Quote
I can't see how different covers will affect the float level ?
although the pip is quite central it is not exactly central so the one on a slant is a little lower than the other, about 10 thou, is this enough to alter mixture - I don't know.
Both covers off 389 although I don't know the history of the dirty one
I was thinking more of extended/shortened bowls/covers, but the two covers I have are much the same as your (Bills) left one.
Maybe the dirty/right one are for a downswept inlet tract
.
I measured them up anyway, and are as in pic.
My left one the nipple is same distance from circumference over centre of screw holes, the other cover measures vary by about a half mm, but can't explain why the top measurement varies by ~0.8mm (not important enough).
The 'AMAL' on my right cover is ~0.75mm closer to the perimeter than the other, which make the nipple appear to be lower.
I initially made the perspex cover long before I heard of the tube on the pilot method, but then tried the tube method when the cover went opaque, but found it too fiddly and a need to do it repeatedly, so went back to the clear cover method, and left the clear PVC one on so I can monitor the level, and also to asses its resilience to fuel.
The main reason why I've left it on thought is because I'm too lazy to change it- better things to do
, but as it turns out, is handy because my float needle must have a slow leak, as if I leave the fuel on overnight, the level rises and floods
, but under riding conditions, the level seems ok.
phew! thinkin' I covered everything?