Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*1972\s+BMW\s+2002\s+Classing\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*1972\s+BMW\s+2002\s+Classing\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. 1972 BMW 2002 Classing (score: 1): Author: "Ken Adamson" <krylar@swbell.net>; Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 17:19:36 -0500; Just purchased this project car: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=247868026 1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWN%3AIT I think I can run STS with it, and I think most everything; /html/autox/2004-05/msg00177.html (7,965 bytes)
2. Re: 1972 BMW 2002 Classing (score: 1): Author: "Jay Mitchell" <jemitchelltx@earthlink.net>; Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 06:59:38 -0500; checks out, but US-market 1972 BMW 2002s came from the factory with a single-barrel Solex carburetor, an engine-driven "smog pump," and an exhaust manifold with air inlets for each cylinder .The odds; /html/autox/2004-05/msg00178.html (9,609 bytes)
3. Re: 1972 BMW 2002 Classing (score: 1): Author: "Jay Mitchell" <jemitchelltx@earthlink.net>; Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 11:03:50 -0500; Yes, and that model was never sold in the US due to noncompliance with our emissions regulations. US that had 5spd I am confident that the above statement is incorrect. If any 5-speed 2002s made it i; /html/autox/2004-05/msg00183.html (8,418 bytes)
4. Re: 1972 BMW 2002 Classing (score: 1): Author: Guy Schalnat <guy-schalnat@cinci.rr.com>; Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 19:16:39 -0400; Everytime I see a 2002 on the road, I think "put an s14 (e30 m3 engine) in it and tear up SM". I'd do it, but I'm having too much fun with my 318. Good luck with it. If you are just competing locall; /html/autox/2004-05/msg00189.html (8,013 bytes)
5. RE: 1972 BMW 2002 Classing (score: 1): Author: "Dave Hardy" <dave2020@mindspring.com>; Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 22:54:30 -0400; But Jay - I thought that the elimination of UD/BD was supposed to make STS cheaper! Dave "dead horse" Hardy 89 SM DILYSI Motorsports - Drive It Like You Stole It!; /html/autox/2004-05/msg00190.html (8,542 bytes)
6. Re: 1972 BMW 2002 Classing (score: 1): Author: "Jay Mitchell" <jemitchelltx@earthlink.net>; Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 22:14:46 -0500; to make STS I certainly never made such a claim. I said exactly the opposite, and this is an excellent example of what I had in mind. Jay; /html/autox/2004-05/msg00194.html (7,964 bytes)
7. RE: 1972 BMW 2002 Classing (score: 1): Author: "Dave Hardy" <dave2020@mindspring.com>; Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 23:30:09 -0400; I know. There was some sarcasm buried in there. There were many folks who did make the claim. I disagreed and this was precisely why. Where it gets very expensive is with new cars. "Oh, the '05 STi h; /html/autox/2004-05/msg00195.html (8,809 bytes)
8. Re: 1972 BMW 2002 Classing (score: 1): Author: "Eric Linnhoff" <knuckledragger@kcweb.net>; Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 07:51:41 -0400; == Dave, Dave, Dave. You should know better. That's a pisspoor example since that particualr car isn't eligible for STS/X in the first place. It is however legal for STU and SM where U/B is legal, i; /html/autox/2004-05/msg00197.html (8,094 bytes)
9. Re: 1972 BMW 2002 Classing (score: 1): Author: Rex Tener <rex_tener@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 08:50:36 -0700; Hey Eric, I wish there was U/B in STU. Instead of update/backdate to the aluminum doors for my car, now I have to go buy a M3 LTW. Oh well, it is only money. :-) -- Rex Tener rex_tener@yahoo.com; /html/autox/2004-05/msg00199.html (8,322 bytes)
10. Re: 1972 BMW 2002 Classing (score: 1): Author: "Chris Teague" <cteague@cox.net>; Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 10:16:42 -0700; Did I miss something? When is U/B legal for STU? Chris right since; /html/autox/2004-05/msg00206.html (8,422 bytes)
11. Re: 1972 BMW 2002 Classing (score: 1): Author: "Steven T. Ekstrand" <cyberlaw@earthlink.net>; Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 12:31:18 -0700; Its not, I just think people get confused about STU and SM since SM was originally called STU. So far, STU is just STX with different tire sizes, no wheel rule, and hotter cars. And some STX cars li; /html/autox/2004-05/msg00207.html (8,087 bytes)
12. RE: 1972 BMW 2002 Classing (score: 1): Author: "Eric Linnhoff" <knuckledragger@kcweb.net>; Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 18:04:21 -0500; I wasn't sure. That's why I ended it with "isn't it?" One would think in an "unlimited" category that it would be legal. Eric --Original Message-- Did I miss something? When is U/B legal for STU? Chr; /html/autox/2004-05/msg00208.html (8,432 bytes)
13. Re: 1972 BMW 2002 Classing (score: 1): Author: "Steven T. Ekstrand" <cyberlaw@earthlink.net>; Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 18:05:07 -0700; Name is kinda unfortunate. Blame Howard. :) I hope the class takes off, I know adding classes is controversial, but I've really enjoyed my co-drives in STX and STS the last two years. And damn ST's; /html/autox/2004-05/msg00209.html (8,788 bytes)
14. Re: 1972 BMW 2002 Classing (score: 1): Author: "Chris Teague" <cteague@cox.net>; Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 16:55:55 -0700; I agree with you on that. I would vote to allow U/B in STU. Chris; /html/autox/2004-05/msg00210.html (8,059 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]