Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Healeys\]\s+Shelley\s+jack\s+question\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Healeys\]\s+Shelley\s+jack\s+question\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. [Healeys] Shelley jack question (score: 1): Author: "Randy Dickson" <rdickson@midwestarchaeology.com>; Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 21:26:46 -0500; Fellow Healeyoids, Would the 225 model be the correct Shelley jack for a 63 BJ7 VIN 20,040? Thanks in advance. Randy 63 BJ7 _______________________________________________ Support Team.Net http://www; /html/healeys/2008-08/msg00153.html (6,903 bytes)
2. Re: [Healeys] Shelley jack question (score: 1): Author: "Rich C" <richchrysler@quickclic.net>; Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 22:45:18 -0400; Yes, the BJ7 would have had the LJ225 jack, most likely the earlier one without the reinforced activating yoke where the tommy bar fits in. These earlier ones have the marking CA259 cast into the we; /html/healeys/2008-08/msg00154.html (7,826 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]