Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Proposal\s+for\s+SP\s+cars\s+to\s+compete\s+in\s+P\s+\?\?\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Proposal\s+for\s+SP\s+cars\s+to\s+compete\s+in\s+P\s+\?\?\?\s*$/: 54 ]

Total 54 documents matching your query.

41. Re: Proposal for SP cars to compete in P ??? (score: 1): Author: Smokerbros@aol.com; Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 02:02:22 EDT; I said "any, not "many." There were 413 and 426 wedge Mopars in '63-65 that would do 13s, stock. My overall point is that European cars from the '60's were not as fast in a straight line as domestic; /html/autox/2001-10/msg00175.html (10,118 bytes)
42. Re: Proposal for SP cars to compete in P ??? (score: 1): Author: Smokerbros@aol.com; Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 02:08:14 EDT; Busted!!! CHD /// autox@autox.team.net mailing list /// /// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net /// with nothing in it but /// /// unsubscribe autox /// /// or try ht; /html/autox/2001-10/msg00176.html (9,477 bytes)
43. Re: Proposal for SP cars to compete in P ??? (score: 1): Author: SOLOMIATA@aol.com; Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 06:21:59 EDT; I purchased my 92 Miata for the 93 season. Ran CS in 93. Ran CSP 94-99. DP for 2000+. Randy /// autox@autox.team.net mailing list /// /// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.t; /html/autox/2001-10/msg00177.html (9,292 bytes)
44. Re: Proposal for SP cars to compete in P ??? (score: 1): Author: dg50@daimlerchrysler.com; Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:42:17 -0400; "Rocky Entriken" <rocky@tri.net> I don't know is this is the right analysis Rocky - although the rest of what you have to say is pretty well right on the money. The issue as I see it is that there's; /html/autox/2001-10/msg00180.html (14,151 bytes)
45. RE: Proposal for SP cars to compete in P ??? (score: 1): Author: "Linnhoff, Eric" <elinnhoff@smmc.saint-lukes.org>; Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:17:07 -0500; --Original Message-- STS's success is based on one thing, and one thing only - non-R-compound tires, and as such it is dangling by the thinnest of threads. Once a tire manufacturer decides to make a; /html/autox/2001-10/msg00182.html (11,425 bytes)
46. Re: Proposal for SP cars to compete in P ??? (score: 1): Author: "Phillip Osborne" <psosborn@gte.net>; Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 13:43:04 -0400; In some ways, as much as I hate to admit it, the tire wars have already begun. It appears to me that the new BFG is simply an R tire with 10/32 tread depth, rather than molded with the R tire 4/32 tr; /html/autox/2001-10/msg00191.html (10,768 bytes)
47. RE: Proposal for SP cars to compete in P ??? (score: 1): Author: "Linnhoff, Eric" <elinnhoff@smmc.saint-lukes.org>; Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:30:01 -0500; What new BFG?? Seriously. Eric Linnhoff in KC 1998 Dodge Neon R/T (see-dan) STS #69 TLS #13 knuckledragger@kcweb.net http://www.geocities.com/eric10mm/KnuckleDragger --Original Message-- In some ways; /html/autox/2001-10/msg00192.html (9,684 bytes)
48. RE: Proposal for SP cars to compete in P ??? (score: 1): Author: dg50@daimlerchrysler.com; Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 10:08:42 -0400; That's the problem right there. going say What you're missing is that Roger's Doom & Gloom (TM) theory about "tire creep" isn't just the ravings of an old man who doesn't like change - it's based on; /html/autox/2001-10/msg00201.html (11,374 bytes)
49. RE: Proposal for SP cars to compete in P ??? (score: 1): Author: "Richard Atkins" <richarda@npclabels.com>; Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 10:41:58 -0500; How about changing the title on this, don't see anything any more about SP That's the problem right there. going say What you're missing is that Roger's Doom & Gloom (TM) theory about "tire creep" is; /html/autox/2001-10/msg00203.html (11,857 bytes)
50. Re: Proposal for SP cars to compete in P ??? (score: 1): Author: "gs96" <gs96@sgi.net>; Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:12:25 -0400; Dennis, you of all people should be wary of the "it can't work" mentality. SM faces that exact same attitude: "sure SM is successsful now but wait until the big-$$$ engineering efforts get involved."; /html/autox/2001-10/msg00204.html (10,571 bytes)
51. RE: Proposal for SP cars to compete in P ??? (score: 1): Author: Tom Maycock <tmaycock@interaccess.com>; Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 10:20:23 -0500 (CDT); Folks, we have a new contender for most obnoxious team.net statement of the year, competiing in both the "overall" category, and the coveted "glass-house-dwelling rock hurler" category. Tom Maycock; /html/autox/2001-10/msg00205.html (8,924 bytes)
52. Re: Proposal for SP cars to compete in P ??? (score: 1): Author: "Rocky Entriken" <rocky@tri.net>; Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:47:53 -0500; The word was "almost." Didn't say it never happens. Said it was rare. As far as the Babbs go (and they ARE rare folk, in a number of great ways), they have now taken the car all the way to Mod. --Roc; /html/autox/2001-10/msg00213.html (9,450 bytes)
53. Re: Proposal for SP cars to compete in P ??? (score: 1): Author: "Rocky Entriken" <rocky@tri.net>; Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 17:04:57 -0500; Well, I *do* think the SEB, over the years, lost the handle on SP. But that was then, this is now. SP was a viable concept when it was born and it remains so today, even though that concept has chang; /html/autox/2001-10/msg00214.html (17,142 bytes)
54. Re: Proposal for SP cars to compete in P ??? (score: 1): Author: "Pat Kelly" <lollipop487@home.com>; Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 15:09:21 -0700; I disagree about SP being okay from the git-go. It was never compatible with a 'progression' to P because of its unlimited wheel sizes and carburetion. Either it or the P classes suddenly were discon; /html/autox/2001-10/msg00215.html (19,459 bytes)

Current List: 41 - 54
Page: [1] [2] [3]