Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\"ZX2\s+S\/R\"\.\.\.anybody\s+seen\s+one\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\"ZX2\s+S\/R\"\.\.\.anybody\s+seen\s+one\?\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. "ZX2 S/R"...anybody seen one? (score: 1): Author: Craig Blome <cblome@yahoo.com>; Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 20:14:15 -0700 (PDT); I chanced across a listing of a "S/R Package" for the Ford Escort ZX2 coupe on Edmunds' Web site. It is a $1,495 option described thusly: "Includes Centerforce performance clutch, Borla performance e; /html/autox/1999-06/msg00260.html (9,348 bytes)
2. Re: "ZX2 S/R"...anybody seen one? (score: 1): Author: NeonACR1@aol.com; Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 07:21:29 EDT; Just a thought, but if they are only building 100 of the certain model S/R, is that stock class legal? I thought production had to be 1000 or more of a certian model. Apart from that, I applaud Ford; /html/autox/1999-06/msg00266.html (9,126 bytes)
3. Re: "ZX2 S/R"...anybody seen one? (score: 1): Author: Eric Moon <moon-7@blazenet.net>; Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 07:51:59 -0400; I'm not sure if this 'special edition' falls under the requirement of at least 1000 units produced in a model year. I've noticed an increasing trend of manufacturers and dealers tailoring popular co; /html/autox/1999-06/msg00268.html (10,079 bytes)
4. Re: "ZX2 S/R"...anybody seen one? (score: 1): Author: "Jamie Sculerati" <jamies@mrj.com>; Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 08:27:54 -0500; a package. like Depends on whether the SEB classifies it differently than the standard ZX-2 -- if not, then they're all lumped together. Jamie '92 Prelude Si (thousands made) Speed Demon Racing http:; /html/autox/1999-06/msg00269.html (8,796 bytes)
5. Re: "ZX2 S/R"...anybody seen one? (score: 1): Author: Andrew_Bettencourt@kingston.com; Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 05:19:04 -0700; Everyone must remember, the 1000 unit rule isn't really a rule. It's a guideline. The SEB may choose to classify any car that is on the market. That being said, I would be REALLY REALLY REALLY surpri; /html/autox/1999-06/msg00270.html (10,880 bytes)
6. Re: "ZX2 S/R"...anybody seen one? (score: 1): Author: "Matt Murray" <mattm@optonline.net>; Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 08:35:04 -0400; By the same token it would follow the precedent of the 1LE, ACR, and M030 build "requests". Three requests for a 1LE in '89. Still a Camaro. Walks like a duck, turns in like a duck, brakes like a....; /html/autox/1999-06/msg00272.html (12,287 bytes)
7. Re: "ZX2 S/R"...anybody seen one? (score: 1): Author: Andrew_Bettencourt@kingston.com; Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 05:47:29 -0700; Good points as usual. To the extent of the 'options' listed in the original post, I would assume that this car be listed seperately. All opinions based on that laundry list of high performance stuff.; /html/autox/1999-06/msg00274.html (12,430 bytes)
8. Re: "ZX2 S/R"...anybody seen one? (score: 1): Author: Craig Blome <cblome@yahoo.com>; Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 05:47:52 -0700 (PDT); If it were a _model_, true...but according to the mfr it is an option package (code 67R fwiw). No different in that respect than M030 Porsches or 1LE Camaros, and I haven't seen any scramble to boot; /html/autox/1999-06/msg00275.html (9,301 bytes)
9. Re: "ZX2 S/R"...anybody seen one? (score: 1): Author: Andrew_Bettencourt@kingston.com; Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 06:22:51 -0700; Good points from you as well. I'm playing devils advocate here. Maybe it's the "SCAC" in me but attempting to keep killer cars out of inappropriate stock classes is a tough job! (and this may or may; /html/autox/1999-06/msg00278.html (10,306 bytes)
10. Re: "ZX2 S/R"...anybody seen one? (score: 1): Author: "Justin Hughes" <ka1ult@channel1.com>; Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 09:46:53 -0400; It'll be interesting to see what happens, that much is certain. There are precedents either way. The BMW M3 Lightweight, for example is not allowed in Stock, whereas the standard M3 is. After seeing; /html/autox/1999-06/msg00281.html (8,865 bytes)
11. Re: "ZX2 S/R"...anybody seen one? (score: 1): Author: Craig Blome <cblome@yahoo.com>; Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 06:50:15 -0700 (PDT); You didn't...one or two writers mentioned that it _could_ get booted. I was concerned about what might happen to the topic if it made it second or third-hand off the list to a forum like alt.rice.roc; /html/autox/1999-06/msg00283.html (8,434 bytes)
12. RE: "ZX2 S/R"...anybody seen one? (score: 1): Author: Lindsay Wilson <lwilson1@ford.com>; Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 07:57:12 -0400; FWIW, as I understand it, the FIRST 100 S/Rs (in chrome yellow) go to After those, the S/R package will be an option available in all states. I've seen to '00 order guide and the S/R package is liste; /html/autox/1999-06/msg00284.html (8,196 bytes)
13. Re: "ZX2 S/R"...anybody seen one? (score: 1): Author: "Matt Murray" <mattm@optonline.net>; Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 17:37:53 -0400; In speculation mode (and just waking up). If the normal car is classed in "Y" class, then in theory, it could be classed in "X" class. Still think it smells of 1LE. Matt Murray mailto:mattm@optonline; /html/autox/1999-06/msg00314.html (8,688 bytes)
14. Re: "ZX2 S/R"...anybody seen one? (score: 1): Author: NeonACR1@aol.com; Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 06:53:12 EDT; If it were a _model_, true...but according to the mfr it is an option package (code 67R fwiw). No different in that respect than M030 Porsches or 1LE Camaros, and I haven't seen any scramble to boot; /html/autox/1999-06/msg00354.html (8,443 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]