Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[evolution\-disc\.\]\s+Update\s+Question\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[evolution\-disc\.\]\s+Update\s+Question\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [evolution-disc.] Update Question (score: 1): Author: Alan Dahl <alandahl@mac.com>; Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:46:22 -0800; No, that is incorrect. In stock you are not allowed to morph a car built in one year into another year car, even if you make all the needed changes. As an example I can't take a 1991 Miata and add th; /html/autox/2004-03/msg00266.html (9,059 bytes)
2. Re: [evolution-disc.] Update Question (score: 1): Author: Mark Andy <mark@sccaprepared.com>; Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 18:59:40 -0500 (EST); If the car is updated to _be_ a 2004 model year car, I believe its legal. I don't believe that a VIN plate is required. The shock allowance would cover the different valving and I would think C&C wo; /html/autox/2004-03/msg00268.html (9,257 bytes)
3. Re: [evolution-disc.] Update Question (score: 1): Author: Dick Rasmussen <rasmussend@mindspring.com>; Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 20:41:24 -0500; Mark, I believe it is against the rules to "present" a Stock class car as being say a 2002 which has been "converted" to a 2004. I believe the "assumption" in Stock is that the car year is defined by; /html/autox/2004-03/msg00271.html (8,991 bytes)
4. Re: [evolution-disc.] Update Question (score: 1): Author: "Jay Mitchell" <jemitchelltx@earthlink.net>; Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 20:14:01 -0600; its legal. No. There is no ambiguity about this. It was specifically made illegal sometime back in the mid-90s, and the current wording of the rules makes this clear. You can perform an "option packa; /html/autox/2004-03/msg00272.html (8,257 bytes)
5. Re: [evolution-disc.] Update Question (score: 1): Author: Mark Andy <mark@sccaprepared.com>; Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 21:16:38 -0500 (EST); Well, Update/Backdate is a pieces/parts thing, not exactly what I'm talking about above. I'm talking about taking the 2002 car and doing enough work that it is indistinuguishable from a 2004 car. I.; /html/autox/2004-03/msg00273.html (9,921 bytes)
6. Re: [evolution-disc.] Update Question (score: 1): Author: "Rocky Entriken" <rocky@tri.net>; Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 20:58:21 -0600; Wouldn't "doing enough work that it is indistinguishable from..." have to include changing the VIN plate to make it truly indistinguishable? But then, isn't changing the VIN plate illegal? Fraudulent; /html/autox/2004-03/msg00274.html (8,820 bytes)
7. Re: [evolution-disc.] Update Question (score: 1): Author: Mark Andy <mark@sccaprepared.com>; Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 23:18:52 -0500 (EST); So if some vandal breaks in and scratches off all the VIN numbers on your car (in stock), you can't run there any more? What's the difference between my "indistinguishable from '04" car and your '04; /html/autox/2004-03/msg00275.html (8,856 bytes)
8. Re: [evolution-disc.] Update Question (score: 1): Author: Smokerbros@aol.com; Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 23:25:54 EST; I agree with Rocky. Though I can see a situation where you are replacing significant numbers of parts, possibly all at the same time, possibly at different times, and end up with a vehicle which has; /html/autox/2004-03/msg00276.html (8,951 bytes)
9. Re: [evolution-disc.] Update Question (score: 1): Author: Matt Murray <mattm@optonline.net>; Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 23:37:15 -0500; I'd wager big money that a protest committee would come to the same conclusion as a DMV. Matt Murray; /html/autox/2004-03/msg00277.html (8,491 bytes)
10. Re: [evolution-disc.] Update Question (score: 1): Author: Mark Sirota <mark@sirota.org>; Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 11:31:15 -0500; I think that's probably true, though I admit it's not abundantly clear from the rules. You also can't drive the car on the street anymore, though that's a completely separate issue. The manufacturer; /html/autox/2004-03/msg00279.html (8,781 bytes)
11. RE: [evolution-disc.] Update Question (score: 1): Author: "Eric Linnhoff" <knuckledragger@kcweb.net>; Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 13:17:37 -0600; I feel bad for the poor Z06 drivers... They had to sell their one year old cars to get 20 more horsepower, and now they need to sell them again to get a slightly lighter hood. == Yes, pity the poor C; /html/autox/2004-03/msg00280.html (8,295 bytes)
12. Re: [evolution-disc.] Update Question (score: 1): Author: Smokerbros@aol.com; Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 14:34:54 EST; Of the 12 trophy winners at the 2003 Nationals, only 3 (2nd, 10th, 11th) were 2003's. 6 (1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th) were '02's, and 3 (3rd, 7th, 12th) were 01's. The top 3 were separated by 0.014; /html/autox/2004-03/msg00281.html (8,548 bytes)
13. RE: [evolution-disc.] Update Question (score: 1): Author: "Eric Salem" <eric@mail.brown911.com>; Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 14:42:43 -0600; you really needed the extra 20 hp... So, do you also "need" the carbon fiber hood? Charley you've been around racing long enough to know that 'need' is a function of the balance in the checking acco; /html/autox/2004-03/msg00282.html (8,153 bytes)
14. Re: [evolution-disc.] Update Question (score: 1): Author: Smokerbros@aol.com; Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 15:45:48 EST; Good point, and exactly why I don't NEED much for my CP car right now!!! Charlie; /html/autox/2004-03/msg00283.html (7,990 bytes)
15. Re: [evolution-disc.] Update Question (score: 1): Author: Scott Troyer - TestEng TMR DDR <stroyer@micron.com>; Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 11:19:38 -0700; I think the extra 20 HP made a difference on the north course where you were pushing the upper limits of 2nd gear. The biggest difference between the '01 Z06's and the '02-'04 Z06's is between 5500rp; /html/autox/2004-03/msg00292.html (9,318 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 15
Page: [1]