Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Shhhh\!\s+while\s+they\'re\s+busy\s+at\s+Nationals\.\.\.\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Shhhh\!\s+while\s+they\'re\s+busy\s+at\s+Nationals\.\.\.\s*$/: 26 ]

Total 26 documents matching your query.

1. Shhhh! while they're busy at Nationals... (score: 1): Author: Lonnie Heston <lhheston@yahoo.com>; Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 20:18:33 -0700 (PDT); ...let's think up some really good STU cars. My favorite idea so far is: Chevy Chevette with a Turbo'd Camaro RS 2.8v6, 10bolt rear end geared for top end and itsy-bitsy rollerskate style wheels. Rep; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00662.html (8,053 bytes)
2. Re: Shhhh! while they're busy at Nationals... (score: 1): Author: "Larry Steckel" <lorenzoscribe@hotmail.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 23:34:54 EDT; Try to find Hot Rod Magazine from about 1980-81. The Chevy engineers dropped a 2.8 litre V/6 into a Chevette and Hot Rod detailed the swap with part numbers of engine mounts etc. Factory parts would; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00687.html (9,064 bytes)
3. RE: Shhhh! while they're busy at Nationals... (score: 1): Author: "Thompson, Adrian (A.L.)" <athomps9@visteon.com>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 08:44:03 -0400; Another one. What about an MGB GT with the Rover/Buick V8. That was sold in England so you can claim it's a British Leyland engine. It's still in production in Range Rovers and Discoveries, enlarged; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00695.html (10,219 bytes)
4. RE: Shhhh! while they're busy at Nationals... (score: 1): Author: "Thompson, Adrian (A.L.)" <athomps9@visteon.com>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 12:03:54 -0400; OK, you got me on the Spridget, but the MGB GT was a four seater, or it was as sold in England, I've never looked that closely at a US spec one. The back seat was small but present, I don't remember; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00699.html (12,111 bytes)
5. RE: Shhhh! while they're busy at Nationals... (score: 1): Author: Judy Becker <judyb@cts.com>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 09:15:38 -0700; So I do hate to sound like a broken record or tape rewind gone astray, but what "about the sportscars" that are 2 seaters? Look at the cars not allowed to run & have fun in the ST classes: MR2's, RX; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00700.html (11,588 bytes)
6. RE: Shhhh! while they're busy at Nationals... (score: 1): Author: Eric Fancher <efancher@ix.netcom.com>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 11:58:49 -0500; Miatas don't have a back seat and can't run ST. -Eric Fancher Austin, Texas efancher@earthlink.net (new) fanchere@hotmail.com efancher@ix.netcom.com (closing, mindspring/netcom SUCKS) 99 Miata 10 AM; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00702.html (12,271 bytes)
7. RE: Shhhh! while they're busy at Nationals... (score: 1): Author: "Jeff Lloyd" <jslz3@hotmail.com>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 17:33:23 GMT; ok well I looked @ the latest revision I have of st/u rules and it was somthing to this effect. "vehicle must have 4 seats and 4 seatbelts, and not sports car based" does the "sports car based" cove; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00704.html (14,274 bytes)
8. RE: Shhhh! while they're busy at Nationals... (score: 1): Author: <csims@simshome.com>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 10:53:17 -0700 (PDT); <snip> Checkout the proposed rules that have been sent to SEB. http://www.wincom.net/trog/stu/rules.html These address the concerns that have been brought up, I think. If you like 'um, please send a; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00705.html (9,138 bytes)
9. Re: Shhhh! while they're busy at Nationals... (score: 1): Author: "Ron and Angie" <nottingham@alltel.net>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 15:07:57 -0400; and Or how about the same engine in a GT6? Since Triumph did use that engine in the TR8 here in the states, you wouldn't have as many hurdles to jump. ;-) Only weighs a little more than a Spridget,; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00707.html (10,047 bytes)
10. RE: Shhhh! while they're busy at Nationals... (score: 1): Author: Judy Becker <judyb@cts.com>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 13:58:03 -0700; OK folks - Help me out. I've sent my response to Howard & SCCA according to a previously listed e-mail address & it keeps coming back with address unknown. Will someone please rewrite the address? Th; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00710.html (13,683 bytes)
11. RE: Shhhh! while they're busy at Nationals... (score: 1): Author: Bob Monday <boysrus_racing@yahoo.com>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 14:14:26 -0700 (PDT); Let's add Civic del Sol to the unnecessarily excluded list. DEFINITELY not a sports car as anyone would say who ever drove one. Bob Monday Boys-R-Us Racing; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00712.html (9,500 bytes)
12. Re: Shhhh! while they're busy at Nationals... (score: 1): Author: "Ron and Angie" <nottingham@alltel.net>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 21:20:34 -0400; 3.1 If you went with a Triumph GT6, one could argue that it is definitely not sportscar based! The chassis was first used on the humble Triumph Herald..... But the 3.5L V8 would not fit in STU rules; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00733.html (9,747 bytes)
13. Re: Shhhh! while they're busy at Nationals... (score: 1): Author: Loren Williams <Loren@kscable.com>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 21:30:11 -0500; <snip> How about one of those ultra-light first generation GTI's with a VR6? A Ford Festiva with a 1.8 Miata engine? (the Festiva engine is the 1.3 liter precursor to the 1.6 liter Miata engine, easy; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00746.html (10,065 bytes)
14. Re: Shhhh! while they're busy at Nationals... (score: 1): Author: Loren Williams <Loren@kscable.com>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 22:03:33 -0500; I think the GT6 would/should be ruled a "Sportscar" (rather than being a sportscar based sedan, which the rule was aimed at, I think it's more of a sedan based sportscar), and the 3.2 liter V8 is not; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00750.html (10,403 bytes)
15. Re: Shhhh! while they're busy at Nationals... (score: 1): Author: Loren Williams <Loren@kscable.com>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 22:08:26 -0500; It's not excluded because it's a sportscar, just as the CRX isn't. Both cars have no backseat. (and thus, theoretically, could be lighter... and, not-so-theoretically, shorter in length) No, I don't; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00752.html (9,877 bytes)
16. Re: Shhhh! while they're busy at Nationals... (score: 1): Author: Judy Becker <judyb@cts.com>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 21:51:53 -0700; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00756.html (10,599 bytes)
17. Re: Shhhh! while they're busy at Nationals... (score: 1): Author: Loren Williams <Loren@kscable.com>; Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 06:02:55 -0500; Yano, I glanced at the rules last night and those of us who applied the displacement limit to STU may have been mistaken. It clearly says that "drivetrain is unlimited" in STU. So bring on the 302 Pi; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00760.html (9,633 bytes)
18. Re: Shhhh! while they're busy at Nationals... (score: 1): Author: Buddy Ahlers <buddy_ahlers@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 07:23:48 -0700 (PDT); My favorite for STU: Or even a bit easier, and more balanced (less front heavy) than a GTI with the VR6 would be an early rabbit (75-84) with the new 1.8T motor in it. Same size (not including turbo); /html/autox/1999-09/msg00763.html (9,730 bytes)
19. Re: Shhhh! while they're busy at Nationals... (score: 1): Author: "BPS Administrator" <mhood@busprod.com>; Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 09:50:14 -0500; Why not go really overkill with a Rabbit GTi and a 20v turbo with an aftermarket KKK turbo and manifold with a chip, cams and exhaust and stiffer wastegate putting it at about 20 PSI at full boost. G; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00765.html (10,983 bytes)
20. Re: Shhhh! while they're busy at Nationals... (score: 1): Author: Buddy Ahlers <buddy_ahlers@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 08:14:10 -0700 (PDT); I thought I'd exercise a little restraint! But I can see we've got the same disease. I like the way you think! But would a front drive rabbit be able to really translate all that HP into forward mome; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00766.html (9,981 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]