Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

  • Thread starter Dianelos Georgoudis
  • Start date
This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
Brent,
Do not confront a liberal with facts... it confuses them.
Joe

"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53...
> In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>Lloyd,
> >>Are you a Lliberal?
> >
> > Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
fathers.
>
> I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
> "right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>
> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/wisdom.html
> I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
> democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>
> "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
> herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>
> And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
> get your panties in a bunch:
>
> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html
>
> Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
> amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>
> Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
> speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
> tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
> republican.....
>
>
>


 
"global warming is as established fact"
Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
fact from the other (correct) side...

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
> >
> >Than what? Your MB?
>
> Than pretty much any CAR.
>
> >>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
> >
> >We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
>
> Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
>
> >We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
> >cheaper to buy than using our own.
>
> And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
>
> >Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
> >ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
> >>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
> >
> >Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
>
> Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships
in
> the Persian Gulf?
>
> >Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
> >their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
> >their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
> >>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
> >
> >Where?
> >>hurts our balance of payments,
> >
> >Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
> >those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
> >our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
> >Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
> >countries if it means our children are safe.
> >>and increases global warming.
> >
> >That's truly laughable.
> >What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
> >many mammoths?
> >Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
> >fault completely ignore the past?
>
> I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
> evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
>
> >>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
> >>around with American flags on their SUVs.
> >
> >It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
> >own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
> >who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
> >For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
> >they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
> >


 


rnf2 wrote:

> Built in Australia, sold in Australia and New Zealand and a few other RHD
> countries.
> Smallest engine in one is 3.8L V6, and goes up to a 5.7L V8. and even the
> 3.8 can tow 2000Kg, or 4000+ pounds, V8 is up to 3500Kg or so, 7000+ pounds.
> www.holden.com.au and www.ford.com.au
> They're big cargo haulers, and very popular with farmers, very reliable and
> can take some pretty harsh terrain and climate without flinching.
> very popular with farmers, and can carry 8 people in the station wagons.
> with a big boot (trunk) still.
>
> Commador is the entry level car, then the higher specced Berlina and the
> luxary Calais.
> then comes the SS, and HSV performance cars.
>
> rhys

Also sold in mid east countries as Chevrolets with left hand drive--in any case
they use totally U.S. drivetrains (engines/transmissions) and can easily pass
U.S. safety requirements as well. The new Pontiac GTO is a Holden Monaro coupe
with different badges. Thanks in large part to union interference GM-U.S. keeps
refusing to import any more mainline sedan models, but they'd doubtless eat all
of the domestic competition as it is now. They'd be 350-horsepower family
sedans for as little as $20K U.S.

The Commodore line and variants come with Corvette engines of up to 350
horsepower (or just over 400 for the HSV-modified versions) and can still touch
30mpg (U.S.) on the highway with a 6-speed overdrive--or they can be had with
smaller V6 powerplants. The long-wheelbase Statesman (mid east "Chevrolet
Caprice") would be a superb replacement for the last U.S. models of that name,
almost exactly the same size and layout, but incrementally improved (newer, even
more powerful engines, independent rear suspension, etc.).

I believe the top-line HSV GTS is already sold in the U.K. as a counter to the
BMW E5, and rumors keep popping up that one of the higher line Commodore models
(Calais most likely) might be introduced there as a replacement for the last
rear drive Opel Omegas.

--Aardwolf.

 


Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> > Not if the polution standards are based on grams per mile, which I
> > believe they are. The tailpipe sniffer doesn't care how much gas you
> > put in, only how much pollution per mile you put out. These are
> > independent issues.
> >
>
> Last time I took my Datsun 210 through emissions they did not dyno it,
> only used a tailpipe sniffer and tachometer. This may have changed by
> now, that was a couple years ago. They did dyno the 84 Chevy, though.
> No doubt testing methodology is different in different states, but I had
> thought that the EPA only mandates the state do emissions testing
> for certain areas, and leaves a lot of the methodology up to the states.
> Fore sure, in Oregon if your registered in certain counties you are not
> required to pass emissions inspection.
>
> Ted

But every design and powertrain combination has to pass federal emissions
regulations testing before it is allowed to be sold. So all cars for that
year when new should meet that standard, and any of that year's models of
any age will when running within specifications. And it is measured in
grams per mile.

State emissions testing is not uniform--if extant at all--and also not as
rigorous as the initial new-model certification requirements.

--Aardwolf.

 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> A 68 Charger puts out over 100X the emissions of a new car, so it's foolish to
> claim it's "indistinguishable" from one.

_Virtually_ indistinguishable--when both are _also_ compared to a gross polluter,
which puts out, by definition, far, far more than either.

--Aardwolf.


 
The 5.7L V8 is the latest descendant of the mighty Chevy smallblock 350ci.

they can be modified to over 1000 Hp and still be drivable streetlegal.

the 3.8 started as a USA GM engine, but a factory was built in Aussie and
R&D changed it, it doesn't interchange well with stock USA GM parts that
well now, but theres plenty of support in Aussie for them. the 5L and 5.7L
are stock Chevys from Chevs plants in the states. plenty of parts if they
bring Holdens stateside.

rhys

"Aardwolf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> rnf2 wrote:
>
> > Built in Australia, sold in Australia and New Zealand and a few other
RHD
> > countries.
> > Smallest engine in one is 3.8L V6, and goes up to a 5.7L V8. and even
the
> > 3.8 can tow 2000Kg, or 4000+ pounds, V8 is up to 3500Kg or so, 7000+
pounds.
> > www.holden.com.au and www.ford.com.au
> > They're big cargo haulers, and very popular with farmers, very reliable
and
> > can take some pretty harsh terrain and climate without flinching.
> > very popular with farmers, and can carry 8 people in the station wagons.
> > with a big boot (trunk) still.
> >
> > Commador is the entry level car, then the higher specced Berlina and the
> > luxary Calais.
> > then comes the SS, and HSV performance cars.
> >
> > rhys
>
> Also sold in mid east countries as Chevrolets with left hand drive--in any
case
> they use totally U.S. drivetrains (engines/transmissions) and can easily
pass
> U.S. safety requirements as well. The new Pontiac GTO is a Holden Monaro
coupe
> with different badges. Thanks in large part to union interference GM-U.S.
keeps
> refusing to import any more mainline sedan models, but they'd doubtless
eat all
> of the domestic competition as it is now. They'd be 350-horsepower family
> sedans for as little as $20K U.S.
>
> The Commodore line and variants come with Corvette engines of up to 350
> horsepower (or just over 400 for the HSV-modified versions) and can still
touch
> 30mpg (U.S.) on the highway with a 6-speed overdrive--or they can be had
with
> smaller V6 powerplants. The long-wheelbase Statesman (mid east "Chevrolet
> Caprice") would be a superb replacement for the last U.S. models of that
name,
> almost exactly the same size and layout, but incrementally improved
(newer, even
> more powerful engines, independent rear suspension, etc.).
>
> I believe the top-line HSV GTS is already sold in the U.K. as a counter to
the
> BMW E5, and rumors keep popping up that one of the higher line Commodore
models
> (Calais most likely) might be introduced there as a replacement for the
last
> rear drive Opel Omegas.
>
> --Aardwolf.
>


 


Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> "Bill Funk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > But Billy Bob has to do all that, too, and the flea-driver *does* gat
> > the break you want him to have, simply because he doesn't use (and pay
> > for) the expendables that Billy Bob is paying for.
>
> That is a point. However, it's not that strong a point and here is why.
> For
> starters, when we are talking expendables, the only ones that really matter
> here are fuel, as vehicle fuel dwarfs the expendable consumption of every
> other expendable on the vehicle. So let's be honest and say gas/fuel.
>
> In the world, (not just the US) just about every non-mideast country is a
> net importer of oil. There are a few notable exceptions of course, but
> they don't set the world oil price, OPEC does.
>
> So here is the problem from the US's side. Every barrel of oil
> consumed that is over the US max production is subject to
> artifical price control by OPEC, which is accomplished by artifical
> limiting of the oil supply. Simply put, that price control is bad for
> the US's economy. The upshot is that even though Billy Bob might have
> to pay more for fuel, the fact that he is consuming more fuel and
> thus helping to increase the oil demand past what the US can supply
> makes prices rise for ALL fuel purchasers.

And more drilling ain't gonna be enough to help once India and China (at a
billion plus inhabitants a piece) become modern, G7-style industrial nations.
Which they're just about to do.

--Aardwolf.

 


Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> And the Billy Bob I was using as an exampe wasn't driving a semi
> truck. He was driving a 40 foot long cracker box, ie: recreational
> vehicle. I forget that our European friends may not be familar with
> all the deragotory slang terms in use in the US. The term cracker
> box came about because the giant RV's look like saltine cracker
> boxes with wheels, going down the road.

Doubtless also beause of their occupants.

--Aardwolf.


 


Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> "John David Galt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > The safest strategy overall would be to repeal CAFE so that people with
> > large families can go back to buying station wagons instead of SUVs.
>
> Back when station wagons were popular, there were no SUV's (at least not
> like they are known today with interior A/C and DVD player, etc.) If you
> could mandate that all SUV production be replaced by station wagon
> production, you might have something there. But given a choice between
> a large station wagon and a SUV I think your smoking weed if you seriously
> believe that a large market segment would give their SUV's up to go to
> station wagons.
>
> All that repeal of CAFE would do is allow the automakers to build bigger
> sedans. So, today's "full size" sedan would become tomorrow's mid-size,
> and todays mid-size would become tomorrow's economy sedan, and
> today's economy sedan would disappear.

Not a bad thing in the U.S.A. Because even if that happened, none of them
would still have to be as large as something like a '73 Imperial.

> You might then get a small percentage of SUV buyers to buy the largest
> sedans that would become available, but that's about it.

I disagree--to an extent. As I've said before, people will buy what they're
told they want. If there were a lot of Magnum-type wagons and sedans that
actually had some real style and to them--AND available AWD, and more to the
point if there was actually advertising to explain to people how kick-ass they
thought they were, I'll bet there would be a large shift away from suddently
stodgy, ill handling trucks. Sure a number of people would still buy trucks
to haul stuff around, and some might still want some for image--they always
have, even pre-Dukes of Hazzard, but Navigators and Envoys and Escalades?
They'd be gone.

--Aardwolf.




 
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:24:20 -0400, Nate Nagel <[email protected]>
wrote:

>C. E. White wrote:
>
>>
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>>
>>
>> No, I can't see it. This is the sort of drivel the anti-SUV crowd
routinely repeats.
>> Continulaly repeating an opinion does not make it a fact. PROVE IT!
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
>They're heavier and don't handle as well. The conclusion should be
obvious.

Another gross generalization. That's why folks call you on this kind
of drivel.

>I'm actually repressing the urge to launch into an Aunt Judy-esque
rant
>at this point.

You and Judy and Carl Taylor, and sundry other clueless folks share
the same trait actually.

This frightens me. Why are concepts so obvious to
>anyone with any grasp of physics or driving dynamics apparently so
>obscure to the general public?

When folks with a very good grasp of driving dynamics, car control,
and physics (not to mention the fact that they have tens of thousands
of miles in SUVs that don't fit into your strident little pidgeon
hole) know that your gross generalizations are silly, you should start
questioning your assumptions, lest you continue to be lumped in with
the clueless trolls.

>*bangs head on desk*

It's apparently not helping your thought proccesses in the least bit.

Try something different.


 
Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:

> Every time I hear
> someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
> wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
> car that would be safer.

Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.

 
Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:

> Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul plywood
> and tow a trailer with it?

1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.

If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology, everything
I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front wheel drive and is
therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.
 

> >> I changed to an off road chip in my Jeep to improve the performance.
> >>It runs much better with the hot chip. I only use the stock chip when
> >>its time for emissions inspection.
> >>
> >
> >
> > What happens if you test w/ the hot chip? My 92 Ranger hasn't failed yet
and
> > I've had a chip in it since 97 or 98.
> >
> >
> >
> I have never tried that.
>

Couldn't hurt to try it once particularly if you get a free retest. I know
the one in my Ranger is kind of a pain in the buttocks to get to. I even put
a lower gear set in the rear end two years ago and it still passes w/ flying
colors. It even improved MPG which never made any sense to me. I figured it
would go the other way.


 
Called me the KKK contingent once. Hurt my feelings. ;-)


"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:D[email protected]...
> I won't deny we have had a few run-ins in the past, but he hasn't called
me
> an idiot / claimed I haven't attended school / recommended I learn some
> science yet, so no unpleasantness so far !
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>
> "FDRanger92" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> : If you had the audacity to disagree with him you sure did.
> :
> : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> : news:[email protected]...
> : > Did I insult you Lloyd ?
> : >
> : > Dave Milne, Scotland
> : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
> : >
> : > "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> : > news:[email protected]...
> : > : In article <[email protected]>,
> : > : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
> : > : >Godwin's law - proposed addendum:
> : > : >
> : > : >"unfavourable reference to Saddaam Hussein or Bin Laden shall be
> : treated
> : > in
> : > : >the same manner as if it were a reference to Hitler."
> : > :
> : > : Parker's law -- insult me and liberals, don't whine about getting
> : insulted
> : > : back. Stones, glass houses, and all that.
> : > :
> : > : >
> : >
> : >
> :
> :
>
>


 
that's pretty impressive, you being a whole contingent !!

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"FDRanger92" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: Called me the KKK contingent once. Hurt my feelings. ;-)
:
:
: "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
: news:D[email protected]...
: > I won't deny we have had a few run-ins in the past, but he hasn't called
: me
: > an idiot / claimed I haven't attended school / recommended I learn some
: > science yet, so no unpleasantness so far !
: >
: > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: >
: > "FDRanger92" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: > news:[email protected]...
: > : If you had the audacity to disagree with him you sure did.
: > :
: > : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
: > : news:[email protected]...
: > : > Did I insult you Lloyd ?
: > : >
: > : > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: > : >
: > : > "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: > : > news:[email protected]...
: > : > : In article <[email protected]>,
: > : > : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
: > : > : >Godwin's law - proposed addendum:
: > : > : >
: > : > : >"unfavourable reference to Saddaam Hussein or Bin Laden shall be
: > : treated
: > : > in
: > : > : >the same manner as if it were a reference to Hitler."
: > : > :
: > : > : Parker's law -- insult me and liberals, don't whine about getting
: > : insulted
: > : > : back. Stones, glass houses, and all that.
: > : > :
: > : > : >
: > : >
: > : >
: > :
: > :
: >
: >
:
:


 

"Aardwolf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> > "Bill Funk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > But Billy Bob has to do all that, too, and the flea-driver *does* gat
> > > the break you want him to have, simply because he doesn't use (and pay
> > > for) the expendables that Billy Bob is paying for.
> >
> > That is a point. However, it's not that strong a point and here is why.
> > For
> > starters, when we are talking expendables, the only ones that really
matter
> > here are fuel, as vehicle fuel dwarfs the expendable consumption of
every
> > other expendable on the vehicle. So let's be honest and say gas/fuel.
> >
> > In the world, (not just the US) just about every non-mideast country is
a
> > net importer of oil. There are a few notable exceptions of course, but
> > they don't set the world oil price, OPEC does.
> >
> > So here is the problem from the US's side. Every barrel of oil
> > consumed that is over the US max production is subject to
> > artifical price control by OPEC, which is accomplished by artifical
> > limiting of the oil supply. Simply put, that price control is bad for
> > the US's economy. The upshot is that even though Billy Bob might have
> > to pay more for fuel, the fact that he is consuming more fuel and
> > thus helping to increase the oil demand past what the US can supply
> > makes prices rise for ALL fuel purchasers.
>
> And more drilling ain't gonna be enough to help once India and China (at a
> billion plus inhabitants a piece) become modern, G7-style industrial
nations.
> Which they're just about to do.
>

Shhh - don't give the SUV owners nightmares. :)

Using oil as a motor vehicle fuel is totally unsupportable in the long run.
What is
ultimately going to happen is the price of gas will be driven so high that
it will
eclipse the cost of going electric, and that will be the end of the internal
combusion
engine in passenger cars. Alcohol is not an answer, there's not enough
biomass
production in the country to produce the fuel needed. The choices are going
to
be electric generation plants powered by coal, or nuclear, both of which the
greens hate, powering the majority of passenger cars, probably with a few
hardy souls running off natural gas.

But of course you can't tell the SUV owners this, they think that we are all
going
to be burning hydrogen in our cars. Just wait until they find out that no
city of
any appreciable population density is going to permit a gas station that
contains
10,000 gallons of compressed hydrogen stored in tanks anywhere in the city
limits,
where an exploson will remove about 10 blocks from the tax rolls.

Ted


 

"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>

> Gee - imagine that. Conservatives opposing the raising of taxes. How
> unusual! Have you ever heard of such a thing!? To quote Mel Brooks:
> "Wooof!".
>

Your the one that is bitching about allowing morons on the road
because their children will be punished if they can't drive. Yet your
now opposing one of the few mechanisms that we have to keep the
morons off the road, which is making vehicle ownership more
expensive? I guess you don't realize that most of the morons
in the country don't happen to be that wealthy. (save the morons
in the White House and Congress, of course)

Ted


 

"Dave C." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Back when station wagons were popular, there were no SUV's (at least not
> > like they are known today with interior A/C and DVD player, etc.) If
you
> > could mandate that all SUV production be replaced by station wagon
> > production, you might have something there. But given a choice between
> > a large station wagon and a SUV I think your smoking weed if you
seriously
> > believe that a large market segment would give their SUV's up to go to
> > station wagons.
>
> You don't have a family, do you. (not a question) -Dave
>

I do, and I find that a minivan is a lot more useful in hauling their little
butts around. (or rather, my wife does since she drives it)

And I grew up in a family that ran station wagons until we were in
high school and could drive ourselves. And on top of that I happen to
own one. (a station wagon). It's not a daily driver, it's purpose is
a backup car in case the van craps out and I have it up on jackstands
for a couple days. My daily driver (right now) is an econobox, due to
the amount of miles I accumulate a week.

So pardon but I think I have a pretty good idea of what would happen
if an attempt was made to convince SUV (and minivan) owners to
go to station wagons.

Ted


 

"Aardwolf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> I disagree--to an extent. As I've said before, people will buy what
they're
> told they want. If there were a lot of Magnum-type wagons and sedans that
> actually had some real style and to them--AND available AWD, and more to
the
> point if there was actually advertising to explain to people how kick-ass
they
> thought they were, I'll bet there would be a large shift away from
suddently
> stodgy, ill handling trucks. Sure a number of people would still buy
trucks
> to haul stuff around, and some might still want some for image--they
always
> have, even pre-Dukes of Hazzard, but Navigators and Envoys and Escalades?
> They'd be gone.
>

You cannot substitute "styling" for interior leg and head room. You have to
go
back to the early 70's like a 73 T-Bird or a Old 98 before you can find a
sedan that could actually fit 4 adults comfortably. Sure, if automakers
started
producing such vehicles again, you might knock off a few SUVs that were
bought to haul adults around, but the people that bought SUV's for real
hauling aren't going to go to a wagon, and the people that bought them to
haul
families aren't going to go to a wagon either (although they would have
been
a lot smarter to have bought either a minivan or a full size van, IMHO)
and the posers that bought them to pretend they are offroaders in the
city aren't going to go to a sedan either.

Where station wagons shine is if you have ONE driver that regularly
has a need of hauling small to mid size delivery. For example the
admin that needs to drive a computer across town, the wife that
likes going to the rummage sales on the weekend, the janitor
who has to haul cleaning supplies to a building, the construction
foreman who goes to a couple job sites, and a smattering
of service guys who don't need to carry ladders or large tools.

Ted


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Defenders Vs Insurers tomfoolery
Replies
1
Views
4K
lightning
lightning
300bhp/ton
Driven: New Defender - On & Off Road. Is it a Pretender?
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
lightning
lightning
P
Range Rover P38 EKA and BeCM Lockout
Replies
6
Views
5K
Doolinjames
D
natas
Hurricane Dorian survivor.
Replies
8
Views
2K
ProjectX
ProjectX
Alibro
How to recondition a VCU yourself.
15 16 17
Replies
325
Views
47K
Alibro
Alibro
Back
Top