- 101. Stock Class MODs (score: 1)
- Author: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@wilcom.com>
- Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 21:43:05 -0600
- Does cryogenic treatment kill a stock classed car? Stock hardware, just worked over to prevent rotor warpage..etc? Not that its worth $200, just that someone asked me at an auto show today, and I wa
- /html/autox/1999-02/msg01159.html (7,268 bytes)
- 102. RE: Stock Class MODs (score: 1)
- Author: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@wilcom.com>
- Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 22:39:58 -0600
- -- Actually, this is similar to the 15yr old TCCS system on the Toyota Supra. It adjusts to your driving style, and before each run of every event, I'll unplug the EFI fuse for about a minute and eu
- /html/autox/1999-02/msg01164.html (8,432 bytes)
- 103. RE: Stock Class MODs (score: 1)
- Author: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@wilcom.com>
- Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:02:05 -0600
- -- The TCCS system on the Supra uses a built in program when it lacks a sufficient amount of data from use. You get rather bad mileage, but the car kicks a tad harder.
- /html/autox/1999-02/msg01166.html (7,593 bytes)
- 104. RE: SP/P/M and turbos...was surge tanks etc etc (score: 1)
- Author: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@wilcom.com>
- Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 21:41:41 -0600
- -- Again, what determines my class? Adjusted displacement and overall HP/torque. If I can upgrade exhaust allowing tons more turbo flow, and upgrade the intercooler (stock IC is 165 CFM, 60% efficie
- /html/autox/1999-02/msg01177.html (12,251 bytes)
- 105. RE: Stock Class MODs (score: 1)
- Author: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@wilcom.com>
- Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 22:13:05 -0600
- -- Thats how I see it too, but the "modification" isnt adding any gripping power, isnt reducing brake fade, its just adding lifetime to the hardware itself. Kinda the opposite of heat-cycling a tire
- /html/autox/1999-02/msg01180.html (7,886 bytes)
- 106. RE: removeable Rearview (score: 1)
- Author: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@wilcom.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 19:06:14 -0600
- -- The real sad part here, is that someone, somewhere, at some time, threw a fit because someone without the OEM mirror beat him. Mirrors obviously increase handling. [Y]es [N]o Mirrors obviously in
- /html/autox/1999-02/msg01292.html (8,953 bytes)
- 107. RE: removeable Rearview (score: 1)
- Author: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@wilcom.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 19:19:30 -0600
- Well, since a rear view mirror is not a legally required device if you have two side mirrors, I dont see why it cant be removed because of the safety factor when you remove the mirror itself. A drive
- /html/autox/1999-02/msg01295.html (9,397 bytes)
- 108. RE: removeable Rearview (score: 1)
- Author: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@wilcom.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 19:23:22 -0600
- -- I know, just searching (very hard) for the logic behind it.
- /html/autox/1999-02/msg01297.html (8,421 bytes)
- 109. RE: removable Rearview (score: 1)
- Author: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@wilcom.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:45:35 -0600
- -- If the owners manual states that you should observe all local DOT regulations, and following THAT if you have two side mirrors, you are not required to have a windscreen rear-view mirror (in most
- /html/autox/1999-02/msg01309.html (7,904 bytes)
- 110. RE: Removable Rearview (score: 1)
- Author: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@wilcom.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 08:00:27 -0700
- It stuck me as being odd, but ive endured the party-line 'sorry, rules' responses so far. A couple of ppl in here have expressed private humor in this, and they are on the list of privileged humans w
- /html/autox/1999-02/msg01326.html (8,499 bytes)
- 111. Frame problem.. (score: 1)
- Author: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@wilcom.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 19:24:05 -0600
- What can be done when you have a car that appears to have been wrecked in a past life (paint on some trim rubber, trim that doesnt fit right anymore), and you end up with one front wheel that can onl
- /html/autox/1999-02/msg01435.html (6,818 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu