DOHC Debate - 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
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 09-12-2012, 04:56 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 136
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
DOHC Debate

i was told that an oversquare motor that was meant to run at high rpm would be better off with a 2 valve head as opposed to a 3 or 4. i never really delt with many DOHC motors especially for a somewhat high-performance build, and didnt quite understand this. He said that the way the air flowed over the valves that the piston speed would be reduced. Any experienced cylinder head people out there, looking for some input from actual builders or very knowledgable people.

    Advertisement
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 09-12-2012, 05:01 PM
How fast is fast enough?
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: St. Louis, MO
Age: 29
Posts: 9,476
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 20
Thanked 385 Times in 361 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by birkey View Post
i was told that an oversquare motor that was meant to run at high rpm would be better off with a 2 valve head as opposed to a 3 or 4. i never really delt with many DOHC motors especially for a somewhat high-performance build, and didnt quite understand this. He said that the way the air flowed over the valves that the piston speed would be reduced. Any experienced cylinder head people out there, looking for some input from actual builders or very knowledgable people.

you were fed a overloaded truck full of horse ****.

"oversquare" has nothing to do with RPM and the valve number and/or location has NOTHING to do with piston speed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 09-12-2012, 05:06 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 136
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
I guess I shouldn't have said oversquare specifically just a motor that turns good rpm
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 09-12-2012, 06:39 PM
S10 Racer's Avatar
http://www.warsprints.com
 

Last journal entry: W.A.R. (Wingless Auto Racing) Sprint Car Racing
Last photo:
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: At The Dirt Tracks
Age: 55
Posts: 1,938
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 4
Thanked 74 Times in 66 Posts
If you look at a motorcycle such as a GSXR 600 which is a DOHC engine, those engines redline at 16,000 RPM. I don't think you would get that out of a SOHC engine. The only other type I can think of would be a reed valve engine for high RPM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 09-12-2012, 06:54 PM
How fast is fast enough?
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: St. Louis, MO
Age: 29
Posts: 9,476
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 20
Thanked 385 Times in 361 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by S10 Racer View Post
If you look at a motorcycle such as a GSXR 600 which is a DOHC engine, those engines redline at 16,000 RPM. I don't think you would get that out of a SOHC engine. The only other type I can think of would be a reed valve engine for high RPM.
there's a lot more to it than the number of cams. BUT a lighter valvetrain is part of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 09-12-2012, 08:02 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 136
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Now it is better to have more smaller valves rather than one big one right?? Or do motorcycles use multiple valves to utilize space. I realize that you can have more valve surface area with multiple as opposed to one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 09-12-2012, 08:22 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 7,078
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 4
Thanked 535 Times in 452 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by birkey View Post
i was told that an oversquare motor that was meant to run at high rpm would be better off with a 2 valve head as opposed to a 3 or 4. i never really delt with many DOHC motors especially for a somewhat high-performance build, and didnt quite understand this. He said that the way the air flowed over the valves that the piston speed would be reduced. Any experienced cylinder head people out there, looking for some input from actual builders or very knowledgable people.
Piston speed is not dependent upon how the valves are operated. Piston speed as a ratio of RPM is lower with a short stroke crankshaft (over square). It is higher with a long stroke crankshaft (under square); the bore in either case being adjusted from bigger than the stoke to smaller to maintain a given total displacement. In any and all cases, the piston speed changes based upon the crankshaft's position in degrees of rotation. The piston speed is also sensitive to the length of the connecting rod from the throw to the pin centers. The crankshaft and rod open and close a set of lines that go from straight through the pin, rod and crank throw when the crank is at the top and bottom of its stroke to these same parts opening a set of triangles starting from the top an Acute that arrives at a Right triangle when the crank is half way down its stroke. From there it becomes an Obtuse triangle as it recloses toward a straight line at the bottom of the stroke. This sequence is reversed when the piston is rising from the bottom. There are fairly complex mathematics for computing the piston's position and velocity based upon degrees of crankshaft rotation and the length of stroke and rod centers. Generally in reading the piston speed is given as an average in feet per second, but it varies wildly from that in the specific locations between. This same math becomes the basis of calculating the performance difference between long and short rods and is a major part of the calculation of the Dynamic Compression Ratio (DCR) which is used to adjust the compression ratio for the point where the intake valve closes in crankshaft degrees which makes the stroke appear shorter to the engine than it physically measures.

Generally a short stroke, large bore engine will rev higher, often much higher than an equivalently sized long stroke engine. The problem of higher revs is finding the time to fill the cylinders. Since time becomes so critical, the valve movement must become more precise to use all the duration (which is really a time function) available as quickly as possible. Along with that is to use as much port and valve area and volume as possible in that period of time. To do that efficiently and effectively is a difficult problem for the cam in block, push rod operated valve train. The masses of the lifter, push rod, rocker along with their tendency to deflect and bend under the acceleration rates and forces make it difficult to support an ultra high speed engine. Although the sprint and cup cars have pushed that upper end a long way in my life time. There was a time not so long ago that 6000 RPM NASCAR engines were at the edge of push rod valve train technology. Today that's moving beyond 10,000 RPM.

However historically, the simpler approach to breathing at high RPMs has been with overhead cams and multiple smaller sized valves. The Single Over Head Cam (SOHC) can operate valves in a row with direct action of the lobe running a cam follower that acts directly on the valve stem. This reduces the masses and part deflections of a cam in block but makes a taller in line engine and a bit wider with a more complicated cam drive system in a Vee engine. The SOHC can be used to operate multiple valves of a Hemi or Pent chambered head but now a rocker arm has to be introduced which increases masses and deflections again, not as bad as with push rods but it does become a high rev limiting factor and is a fairly expensive solution without quite enough benefit.

The DOHC design allows the direct valve actuation of a cam follower acting between the valve and lobe for an engine with multiple valves in a Hemi or Pent shaped combustion chamber. For extreme RPMs this buys the precision and amounts of lift needed in very short time periods to support running at those RPMs and having some power to show for it. The price to be paid beyond the fact these tend to be pricey designs is width, this isn't too bad with an inline, but it sure makes Vee engines very wide.

Motorcycle engines are more akin to Formula 1 car engines in that they need to be small and light, they don't need a lot of torque as the vehicle is also quite light but they need a lot of top end horsepower for speed and acceleration. Overhead cam engines in this application are highly effective when geared properly.

For full sized cars and trucks a lot of torque is needed to get the substantial weight moving, and while some driving may be moderately fast most isn't so high power at high revs isn't needed but space and cost is usually a premium so a cam in block operating the valves with pushrods and rocker arms is the less costly more space efficient solution. One could make a good argument that the Ford modular engine with multiple valves and overhead cams is largely wasted engineering that serves no purpose between home and grocery store. The Europeans went that route to try and extract adequate power from small engines that were taxed based upon their displacement. So the way they went to minimize the tax impact was to make small high revving engines. I rather think the Japanese and other Asian imports are impacted by that as well. While all the imports now suffer from overhead cams of some sort mostly as an advertising claim that makes it look like they do unusually great engineering compared to Detroit's offerings.

When it comes to the latest generation of engines from Detroit I'm impressed with everybody's offerings for vastly different reasons:

- The GM LS is an amazing clean sheet engineering effort. The cam in block is very cost, space and weight efficient and is a proper level of engineering consistent with its end use so the consumer isn't paying for rocket science they have no way of using. The bottom end is excellently done, for once with aluminum; the engineers showed an understanding of the material instead of treating like cast iron which when done in the past had proven to be a failure for everybody so many times. GM showed us what can be done when you understand the technologies involved, the market target, and have an unlimited budget.

- The folks at Ford with the modular's history of 2 valve, 3 valve, 4 valve and back again show just how schizophrenia Ford can be. The overhead cams are a waste, in my opinion, as are the multiple valves as it makes an expensive, wide motor that's hard to fit in smaller chassis with more design level Rocket Science than is needed by the application. Don't get me wrong it's a nice motor but getting it to where it is today took a lot of pain then finally my old buddy Alan Mullay to get their engineering act together. Ford showed us what happens with management that didn't function either technically or fiscally.

- Chrysler; what can you say? They've been running on grandma's make do budget for so long that if nothing else they have learned to make a sows ear into a silk purse. The gestation of the Magnum from the herky-jerky LA block is a sight to behold. Again a cam in block application aimed right at its market place, a space and cost efficient design. Chrysler showed us how you can take an almost good, but never quite right design and with a moderate investment correct the deficiencies to make it into the outstanding product it should have been.

Sorry for the length but this stuff doesn't lend itself to "sound bite" answers and this barely scratches the surface.

Bogie
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to oldbogie For This Useful Post:
AutoGear (09-13-2012), Mr. BBQ (09-15-2012)
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 09-12-2012, 08:36 PM
How fast is fast enough?
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: St. Louis, MO
Age: 29
Posts: 9,476
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 20
Thanked 385 Times in 361 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldbogie View Post
Piston speed is not dependent upon how the valves are operated. Piston speed as a ratio of RPM is lower with a short stroke crankshaft (over square). It is higher with a long stroke crankshaft (under square); the bore in either case being adjusted from bigger than the stoke to smaller to maintain a given total displacement. In any and all cases, the piston speed changes based upon the crankshaft's position in degrees of rotation. The piston speed is also sensitive to the length of the connecting rod from the throw to the pin centers. The crankshaft and rod open and close a set of lines that go from straight through the pin, rod and crank throw when the crank is at the top and bottom of its stroke to these same parts opening a set of triangles starting from the top an Acute that arrives at a Right triangle when the crank is half way down its stroke. From there it becomes an Obtuse triangle as it recloses toward a straight line at the bottom of the stroke. This sequence is reversed when the piston is rising from the bottom. There are fairly complex mathematics for computing the piston's position and velocity based upon degrees of crankshaft rotation and the length of stroke and rod centers. Generally in reading the piston speed is given as an average in feet per second, but it varies wildly from that in the specific locations between. This same math becomes the basis of calculating the performance difference between long and short rods and is a major part of the calculation of the Dynamic Compression Ratio (DCR) which is used to adjust the compression ratio for the point where the intake valve closes in crankshaft degrees which makes the stroke appear shorter to the engine than it physically measures.

Generally a short stroke, large bore engine will rev higher, often much higher than an equivalently sized long stroke engine. The problem of higher revs is finding the time to fill the cylinders. Since time becomes so critical, the valve movement must become more precise to use all the duration (which is really a time function) available as quickly as possible. Along with that is to use as much port and valve area and volume as possible in that period of time. To do that efficiently and effectively is a difficult problem for the cam in block, push rod operated valve train. The masses of the lifter, push rod, rocker along with their tendency to deflect and bend under the acceleration rates and forces make it difficult to support an ultra high speed engine. Although the sprint and cup cars have pushed that upper end a long way in my life time. There was a time not so long ago that 6000 RPM NASCAR engines were at the edge of push rod valve train technology. Today that's moving beyond 10,000 RPM.

However historically, the simpler approach to breathing at high RPMs has been with overhead cams and multiple smaller sized valves. The Single Over Head Cam (SOHC) can operate valves in a row with direct action of the lobe running a cam follower that acts directly on the valve stem. This reduces the masses and part deflections of a cam in block but makes a taller in line engine and a bit wider with a more complicated cam drive system in a Vee engine. The SOHC can be used to operate multiple valves of a Hemi or Pent chambered head but now a rocker arm has to be introduced which increases masses and deflections again, not as bad as with push rods but it does become a high rev limiting factor and is a fairly expensive solution without quite enough benefit.

The DOHC design allows the direct valve actuation of a cam follower acting between the valve and lobe for an engine with multiple valves in a Hemi or Pent shaped combustion chamber. For extreme RPMs this buys the precision and amounts of lift needed in very short time periods to support running at those RPMs and having some power to show for it. The price to be paid beyond the fact these tend to be pricey designs is width, this isn't too bad with an inline, but it sure makes Vee engines very wide.

Motorcycle engines are more akin to Formula 1 car engines in that they need to be small and light, they don't need a lot of torque as the vehicle is also quite light but they need a lot of top end horsepower for speed and acceleration. Overhead cam engines in this application are highly effective when geared properly.

For full sized cars and trucks a lot of torque is needed to get the substantial weight moving, and while some driving may be moderately fast most isn't so high power at high revs isn't needed but space and cost is usually a premium so a cam in block operating the valves with pushrods and rocker arms is the less costly more space efficient solution. One could make a good argument that the Ford modular engine with multiple valves and overhead cams is largely wasted engineering that serves no purpose between home and grocery store. The Europeans went that route to try and extract adequate power from small engines that were taxed based upon their displacement. So the way they went to minimize the tax impact was to make small high revving engines. I rather think the Japanese and other Asian imports are impacted by that as well. While all the imports now suffer from overhead cams of some sort mostly as an advertising claim that makes it look like they do unusually great engineering compared to Detroit's offerings.

When it comes to the latest generation of engines from Detroit I'm impressed with everybody's offerings for vastly different reasons:

- The GM LS is an amazing clean sheet engineering effort. The cam in block is very cost, space and weight efficient and is a proper level of engineering consistent with its end use so the consumer isn't paying for rocket science they have no way of using. The bottom end is excellently done, for once with aluminum; the engineers showed an understanding of the material instead of treating like cast iron which when done in the past had proven to be a failure for everybody so many times. GM showed us what can be done when you understand the technologies involved, the market target, and have an unlimited budget.

- The folks at Ford with the modular's history of 2 valve, 3 valve, 4 valve and back again show just how schizophrenia Ford can be. The overhead cams are a waste, in my opinion, as are the multiple valves as it makes an expensive, wide motor that's hard to fit in smaller chassis with more design level Rocket Science than is needed by the application. Don't get me wrong it's a nice motor but getting it to where it is today took a lot of pain then finally my old buddy Alan Mullay to get their engineering act together. Ford showed us what happens with management that didn't function either technically or fiscally.

- Chrysler; what can you say? They've been running on grandma's make do budget for so long that if nothing else they have learned to make a sows ear into a silk purse. The gestation of the Magnum from the herky-jerky LA block is a sight to behold. Again a cam in block application aimed right at its market place, a space and cost efficient design. Chrysler showed us how you can take an almost good, but never quite right design and with a moderate investment correct the deficiencies to make it into the outstanding product it should have been.

Sorry for the length but this stuff doesn't lend itself to "sound bite" answers and this barely scratches the surface.

Bogie
JMO, but the new hemi (especially the latest version) is a damn fine engine and in many ways superior to the LS engine. I'm with ya on the Ford though, the new Boss engine is really neat, but impractical.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 09-12-2012, 08:42 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 7,078
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 4
Thanked 535 Times in 452 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ap72 View Post
JMO, but the new hemi (especially the latest version) is a damn fine engine and in many ways superior to the LS engine. I'm with ya on the Ford though, the new Boss engine is really neat, but impractical.
AP72, love the new hemi and the Boss, but just how long do you want me to write? I already exceeded the attention span of 99% of the population.

Anyway I'm closing out of here it's late, the sun goes down a lot earlier than it did even a couple days ago.

Bogie
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 09-12-2012, 08:50 PM
spinn's Avatar
Reviewing the situation
 

Last journal entry: This makes a huge difference
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: here
Posts: 2,555
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 14
Thanked 88 Times in 85 Posts
Bogie, that is textbook perfect and a nice read. Good job.

My addition/simplification would be you cannot valve float a over head dohc/sohc engine. Conventionally speaking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 09-12-2012, 09:38 PM
How fast is fast enough?
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: St. Louis, MO
Age: 29
Posts: 9,476
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 20
Thanked 385 Times in 361 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by spinn View Post
Bogie, that is textbook perfect and a nice read. Good job.

My addition/simplification would be you cannot valve float a over head dohc/sohc engine. Conventionally speaking.
the hell you can't. You can float them very easily if you push it.

A lack of pushrod and lifter simplify things but confined space and a required valve tip height make things harder too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 09-12-2012, 09:54 PM
spinn's Avatar
Reviewing the situation
 

Last journal entry: This makes a huge difference
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: here
Posts: 2,555
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 14
Thanked 88 Times in 85 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ap72 View Post
the hell you can't. You can float them very easily if you push it.

A lack of pushrod and lifter simplify things but confined space and a required valve tip height make things harder too.
Very easily. What the hell is that? It is pretty hard to do.

You need a for instance to back that up. You quoted me as conventionally speaking , so please stay in context.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2012, 07:31 AM
How fast is fast enough?
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: St. Louis, MO
Age: 29
Posts: 9,476
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 20
Thanked 385 Times in 361 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by spinn View Post
Very easily. What the hell is that? It is pretty hard to do.

You need a for instance to back that up. You quoted me as conventionally speaking , so please stay in context.
You need a for instance? Ask the guys who race L28 datsun engines or 2.3L Ford engines how high they can rev their engines with stock springs on an aftermarket cam. Both engines have been raced somewhat regularly and have a cult following with hundreds of guys (admittedly less for the Datsun stuff) that need to upgrade their springs so they can get the rpm out of then engine they're looking for.

I use those two examples because I have them both in my driveway.

Another two examples of bucket followers on a DOHC set up would be the Ford Zetec engine when it is raced (again more often than you'd think) and the Ford 4.6/5.4L engines (which is very common).

To float a valve you just need a valve that cannot be controlled by the spring, increase the demands on the spring and that is pretty easy to do with oem springs which are designed to be just good enough for a stock application and produced at minimal cost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2012, 08:23 AM
Registered User
 
Last wiki edit: General Motors transmissions Last photo:
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: near Yellowstone park
Posts: 4,459
Wiki Edits: 27

Thanks: 13
Thanked 284 Times in 264 Posts
Bore VS Stroke

Then you can get into the discussion of Bore VS stroke and rod length for the same displacement, the amount of Harmonic inbalance, since the piston moves farther in the top 180 degrees of crankshaft rotation than it does in the bottom 180, and where the piston is in relation to the maaximun combustion pressure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2012, 08:58 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Virginia
Posts: 705
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 75 Times in 75 Posts
Very good tutorial, Bogie. I'd like to add a couple things.

The term you're searching for to describe the piston performance is "mean piston speed". That is, the AVERAGE speed of the piston as affected by RPM. The variations through the stroke's range and resulting rod angles are certainly part of it, but we use the MPS as a guideline for max "cruise" speed of a given combination, and assess wear factors based on that.

Bore/stroke ratio has little or nothing to do with overall performance or rev capability, except where port function is affected by "shrouding" the valves. The 2.3 and 2.4 "Quad-4" engines are the example. The 2.3 has a larger bore and shorter stroke than 2.4. Yet, 2.4 will rev as well or better, and make more power doing it (all things left "stock").

ANY and ALL hydraulically operated valves, whether OHV or OHC, are subject to valve "float" when oil pressure overrides spring pressure. Even "solids" will "float" if RPM exceeds the spring's ability to keep the follower (whatever type) in contact with the cam.

The purpose for multi-valve heads are two-fold. Mixture velocity is much higher in two "smaller" ports than one large one, "filling" the cylinder much better at lower engine speeds. The cross-sectional area of two smaller valves usually is more than that of a single larger valve, allowing more volume to flow, giving better upper RPM performance. Once certain "lines" are crossed, it becomes a case of "diminishing returns". Most higher rev race engines of larger displacements work better with a larger single valve.

In short, there are many ways to "skin this cat", and they all have advantages and disadvantages. Can't argue with the performance and torque the LS engines make. BTW, the modern "Hemi" isn't. That is, the chamber is NOT a hemisphere. It's a modified "oval", and partially closed on the sides for "quench". A decent engine, I wouldn't say it's in a class with the higher level LS engines. Very few "stock" V8s make the kind of power and efficiency the LS can make. I know of a couple "392 Hemi" (the late model "crater") powered racers and they're not competitive, time-wise, with the LSx crowd. Could, of course, be factors outside the engine's ability making the cars quicker/slower. And by sheer volume, LSx enjoys a big aftermarket developement "support" not matched for either the Ford or the Dodge. Though, we're currently working on a version of the 5.4 "modular" for racing that shows promise. I'm looking forward to "playing" with aluminum blocks. This old iron is great for power and longevity, but it makes my back ache...(:-

FWIW

Jim
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Mr. P-Body For This Useful Post:
Mr. BBQ (09-15-2012)

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Questions on the Ford 4.6 DOHC and 5.4 DOHC Nightfire Hotrodding Basics 21 09-25-2011 07:15 PM
4.6 Dohc judomutt Hotrodding Basics 0 06-27-2010 08:03 PM
4.6 DOHC In A 32: Anyone Did/Doing It 345 desoto Engine 13 12-19-2008 09:03 AM
debate rat_guerue Hotrodders' Lounge 2 10-08-2004 09:25 PM
5.7L V8 DOHC D M N Body - Exterior 0 03-17-2003 05:10 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:36 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.