Re: 3.55 vs 3.92 Thanks!

From: Michael Ging (ging@mticentral.com)
Date: Mon Aug 18 1997 - 04:47:54 EDT

Next message: KARL MOLTZAN: "Re: Thorley's are done..."
Previous message: James Babcock: "RE: towing"
In reply to: WillTier@aol.com: "3.55 vs 3.92"
Next in thread: KARL MOLTZAN: "Re: 3.55 vs 3.92 Thanks!"
Maybe reply: KARL MOLTZAN: "Re: 3.55 vs 3.92 Thanks!"
Maybe reply: WillTier@aol.com: "Re: 3.55 vs 3.92 Thanks!"
Maybe reply: KARL MOLTZAN: "Re: 3.55 vs 3.92 Thanks!"
Maybe reply: KARL MOLTZAN: "Re: 3.55 vs 3.92 Thanks!"
Maybe reply: WillTier@aol.com: "Re: 3.55 vs 3.92 Thanks!"
Maybe reply: KARL MOLTZAN: "Re: 3.55 vs 3.92 Thanks!"
Maybe reply: WillTier@aol.com: "Re: 3.55 vs 3.92 Thanks!"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

>>>>>
the 3.55 would be .28 slower or the 3.92 would be .28 faster which ever
way you want to look at it.
>>>>>

Thanks alot Bill, I was really interested to know.

Mike

Next message: KARL MOLTZAN: "Re: Thorley's are done..."
Previous message: James Babcock: "RE: towing"
In reply to: WillTier@aol.com: "3.55 vs 3.92"
Next in thread: KARL MOLTZAN: "Re: 3.55 vs 3.92 Thanks!"
Maybe reply: KARL MOLTZAN: "Re: 3.55 vs 3.92 Thanks!"
Maybe reply: WillTier@aol.com: "Re: 3.55 vs 3.92 Thanks!"
Maybe reply: KARL MOLTZAN: "Re: 3.55 vs 3.92 Thanks!"
Maybe reply: KARL MOLTZAN: "Re: 3.55 vs 3.92 Thanks!"
Maybe reply: WillTier@aol.com: "Re: 3.55 vs 3.92 Thanks!"
Maybe reply: KARL MOLTZAN: "Re: 3.55 vs 3.92 Thanks!"
Maybe reply: WillTier@aol.com: "Re: 3.55 vs 3.92 Thanks!"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:07:50 EDT