Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Nitrous\s+plumbing\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Nitrous\s+plumbing\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. RE:Nitrous plumbing (score: 1): Author: Talus9998@aol.com; Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 23:30:01 EDT; Hi all Suppose someone had a car used for both autox and drag racing, and wanted to have more fun drag racing, but wanted to stay in their current class in autox. What does everyone think about havin; /html/autox/1999-04/msg00872.html (6,776 bytes)
2. RE: Nitrous plumbing (score: 1): Author: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@wilcom.com>; Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:00:33 -0600; No problem. Remove it before tech..in fact, dont bring it near the course at all. Should still be a stock class car. However, running NOS on a stock legal car..I dunno. No intake/exhaust modification; /html/autox/1999-04/msg00875.html (7,648 bytes)
3. RE: Nitrous plumbing (score: 1): Author: Craig Blome <cblome@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 05:38:07 -0700 (PDT); This is something I've never been especially clear on. I know nitrous is anathema according to the rule book. My question is, why is this? I know it's easy to blow up a motor by just slapping a bottl; /html/autox/1999-04/msg00878.html (6,976 bytes)
4. RE: Nitrous plumbing (score: 1): Author: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@wilcom.com>; Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 07:42:01 -0500; Well, NOS just isnt a competative thing in Autox..its would be harder to class this than turbos to be honest. it's more of a philisophical stand as I see it. If a manufacturer released a production c; /html/autox/1999-04/msg00879.html (7,855 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]