 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Cars / November 2006Today's cars as tall as those in '48
Turner Classic Movies is showing the old cinema serial, "Superman". It was produced in 1948 in 15 chapters. Starred Kirk Alyn and Noel Neil. Very entertaining and I recommend it. What's remarkable are the old sedans. You'll see a gangster Lincoln in many scenes and what looks like a Dodge? coupe whenever Lois Lane or Jimmy Olsen goes anywhere. The actors often stand along side these vehicles, which tower over most of them. Cars were very tall in those days. All through the 50's, 60's, and 70's passenger vehicles got longer and lower. It was highly advertised in those days that long and low was an improvement, not only in style, but also in performance (as in maneuvering). So what do we see in most of today's models, particularly SUV and crossovers? Very tall cars, not one iota better than those late 40's cars mentioned. The elevated cars today are definitely a throwback. They're retrograde. They're stupid. The public knows they're stupid and unsafe because tall cars, especially since most are more narrow than those 40's cars are less stable than than those 40's models. Taller means more prone to rolling over on their sides and tops and killing their occupants dead. The fact that most newer cars are being equipped with optional electronic stability features is indicitive of there being something intrisically wrong with them. A proper car does not need stability control because it is naturally stable. You won't find stability control in a Humvee because it's stable even though its tall, but very wide to compensate. You won't find stability control in an Impala because its stable naturally because its low. But, all those tip over prone sport utility vehicles are being pushed with stability control because they're naturally unstable because they're tall and narrow and need all the help they can get to stay upright. Trouble is stability control cannot defeat the laws of nature and is nothing more than a Mickey Mouse setup. Don't buy any car that has stability control because those cars are death traps. If you buy one, your're stupid, stupid, stupid. If everybody would get smart and stop buying these stupid SUVs, crossovers and pickup trucks unless your business absolutely requires that type for one reason or another, the makers would wise up and build good, safe cars like they used to, low and wide. If you forget what I tell you, you will recall it when you are laying in your hospital bed racked with pain, bankrupt from the bill, after your stupid SUV flips. "George Orwell" <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in >..So what do we see in most of today's models, particularly > SUV and crossovers? Very tall cars, not one iota better than those late > 40's cars mentioned. Today's vehicles are vastly superior to 1940s cars, particularly in safety. >... The fact that most newer cars are being equipped with optional >electronic stability > features is indicitive of there being something intrisically wrong with > them. A proper car does not need stability control because it is > naturally > stable. Many upscale sports sedans have some form of stability control and there's no safer cars on the road. Safety has many factors, rollover is only one of them. Minivans have low accident rates, in spite of being tall. Why? The way they are driven. > Safety has many factors, rollover is only one of them. Minivans have low > accident rates, in spite of being tall. Why? The way they are driven. Minivans also have a much lower center of gravity than do body-on-frame SUVs and are much less prone to roll-over. Rollover propensity is particularly bad when you combine high center of gravity, short wheelbase and big high-aspect ratio tires. See Ford Explorer for an example. Minivans do not have these characteristics and are much more difficult to roll. It isn't just the drivers. I personally know two people who have rolled their Explorers, and they are both conservative driving mature people. In both cases a small problem became a big problem when the vehicle flipped itself over by pivoting on the front wheel. In one case it was contact with a curb at about 30 MPH in the rain and in the other case a wheel got caught in a ditch in the rain. In neither case would a sedan or a minivan have flipped over. The Chevy Tahoe shares similar dynamics and the little frame type SUVs like Trackers, etc. are even worse. John > Minivans also have a much lower center of gravity than do body-on-frame > SUVs and are much less prone to roll-over. Rollover propensity is > particularly bad when you combine high center of gravity, short > wheelbase and big high-aspect ratio tires. See Ford Explorer for an > example. Minivans do not have these characteristics and are much more > difficult to roll. It isn't just the drivers. So true, we get a chance to observe this every winter driving to our ski hills. I've never seen a Van rolled, but some of them aren't the greatest at cornering so slide into the ditch. Mostly large SUVs and some pickups often slide to our huge ditches and flip over on the roof. Some like the Bronco swap ends when braking; too short a wheel base. We just chug by in our mid sized car which is extremely stable in slippery conditions. Seldom is a mid sized or larger car in the ditch and if they do slide there they are still on their wheels sitting on the ditch slope. It will be interesting to see how the new cross overs fare. > > Minivans also have a much lower center of gravity than do body-on-frame > > SUVs and are much less prone to roll-over. Rollover propensity is [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Seldom is a mid sized or larger car in the ditch and if they do slide > there they are still on their wheels sitting on the ditch slope. I don't believe what you say completely, but I do believe it is true to a point. It is though, just an underscore of the point that it's more about the driver than the vehicle. Likely you - as a driver who just "chugs along", would have no more problems in any of the vehicles mentioned than you do in your mid-sized car.  Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net Actually the center of gravity is near the centerline of the drive train. The difference is in only inches among all types of cars and light trucks. Six wheelers on the other hand have a centerline six or more inches higher than can cars or light trucks. Why does one not see them rolled over on a daily basis? LOL mike >> Safety has many factors, rollover is only one of them. Minivans have low >> accident rates, in spite of being tall. Why? The way they are driven. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > John > Actually the center of gravity is near the centerline of the drive train. > The difference is in only inches among all types of cars and light trucks. > Six wheelers on the other hand have a centerline six or more inches higher > than can cars or light trucks. Why does one not see them rolled over on a > daily basis? They do roll if driven too fast on corners when heavily loaded, a common occurrence here. Ya right mike >> Actually the center of gravity is near the centerline of the drive train. >> The difference is in only inches among all types of cars and light [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > They do roll if driven too fast on corners when heavily loaded, a common > occurrence here. "George Orwell" <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in message > Don't buy any car that has stability control because > those cars are death traps. If you buy one, your're stupid, stupid, > stupid. Count me in. My new car has stability control. It also handles better on curving roads than most others I've had. While the stability control has not kicked in, it may some day make the difference between avoiding another car (such as a rolling over SUV) or ending up in an accident. Yes, for rmost people SUVs are dumb, but modern technology is good for any model. > My new car has stability control. It also handles better on > curving roads than most others I've had. While the stability control has > not kicked in, it may some day make the difference between avoiding another > car (such as a rolling over SUV) or ending up in an accident. > > Yes, for rmost people SUVs are dumb, but modern technology is good for any model. Mine does also, but I wonder how safe it is. For example, a child darts out into the street and I swerve hard to avoid hitting it. Will the stability control allow me to swerve, or will it take control and steer on it's own right into the child??? Bob Now here's a major misconception... Even with Interactive Vehicle Dynamics, it will still be quite easy to do something stupid enough to kill yourself. These types of systems do not allow the operator to abdicate common sense nor the laws of physics.... While they are quite advanced, these systems cannot "steer" the vehicle.... Through the Active Brake Booster, they can apply the brakes, through the ABS system, they can modulate brake fluid pressure to the individual wheels and they can limit engine torque production..... These actions will only ever "help" the operator retain control of the vehicle. While one car may have better "survivability" than another, there are no cars currently being built that can stop stupidity..... Cars don't cause accidents unless they are neglected to the point of being dangerous (and there are more of those out there than most realize).... people cause accidents (and , I suppose in the case of the neglected car, it is people that are the root cause there, as well). Driving is a privelige, not a "right"... as responsible adults it is important for us to realize the limits of our talents and abilities as well as the limitations of our vehicles. You are kidding , right? ;) mike hunt >> My new car has stability control. It also handles better on >> curving roads than most others I've had. While the stability control has [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Bob > You are kidding , right? ;) > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> Will the stability control allow me to swerve, or will it take >> control and steer on it's own right into the child??? Let's get this straight, you havent TESTED the feature? When you got your first car with ABS, bet you didnt test it, either. What about driving in snow... did you ever do do-nuts in some deserted parking lot to see how the tires and car handled? If the answer to all the above is no... then I wonder if you would be so kind as to post your location, so we can pinpoint at least ONE dumbass to look out for on the road. SignatureYeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price you pay..DEAL with it! TEST ABS? Hell I helped in the design of ABS at Ford ;) mike >> You are kidding , right? ;) >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > kind as to post your location, so we can pinpoint at least ONE dumbass to > look out for on the road. > Let's get this straight, you havent TESTED the feature? Hell no! Do you expect me to take my new vehicle and put it into a situation where it's known to roll over? Not me bud!! I can imagine trying to explain that to the insurance company. > When you got your first car with ABS, bet you didnt test it, either. Yep, easy to test without risk to the vehicle. > What about driving in snow... did you ever do do-nuts in some deserted > parking lot to see how the tires and car handled? Snow? What's that? I only see it on TV. Bob > Count me in. My new car has stability control. It also handles > better on curving roads than most others I've had. While the > stability control has not kicked in, it may some day make the > difference between avoiding another car (such as a rolling over SUV) > or ending up in an accident. Do you have any snow on the roads yet? If so, take your car out to an empty parking lot and start throwing it around....you'll get the stability control to come on. Since I road test cars with stab control pretty much every day, I get a chance to see how they react. Very dummy proof for the most part. Ian > Do you have any snow on the roads yet? If so, take your car out to > an empty parking lot and start throwing it around....you'll get the > stability control to come on. Since I road test cars with stab control > pretty much every day, I get a chance to see how they react. Very > dummy proof for the most part. I'm looking forward to trying it. Serious snow is 4 to 6 weeks away. We have plenty of open space in the parking lot at our warehouse at work. > All through the 50's, 60's, and 70's passenger vehicles got longer and > lower. It was highly advertised in those days that long and low was [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > unsafe because tall cars, especially since most are more narrow than > those 40's cars are less stable than than those 40's models. You must be a journalist .. or practicing to be one... Since you have a point ot make, and dont bother researching it.. > especially since most are more narrow than > those 40's cars Are you sure about that? I think you ought to try sitting in one befroe you make such statements. Have you ever DRIVEN one of those old cars? The reason they were safer is that they FELT like they were about to roll over on any sharp curve. And those sixties cars handled like sh.t, too SignatureYeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price you pay..DEAL with it! I don't like the new tall cars either. The new G-6 is almost a foot and a half higher than my 92 Grand Am. IMO, they are unstable compared to cars of a few years ago. It would be hard to roll my old G/A but the G-6's I've recently rented felt just the opposite. <...snip more of the same...> If you are so discontented, why not just go buy yourself a '62 Lincoln and sit in the garage all day and admire it. Your rants are tiresome. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > <...snip more of the same...> > > If you are so discontented, why not just go buy yourself a '62 Lincoln and > sit in the garage all day and admire it. Your rants are tiresome. They are readily available too. A place here in town, (Putnam, CT) specializes in restoring old Lincolns. If you happen to need a convertible with suicide doors, he has them. http://www.bakersauto.com/ Raising the center of gravity of a vehicle by and inch or two will not make it 'prone' to rollover. In fact NO vehicle is 'prone' to rollover, but rather is prone to fall back upon it wheels if tipped. Watch what happens in motion pictures when vehicles, cars or SUVs, turn too quickly. They spin our but do not rollover. To make a vehicle roll over the stunt people must run then up a ramp that is at least four feet high. If indeed a higher center of gravity was what cause a vehicle to rollover more easily, one should expect to see six wheelers being rolled along then highways daily. ;) mike hunt <snip> > All through the 50's, 60's, and 70's passenger vehicles got longer and > lower. It was highly advertised in those days that long and low was an [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > stable than than those 40's models. Taller means more prone to rolling > over on their sides and tops and killing their occupants dead. Well, it is an undeniable fact that a higher center of gravity, combined with a relatively narrow track width and stickier tires will combine to make a vehicle more prone to a rollover incident. If it really took a four foot high ramp to cause a rollover we would never hear of one on a public road, and yet they happen all the time. nate > Raising the center of gravity of a vehicle by and inch or two will not make > it 'prone' to rollover. In fact NO vehicle is 'prone' to rollover, but [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > stable than than those 40's models. Taller means more prone to rolling > > over on their sides and tops and killing their occupants dead. You are free to believe whatever you wish buy as a retired automotive design engineer I can sure you, on level ground, vehicles will spinout but not roll. Inertia can cause any vehicles to roll when its strikes, or are stuck by, something. The small difference in center of gravity among the various types has little to do with it. mike > Well, it is an undeniable fact that a higher center of gravity, > combined with a relatively narrow track width and stickier tires will [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> should expect to see six wheelers being rolled along then highways daily. >> ;) >You are free to believe whatever you wish buy as a retired automotive design >engineer I can sure you, on level ground, vehicles will spinout but not >roll. Inertia can cause any vehicles to roll when its strikes, or are stuck >by, something.<snip> It's called "tripping syndrome." Same thing happens when you hold your leg out in front of some moron running in a straight line...down they go! >The small difference in center of gravity among the various >types has little to do with it. <snip> Has a LITTLE to do with it, but suspension has more to do with it than CG. In the Explorer fiasco, spring rate plus a slightly higher CG conspired to cause the rollover problem. You see that on GM's hulking Suburbans, as well. In a "trip" situation, the Suburban is very prone to rollover, while cars aren't. For some reason, Escalades don't seem to be as prone to doing so....could be the spring rate or electronic ride control? I do not know. What I do know is, in a multi-vehicle collision involving either an older Explorer or a Suburban, the SUV rolls every time. Like I said you are free to believe whatever you wish no matter how convoluted your reasoning my be. Do a bit of research you will discover the Explorers were rolling because of defective Firestone tires. Those with General and BFG tires did not have a problem. mike >>You are free to believe whatever you wish buy as a retired automotive >>design [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > collision involving either an older Explorer or a Suburban, the SUV > rolls every time. > Like I said you are free to believe whatever you wish no matter how > convoluted your reasoning my be. Do a bit of research you will discover the > Explorers were rolling because of defective Firestone tires. Those with > General and BFG tires did not have a problem. I believe that you are an idiot and a bullshitter who knows little to nothing about cars, and that anyone reading your posts should disregard anything you say as it is likely wrong. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > > Like I said you are free to believe whatever you wish no matter how > > convoluted your reasoning my be. Do a bit of research you will discover [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > nate You are quite correct Nate. Most of us categorize Mike as an auto company politician. > Do a bit of research you will discover the > Explorers were rolling because of defective Firestone tires. Those with > General and BFG tires did not have a problem. Certainly the tread stripping off the Firestone tires was a big problem, but not the main problem in our cooler country. Here they, and many narrow track high SUVs, roll when they slide then hit higher friction area such a curb or rough road shoulder. Of course then they are usually on their roof, whereas a car just slides to a stop. The Explorer has a very hight incidence of this problem, as do some other makes such as the older Ford Broncos and Pathfinders of 5+ yrs back. That old Trooper is ugly to handle in wind and on slippery roads, confirmed by a few owners. Following them is interesting as many don't follow a steady track even on on dry corners, the Mazda van of several yrs back being one of these, as well as SUVs with owner modified excessively wide tires. Interestingly the Jeep Cherokee I never seen rolled over. Looking at it's wide track for it's height tells the story. I see this carnage every winter traveling our very difficult roads to the ski hills. I know people who have returned to mid sized cars for safety on these slippery curvy roads. It isn't just speeding SUVs that get into trouble! You forgot to say in my opinion. The fact concerning Firestone tires and rollovers do not support you opinion however. You would have discover that fact if you had done a search. The fact is the NHTSA investigation showed Explorers, with other tires, did not have the same problem. ;) mike >> Do a bit of research you will discover the >> Explorers were rolling because of defective Firestone tires. Those with >> General and BFG tires did not have a problem. > > Certainly the tread stripping off the Firestone tires was a big problem, > but not the main problem in our cooler country. > You are free to believe whatever you wish buy as a retired automotive design > engineer What the hell did you design, f.cking door handles? Hopefully nothing important. > I can sure you, on level ground, vehicles will spinout but not > roll. Yes, on a billiard-smooth hypothetical test track. Maybe. If the tires aren't too sticky. There's a certain point where coefficient of friction, center of gravity height, and track width will conspire to allow a rollover even on a smooth surface. I don't know if any production vehicles have reached that point (I'm guessing no, for liability reasons, but I have no facts to base that on) but it is undeniable that higher CG's, narrower tracks, and stickier tires make a vehicle easier to trip up. > Inertia can cause any vehicles to roll when its strikes, or are stuck > by, something. Indeed. > The small *ahem* - I think you mean "fairly significant" > difference in center of gravity among the various > types has little to do with it. Bullshit. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > I have no facts to base that on) but it is > undeniable that higher CG's, narrower tracks, and stickier tires make a > vehicle easier to trip up. Consumer Reports confirmed what you say several years ago. Then there is that released Ford engineering document that instructed their test engineers not to test roll over on some Ford SUV and truck models for their own safety! >:) > Turner Classic Movies is showing the old cinema serial, "Superman". It > was [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > goes anywhere. The actors often stand along side these vehicles, which > tower over most of them. Cars were very tall in those days. Did you ever think that the actors are short people? > All through the 50's, 60's, and 70's passenger vehicles got longer and > lower. It was highly advertised in those days that long and low was an > improvement, not only in style, but also in performance (as in > maneuvering). So what do we see in most of today's models, particularly > SUV and crossovers? Very tall cars, not one iota better than those late > 40's cars mentioned. Comparing todays SUV's to cars of the 40's, is like comparing intelligence to you. No comparision > The elevated cars today are definitely a throwback. They're retrograde. > They're stupid. The public knows they're stupid and unsafe because tall [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > those cars are death traps. If you buy one, your're stupid, stupid, > stupid. Then ride a bicycle, don't forget your helmet. > If everybody would get smart and stop buying these stupid SUVs, crossovers > and pickup trucks unless your business absolutely requires that type for > one reason or another, the makers would wise up and build good, safe cars > like they used to, low and wide. If you forget what I tell you, you will > recall it when you are laying in your hospital bed racked with pain, > bankrupt from the bill, after your stupid SUV flips. The makers do build safe cars, even for fuckwits like yourself Those old cars had some charm, but they were pigs to drive for the most part, didnt last long, and rolled and swayed in the corners. Accidents were much more likely to cause fatalities than just about anything we are likely to drive today. I am not a fan of SUVs because many tend to be gas guzzlers, and they are in general more prone to rollovers. At least, so the statistics say..... I drive a full size Dodge conversion van, and I give it a due amount of respect, because I know it doesnt handle like a sports car. It was pretty bad when I first got it, but a set of Bilsteins, good tires, and a rear sway bar helped tame the ride. It gets decent mileage for such a large vehicle (about 18 mpg), but I no longer need a vehicle with the features that the Dodge provided so amply. When gasoline once again surges to over US$3 per gallon, the van with its 30 gallon tank becomes a burden. My next car will be much more fuel miserly, lower roll center, and able to gobble up highway miles with creature comforts and little or no 'jitter' at turnpike speed. I havent made the choice yet, but am still leaning toward an Avalon or something similar. I just heard this morning that the Chinese are pulling away from the American market for a few years. Their vehicles are not quite right for this market, either in safety or quality, and they will observe the Korean and Japanese products for a while. They are active in Russia and to some extent in Europe, where small cars are the rule, largely due to gasoline prices. > Those old cars had some charm, but they were pigs to drive for the most > part, didnt last long, and > rolled and swayed in the corners. Accidents were much more likely to cause > fatalities than just about > anything we are likely to drive today. Have you ever owned a car from the '40's? I have had 3: a 48 Plymouth, 49 Windsor, and currently a 40 Royal, all great cars, dependable, easy to work on, and gets relatively good mileage from their flathead 6. They ride better than our new PT Cruiser Convertible! > I am not a fan of SUVs because many tend to be gas guzzlers, and they are in > general more prone to [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Signature"What do you mean there's no movie?" >> Those old cars had some charm, but they were pigs to drive for the most >> part, didnt last long, and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > their flathead 6. They ride better than our new PT Cruiser > Convertible! When I was a kid we drove 41 Fords until 1953, when my dad bought another Ford. I cant remember any of them being light in steering nor responsive, nor very stable in corners, but sometimes memory lies. I always wanted a 48 or 49 Ford business couple, but of course I wanted to hop it up. Those older cars are getting scarce now. > I cant remember any of them being light in steering nor responsive, nor very > stable in > corners, but sometimes memory lies. Nor did they stay on track without constant steering wheel motion. Good for arm exercise though. IMO those oldie cars are only good to look at; well some of them. For real driving I'll take a current car any day. >>I cant remember any of them being light in steering nor responsive, nor very >>stable in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > IMO those oldie cars are only good to look at; well some of them. > For real driving I'll take a current car any day. An old (60s) car with modern radials and disk brakes is a whole lot of fun, and that's exactly what I drive every day. I'm sure the same is true for some 50s cars, but I've never owned a 50s car. I do own a 49, and it would take quite a lot more than radials and brakes to get it to handle well enough to share the road with mdoern cars on a daily basis- so much so that it would be more of a resto-rod than a restoration. Most automotive progress this century happened between 1945 and 1970. Since then, electronics have come a long way, efficiency and driveability have gotten better, there are lots more safety features (we can debate how truly effective some of them are), but fundamental mechanical systems have changed relatively little. >>>I cant remember any of them being light in steering nor responsive, nor very >>>stable in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >truly effective some of them are), but fundamental mechanical systems >have changed relatively little. My '53 Coronet was a joy to drive, but would have been nicer with some power assist. I had upgraded the brakes on the rear from center-line to Bendix self energizing from a '63 which helped considerebly. It was a lot nicer to drive than my '49 VW.(cable brakes). My '57 Fargo was a bit of a handfull (solid axle bump-steer with a big flathead lump and no power steering or brakes) My '63 valiant handled extremely well (upgraded shocks and lowered springs and torsion bars) but untill we got the Mystique my wife drives now, I had never driven a car that combined handling and ride (at a somewhat affordable price) quite like the '72 Rover 2000 TC. The Mistique has all-speed traction control, 4 wheel disks (with anti-lock, which I can take or leave) and a very potent 2.5 liter six. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> Those old cars had some charm, but they were pigs to drive for the most >>> part, didnt last long, and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >stable in >corners, but sometimes memory lies. Prior to 1949, all Fords were rather archaic in the suspension department. By 1953 they had improved dramatically. Also, prior to 1949 they were tall and narrow. >I always wanted a 48 or 49 Ford business couple, but of course I wanted to >hop it up. Boy, the 48 and 49 were TOTALLY different cars. Which one caught your fancy? I'll bet it was the '48 - (basically the same as the pre-war '39-42) >Those older cars are getting scarce now. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > >> Those old cars had some charm, but they were pigs to drive for the most > >> part, didnt last long, and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > stable in > corners, but sometimes memory lies. With bias ply tires, my 40 Royal rides smoother than the PT with radials. Also, the steering is pretty light, not really needing power assist. My 49 Windsor was heavy in the steering, being a much heavier car. > I always wanted a 48 or 49 Ford business couple, but of course I wanted to > hop it up. > > Those older cars are getting scarce now. Signature"What do you mean there's no movie?" "hls" <hls@nospam.nix> wrote in message > I havent made the choice yet, but am still leaning > toward an Avalon or something similar. A fellow at work has a Lexus. He just bought his wife and Avalon and he's thinking of trading the Lexus for his own Avalon. Nice ride and lots of goodies. An 83 year old friend of mine just bought his wife an Avalon, to replace her Caddy. He drives a Lexus 300, which replaced his 500 series Bimmer LWB. He loves them both. (and for his age, he still DRIVES - quite a bit, and very well.) >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.