Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*non\-stock\s+M3\s+LTW\.\.\.\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*non\-stock\s+M3\s+LTW\.\.\.\?\s*$/: 19 ]

Total 19 documents matching your query.

1. Re: non-stock M3 LTW...? (score: 1): Author: TeamZ3@aol.com; Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 14:00:50 EDT; The problem with putting these cars in Stock are that they had special competition suspension options that are Street Prepared oriented; adjustable front camber plates, special brake discs, Grupe N a; /html/autox/1999-08/msg01047.html (7,877 bytes)
2. Re: non-stock M3 LTW...? (score: 1): Author: "Justin Hughes" <ka1ult@channel1.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 14:25:21 -0400; adjustable As crossbrace. were stiffer special Arguably, so is the Neon ACR. OK, so Dodge doesn't hand pick each engine. But they do many of the same things that BMW does to the LTW. Before the Neon; /html/autox/1999-08/msg01050.html (9,891 bytes)
3. Re: non-stock M3 LTW...? (score: 1): Author: Rex Tener <rex@marimba.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:24:16 -0700; Hi Mark, I don't believe this is true. They had stock 1995 M3 suspension except for the springs, which were the European coupe springs. No adjustable front camber, stock '95 M3 brake rotors not the E; /html/autox/1999-08/msg01051.html (8,276 bytes)
4. Re: non-stock M3 LTW...? (score: 1): Author: Jeff Blankenship <jblanken@itds.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 14:07:44 CDT; -- Jeffrey D. Blankenship Senior Technical Consultant jblanken@itds.com ITDS - TRIS neon enthusiast #478 Champaign, IL, USA; /html/autox/1999-08/msg01055.html (10,592 bytes)
5. Re: non-stock M3 LTW...? (score: 1): Author: "Mark J. Andy" <marka@telerama.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:20:33 -0400 (EDT); Are you sure you aren't some automated software package designed to irritate me? Lesse. In the early years the differences between the ACR and the regular DOHC neon were: struts (slotted for camber; /html/autox/1999-08/msg01058.html (10,136 bytes)
6. Re: non-stock M3 LTW...? (score: 1): Author: Jeff Blankenship <jblanken@itds.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 15:37:46 CDT; Oops! What happened? Anyway, <snip> <snip> Either you're joking, or you're writing from one of the Polar research stations, where flames are welcome! Well, I don't intend to flame, so I'll try to lis; /html/autox/1999-08/msg01059.html (11,851 bytes)
7. Re: non-stock M3 LTW...? (score: 1): Author: "Justin Hughes" <ka1ult@channel1.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:40:03 -0400; No, I'm a real live human being whose sole purpose in life is to irritate you. :) Cool - so now we have "shopping lists" for both the souped up Neon and M3. Oh, you wouldn't call a Neon's spoiler an; /html/autox/1999-08/msg01061.html (9,982 bytes)
8. Re: non-stock M3 LTW...? (score: 1): Author: TeamZ3@aol.com; Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:38:47 EDT; << adjustable I don't believe this is true. They had stock 1995 M3 suspension except for the springs, which were the European coupe springs. No adjustable front camber, stock '95 M3 brake rotors not; /html/autox/1999-08/msg01062.html (8,652 bytes)
9. Re: non-stock M3 LTW...? (score: 1): Author: TeamZ3@aol.com; Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:46:17 EDT; << If it weren't for the "trunk kit" and the extremely low production volume, the M3 Lightweight would be a Stock class car. >> I think you missed the main point of contention, which is neither the t; /html/autox/1999-08/msg01063.html (8,366 bytes)
10. Re: non-stock M3 LTW...? (score: 1): Author: Jeff Blankenship <jblanken@itds.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:38:35 CDT; You're right, I am missing your point. Factory options have always been special order options available to those who can afford them. How is that a problem? Disclaimer: I'm not a BMW expert, and havi; /html/autox/1999-08/msg01069.html (9,521 bytes)
11. Re: non-stock M3 LTW...? (score: 1): Author: JD_Kemp@notes.ymp.gov; Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 14:52:00 -0700; "<--Will now be sharing a room at the Raceway Inn" Did you mean with Stacy, or with the afore-mentioned cucarachas???? JDK; /html/autox/1999-08/msg01070.html (8,090 bytes)
12. Re: non-stock M3 LTW...? (score: 1): Author: TeamZ3@aol.com; Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 18:38:40 EDT; << You're right, I am missing your point. Factory options have always been special order options available to those who can afford them. How is that a problem? Please go back and read my original pos; /html/autox/1999-08/msg01072.html (8,469 bytes)
13. Re: non-stock M3 LTW...? (score: 1): Author: Mari L Clements <mrndr2@juno.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 20:18:20 -0400; C'mon, Mark. Tell him how you really feel. mlc '91 MR2 NA; /html/autox/1999-08/msg01086.html (8,125 bytes)
14. Re: non-stock M3 LTW...? (score: 1): Author: washburn <washburn@dwave.net>; Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 22:25:19 -0500; .... Relatively Huh? I must have read a different post than you did. Camber plates special brake disks Grupe N package (whatever that is) Baffled oil pan Dual oil pick up's Sub-frame bracing!! Alumin; /html/autox/1999-08/msg01113.html (8,888 bytes)
15. Re: non-stock M3 LTW...? (score: 1): Author: Jason Bowles <jbowles@carol.net>; Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 05:49:24 -0400 (EDT); I gotta jump in and yes I am a neonite. the 95 and 96 sport coupe is the same thig as the R/T and the ACR..in fact the 95-96 ACR's didnt get adjustable koni's just different valving of the STOCK Arvi; /html/autox/1999-08/msg01136.html (12,409 bytes)
16. Re: non-stock M3 LTW...? (score: 1): Author: Jason Bowles <jbowles@carol.net>; Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 05:57:57 -0400 (EDT); Neon ACR Stock ride height spring rates the same as 95-96 Sports 98-99 R/T's and some other model neons I dont know off hand Neon ACR 95 only year with no sound padding..95 bases and other models di; /html/autox/1999-08/msg01137.html (9,576 bytes)
17. Re: non-stock M3 LTW...? (score: 1): Author: Jason Bowles <jbowles@carol.net>; Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 06:05:28 -0400 (EDT); ACR's dont get a spoiler its not an option. Any ACR's with a spoiler were dealer installed and hence illegal weight added to the rear end.. and if youve ever seen a neons spoiler and tell me it helps; /html/autox/1999-08/msg01138.html (10,998 bytes)
18. Re: non-stock M3 LTW...? (score: 1): Author: Jim Carr <jac@scri.fsu.edu>; Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 13:49:35 -0400 (EDT); It is only a problem if you ignore the existence of the *factory* options, because it must be assumed that they could be present when that model is homologated -- for the simple reason that the rules; /html/autox/1999-08/msg01170.html (9,342 bytes)
19. Re: non-stock M3 LTW...? (score: 1): Author: Mark Sirota <msirota@isc.upenn.edu>; Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 16:59:19 -0400; You're all missing the point regarding production numbers. It's not how many were made. It's how many they said they'd make. Chrysler said they'd make one for anyone who wanted one. No ceiling. BMW s; /html/autox/1999-08/msg01186.html (7,912 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 19
Page: [1]