Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Path\s+for\s+ST\s+cars\s+to\s+Progress\s+$was\:\s+UD\/BD\s+Explained\s+$\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Path\s+for\s+ST\s+cars\s+to\s+Progress\s+$was\:\s+UD\/BD\s+Explained\s+$\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. Path for ST cars to Progress (was: UD/BD Explained ) (score: 1): Author: "J. Howell" <jbrett@PebbleMotorSports.com>; Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 08:50:21 -0700; Man, I wish some of these topics had been discussed back when we were contemplating the formation of the ST classes. It would have been nice if someone had mentioned the possiblity that this class wh; /html/autox/2003-06/msg00236.html (8,058 bytes)
2. Re: Path for ST cars to Progress (was: UD/BD Explained ) (score: 1): Author: "justJOE" <justjoe13es@hotmail.com>; Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:40:14 -0500; To me, the only logical class for my car was STS. I had been competing for years in (what was) E stock, but my car (1996 Integra LS) wouldn't turn without a Fat rear sway bar.. and of course the rule; /html/autox/2003-06/msg00238.html (9,506 bytes)
3. Re: Path for ST cars to Progress (was: UD/BD Explained ) (score: 1): Author: "J. Howell" <jbrett@PebbleMotorSports.com>; Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:32:09 -0700; And now is sounds to me that everyone is complaining that in order to be competitive in STS it will require buying a base '88 Civic chassis and swapping in a Si engine (or making some other such inve; /html/autox/2003-06/msg00239.html (10,215 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]