save/were it not/only

[mmasny]

"I do it exactly the same way, save that I can't run so fast."
How should I reword it using "were it not" and "only"? These are my attempts:

I do it exactly the same way, only I can't run so fast.
I do it exactly the same way, only that I can't run so fast.
I do it exactly the same way, were it not that I can't run so fast.
I do it exactly the same way, were it not I can't run so fast.

Could it be "was it not"?
I found this on the web, but I don't understand it:

Were it not for, or If it were not for, leaving out of
account; but for the presence or action of. "Moral
consideration can no way move the sensible appetite, were
it not for the will." --Sir M. Hale.
[1913 Webster]

I don't get the sample sentence. Does "no way" mean "in no way" here? What's "move" here?

[jlinger]

To use the "were it not" in your example sentences, you would have to change the tense of the entire sentence consistently, using "would do" and "could not" for example.

In your quotation, yes, "no way" means "in no way" and "move" means "change" or "stimulate/excite." It's a rather obtuse quote, as 100-year-old quotations often are, but I think it means, it takes a will [deliberate effort] to effect a change, not just a moral consideration [social conscience].

[mmasny]

To use the "were it not" in your example sentences, you would have to change the tense of the entire sentence consistently, using "would do" and "could not" for example.

Thank you for your reply.
Should it be:
I do it exactly the same way, only I can't run so fast.
I do it exactly the same way, only that I can't run so fast.
I do it exactly the same way, were it not that I could't run so fast.
I do it exactly the same way, were it not I could't run so fast.

I didn't realize the need of sequence of tenses here, thank you. My questions was more about the usage of "that" in the above. Is it correct?
How's about "was it not"? When can I use "where it not for"?

In your quotation, yes, "no way" means "in no way" and "move" means "change" or "stimulate/excite." It's a rather obtuse quote, as 100-year-old quotations often are, but I think it means, it takes a will [deliberate effort] to effect a change, not just a moral consideration [social conscience].

I think I've understood this sentence. In my opnion it means:
"It's hard to overcome the appetite with moral consderation only. There should be also strong will present." Am I right? I still don't get what the word "sensible" has to do there.