Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Turbo\s+Update\/Backdate\s+\-\s+A\s+Solution\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Turbo\s+Update\/Backdate\s+\-\s+A\s+Solution\s*$/: 20 ]

Total 20 documents matching your query.

1. Turbo Update/Backdate - A Solution (score: 1): Author: dg50@daimlerchrysler.com; Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:57:00 -0400; I intend for this to be my final post on the subject - as tired as y'all are of reading them, I'm twice as tired of writing them. There are those who seem to feel that Team.net is some sort of high s; /html/autox/1999-06/msg01220.html (13,178 bytes)
2. Re: Turbo Update/Backdate - A Solution (score: 1): Author: Mark Sirota <msirota@isc.upenn.edu>; Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 11:29:56 -0400; Too complicated. In the name of keeping it simple, how about eliminating all the sub-bullets but the first? If your motor was turbocharged from the factory, you can use the turbo unit(s) from any oth; /html/autox/1999-06/msg01224.html (10,066 bytes)
3. Turbo Update/Backdate - A Solution (score: 1): Author: Karl Witt <kwitt@shore.net>; Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 11:45:48 -0400; On or about 10:57 AM 6/22/1999 , dg50@daimlerchrysler.com did say: are of 'loser". Uh, for the record, I didn't just "pick a side and fight it" like some sort of "high school debate club". I voiced m; /html/autox/1999-06/msg01228.html (10,148 bytes)
4. Re: Turbo Update/Backdate - A Solution (score: 1): Author: dg50@daimlerchrysler.com; Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 11:45:52 -0400; I don't _think_ there's any cars out there where you have (say) a 4cyl turbo and a 6cyl turbo (or even an 8!) on the same line, but that's not proof against it in the future. My assumption is that th; /html/autox/1999-06/msg01229.html (11,013 bytes)
5. Re: Turbo Update/Backdate - A Solution (score: 1): Author: Mark Sirota <msirota@isc.upenn.edu>; Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 11:50:28 -0400; Well, if it needs to be in there, it probably needs to be more like your original -- this is too vague. I was simply questioning whether it needs to be there at all. "exactly the same displacement" s; /html/autox/1999-06/msg01230.html (9,137 bytes)
6. RE: Turbo Update/Backdate - A Solution (score: 1): Author: Alan Pozner <AlanP@identicard.com>; Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 16:17:07 -0400; We will need the same displacement/same # of cylinders when Audi comes out with the S4 Twin turbo turbo and against it the 8, or inline higher systems. cylinder Individual combined; /html/autox/1999-06/msg01237.html (12,219 bytes)
7. Re: Turbo Update/Backdate - A Solution (score: 1): Author: Mark Sirota <msirota@isc.upenn.edu>; Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 16:58:30 -0400; Why? What two turbocharged cars will be on the same line? Will the S4 and the 1.8T be on the same line? If so, number of cylinders would be enough. Mark; /html/autox/1999-06/msg01241.html (8,470 bytes)
8. Re: Turbo Update/Backdate - A Solution (score: 1): Author: Mark Sirota <msirota@isc.upenn.edu>; Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 17:14:52 -0400; It has been pointed out to me that there might soon be a number of Volkswagens on the same line in SP, all with four-cylinder motors and different turbos: the 1.8T and four-cylinder TDI motors will b; /html/autox/1999-06/msg01242.html (9,316 bytes)
9. RE: Turbo Update/Backdate - A Solution (score: 1): Author: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@wilcom.com>; Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 16:51:39 -0500; However, I still kinda like DG's earlier proposal of allowing open boost controls, so long as the turbo(s), oiling systems, and housings are not modified. Or something like that. Simplifies the rules; /html/autox/1999-06/msg01245.html (9,794 bytes)
10. RE: Turbo Update/Backdate - A Solution (score: 1): Author: Brian M Kennedy <kennedy@i2.com>; Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 17:18:35 -0500; I disagree with this logic. SP modifications allow you to open up intake congestion such that the engine can pull in all the air it can. The potential gains there are just not too big -- the max is l; /html/autox/1999-06/msg01247.html (9,714 bytes)
11. Re: Turbo Update/Backdate - A Solution (score: 1): Author: dg50@daimlerchrysler.com; Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 18:25:47 -0400; [Invective and bile snipped] Who said I was talking about you? Was your name mentioned? You made it perfectly clear when you came charging up to me that your intent was to attempt to justify your con; /html/autox/1999-06/msg01248.html (9,261 bytes)
12. Re: Turbo Update/Backdate - A Solution (score: 1): Author: "Phil Ethier" <pethier@isd.net>; Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 17:51:49 -0500; make the times_ - This precident is worth exactly nothing. Ask Don Roberts. Phil Ethier Saint Paul Minnesota USA Lotus Europa, VW Quantum Syncro, Chev Suburban LOON, TCVWC, MAC pethier@isd.net http:; /html/autox/1999-06/msg01249.html (9,287 bytes)
13. Re: Turbo Update/Backdate - A Solution (score: 1): Author: "Mac Crossett" <delta-v@kscable.com>; Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 23:06:40 -0500; DG posted: Yup, it pretty much solves the problem. It also means a very uncertain status for the rest of this year. with bias, the supposed It's far, far too late for that... Besides irrepairably dam; /html/autox/1999-06/msg01267.html (10,601 bytes)
14. RE: Turbo Update/Backdate - A Solution (score: 1): Author: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@wilcom.com>; Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 08:37:27 -0500; turbocharger I disagree with this logic. SP modifications allow you to open up intake congestion such that the engine can pull in all the air it can. The potential gains there are just not too big -; /html/autox/1999-06/msg01280.html (10,304 bytes)
15. RE: Turbo Update/Backdate - A Solution (score: 1): Author: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@wilcom.com>; Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 08:51:01 -0500; I disagree with this logic. SP modifications allow you to open up intake congestion such that the engine can pull in all the air it can. The potential gains there are just not too big -- the max is l; /html/autox/1999-06/msg01281.html (10,880 bytes)
16. Re: Turbo Update/Backdate - A Solution (score: 1): Author: steve.cirian@us.pwcglobal.com; Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 09:59:17 -0500; to I would tend to disagree with this (even as a turbo guy). There are a number of reasons I would not let people run as much boost as they want. The lean conditions can be dealt with within the SP; /html/autox/1999-06/msg01287.html (10,907 bytes)
17. RE: Turbo Update/Backdate - A Solution (score: 1): Author: Brian M Kennedy <kennedy@i2.com>; Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:29:57 -0500; Sure. And turbo cars should be able to replace air filters and such that precede the turbo/engine, just like you can with N/A cars. But being able to change the turbo is more like being able to chang; /html/autox/1999-06/msg01305.html (12,089 bytes)
18. Re: Turbo Update/Backdate - A Solution (score: 1): Author: dg50@daimlerchrysler.com; Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 15:25:21 -0400; 2 other solutions to this mess have been proposed, so I'll include them (with comments) for completeness. - Create a new, "turbo only" SP class, and let 'em do whatever they want, where they can't hu; /html/autox/1999-06/msg01316.html (9,924 bytes)
19. RE: Turbo Update/Backdate - A Solution (score: 1): Author: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@wilcom.com>; Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 13:36:22 -0600; Sure. And turbo cars should be able to replace air filters and such that precede the turbo/engine, just like you can with N/A cars. But being able to change the turbo is more like being able to chang; /html/autox/1999-06/msg01327.html (12,432 bytes)
20. Re: Turbo Update/Backdate - A Solution (score: 1): Author: Joshua Hadler <jhadler@rmi.net>; Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 16:44:01 -0700; [snip] This attitude of "getting shafted by Denver" is starting to stink a little too... Yes, I personally think that the update/backdate rule as was -interpreted- made for interesting development. A; /html/autox/1999-06/msg01332.html (10,951 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1]