 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | 05-01-2005 |
| Location: | Minneapolis, Minnesota USA |
| Posts: | 573 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
Tim,
We've had the opportunity to disagree in the past.
Judson,
Well, see there, we don't disagree about everything.
Judson Manning wrote:
Just like the carb jetting disagreement years ago, when you have some actual data to counter my statements, feel free to criticize me all day long and defend the 104 to your heart's content.
You were trying to apply Spec 9 DHLA45E jetting to 45D PowerJet carbs without recognizing the fundamental differences between the two types of designs. And then you complained the result was rich and Spec 9 was no good (I believe you likened the result to fogging mosquitos). Of course it was rich, you were double fueling. First line in any of the Lotus carb specs is the carb body to which the jetting is to be applied... ya can't ignore that.
The reason I defend 104's is because you blast them. They're good cams for someone who is looking for a little performance; but no, they're not right for someone wanting a relaxed cruiser. Mild cams and timing are not the only solution for a 907. Different horses for different courses... open your mind.
I left this forum a couple of years ago primarily because of the intolerant, territorial, myopic views of two people. You were one of them.
After a long absence, I pop in for a visit and you're right there ready to be intolerant again. I expected it, but was hopeful anyway. Unfortunately, you quickly confirmed my worst expectations.
I'm outa here. Anyone who wants an opinion other than Judson's knows where to find me. See ya elsewhere.
Last edited on 05-29-2009 05:26 pm by Esprit2