Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*SS\/WS6\s+stock\s+classification\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*SS\/WS6\s+stock\s+classification\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. Re: SS/WS6 stock classification (score: 1): Author: TeamZ3@aol.com; Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 19:35:00 EDT; At least for the early year SS Camaro's, there are issues with verifying what the actual std options are since the cars were fitted at SLP Engineering, which is supposedly one of the reasons for the; /html/autox/2000-07/msg00115.html (9,481 bytes)
2. RE: SS/WS6 stock classification (score: 1): Author: Jeff Winchell <jwinchell@Giftspot.com>; Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 17:17:48 -0700; Anytime a car can get a lower PAX merely by changing the letters on the car (SS to ESP), there's clearly something wrong with that car's classification. The WS6, Camaro SS (and I think Supra Turbo an; /html/autox/2000-07/msg00120.html (10,590 bytes)
3. Re: SS/WS6 stock classification (score: 1): Author: Matthew Carson <mcars@vt.edu>; Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 12:48:22 -0400; Even with new SS's and WS6s being "factory built" is only half right. I half spent a good deal of time in that factory in the past year and have a pretty good idea how it all works. First, I think so; /html/autox/2000-07/msg00165.html (10,742 bytes)
4. Re: SS/WS6 stock classification (score: 1): Author: kdeja - Kenneth Deja <Kenneth.Deja@acxiom.com>; Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 15:32:26 -0500; As a biased WS6 owner, I'd like to add my 2 cents on the SS/WS6 reclassification topic (yeah I can hear the groans now). With all due respect, I don't think people or the right people know or have th; /html/autox/2000-07/msg00185.html (10,090 bytes)
5. Re: SS/WS6 stock classification (score: 1): Author: Andrew_Bettencourt@kingston.com; Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 13:30:42 -0700; You make all valid points. These points are ones that the SCAC and SEB have considered for years. The early cars are the ones that will have documentation issues but the problem becomes separating c; /html/autox/2000-07/msg00187.html (10,999 bytes)
6. Re: SS/WS6 stock classification (score: 1): Author: adozzell@sc9.intel.com (TONY OZZELLO P802 AWS); Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 14:00:58 -0700; Hey all, One thing that I think might help the WS6 owners here would be to acknowledge that the WS6 did not have the kind of options that the SS did. You could not get a Torsen in a WS6 in 96, you co; /html/autox/2000-07/msg00192.html (9,651 bytes)
7. Re: SS/WS6 stock classification (score: 1): Author: SVPViper@aol.com; Date: Thu Jul 06 18:03:22 2000; Yes, '98 and up are the LS-1 variants. I have listed below the "Optional Options for a LS-1 SS Camaro" The WS-6 was a factory 1LE suspension, with less shock valving. The only options from SLP for th; /html/autox/2000-07/msg00202.html (14,882 bytes)
8. Re: SS/WS6 stock classification (score: 1): Author: Matthew Carson <mcars@vt.edu>; Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 22:59:06 -0400; helps reduce differential operating temperatures under certain driving conditions. This system, which features a unique American Axle Manufacturing aluminum rear axle cover design, detects variance; /html/autox/2000-07/msg00221.html (10,216 bytes)
9. Re: SS/WS6 stock classification (score: 1): Author: "Steven Eguina" <seguina@unionfundingusa.com>; Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 10:46:05 -0700; Re: The Camaro SS 1996 and 1997 Level 2 suspension. I own a Red 96 SS that came with the Level 2 suspension. At least on the rear, the springs were so stiff that it had min. traction coming out of th; /html/autox/2000-07/msg00279.html (13,079 bytes)
10. Re: SS/WS6 stock classification (score: 1): Author: Matthew Carson <mcars@vt.edu>; Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 20:33:56 -0400; OK so the "stock" SS Torsen from pre-99+ Ss's (now stock on all F cars) was no advantage over the stock Auburn in pre-99 F cars (aside from not having to replace it so often). What about the uplevel; /html/autox/2000-07/msg00367.html (8,779 bytes)
11. Re: SS/WS6 stock classification (score: 1): Author: Mark Sirota <msirota@isc.upenn.edu>; Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:20:24 -0400; That assumes that the PAX numbers are reasonable. Remember, the PAX index is determined after classing is done, and by a totally separate group of people (the SCCA does not endorse any index system).; /html/autox/2000-07/msg00481.html (8,126 bytes)
12. RE: SS/WS6 stock classification (score: 1): Author: Jeff Winchell <jwinchell@Giftspot.com>; Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:23:18 -0700; The ProSolo L1 and L2 classes are indexed by the SCCA and the SS/WS6 index for SS and ESP shares the same problem. Other than the M3, no other ESP-classed cars are showing results that suggest an ESP; /html/autox/2000-07/msg00503.html (8,585 bytes)
13. Re: SS/WS6 stock classification (score: 1): Author: Todd Green <tag@cs.utah.edu>; Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:14:11 -0600; Or ESP's PAX could be WAY too soft. (Just don't change it until you boot the M3's out of the class ;) ;) ;) Todd; /html/autox/2000-07/msg00555.html (7,747 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 13
Page: [1]