages obtained by being able to
vary the choke/venturi/jet arrnagements so that performance can be
“tuned” to the specific range you are looking for (low down by using
short air horns or high end by using extended ones etc.). Webers were
always considered to be one of the quickest “bolt on” ways to improve
performance. The REAL problem with using Webers is simply that to get
them right, you have to go through many permutations of jet swap out and
road tests, and it’s diffcult to find suppliers of the jets etc and when
you do, they’re very expensive. You can easily spend hudreds of dollars
just arming yourself with a supply of these things for test purposes.
If I had access to all the necessary jets, I wouldn’t be having any
problems, AND I’d have a “standard” E that runs better and quicker that
a “standard” E with SU’s. Take a look down the throat of the SU
sometime. The piston and choke area is a damned awful aerodynamic
arrangement. Compare that with a Weber setup and quite frankly the
difference is like chalk and cheese. IF you set them up right, they
almost HAVE to improve vehicle performance…IMHO.

Les.

ANNETT,Noel wrote:>

I agree with some of what you say. All the configurations of various cars (not just Jaguars) I have seen in recent years where Webers have been fitted, have had extractors fitted at the same time and gas flow work in the head, and usually reprofiled cams and changed ignition arrangements. The engine’s capacity (to my non engineering head) to suck in the extra fuel/air mix available from the Weber conversion would seem to me to be restricted by the engine’s capacity to streamline this increased flow available, through the head, and exhaust the combustion by-products (also increased) more efficiently. Hence the need for larger valves, smooth gas passages in the head and a more efficient tuned and free flow exhaust system.

This produces extra power and torque from the combustion process. I’m no engineer, but it seems logical to me that if you don’t increase the engine’s capacity (ie primarily gas flow) to deal with what the Weber has on offer, then there is little point in adding the Weber. The SUs were designed to operate with the rest of the XK package as it stands. I suspect that the changes in engine systems required to take advantage of the Weber’s characteristics would equally enhance the performance of an SU equipped engine.

SBerry8939@aol.com wrote:

You are correct, power is a package deal, a chain from the air inlet to the exhaust tips. It really is a “weak link” thing if the exhaust side is at it’s maximum capacity then adding several hundred additional cfm capacity at the carbs will do nothing.

I agree, IF the engine is able to suck in all it possibly can through
the SU’s AND the exhaust is already at its maximum handling
capabilities. If either of these issues aren’t true, then your premise
falls apart. Looking at the “standard” setup it’s hard to believe that
the SU’s are delivering the maximum air that the exhaust can handle.

Besides, opening the bonnet and looking at those 3 SU’s is part of the E-type, I would never change it, but I even like the Moss box.

No arguement from me there, except my car is a S1.5 that has the lousy 2
Stromberg setup (no offence to anyone’s car). I DO however have the
superior later gearbox.

My car is 35 years old, some listers cars are older and some are newer , but how many of us use all the power available as stock?

Not very often Scott, but then why make 200 - 300 hp cars in the first
place. We’ll be back to the red flag days if were not careful

Les.

Martyn and Chris Ward wrote:

what are we trying to do with these cars? If we are interested in squeezing modern-day performance out of a thirty year old car, we should forget Webers and fit fuel injection. If we are interested in maintaining the cars true to the spirit of their age, we should keep the SUs.

No no, with due respect, I think you’re missing the (my) point. My point
is that it’s OK to modify the car, IF that modification is correct for
the time period during which the car was manufactured. The Webers fit my
general benchmark. That’s why it’s considerd OK for a Bently to be
converted to run with a 24 litre Napier aero engine. They modified the
car within the constraints of availability at the time the car was
manufactured. The Vintage Sports Car Club accepts this also (or at least
they did when I belonged to it many years ago). Beyond that, it’s
simply a modification to improve performance. Nothing to do with
whether or not the SU’s are “right” or look better or whether the Webers
look better etc. If they look better but the car ran like crap, what
would be the point of it all??

Les.

Hi Les and other interested participants

OK Les, I accept this thesis, and I must say, this post has made me think a
little deeper on the subject. I certainly agree with your observations
about the piston and choke area in terms of their aerodynamics; but, more
importantly, what I didn’t take account of yesterday was the number of
“throats” feeding the cylinders. This is where I think the Weber setup has
some advantage.

I see it like this. I think all would agree that the most efficient fuel
delivery setup is to have a mixture tuned and fed which meets the individual
requirements of each cylinder in the engine, especially in an older engine
exhibiting diffent compression readings in each cylinder etc… Also
importantly, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.

So, the most efficient carburretion arrangement (just like with fuel
injection) would be to have a single carburettor feeding each individual
cylinder with gas flow “straight” into the combustion chamber. On my
rethink, this is exactly
what the Weber setup tends to facilitate. Triple Webers in fact, operate
like 6 individual carbs (Sort of like having 6 Amals) with a “throat”
feeding each cylinder.

The SUs, on the other hand have one “throat” feeding two cylinders and we
also start to “turn” the mixture before it enters the head. So the
adjustment of the carburettor has to meet an averaging arrangement to suit
the needs of the two cylinders receiving the air/fuel mix, and the pathway
from the jet to the combustion chamber has two turns in it.

And, of course, the two carb E Types with the emission stuff, Strombergs etc
bring this formula down to two “throats” feeding three cylinders each. The
Stromberg arrangements also include an incredibly inefficient gas flow
transfer arrangement before anything even gets near a bank of cylinders.

So, on my humble reanalysis as a result of Les’ post, I can see some logic
behind “just fitting a Weber” to get improved performance.
;o)

Cheers

Noel Annett
68 2+2 E Type
67 Daimler Sovereign (420)
66 Daimler 2.5L V8
84 BMW 528i
Canberra, Australia> ----------

From: Les Halls[SMTP:blakjag@ibm.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 10:14 AM
To: e-type@jag-lovers.org
Subject: Re: [E-Type] Re: Webers vs SU - power

Noel, everything you mention is fine, except I disagree with the notion
that you must re-engineer the head in order to use Webers.
Re-engineering the head would most likely do the car some good, even
with the SU arrangement. The Webers improve things on the “standard”
engine because they simply allow the engine to breath better, and THAT
excludes the obvious performance advantages obtained by being able to
vary the choke/venturi/jet arrnagements so that performance can be
“tuned” to the specific range you are looking for (low down by using
short air horns or high end by using extended ones etc.). Webers were
always considered to be one of the quickest “bolt on” ways to improve
performance. The REAL problem with using Webers is simply that to get
them right, you have to go through many permutations of jet swap out and
road tests, and it’s diffcult to find suppliers of the jets etc and when
you do, they’re very expensive. You can easily spend hudreds of dollars
just arming yourself with a supply of these things for test purposes.
If I had access to all the necessary jets, I wouldn’t be having any
problems, AND I’d have a “standard” E that runs better and quicker that
a “standard” E with SU’s. Take a look down the throat of the SU
sometime. The piston and choke area is a damned awful aerodynamic
arrangement. Compare that with a Weber setup and quite frankly the
difference is like chalk and cheese. IF you set them up right, they
almost HAVE to improve vehicle performance…IMHO.

Les.

Yep, that’s pretty much the rationale that I’ve seetled with, having
read a lot of information on Webers. Tell you the truth, I’d kinda like
to try some SU’s on the car to see what it goes like…but don’t tell
anyone I said so.

Les (secret SU admirer)

ANNETT,Noel wrote:>

Hi Les and other interested participants

OK Les, I accept this thesis, and I must say, this post has made me think a
little deeper on the subject. I certainly agree with your observations
about the piston and choke area in terms of their aerodynamics; but, more
importantly, what I didn’t take account of yesterday was the number of
“throats” feeding the cylinders. This is where I think the Weber setup has
some advantage.

I see it like this. I think all would agree that the most efficient fuel
delivery setup is to have a mixture tuned and fed which meets the individual
requirements of each cylinder in the engine, especially in an older engine
exhibiting diffent compression readings in each cylinder etc… Also
importantly, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.

So, the most efficient carburretion arrangement (just like with fuel
injection) would be to have a single carburettor feeding each individual
cylinder with gas flow “straight” into the combustion chamber. On my
rethink, this is exactly
what the Weber setup tends to facilitate. Triple Webers in fact, operate
like 6 individual carbs (Sort of like having 6 Amals) with a “throat”
feeding each cylinder.

The SUs, on the other hand have one “throat” feeding two cylinders and we
also start to “turn” the mixture before it enters the head. So the
adjustment of the carburettor has to meet an averaging arrangement to suit
the needs of the two cylinders receiving the air/fuel mix, and the pathway
from the jet to the combustion chamber has two turns in it.

And, of course, the two carb E Types with the emission stuff, Strombergs etc
bring this formula down to two “throats” feeding three cylinders each. The
Stromberg arrangements also include an incredibly inefficient gas flow
transfer arrangement before anything even gets near a bank of cylinders.

So, on my humble reanalysis as a result of Les’ post, I can see some logic
behind “just fitting a Weber” to get improved performance.
;o)

Cheers

Noel Annett
68 2+2 E Type
67 Daimler Sovereign (420)
66 Daimler 2.5L V8
84 BMW 528i
Canberra, Australia


From: Les Halls[SMTP:@Les_Halls2]
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 10:14 AM
To: e-type@jag-lovers.org
Subject: Re: [E-Type] Re: Webers vs SU - power

Noel, everything you mention is fine, except I disagree with the notion
that you must re-engineer the head in order to use Webers.
Re-engineering the head would most likely do the car some good, even
with the SU arrangement. The Webers improve things on the “standard”
engine because they simply allow the engine to breath better, and THAT
excludes the obvious performance advantages obtained by being able to
vary the choke/venturi/jet arrnagements so that performance can be
“tuned” to the specific range you are looking for (low down by using
short air horns or high end by using extended ones etc.). Webers were
always considered to be one of the quickest “bolt on” ways to improve
performance. The REAL problem with using Webers is simply that to get
them right, you have to go through many permutations of jet swap out and
road tests, and it’s diffcult to find suppliers of the jets etc and when
you do, they’re very expensive. You can easily spend hudreds of dollars
just arming yourself with a supply of these things for test purposes.
If I had access to all the necessary jets, I wouldn’t be having any
problems, AND I’d have a “standard” E that runs better and quicker that
a “standard” E with SU’s. Take a look down the throat of the SU
sometime. The piston and choke area is a damned awful aerodynamic
arrangement. Compare that with a Weber setup and quite frankly the
difference is like chalk and cheese. IF you set them up right, they
almost HAVE to improve vehicle performance…IMHO.

Les.

My partner in performance technology, Mr. Hall presents the Webers so
well I can only sit back and enjoy the reading.On a serious note if anyone comes to Vancouver, B.C. I would be delighted to let them drive the E-Type Weber experience. Dennis 69 OTS-W (The W means Webers) Les Halls wrote:

DHarr13177@aol.com wrote:

SU’s produce more power than Webers on an E- type. See the XKU >catalogue . They will sell you either system, but say they get more >power with the SU’s. Gran Turismo’s E- Type was handicapped by >specifying 1 3/4 SU’s some years ago- they still ran away from the >competition. Unless you have a dyno and computer you will lose power, >probably mostly in the mid- range, with webers.

Intresting. Then the E must be almost unique in british iron. Almost
every upgrade in performance for almost ANY old iron I can think of,
specified Webers. They were THE choice of the enthusiasts?? There simply
wasn’t anything else around that could deliver the goods. Also, the
Lotus Elan (hemispherical combustion chambers, DOHC etc.) came with
Webers as standard equipment. Jag’s even used them in racing. There are
a host of cars that used these to get the metal moving. So, did everyone
get it wrong. Is the good old “Single Union” really the performance
carb, or am I missing something. Sorry of this sounds a bit off, but
some of this makes no sense to me at all.

Les.

Les.

Les wrote:_________________________
If they look better but the car ran like crap, what
would be the point of it all??


My point entirely, Les. :wink:

Regards,

Dan

OK Les…thanks for the response.

Your secret will remain in the closet for all of us to see…

;o)

Noel Annett
68 2+2 E Type
67 Daimler Sovereign (420)
66 Daimler 2.5L V8
84 BMW 528i
Canberra, Australia> ----------

From: Les Halls wrote:

Yep, that’s pretty much the rationale that I’ve seetled with, having
read a lot of information on Webers. Tell you the truth, I’d kinda like
to try some SU’s on the car to see what it goes like…but don’t tell
anyone I said so.

Les (secret SU admirer)

But…they do look great…and…they make the car run great…but
they’re a sod to set up for smooth idle. And even that is probably more
an issue of lack of enough jet supplies to switch out to get the thing
right. Having said that about Webers, it looks like, from the recent
posting referencing the article on SU tuning with exhaust analyzers and
the 354?? different needles for the one jet!! that the SU folks have a
similar problem that they might not even realize exists??

Les.

Les.

Dan Mooney wrote:>

Les wrote:


If they look better but the car ran like crap, what
would be the point of it all??


My point entirely, Les. :wink:

Regards,

Dan

John, wer’re really not bickering. This is just an interesting exchange
of ideas and information. Let’s not think that just because we have
different thoughts and ideas about our cars, and we choose to share
those ideas in a free and open dialogue, that we’re bickering. Re your
“Skinners Union” I’ve always believed that SU meant Single Union and was
a reference to the single jet in the carb.

Les.

JDUHIG@Raychem.com wrote:>

 May I put a rather different perspective upon the "battle" that has
 been raging in these hallowed pages over the SU/Weber issue.

 First, no one has said that there is anything wrong with the product
 of Skinners Union, indeed, I am a great fan of these carbs and prefer
 them over many other designs.

 Equally, it is difficult for those of us who have used (in my case for
 many years) side draught Webers (or their Dellorto, Hitachi or SK
 clones) to understand the apparent problems with "frequent needs for
 adjustment" - what's top adjust?

 Surely, the bottom line is none of us NEED our E-types, we have them
 because we like the way they look, some people even like the look of
 the 2+2 (I just know I should have resisted saying that....). Equally,
 no one NEEDS Webers, some just happen to like the look of a bank of
 three, double choke side draught carburetors - I know I do.

 When I fit these carbs to my 62 OTS, it won't be for extra
 performance, as the car already has more performance than I can
 legally use here in California, but I'll find it a satisfying addition
 to my car and it will not detract from it's originality, as I'll keep
 the SUs and it will be easy to refit them should I ever wish to do so.

 I'm prepared to be honest and admit that owning and driving an E
 permits me to live out and adolescent dream - Webers are merely a
 further enhancement!

 SO let's all be friends and stop bickering about which is best.

 John (who likes the SUs on his 62 OTS but still intends to go to
 triple double choke side draughts)

JDUHIG@Raychem.com wrote:

John (brought up on SU carb’d vehicles in the UK)

Me too John. Spent the first 33 years of my life in the UK. My first car
was a 1953 MK I Ford Zehpyr, then Zodiac, then a succession of Morris
(1100, mini) Austin A40, MGB, Midget, TF1500, Vauxhaull Victor,… the
list goes on and on. SU’s were the mainstay of most of these cars ans so
we all became very familiar with their little quirks, and I must say,
easy setup and maintenance. Of course THAT was before all the emission
control stuff was added making the simple SU a right royal pain in the
you know what! In the “old” days, we’d whip off the crummy Zenith carb
ans slap on an SU to beef things up a bit (that was before I could
afford “king Weber”).

Les.