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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Bricklin\s+on\s+Autoweek\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. Bricklin on Autoweek (score: 1): Author: "Brett Russell" <brussell@powercom.net>; Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 09:49:18 -0500; I don't know if anyone saw this or not, but on Friday's Autoweek on they had a ~5 minute article on the Bricklin. The only thing that they mentioned that I didn't know was that the reason to switch t; /html/bricklin/2000-05/msg00005.html (7,745 bytes)
2. RE: Bricklin on Autoweek (score: 1): Author: Jim Pivirotto <jimp@SALT.FirstIndustrial.com>; Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 10:11:37 -0600; I have always heard that the change to Ford had a lot to do with Malcolm telling AMC that if he was running their company it would make money. They were not to pleased with that remark so they told h; /html/bricklin/2000-05/msg00007.html (8,492 bytes)
3. Re: Bricklin on Autoweek (score: 1): Author: "Brett Russell" <brussell@powercom.net>; Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 11:17:57 -0500; Well, there's so little info around about the Bricks, I'd say there's a definite possibility that they were wrong about some things. That show really made me wish I could invest some money into mine,; /html/bricklin/2000-05/msg00008.html (9,407 bytes)
4. Fw: Bricklin on Autoweek (score: 1): Author: "Greg Monfort" <wingracer@email.msn.com>; Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 12:00:11 -0400; Huh?! Everything I read/heard at the time was that they had a problem with AMC being able to meet the demand. My guess is it's more likely that due to AMC's own financial problems, they got fed up wi; /html/bricklin/2000-05/msg00012.html (7,850 bytes)
5. Re: Bricklin on Autoweek (score: 1): Author: GLCurley@aol.com; Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 15:35:04 EDT; That would be really ironic if it were true, which is doubtful. George; /html/bricklin/2000-05/msg00014.html (7,469 bytes)
6. Re: Bricklin on Autoweek (score: 1): Author: "htcoating" <htcoating@sprint.ca>; Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 16:26:03 -0400; The heat they were talking about was from the catalytic converter that would have been required for the 75 AMC motor, the 75 ford motor did not require one. Sounds like it was a possible factor but t; /html/bricklin/2000-05/msg00016.html (8,105 bytes)
7. Re: Bricklin on Autoweek (score: 1): Author: "Brett Russell" <brussell@powercom.net>; Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 15:25:06 -0500; I'll watch it again tonight to verify that I wasn't hallucinating ;); /html/bricklin/2000-05/msg00017.html (7,992 bytes)
8. Fw: Bricklin on Autoweek (score: 1): Author: "yugoman" <mdrig@email.msn.com>; Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 16:21:26 -0400; though.... require; /html/bricklin/2000-05/msg00018.html (9,196 bytes)
9. Re: Bricklin on Autoweek (score: 1): Author: GLCurley@aol.com; Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 17:04:25 EDT; more Thanks for clarifying that. The heat issue may have been part of the emissions concerns that have been mentioned. There usually are several factors. It still sounds ironic though! George; /html/bricklin/2000-05/msg00020.html (7,811 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]