Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[oletrucks\]\s+new\s+look\s+for\s+\'54\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[oletrucks\]\s+new\s+look\s+for\s+\'54\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. [oletrucks] new look for '54 (score: 1): Author: "Devin Timmons" <64bowtie@quik.com>; Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 21:27:20 -0700; I say go lower with the truck Steve. The front bumper should be no more than 1" from the pavement. You can forget driveways, but boy does it look cool. And keep it old school too, none of this IFS st; /html/oletrucks/2003-05/msg00115.html (7,797 bytes)
2. Re: [oletrucks] new look for '54 (score: 1): Author: "Steve Hanberg" <steve@OldSub.com>; Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 22:22:28 -0700; That low it'd never get in or out of my own driveway. No it will stay high enough to get in and out of here. My driveway is actually an unpaved lane with a pretty steep slope. A normal car has no tro; /html/oletrucks/2003-05/msg00116.html (8,495 bytes)
3. RE: [oletrucks] new look for '54 (score: 1): Author: "Thomas, Robert" <RThomas@ButteCounty.net>; Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 07:54:53 -0700; You now have Devin's 2 cents. Here's mine: Trucks lowered to the point they can't go in or out driveways, & have to creep over speed bumps are BEYOND STUPID. As a general rule, they don't ride as wel; /html/oletrucks/2003-05/msg00120.html (9,050 bytes)
4. Fw: [oletrucks] new look for '54 (score: 1): Author: "Wayne Roworth" <wroworth@hotmail.com>; Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 12:18:51 -0400; I agree with the "practical" view. I don't seem to sacrifice anything by keeping my truck's ability to tow just about anything with wheels. I get so many looks and comments whenever I drive my truck; /html/oletrucks/2003-05/msg00125.html (10,379 bytes)
5. Re: [oletrucks] new look for '54 (score: 1): Author: "Bob KNOTTS" <raknotts@qwest.net>; Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 09:29:21 -0700; RT, I WISH it were only 10 lbs. I think if a person REALLY wants a low rig, the air suspension would be the way to go. You basically have the best of both worlds, as I understand it. I think I would; /html/oletrucks/2003-05/msg00126.html (10,942 bytes)
6. Re: [oletrucks] new look for '54 (score: 1): Author: "K. M. Lehmann" <klehmann@bentonrea.com>; Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 09:29:26 -0700; Hi All My 2 cents Steve's truck could be made to look like his picture and still be a practical daily driver. One of ways us old timers called it channeling, this way you keep the stock frame and you; /html/oletrucks/2003-05/msg00127.html (10,444 bytes)
7. Re: [oletrucks] new look for '54 (score: 1): Author: "G. L. Perry" <glperry@fwi.com>; Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 12:38:45 -0500; Watch it Tom, you speak your mind here, you get Chastised! I really KNOW! Some fellas just don't seem to have the rare sense of Humor like we do. G. L. Perry trucks, put cool. matter. oletrucks is de; /html/oletrucks/2003-05/msg00132.html (10,092 bytes)
8. Re: [oletrucks] new look for '54 (score: 1): Author: "Bob KNOTTS" <raknotts@qwest.net>; Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 10:48:26 -0700; Wayne, I just looked at your webpage. I think you did alright as far as cost. I'm sure it hurt to pay out the $800 for the frame work, but unless you're close to being an expert, I think safety deman; /html/oletrucks/2003-05/msg00135.html (11,554 bytes)
9. Re: [oletrucks] new look for '54 (score: 1): Author: Bill Broadway <bcubed@vanhalen-irc.com>; Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 14:22:01 -0500; In this day an age, if you really want to go low the only way is Air Ride. You can get the slammed stance while still being able to go over speedbumps and railroad tracks. Also the ride should be pre; /html/oletrucks/2003-05/msg00137.html (8,355 bytes)
10. Re: [oletrucks] new look for '54 (score: 1): Author: "Steve Hanberg" <steve@OldSub.com>; Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 12:07:27 -0700; I appreciate all the feedback from everyone! Even if I choose to ignore some of the advice I get, I still want to hear it. I don't want to go into this thing having missed some important consideratio; /html/oletrucks/2003-05/msg00140.html (12,880 bytes)
11. Re: [oletrucks] new look for '54 (score: 1): Author: tim <lloydt@Colorado.EDU>; Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 14:05:21 -0600; To throw in my two cents, I agree that lowering a truck "into the weeds" looks pretty silly, especially if the body's kept original (not chopped). Sports cars are meant to be low to the ground, and t; /html/oletrucks/2003-05/msg00143.html (8,963 bytes)
12. Re: [oletrucks] new look for '54 (score: 1): Author: "Donald Simmons" <tasimmons@cbnn.net>; Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 17:15:12 -0700; You know of course that what looks silly to you might possibly look great to the thousands of other people. Also what makes this hobby great is that you basicly do your truck the way you see fit and; /html/oletrucks/2003-05/msg00151.html (9,764 bytes)
13. RE: [oletrucks] new look for '54 (score: 1): Author: "Mark Self" <mark.self@verizon.net>; Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 22:43:33 -0700; Where is this graphic? I'd like to have a look. You now have Devin's 2 cents. Here's mine: Trucks lowered to the point they can't go in or out driveways, & have to creep over speed bumps are BEYOND S; /html/oletrucks/2003-05/msg00163.html (9,470 bytes)
14. Re: [oletrucks] new look for '54 (score: 1): Author: "Steve Hanberg" <steve@OldSub.com>; Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 06:45:50 -0700; Where is this graphic? I'd like to have a look. You now have Devin's 2 cents. Here's mine: Trucks lowered to the point they can't go in or out driveways, & have to creep over speed bumps are BEYOND; /html/oletrucks/2003-05/msg00166.html (9,717 bytes)
15. RE: [oletrucks] new look for '54 (score: 1): Author: "Mark Self" <mark.self@verizon.net>; Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 07:32:52 -0700; Took a look. Looks fantastic to me. Looks pretty close to mine, maybe just a bit lower. My vote, GO FOR IT!!!! www.oldsub.com Where is this graphic? I'd like to have a look. You now have Devin's 2 ce; /html/oletrucks/2003-05/msg00168.html (9,956 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 15
Page: [1]