Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*poly\s+shock\s+mount\s+bushings\.\.\.stock\s+class\s+legal\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*poly\s+shock\s+mount\s+bushings\.\.\.stock\s+class\s+legal\?\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. poly shock mount bushings...stock class legal? (score: 1): Author: Scott Troyer - TestEng DRAM Repair <stroyer@micron.com>; Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 14:31:13 -0600; I don't have my rule book handy and am currently getting my shocks swapped. I've destroyed one of the rubber shock mount bushings (again). Seems to me like it was legal in stock classes to use poly f; /html/autox/2001-08/msg00124.html (7,392 bytes)
2. Re: poly shock mount bushings...stock class legal? (score: 1): Author: Scott Troyer - TestEng DRAM Repair <stroyer@micron.com>; Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 16:14:37 -0600; Thanks for the replies. I have my answer now. By the way, I incorrectly called shock "mount" bushing when they are just shock bushings. As stated in 13.5.c: C.The use of any shock absorber bushing ma; /html/autox/2001-08/msg00126.html (7,884 bytes)
3. Re: poly shock mount bushings...stock class legal? (score: 1): Author: "Phil Ethier" <pethier@isd.net>; Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 23:39:23 -0500; To: autox@autox.team.net <autox@autox.team.net>; stroyer@micron.com I've it was FRONT swaybar. But you knew that. to my As long at these bushings do not define suspension geometry, the are OK, IMHO.; /html/autox/2001-08/msg00130.html (7,741 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]