Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*SB42\s+Sucks\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*SB42\s+Sucks\s*$/: 5 ]

Total 5 documents matching your query.

1. SB42 Sucks (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 09:48:58 -0700; I would like to know what the reasoning is for leaving 1974 cars excluded from this bill. If you look at the ASM emmisions table you will see that the allowable limits for all cars drops starting wit; /html/triumphs/1997-09/msg01554.html (6,801 bytes)
2. Re: SB42 Sucks (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 10:49:29 -0700; The exclusion in SB42 does not stop with 1973 model years. The bill states that for the next FIVE years the exclusion is for model years 1973 and earlier. After five years the exclusion becomes a 30-; /html/triumphs/1997-09/msg01561.html (7,083 bytes)
3. Re: SB42 Sucks (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 11:32:12 -0700; If you will take the time to check the fact that the 1974 had the same smog equipment as the 1973 ie; no smog pump or air rail in the manifold, and was designed in operate on leaded gasoline, you may; /html/triumphs/1997-09/msg01563.html (6,996 bytes)
4. Re: SB42 Sucks (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 15:40:27 -0400; I don't think the text of SB42 was really ever intended to be MGB specific. ;> -- Trevor Boicey Ottawa, Canada tboicey@brit.ca http://www.brit.ca/~tboicey/; /html/triumphs/1997-09/msg01567.html (7,239 bytes)
5. Re: SB42 Sucks (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 11:22:54 -0700; ** John, It was changed to 73 and earlier cars because it wouldn't get through or passed. What was wanted was a 30 year rolling exemption. It would only pass the house if it were a 30 year rolling ex; /html/triumphs/1997-09/msg01570.html (7,587 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 5
Page: [1]