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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Alpine\s+Conversion\s*$/: 47 ]

Total 47 documents matching your query.

1. Alpine Conversion (score: 1): Author: "Scott S. Hutchinson" <shutchin@netjets.com>; Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 15:44:31 -0500; http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1873035329&inde xURL=1#ebayphotohosting looks, even with my admittedly untrained and inexperienced eye, quite a bit like an alpine conve; /html/tigers/2002-11/msg00152.html (7,488 bytes)
2. Re: Alpine Conversion (score: 1): Author: Steve Laifman <SLaifman@socal.rr.com>; Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 14:09:43 -0800; You are correct, it is an Alpine conversion. Much as I hate saying this, the PROOF is in the vertical spare wheel in the trunk !!!! :-) Steve -- Steve Laifman Editor http://www.TigersUnited.com; /html/tigers/2002-11/msg00153.html (8,070 bytes)
3. RE: Alpine Conversion (score: 1): Author: "Peter Stanisavljevich" <pete_stanisavljevich@coxtarget.com>; Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 17:45:27 -0500; Why would you say so? Peter S. B9471799 This, http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1873035329&inde xURL=1#ebayphotohosting looks, even with my admittedly untrained and inexp; /html/tigers/2002-11/msg00154.html (8,183 bytes)
4. Re: Alpine Conversion (score: 1): Author: "Jim D'Amelio" <jimdamelio@cox.net>; Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 18:24:40 -0500; The first thing I noticed was the Alpine V serial number he listed. Jim http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1873035329&ind e bit; /html/tigers/2002-11/msg00156.html (8,789 bytes)
5. Re: Alpine Conversion (score: 1): Author: Norman Miller <rootes1@earthlink.net>; Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 16:25:49 -0800; As it turns out the vehicle is an Alpine Conversion, but a vertical spare is not "PROOF" of anything but a upright spare.; /html/tigers/2002-11/msg00158.html (7,961 bytes)
6. RE: Alpine Conversion (score: 1): Author: "Chris Thompson" <cthompson@rrinc.com>; Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 21:17:09 -0500; That and the B395x VIN number, and that he always puts "Tiger" in " ". And that he calls it an Alpine conversion..... But somebody who didn't know a lot and wasn't paying attention may think he is se; /html/tigers/2002-11/msg00161.html (9,246 bytes)
7. RE: Alpine Conversion (score: 1): Author: "Chris Thompson" <cthompson@rrinc.com>; Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 22:09:56 -0500; I sent mail to the guy selling the conversion. He has already responded saying that he has amended the description about the "Alpine 260". He claims he wants neither to deceive nor to make enemies. S; /html/tigers/2002-11/msg00164.html (8,066 bytes)
8. Re: Alpine Conversion (score: 1): Author: Larry Paulick <larry.p@erols.com>; Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 08:55:18 -0800; Chris, I think he is far beyond just being cagey. He states, "Tiger"" is an original Alpine 260 converted to a 302 .... There was a Alpine 260, that was a Tiger, so either way he is selling a hoax. S; /html/tigers/2002-11/msg00166.html (11,180 bytes)
9. RE: Alpine Conversion (score: 1): Author: Sencindiver Jim D NSSC <SencindiverJD@NAVSEA.NAVY.MIL>; Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:43:18 -0500; The VIN indicates that it started out as a S5 Alpine, and I'd bet that the body tag would be SAL, not JAL, indicating that it was built by Sunbeam instead of Jenson. A couple of months ago at the TE/; /html/tigers/2002-11/msg00167.html (12,353 bytes)
10. Re: Alpine Conversion (score: 1): Author: Steve Laifman <SLaifman@socal.rr.com>; Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:03:25 -0800; I actually sent a letter of inquiry to the seller. He readily admits it is a conversion, and believes the quotation marks were his intended disclosure. He actually changed his description to say it; /html/tigers/2002-11/msg00168.html (12,086 bytes)
11. Re: Alpine Conversion (score: 1): Author: "Dan Eiland" <deiland1@elp.rr.com>; Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:10:03 -0700; Interesting you bring up the sighting of a Tiger with a Series V Alpine rear clip. Is this still considered a true Tiger or is this no different than an Alger? Could this be in an all new category?; /html/tigers/2002-11/msg00169.html (13,945 bytes)
12. RE: Alpine Conversion (score: 1): Author: "Chris Thompson" <cthompson@rrinc.com>; Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 21:00:44 -0500; Last night the seller told me he was going to clarify the description to describe it as an Alger. I advised him not to be shy - an Alger with a 302 roller is going to kick the a$$ of any stock Tiger; /html/tigers/2002-11/msg00170.html (13,191 bytes)
13. Re: Alpine Conversion (score: 1): Author: "Kathy and Erich Coiner" <kathy.coiner@gte.net>; Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:29:16 -0800; I don't think the guy is trying to deceive. He is publishing a Series V Alpine VIN. Erich -- Original Message -- From: "Larry Paulick" <larry.p@erols.com> To: "Chris Thompson" <cthompson@rrinc.com> C; /html/tigers/2002-11/msg00171.html (9,624 bytes)
14. Re: Alpine Conversion (score: 1): Author: "Kathy and Erich Coiner" <kathy.coiner@gte.net>; Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:36:24 -0800; When I attended TacFest 2001, Tom Hall made it very clear that replacing a front or rear clip on a Tiger did not make it cease to be a Tiger. You can have a philosophical argument about how much of a; /html/tigers/2002-11/msg00172.html (9,214 bytes)
15. RE: Alpine Conversion (score: 1): Author: "Chris Thompson" <cthompson@rrinc.com>; Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:29:29 -0500; Here's the latest communication from the seller: Chris, You may be assured that the purchaser, whoever he/she may be will be fully informed about this car. Additionally, the purchaser will be recomme; /html/tigers/2002-11/msg00173.html (8,872 bytes)
16. Re: Alpine Conversion (score: 1): Author: "Tom Witt" <wittsend@jps.net>; Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 20:22:59 -0800; I'm just left to wonder in what tense "purchaser" is meant. If it is meant as 'one who WILL be purchasing' then that info needs to be up from without any room to misunderstand. If it is meant as 'th; /html/tigers/2002-11/msg00175.html (10,199 bytes)
17. RE: Alpine Conversion (score: 1): Author: Sencindiver Jim D NSSC <SencindiverJD@NAVSEA.NAVY.MIL>; Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 07:14:05 -0500; Erich's response is right. Tigers that have been repaired by the front/rear clip replacement are still Tigers and can be successfully TACed. The Tiger with the Alpine rear clip at the Crab Feast in; /html/tigers/2002-11/msg00177.html (16,498 bytes)
18. Re: Alpine Conversion (score: 1): Author: Carmods@aol.com; Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:51:47 EST; I would think a true purist would say that if any piece of Alpine sheet metal, especially a clip, is used to restore a Tiger, the car no longer qualifies as a Tiger. It's hard to be just a little bi; /html/tigers/2002-11/msg00179.html (8,578 bytes)
19. Re: Alpine Conversion (score: 1): Author: "S.Amiam" <s.amiam@earthlink.net>; Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:38:50 -0800; From what I've been reading, I doubt there are many purists on this list. Amiam Esq. B9471718 LRXFE; /html/tigers/2002-11/msg00180.html (8,871 bytes)
20. Re: Alpine Conversion (score: 1): Author: Larry Paulick <larry.p@erols.com>; Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:57:44 -0800; John, if that were the case, then quite a few Tigers who have new front clips, would not be Tigers by your definition. The TAC program does not look at replacement clips, as that is not what made a T; /html/tigers/2002-11/msg00181.html (10,008 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3]