Is is grammatically necessary to include "would" every time in the following sentence:

"Each time they would pass the car, he would point to it and would say, "That's the one."

It just seems so redundant. I'm inclined to disinclude the third "would", but I can't point to a grammatical rule as a reason. Would this situation be anything similar to disincluding "had" once a backward shift in time has been adequately established?

Hey Bec, too many woulds, definitely!

"Each time they would pass the car he'd point to it and say,.."
How about.....
Each time they passed the car, he would point to it and say, "That's the one."
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Smooth like a classy wine! - Much better.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
mmmmm....Chile has really good red wine...but that's another topic for another areaEmotion: smile

[added by hitchhiker] Nicely moderated Mr. W Emotion: wink [/added]
simply put, the 2nd and 3rd "would" are both auxiliary verbs... same subject, same tense, and therefore one may be eliminated, no problem. i do agree with the suppression of the first would as well (and substitute the simple past) since the "would" (2nd in the original sentence) would supply the timeframe for the entire sentence.