3 inch stroke motor project, rod ratio, and mpg - Page 5 - Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > Tech Help> Engine
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #61 (permalink)  
Old 08-19-2010, 11:12 PM
topwrench's Avatar
Registered User
 

Last journal entry: fish carb
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: lillian al.
Age: 67
Posts: 290
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Ok, I didnt tell u not to build it because Ive built some,wild,strange and goofy motors in my life,experimented with a lot of stuff,some with other peoples money,most with my own,some of it worked,some of it didnt,but in the end Im gonna be able to say it went beyond a dream.
But you asked about reverse flow cooling a regular s.b.
Here is how it was done at Smokey's.
1 Build 2 block off plates for where water pump bolts to block.
2 Just before the flanges of where the water pump meets block,machine out
two inch and1/4 threaded pipe holes make fittings n screw them down on
the holes(use aluminum water pump and pipe)
3 hog out portion of head between 1and 3,5and 7. 2 and 4 ,6 and 8
4 Build a plate deal to cover these holes, you have to manufacture diffuser
inside of plate/head to aim water at the x haust valves
5 run 2 hoses one of each side of pump to the plates you built for heads, and of course water manifold them to equally feed water to your 2 inlets on each head
6 now you have to get the water out, best place is freeze plugs on side of block, and here is where it got tricky ,not enough meat there to do much tapping, you have to build aerea up, wound up using aluminum block.
7 now you have your water outlets
8 run water manifolds out of there to front of block
9 build a Y arrangment and build a t'stat housing on top of Y, out of there go to top of rad.
10 Use existing suction pipe as cast on pump
There you have it,I hope you got lots o money!
It's gonna get expensive!!
Engine was motored in Smokatron for flow numbers, lots of hoses and pipes blew off before it was gotten all right!
Then engine was run and everything checked again with engine in "live" condition and of course .It worked, its being used today only in a different configuration.
This was really hi buck ,7am to 2am stuff .
I really woulnt try this.Its crazy!
But you asked a question and I could answer it...So i did...
In the end ,I really think youve studied a lot of stuff and maybe are just a born Gearhead.
But speaking from personal experience, you do have to admit to yourself ,you are just a weeee bit Coo-Coo!!!!
This motor you are building does not fit the application,7 ton motor home.

    Advertisement
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #62 (permalink)  
Old 08-19-2010, 11:31 PM
Dirty Biker's Avatar
Bold As Love
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In a van, down by the river.
Age: 38
Posts: 378
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Haha man that post made my day, your a pretty smart fellar ain't ya? Sounds like hardware store stuff to me tho, I cant imagine it costing too much, why I always thought with a drill press, a grinder and a welder, I could do anything right? Your right tho I'm completely gonzo. Heck I was tempted to try the iron duke in that motor home for a brief trial basis... I think they bolt up to the v8 bellhousing right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #63 (permalink)  
Old 08-19-2010, 11:36 PM
topwrench's Avatar
Registered User
 

Last journal entry: fish carb
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: lillian al.
Age: 67
Posts: 290
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
i thought of something else to say and Im gonna say it.
I think the long/short rod debate will go on forever,I know Smokey used them when Herb Thomas drove the Hudson Hornet, that was really a long time ago,way,way before the 68 camaro.And people said then "Its old stuff,wont work any more" Otto cycle engine has been around a long time,still works the same basic way.
Lots of ways to build engines,lots of ways to get H.P./torque,lots of different opinions.
I learn every day,I live and breathe motors and made a very good living at it and still are,thats why I love this site,I really think we r all in love with machines and are all highly competitive,that's why the debate gets really heated and at times almost resembles a war.
Man you are one crazy cat!!!
Its way beyond harware stuff.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #64 (permalink)  
Old 08-19-2010, 11:49 PM
Dirty Biker's Avatar
Bold As Love
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In a van, down by the river.
Age: 38
Posts: 378
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Heck I could run a 283 on diesel if I tried I bet, for that matter turpentine...

http://www.rexresearch.com/pantone/pantone.htm

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directo...y_Paul_Pantone

http://www.teslatech.info/ttstore/ar.../geet/geet.htm

Paul Pantone just got out of the looney bin a few monthes ago, been in there for several years, thinking outside the box too much I think. There's lots of stuff on youtube by people running all sorts of motors on all sorts of weird mixtures using this thing.. Claims nearly zero emmisions too..

I better not be too crazy tho, or get too many mpgs, or they might lock me away as well..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #65 (permalink)  
Old 08-20-2010, 12:28 AM
Mopar or no car.
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: WA
Age: 21
Posts: 34
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Biker
Heck I could run a 283 on diesel if I tried I bet, for that matter turpentine...

http://www.rexresearch.com/pantone/pantone.htm

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directo...y_Paul_Pantone

http://www.teslatech.info/ttstore/ar.../geet/geet.htm

Paul Pantone just got out of the looney bin a few monthes ago, been in there for several years, thinking outside the box too much I think. There's lots of stuff on youtube by people running all sorts of motors on all sorts of weird mixtures using this thing.. Claims nearly zero emmisions too..

I better not be too crazy tho, or get too many mpgs, or they might lock me away as well..
I'll belive it when i have a running one in my shop. Interesting idea, iirc the first "carbs" were just a thing that would vaporize a flamable liquid useing heat, i remember reading that type of carb was used on boardtrack motercycles in the old days.

***!?
Quote:
There are also some very unusual aspects of an engine running on a highly-tuned GEET reactor, in which the timing has to be changed because an implosion replaces the explosive event.

Last edited by TireTracks; 08-20-2010 at 12:33 AM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #66 (permalink)  
Old 08-20-2010, 07:50 AM
Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 466
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Biker
Then in your opinion Turbolover, In stock form which would the 400 small block be and which would the 283 be?

You continue to over simplify things. There's a lot more to it than displacement. smaller bores allow for better air, fuel and ignition control, but the 283 will have a higher percentage of parasitic losses. There's a lot of things that can come together to make the most of each one, HOWEVER if you consider using them in a rig such as yours then the load dictates a larger engine, as already noted by the fact all larger trucks come with larger sized engines.

I don't know what you're expecting from an sbc in this build but a carbed sbc is only going to give you about 12 MPG in this rig. If you really are after mileage its time to swap in a turbo diesel.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #67 (permalink)  
Old 08-20-2010, 01:53 PM
Dirty Biker's Avatar
Bold As Love
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In a van, down by the river.
Age: 38
Posts: 378
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I agree with the turbo diesel 100% Turbolover, thats what Im working towards. you said: "smaller bores allow for better air, fuel and ignition control, but the 283 will have a higher percentage of parasitic losses." Parasitic losses from what out of curiousity? Theres alot of factors involved, sure, but in stock form in your thoughts, which is a 400? more of a really efficient engine with low peak power or a really powerful but inefficient engine? What about the 283? In my mind they are kinda opposite right? How many ft/lbs of torque and how many horse power does a stock 400 make out of curiosity? Wiki says 265 horses, but doesnt mention torque or what rpm, it has to be pretty high I would think tho.

Just so we can fairly compare apples to apples here: This is the best one I could think of here-
I would think it would be like comparing a 267 to a chevy 265. A 265 has bigger bore shorter stroke, 3.75 bore and 3 inch stroke right? A 267 has small bore long stroke 3.5 inch bore and 3.48 stroke. Gm stopped making them both but for the sake of comparison.. Now there were no emmissions control in 1955-56 so we do not really know if the 265 would have passed or not in 1982.. but the 267 was phased out after the 1982 model year due to inability to conform to emission standards. Whats that mean? Unburned fuel coming out the tail pipe? Any ways, which one would make more low end power? My guess is the 265 torque peak would begin alot earlier in the rpm range, but the 265 would produce more total torque but do it later in the powerband. Now with the right cam and heads and no smog pumps and no catalytic converters who knows maybe the 267 could be a real thumper compared to a 265 but I kinda doubt it. Which one would be the best in my van going down the road at 4100 rpms? I dunno for sure because I didnt try yet but my money is on the 265 tho. If I can build the Chev 302 and get 336 hp@5500 rpm, 360 ft-lbs @4500 rpm I think that would be plenty. (Taken from http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/267-small-block-chevy-2817.html)

I love that article that cobalt posted on the 350 that gm shoulda made, it puts off 400 ft/lb of torque at 2400 rpm and probably lower, the scale doesnt start until 2400. That would be plenty for an rv! With that kind of torque it is not just a race car motor at all. Could be a great truck motor. I wish I had a 400 block and a buncha 100$ dollar bills, I might try that build up.

My point is, how much torque in ft/lbs do you guys think I need to drive a 7 ton motor home down the road? 300ft/lb enough? Wiki says 307 makes that. I could build a 307 or 327. Or do I need 400? How many ft/lb does my bone stock 454 make(so I have a reference)? Can't be much more than 400 can it? Keep in mind I have 5.13 gears and my 454 seems way ridiculously overpowered for a motorhome. Even with all my tools in my van, I can out accelerate my moms 1999 iron duke s10 when its empty up till about 40 mph, and the s10 runs just fine. I am not kidding at all. That first gear is low, the thing jumps when I hit the gas for such a big heavy thing..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #68 (permalink)  
Old 08-20-2010, 02:19 PM
Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 466
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Biker
I agree with the turbo diesel 100% Turbolover, thats what Im working towards. you said: "smaller bores allow for better air, fuel and ignition control, but the 283 will have a higher percentage of parasitic losses." Parasitic losses from what out of curiousity? Theres alot of factors involved, sure, but in stock form in your thoughts, which is a 400? more of a really efficient engine with low peak power or a really powerful but inefficient engine? What about the 283? In my mind they are kinda opposite right? How many ft/lbs of torque and how many horse power does a stock 400 make out of curiosity? Wiki says 265 horses, but doesnt mention torque or what rpm, it has to be pretty high I would think tho.

Just so we can fairly compare apples to apples here: This is the best one I could think of here-
I would think it would be like comparing a 267 to a chevy 265. A 265 has bigger bore shorter stroke, 3.75 bore and 3 inch stroke right? A 267 has small bore long stroke 3.5 inch bore and 3.48 stroke. Gm stopped making them both but for the sake of comparison.. Now there were no emmissions control in 1955-56 so we do not really know if the 265 would have passed or not in 1982.. but the 267 was phased out after the 1982 model year due to inability to conform to emission standards. Whats that mean? Unburned fuel coming out the tail pipe? Any ways, which one would make more low end power? My guess is the 265 torque peak would begin alot earlier in the rpm range, but the 265 would produce more total torque but do it later in the powerband. Now with the right cam and heads and no smog pumps and no catalytic converters who knows maybe the 267 could be a real thumper compared to a 265 but I kinda doubt it. Which one would be the best in my van going down the road at 4100 rpms? I dunno for sure because I didnt try yet but my money is on the 265 tho. If I can build the Chev 302 and get 336 hp@5500 rpm, 360 ft-lbs @4500 rpm I think that would be plenty. (Taken from http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/267-small-block-chevy-2817.html)

I love that article that cobalt posted on the 350 that gm shoulda made, it puts off 400 ft/lb of torque at 2400 rpm and probably lower, the scale doesnt start until 2400. That would be plenty for an rv! With that kind of torque it is not just a race car motor at all. Could be a great truck motor. I wish I had a 400 block and a buncha 100$ dollar bills, I might try that build up.

My point is, how much torque in ft/lbs do you guys think I need to drive a 7 ton motor home down the road? 300ft/lb enough? Wiki says 307 makes that. I could build a 307 or 327. Or do I need 400? How many ft/lb does my bone stock 454 make(so I have a reference)? Can't be much more than 400 can it? Keep in mind I have 5.13 gears and my 454 seems way ridiculously overpowered for a motorhome. Even with all my tools in my van, I can out accelerate my moms 1999 iron duke s10 when its empty up till about 40 mph, and the s10 runs just fine. I am not kidding at all. That first gear is low, the thing jumps when I hit the gas for such a big heavy thing..

you have made gross assumptions regarding the 265 and 267. I keep trying to tell you you are WAY over simplifying things and you're getting worse. Nothing is as simple as you think it is.

And forget about torque. Torque is relatively meaningless, its just used to sell magazines and diesel trucks. You need to calculate the amount of power you need, not torque. You can run that Van on a 4 banger strung out to 12,000 RPM and if its making the same power at 60mph as a 400 then they'll work just as well. If you're not willing to change your gears then you need to look at increasing your displacement to get your power up at a given RPM level.

on the 283 your parasitic losses will be about the same amount for a given RPM as your 400, the oiling, cooling, and accessories are all the same- your differing frictional losses on the piston rings for each engine are so close that its insignificant, and you're assuming it makes the most difference.

You're assuming the world is flat just because you can't see beyond the horizon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #69 (permalink)  
Old 08-20-2010, 02:55 PM
Dirty Biker's Avatar
Bold As Love
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In a van, down by the river.
Age: 38
Posts: 378
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
It says you are from Missouri, then you won't mind me asking you to SHOW ME what you mean when you say Im over simplifying things? Sorry couldn't help it..

I was just trying to compare two motors with the same displacement to compare the potential of each, rather than comparing a 283 to a 400. I appreciate you taking the time to talk with me turbolover, I wish I had some friends like you in real life. I had a good friend that was a certified gm cadillac mechanic and worked at the dealership in Missoula MT, when I lived out there and we would talk about this stuff for hours. You sound just like him, he would tell me the same things you do. I'm sorry if I act like a hard head when I don't fully understand, or that I argue, I am actually learning, it must be a part of my learning process. He really loved the northstar engines and he loved long duration cams. I don't understand the thinking on that, I like simple motors, and cam timing where the lobes don't overlap much... Dual overhead cam and four valves per cylinder on a v8 sounds like a nightmare to me but he is a really smart guy. Go figure.

267 would let you run a crazy cam with all that engine vacuum it could produce with the shorter rods, a 265 would require a much different stratedgy to get the power out of it. I dont need more power tho at any rpm range now, I just think my motor wouldn't last that long if I keep taking road trips at 4100 rpms with the 454. I could get a cam for it that would make the torque peak come in at 3800 rpms and get some good headers. That is the sane thing to do. Am I right? I run more ignition advance around town, and retard the timing when I am cruising at 70, it makes the motor feel more relaxed. I can do it on the fly in this van theres a little door I can open while driving and turn the distributor by hand until it feels just right, I get a solid 9mpg and have tons of power except on the biggest mountains. I wish I had egt gauges and wide band o2 sensor gauge and a cable hooked up to turn the distributor while Im driving like model T trucks had long ago.

You said forget about torque? what about all the suggestions to build a 383 because of the torque? Torque is the twisting force of an engine, and multiplied somehow by the rpm is horsepower correct? Most of the time I need much less power than I use in this 454 tho. Around town, pulling lawn trailer, etc.. And I dont think it takes much power to keep it moving on flat land with no head wind, what 50 horsepower? But it seems turning that giant air pump 454 over at 4100 rpms even with high vacuuum readings is still burning more fuel than a smaller motor would. Am I wrong on that? Why did cadillac come out with that motor that turns off cylinders to get better gas mileage?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #70 (permalink)  
Old 08-20-2010, 03:12 PM
Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 466
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
If you want mileage instead of blowing your money on a rod theory that leads to nowhere spend it on rebuilding the 454 you have and a gear swap. 4000 RPM is high to be cruising and a gear swap could knock that down to 3000 or so. If you do a good rebuild on the 454 you could end up with more power at 3000 RPM then you have now at 4000 RPM.

People who talk about torque don't realize what actually moves the car- power. All of this talk about the 302 keeps making me and many others assume you already have a sbc in there when really you have a BBC.

There are people clicking off 20+MPG with Cadillac 500's- s displacement isn't the problem. The problem is your load- its a LOT.

Really, loaded down to maintain 70 MPH you're probably looking at around 150hp, not 50. 50hp will keep a VW bug with a manual moving at about 80 MPH, you're a lot bigger and heavier.

Forget about chasing after small displacement sbc's. rebuild the 454 you have or go to a 496, or to a turbo diesel. and then do a gear swap or better yet swap to an OD trans.

All of these things have already been suggested and they are the best course of action, not some silly rod theory.

Rods do make a difference, but it is FAR less than what you seem to think it is, and longer is NOT always better. In reality, a shorter rod in the right situation could increase mileage, but it would still be slight (not even a half of a mpg).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #71 (permalink)  
Old 08-20-2010, 03:54 PM
Dirty Biker's Avatar
Bold As Love
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In a van, down by the river.
Age: 38
Posts: 378
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Turbolover you said: "If you want mileage instead of blowing your money on a rod theory that leads to nowhere spend it on rebuilding the 454 you have and a gear swap. 4000 RPM is high to be cruising and a gear swap could knock that down to 3000 or so. If you do a good rebuild on the 454 you could end up with more power at 3000 RPM then you have now at 4000 RPM."

4000 rpm is not high for a 302, hence the aguement but anyways..

My 454 is almost new, it is a gm factory replacement motor, I found the tag on the driverside of the block. It is already .060 over too. It doesnt smoke tho and has equal compression on all the cylinders, the spark plugs look great, the oil pressure is high. Btw, my motor DOES make more power at 3000 rpm than at 4000 rpm. My van is happiest at 42 mph, I could pull a house up a mountain with a trailer with three flat tires. You didn't anwer my "Wouldn't a cam that made my torque peak at 3800 instead of 1800 rpms be better" cam question. Or the cadilac "Why do they turn off cylinders question to get better gas mileage" question. The cadillac idea was dumb for gm granted, maybe it worked maybe not but they sure seemed to think it was worth spending millions on.

Also you said:
"People who talk about torque don't realize what actually moves the car- power."

You mean like horsepower? No offense Turbolover, but I think you have that backwards.

The 454 is not the problem. The rear end is the problem, or not having overdrive is.

I think it would cost 600$ to change the rear end, thats about the same as I could get a overdrive tranny, only the tranny route I could sell my th400 to recoup a little money. Its 6 in one hand, half a dozen in the other.

I want to build a high winding motor because I think they are cool, if you can't tell I am a high winding kinda person... Er.. I am kinda wound up that is...
I will just keep it until I get something to put it in. Cool hobby huh? I can just drive my van (and not spend any money on it) until I trade it for something better. I think I may stick the 350 sbc from my suburban in there before I do tho, since so many people like 454 motors on craiglist I could get 700 bucks or more...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #72 (permalink)  
Old 08-20-2010, 03:59 PM
Dirty Biker's Avatar
Bold As Love
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In a van, down by the river.
Age: 38
Posts: 378
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Oh yeah, I never met one single person to get 20+ mpg in a big old 70's or 80's cadillac with any motor especially a 500 cube motor..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #73 (permalink)  
Old 08-20-2010, 04:18 PM
ericnova72's Avatar
More for Less Racer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: S.W. Lower Michigan
Age: 47
Posts: 9,629
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 41
Thanked 540 Times in 489 Posts
Maybe I can put this in terms you might have a better grasp on...Would you expect a 100cc engine turning 8000 rpm to get better mileage than your 750cc turning 3000rpm, in the same bike you have, with you. your girl, and your dog loaded on?? And still have the same get up and go that the 750 has, or the same ability to handle hills??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #74 (permalink)  
Old 08-20-2010, 04:39 PM
Dirty Biker's Avatar
Bold As Love
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In a van, down by the river.
Age: 38
Posts: 378
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
No that particular anaolgy makes sense in a way, except that a 750cc is seven and a half times bigger than a 100cc. My 454 is less than twice as big as a 302. But I would expect a honda cx 500 to get much better gas mileage than a kawasaki 900. A cx 500 cruises at 8000 and redline at 12k rpm btw, on my cross country tour on one I got about 55 mpg loaded to the hilt with a shopping cart basket welded to the frame behind my seat with cast iron skillets and camp stoves and tents and clothes... etc.... At 80 mph the tach is at 8200 rpm, no overdrive. It was a 10,000 mile trip and took three months. I never had a single issue with it, what I great motorcycle a cx500 is!! Honda tested them at the factory during there design by running them at 10,000 rpm for month straight hooked to a dynometer. It is another long rod motor tho.. You guys probably don't wanna hear that I know.. My gt750 suzuki gets 20 mpg btw, its a two stroke, they are happiest running rich. Not a really the best designed motor on the gt750, but a cool motor just the same... Harley guys respect em too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #75 (permalink)  
Old 08-20-2010, 04:54 PM
topwrench's Avatar
Registered User
 

Last journal entry: fish carb
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: lillian al.
Age: 67
Posts: 290
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Its getting to be funny, and guys keep answering you, you play a good game!

Nahh, I was gonna make a comment on how power is measured on a dyno,but dont think I will...
Anyway if we all forgot about torque, all we would have left is horsepower
And just what is the description of horsepower?
C'mon say it,I bet u dont know it.
I guess we can forget about b.m.e.p. too if we are going to forget about torque!!!!

Last edited by topwrench; 08-20-2010 at 05:04 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Recent Engine posts with photos

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.