Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*The\s+\'New\'\s+G\s+Stock\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*The\s+\'New\'\s+G\s+Stock\?\s*$/: 52 ]

Total 52 documents matching your query.

1. Re: The 'New' G Stock? (score: 1): Author: Scott Meyers <solo2@uswest.net>; Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 08:31:37 -0700; Firebird V-6 200hp 3200 16.0 but rear drive + posi & big rubber. (ever notice the engine setback in one of these?) Type R 195 2400 12.3 Wow! All the good stuff *and* this power to weight. No wonder i; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00268.html (8,395 bytes)
2. RE: The 'New' G Stock? (score: 1): Author: Kevin McCormick <ktm@unify.com>; Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 08:45:18 -0700; Ah, you're looking at only HP - look at the pounds/torque ratio - (as Joe did earlier) - the Type R is worse off then the others. Also, the rev's required for each of the respective HP numbers show a; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00270.html (9,990 bytes)
3. RE: The 'New' G Stock? (score: 1): Author: Andrew_Bettencourt@kingston.com; Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:15:54 -0700; Holy crap! Somebody who doesn't think GS is broken! Hail the SEB! I've been saying this for a while now, the Type R is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Most of the top drivers migrated to them because the; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00271.html (7,802 bytes)
4. RE: The 'New' G Stock? (score: 1): Author: Kevin McCormick <ktm@unify.com>; Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:29:01 -0700; Er, should have been 'don't _muck_ with it'. Wife's maiden name (Muck) so a 'fun' word to use :-) Kevin McCormick; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00272.html (8,103 bytes)
5. Re: The 'New' G Stock? (score: 1): Author: Stan Whitney <dp25sdw@yahoo.com>; Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:35:32 -0700 (PDT); The existing cars are really pretty well matched, with course dependencies probably being the deciding factor. The DSM is a very good car most of the time, but no longer the overdog it has been - whi; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00273.html (10,190 bytes)
6. Re: The 'New' G Stock? (score: 1): Author: "Joe Goeke" <buttheat@hotmail.com>; Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 10:20:19 -0700; Oh please!!!!! Just look at the data before making generalization statements like "perceived" top car. Look at the GS times compared to the other classes this year, and then the last couple of years.; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00275.html (9,635 bytes)
7. Re: The 'New' G Stock? (score: 1): Author: "Joe Goeke" <buttheat@hotmail.com>; Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 10:31:36 -0700; I'll take a light under torqued car with a great LSD and double wishbone suspension, over a heavier/torque car ANY day. So you are saying that no good drivers are running in GS except for the Type R; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00276.html (11,561 bytes)
8. Re: The 'New' G Stock? (score: 1): Author: "Jason" <kart38@home.com>; Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 12:50:43 -0500; I have to disagree with this. I run a Beretta, which isn't very popular for autoxing, and I feel out classed in GS. If anyone cares to know the 3.1L V6 Beretta's make 140hp@5000 and 185lbs/ft@2500 (; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00277.html (9,051 bytes)
9. Re: The 'New' G Stock? (score: 1): Author: HAVOCDEAN@aol.com; Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 14:02:11 EDT; What car are you going to buy if Jim Rohn wins G/Stock? He is in a "F"body and that car can win!!!!!!! Don't be surprized when that car does will in Topeka!!!!!!! Dean Sapp; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00278.html (8,110 bytes)
10. Re: The 'New' G Stock? (score: 1): Author: Annie Gill <baby_nsx@yahoo.com>; Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 11:16:20 -0700 (PDT); now, now, Joe, it's not the same drivers, you're not there anymore! And if I remember right, you had fastest GS time at the San Diego Tour on Sunday, in the big ol' Audi no less, over how many Type R; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00279.html (13,191 bytes)
11. Re: The 'New' G Stock? (score: 1): Author: Annie Gill <baby_nsx@yahoo.com>; Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 11:19:55 -0700 (PDT); I would hardly say that it's like you're the only one out there, the only car! There are how many Type R's registered for nationals, with how many excellent drivers in them? Add in the very competiti; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00280.html (10,480 bytes)
12. Re: The 'New' G Stock? (score: 1): Author: "Brad Cox" <coxb@trimofran.org>; Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 13:11:31 -0500; Have to agree. A couple of guys in my area are running the v-6 camaros. They beat the pants off the integras around here. They're amazingly close to the f-stockers. -brad; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00281.html (8,564 bytes)
13. RE: The 'New' G Stock? (score: 1): Author: "Kelly, Katie" <kkelly@spss.com>; Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 11:07:09 -0700; Dean Sapp writes... Well, then it's clear. We won't know what the best G Stock car is until after we see what wins in Topeka. Until then, I move that we table this discussion until we see the results; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00282.html (8,445 bytes)
14. RE: The 'New' G Stock? (score: 1): Author: "Jeff Lloyd" <jslz3@hotmail.com>; Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 18:28:15 GMT; hear hear!!; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00283.html (9,055 bytes)
15. Re: The 'New' G Stock? (score: 1): Author: "Ron Bauer" <ronbauer@aa.net>; Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 11:56:51 -0700; With all due respect to you Joe, I still fail to see the point of moving everything around. I of course am a quite in the middle of this whole GS thing, but the class seems to have more than one car; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00284.html (13,309 bytes)
16. Re: The 'New' G Stock? (score: 1): Author: Andrew_Bettencourt@kingston.com; Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 11:27:08 -0700; I'm not saying that the Type R isn't one of the top 2 or 3 cars in the class, because it is <watch out for the Beretta's : )>. As far as killing DS, Nationals should shed a little more light on where; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00285.html (11,380 bytes)
17. Re: The 'New' G Stock? (score: 1): Author: "Brad Cox" <coxb@trimofran.org>; Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 13:44:55 -0500; On another note, with all the ST stuff going on around here, I think it's a great idea to have the DSM and the Type R in the same class. There is a big rivalry among these guys in the import drag cro; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00286.html (8,716 bytes)
18. Re: The 'New' G Stock? (score: 1): Author: "Ron Bauer" <ronbauer@aa.net>; Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 12:12:00 -0700; Jason, I suggest you try driving a Type R against the top Type R drivers in the country and then tell me I'm getting easy wins. I also think the DSM's are something to watch out for. Though I think o; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00287.html (9,907 bytes)
19. Re: The 'New' G Stock? (score: 1): Author: Ajstratton@aol.com; Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 15:34:48 EDT; I think my biggest beef is that the GSX was disallowed to run in ProSolo as a stock class. It's perceived, "launch characteristics" caused such great heartburn that it was forced to run with the RX-7; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00292.html (8,567 bytes)
20. Re: The 'New' G Stock? (score: 1): Author: "Ron Bauer" <ronbauer@aa.net>; Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 12:56:26 -0700; I can understand where you are coming from there. I'll admit that I was among the ones that didn't want the car in P6 because of the "launch characteristics." Obviously, hind sight is 20/20 in that i; /html/autox/1999-09/msg00293.html (9,428 bytes)

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