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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*RWA\s+vs\s+SWA\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. RWA vs SWA (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 18:53:55 -0500; I just looked in the boots of a 67 SWA and a 73 RWA car. There is no difference in any structure, infact, they are identical. I too have read that the revert back to SWA was due to accident damage. I; /html/spridgets/2000-11/msg00222.html (6,678 bytes)
2. Re: RWA vs SWA (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 21:32:07 -0800; My 74 RWA car, that came with those cute big black overriders (since removed and available for sale if anyone wants them) has significantly more frame work in the boot of the car than the earlier car; /html/spridgets/2000-11/msg00230.html (8,253 bytes)
3. Re: RWA vs SWA (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 19:57:42 -0500; I believe 74 was the first year for the improved frame work to the over riders. My 73 and my (sold) 72 did not have any extra metal. And talk about extra frame work, check the difference between a RB; /html/spridgets/2000-11/msg00248.html (7,317 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]