Go Back   Sports Car Forum - MotorWorld.net > Automotive Brands Forum > Porsche

Porsche Porsche - the finest German Cars



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-24-2004, 05:50 PM   #16
lakatu
Regular User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 408
Default

I believe your right about the parts issue because Porsche at the time was trying to decrease production costs by spreading development and manufacturing costs over a larger number of units. The labor portion of maintenance and repair may be higher as I said for a Boxster. Because it may require more hours to do the job due to the tight space of the midengine. Something to look into anyways.

Good luck! I'm sure you will be happy either way
__________________
Porsche, there is no substitute. Well except RS Tuning and Manthey.
lakatu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2004, 05:59 PM   #17
ahmedgiyab
Regular User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Dubai
Posts: 752
Default

Thanx man! You are a REAL Porsche Expert!!!
__________________
Live for the moment!
ahmedgiyab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2004, 06:26 PM   #18
lakatu
Regular User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 408
Default

Originally Posted by ahmedgiyab
Thanx man! You are a REAL Porsche Expert!!!
Thanks for the compliment ops: . But I think you have me confused with st-anger. He is the REAL expert 8) . I'm just a novice want-to-be.
__________________
Porsche, there is no substitute. Well except RS Tuning and Manthey.
lakatu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2004, 03:16 AM   #19
st-anger
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: AT
Posts: 1,611
Default

Originally Posted by lakatu
Originally Posted by ahmedgiyab
Thanx man! You are a REAL Porsche Expert!!!
Thanks for the compliment ops: . But I think you have me confused with st-anger. He is the REAL expert 8) . I'm just a novice want-to-be.
NO NO NO, definitely NOT!!!
you definitely know quite much about Porsche and even better: you´re interested to learn more, and i´m always looking forward to a new discussion with you and some other JW members...

for ahmedgiyab, MAN wait ´till the 997"S" arrives at your dealer, it´s definitely the "best buy" for money right now, hands-down...
__________________
Sportscars come
Sportscars go
Legends live on
Porsche 911
st-anger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2004, 03:43 PM   #20
ahmedgiyab
Regular User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Dubai
Posts: 752
Default

Man....sadly I can't afford the 997 (for now... )....

I want to exchange my current CL for a 911....1999 or 2000...I can't afford any extra

payment....(I will be a family man next year.... :cry: )....

Was there a Targa version in 2000 already...?

The problem that the most attractive combination would be a 911 Carrera 4 combined

with the "Targa" roof... 8) ....but this model doesn't exist...
__________________
Live for the moment!
ahmedgiyab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2004, 03:37 PM   #21
lakatu
Regular User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 408
Default

Originally Posted by st-anger
Originally Posted by ARMAN
Originally Posted by AlienDB7
Just came across this '05 911 Carrera review:
http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/ly/05_911.htm
Great pix on the castle :shock:
But is this true? - "These days, Porsche is the most profitable car manufacturer in the world..."
that´s 101% true.....
What Porsche means when they say that they are the most profitable car manufacture is that they have the highest profit margins. So for every euro of sales they retain more euros in profit than there competitors. Porsche averages around 6% while the rest of the industry averages 2%. For comparison, BMW has ½ the profit margins of Porsche at 3%. Their net profit as measured in euros, as has been pointed out, is not the largest.

This didn’t use to be the case in the late 80’ & early 90’s. Porsche since has replaced handcrafting & implemented advanced manufacturing technology. They eliminated less successful models like the 928 & 968. Replaced those with the Boxster and 996 which at the time they introduced them shared 38% of their parts. They got out of Company sponsored motor racing which is extremely costly and not very profitable. They also benefited from the rising dollar.

I can’t say for certain but I would guess the falling dollar is going to hurt Porsche’s profitability since 50% of sales are in the U.S. Someone may be able to clarify this, but from what I have seen Porsche hasn’t increase the price of the cars to anywhere close to offset the 20% decline in dollar valuations with the euro over the past 2 years. Makes me wonder if Porsche will start a production plant in the U.S. so that their manufacturing costs will be denominated in the same currency as sales like BMW & Toyota.
__________________
Porsche, there is no substitute. Well except RS Tuning and Manthey.
lakatu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2004, 02:27 AM   #22
nthfinity
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 9,929
Default

hi, St. Anger...

i think its safe to say that Porsche has been in the Supercar market for quite some time, and have a pretty good figure denoted to only the highest of performance cars available (GT2,GT3, CGT?)..

when such amazing cars are built, are the powertrains built to last more then the industry supercar average of 46,000 miles/ 74,000km? (total, it seems)

this milage is generally beyond mfr warentees, and any damage to occure could require a massive overhaul and high cost.

i guess this could be extrapolated to asking if Porsche expects its costomers to drive thier supercars often.

thanks for your assistance
__________________
www.nthimage.com
Car photography website
nthfinity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2004, 12:55 PM   #23
lakatu
Regular User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 408
Default

Originally Posted by nthfinity
hi, St. Anger...

i think its safe to say that Porsche has been in the Supercar market for quite some time, and have a pretty good figure denoted to only the highest of performance cars available (GT2,GT3, CGT?)..

when such amazing cars are built, are the powertrains built to last more then the industry supercar average of 46,000 miles/ 74,000km? (total, it seems)

this milage is generally beyond mfr warentees, and any damage to occure could require a massive overhaul and high cost.

i guess this could be extrapolated to asking if Porsche expects its costomers to drive thier supercars often.

thanks for your assistance
I know that st-anger has limited availability to answer questions right now, so I will attempt to provide a partial answer. I’m sure st-anger will follow up on your question when he has the time.

Certainly engines that are designed with high performance characteristics have higher demands and stress put on them. I believe that some of those extra reliability demands can be compensated for by engineering and materials selection utilized in building the powertrain. For instance, the use of exotic high strength alloys.

Because Porsche has some of the most extensive experience in endurance racing they have developed technology and expertise in the areas of reliability. In fact, using business language terms, you might say that reliability is one of Porsche’s core competencies. Meaning that this knowledge and expertise is not equally shared by other manufactures and provides Porsche with a competitive advantage.

I have read articles where during engine development Porsche has entered preproduction model engines in endurance races. At the completion of the race they just changed the oil and went onto the next race and the next until some problem surfaced that they could then analyze and correct.

It sounds like you have some specific knowledge of supercars engine lives in general that I personally am not familiar with :roll: . I don’t know about those issues but I do know that most racing engines are designed to survive for one race. I believe that is because the tradeoffs in increasing the engine life are opposed to speed and light weight. So maybe some of these characteristics are carried over into ultra high performance supercars.

But for Porsche, IMO, a car that isn’t designed to be driven is a museum piece and not a real sports car .
__________________
Porsche, there is no substitute. Well except RS Tuning and Manthey.
lakatu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2004, 01:41 PM   #24
st-anger
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: AT
Posts: 1,611
Default

Originally Posted by nthfinity
hi, St. Anger...

i think its safe to say that Porsche has been in the Supercar market for quite some time, and have a pretty good figure denoted to only the highest of performance cars available (GT2,GT3, CGT?)..

when such amazing cars are built, are the powertrains built to last more then the industry supercar average of 46,000 miles/ 74,000km? (total, it seems)

this milage is generally beyond mfr warentees, and any damage to occure could require a massive overhaul and high cost.

i guess this could be extrapolated to asking if Porsche expects its costomers to drive thier supercars often.

thanks for your assistance
first, THX lakatu, on the one hand for understanding my situation right now, second for giving a very good an extensive answer
sorry nthfinity, i can only give you a short answer, but i think you´ll agree that our friend lakatu has named the most important things...
so, YES, PAG is definitely after reliability of their products, even under the worst conditions, so i´m in automotive engineering for quite some time now and honestly, Porsche definitely runs the hardest test programm for their sports cars, and i think we all agree that Porsche has the most reliable sports- and race cars in history and also nowadays, also some decent tuners take their performance parts from Porsche motorsports, because it´s no secret that e.g. engine kits from Gemballa or some other tuners are not that reliable...
and when you talk about the costs, sure every Porsche IS expensive, but as we already pointed out: you´ll get quite something for your money and one can be sure that his e.g. CGT outruns an Enzo on a endurance race, hands down i´d say...
so definitely YES, PAG expects that their cars are driven on track quite often, i mean e.g. here in middle europe, especially germany, a Porsche is simply THE track car, every driver who does some serious racing has a Porsche, the ppl with the Ferraris or other brands mainly want to enjoy a fast lap or two, but only a very very small percantage is after lap times or serious head to head racing, that´s definitely Porsche territory...
all Porsches are tested to death on reliability, sure there´ll always be some "problems" e.g. 1st gen. PCCB on 911 models, but that´s sorted out now...
so are these cars designed to last longer than industry standard...not really, as you know PAG also has to look at their finances, BUT be sure that all Porsche parts are among the best on the market, you already know the example with the tuner, and to give you another good example, after the latest quality upgrade, initiated by Dr.Wiedeking in 2003, 2nd gen. GT2´s achieved 500+hp on the dyno because of the better quality of the engine parts :shock: 8)

hope that this is an appropriate addition to lakatu´s answer...
__________________
Sportscars come
Sportscars go
Legends live on
Porsche 911
st-anger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2004, 02:05 PM   #25
lakatu
Regular User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 408
Default

I have noticed that JW members have been overlooking what I think is a potential jewel at JW . A while back before the creation of “Porsche Central” (PC), members who loved Porsches would click on “Car Chat” when they first logged on to JW because within car chat was “Porsche News”. Porsche News used to be a place were people gathered to share and discuss their thoughts about anything and everything related to Porsches.

Since Jabba in his wisdom created St-angers Porsche Central it is hard to tell but I think the sharing of thoughts and opinions concerning Porsches has slowed. Maybe it is summer and everyone is out on vacation or maybe it is because those comments are now distributed over many different sections that it seems that way. Anyways, I think st-anger did a great job of trying to recreate that type of atmosphere when he added the “Q&A Porsche discussion” section but I have noticed that it doesn’t receive the attention that I think it deserves. So to draw some more attention to this section and maybe get the ball rolling so to speak, I thought that I would write a series of posts about a topic I have been interested in for a while which is…why did Porsche make the 911 a rear engine car? What are the advantages to that design and why doesn’t anyone else follow the design nowadays?

Why a series? Well if you are like me you have probably amassed a large collection of material from JW that you are back logged in either watching or reading. I figured most people would be put off by an extremely long post and it would give me more time to write it. But mainly, I was hoping to spark interest and comments by others about the topic that I could build off and to accomplish the building of interest in this section of PC.

Why a Rear Engine Design?
I have been looking forever for someone to really explain this in detail. I’m sure most of you could give the basic pat answers but I wanted to know more about it in greater detail. But strangely I haven’t been able to find anything more than a few sentences about the topic. Porsche itself doesn’t even highlight or explain this in brochures.

What sparked my interest in writing about this topic is a comment in an article posted by TT ( http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13925 ) that started off stating that the rear engine design is a fundamentally flawed design. Frequently I read in articles about how Porsche though it's great technological know-how has been able to tame this horribly conceived design and somehow make it work. You would think by the way they write this that it has required Porsche gaining access to alien technology to overcome the laws of physics . To be honest I really hate people taking shots at the rear engine design because I don’t think that it would have been in production for so long and so successful in racing if it was a bad design.

Also I recently saw a post ( http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13204 ) concerning what was the most difficult car to drive. One of the suggestions was the 1978 930 Turbo. Just as a point of reference since I am rather fond of older 911s and the newer 911’s handling are considered to be less tricky so I thought I would begin with the 1970s-80s 911s in mind. I think this is a good starting point for another reason this was the era where Porsche spent a lot of effort developing and supporting racing derivatives of the 911.

So why were earlier Porsches rear engine cars? In part to answer that question you have to look at the Porsche philosophy. Porsches have always been small, light sports cars that tried and incorporate as much practicality as a sports car can. To be practical Dr. Ferry Porsche wanted room inside the 356 and 911. The rear engine incorporated these factors because incorporating the engine and transaxle together makes for a lighter system compared to a front engine rear drive which requires a drive line. Another benefit of placing the engine either in the rear or in the middle is it allows a more compact design and a smaller frontal area because it decreases the space normally taken to house a front engine. This lower frontal area reduces aerodynamic resistance allowing for faster high speed acceleration and higher top speeds.

In order to demonstrate the compactness of the 911 I compare it to competitors in the 1970’-80’s. The 930 weighed depending on options between 2850-3000 lbs, was 168.9 inches long and had a wheelbase of 89.4 inches. Compare this to a Ferrari 365 GTB/4 Daytona which is an awesome front engine car that weighed 3600 lbs, was 174” long and had a wheel base of 94.5”. The Ferrari 308 GTB QV that weighed 3320 lbs, was 174.2” long and had a wheel base of 92.1”.

A rear engine design also means the engine doesn’t need to sit right behind the driver so there is room for small seats or storage space. Additional advantages are the ones that are more frequently cited such as greater weight over the rear wheels provides greater traction in acceleration or braking. These may sound trite or insignificant but I think that they are the keys to the 911s success.

So do I think that the 930 is one of the hardest cars to drive? Well in a word Yes. Here is something to collaborate that, in an article by Car & Driver in 1979 Danny Ongais (A Porsche driver for the 935) tested a 930. In the article they cited a West Coast Porsche dealership reporting that 40% of the 930’s they had sold had been crashed backwards.

Danny had the following to say about the car.
“The Porsche is a compromise between what you need to run on a race car and a street car, I suppose. If you don’t allow it to take a set before you attempt to drive it hard, it’s very sensitive and it unloads. It wants to go from an immediate understeer into an oversteer, which is almost uncontrollable because you only have three wheels on the ground. You need to get the weight transferred very smoothly; then it will set and bite very nicely. It’s very sensitive to the throttle on slow and intermediate comers. It does very well in the high speed situations…you turn in gently and apply the power and it works, it’s pretty neutral.”

“I wouldn’t say that changes directions very well. You have to be very much on your tiptoes, but it’s more stable in fast corners. It may be that the aerodynamic influence of the rear spoiler helps considerably.”

Danny Ongais personally owned a 930 and he related that after his first drive in the car he decided to only drive it fast in a straight line.

So wait doesn’t that prove that the rear engine design is flawed ? Well I don’t think so. Let me give some examples of rear weight biased cars that were excellent handling cars. First the 917 carried 70% of its weight on the rear axle and yet it was considered one of the best handling race cars of its time. Secondly, the 911 2.7 Carrera RS is still considered one the best handling cars.

So what’s going on? Why is the 911 known to have a reputation for being one of the hardest cars to drive? Well to start off certainly having a disproportionate amount of weight on one axle verses another creates challenges. Part of the answer lies in the design compromises on the 911 at its conception.

Well in the next post, assuming there is some interest, I plan on going into some detail using a tiny bit of physics to talk about handling dynamics as they relate to a rear engine car specifically. I sure some will see the word physics and lose interest but I plan on keeping the physics minimal and focusing on some real basic concepts but in some detail. Specifically, I plan on talking about 911’s early dominance in group 4 and group 5 racing and more detail about acceleration and braking advantages along with lateral acceleration dynamics as they relate to rear engine cars.

In conclusion, I am by far NOT an expert and I may make mistakes in writing these posts. I am definitely interested in a discussion so please feel free to comment both positive or negatively on what I’ve said and provide your thoughts on whether the rear engine design is fundamentally flawed. It would be helpful I think if people included their thinking as to the advantages and disadvantages of the rear engine design.
__________________
Porsche, there is no substitute. Well except RS Tuning and Manthey.
lakatu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2004, 03:50 PM   #26
sentra_dude
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,610
Default

I'm interested to hear what else you have to say, you seem very knowledgeable about 911's and Porsche in general. So, please continue!
__________________

------------
1992 Toyota Celica GT 5spd, intake.
sentra_dude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2004, 10:03 PM   #27
nthfinity
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 9,929
Default

lakatu, you are correct in assuming im dealing with some direct information, and reliability data quite available to me... which is what lead me to ask this question towared the porsche aspect.

i was previously unaware of powerpalnt testing in endurance races in pre-production largely, but makes sence to what i already knew when it comes to motorsport parts easily swapping to the road car.

i appreciate the information, as i know the question asked is a rather broad one at that. i ask basically for comparison... and possibly, however unlikely, an effective means to influence change while there is still time; if possible.

Ford is quite new and unexperienced in this road car market.
__________________
www.nthimage.com
Car photography website
nthfinity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2004, 04:49 PM   #28
mindgam3
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 2,279
Default

Originally Posted by lakatu
Are rear engine designs fundamentally flawed
The answer to that question is yes they are. An ideal sports car has perfect weight distribution and minimum overhang fornt and rear. Overhang being the part of the car in front of the front wheels and behind the rear wheels. Porsche does not have this as the engine is situated on the rear axle which should upset the balance of the car.

Its not just the rear engined cars though, in exactly the same way front engined cars are flawed as they have most of their weight over the front axle. However front engined cars can minimize this by having the gearbox placed at the rear.

The reason porsches are so well balanced are.... well thats porsches secret and the reason why you don't see many other rear engined cars.

What does help the rear engined porshce though is the fact that they use flat configurated engines. This means that the pistons are placed horizontally. The two big advantages of this are that 1. it reduces the centre of gravity - the lower the centre of gravity of a car, the better it will corner. And 2. flat configurated engines produce next to no vibrations which means that it will not affect any other components around the rear, for example suspension which also helps the handling.



Rear engined cars also have good traction as they accelerate. This is because as cars accelerate, most of the weight is transferred to the rear. The more weight you have their in the first place, the more grip you're going to get when accelrating.

This has the opposite effect when braking - the front has most of the weight transferred to it and the back will go light. As most of the weights at the back, the car becomes naturally unstable.

With cornering, as the weight distribution is not perfect, as the fron wants to go around the corner, the back end will want to go sideways.

These are the physics of a rear engined car and you cannot change the,. What porsche have done is minimise the disadvantages of a rear engined car and maximised the advantages. This is why porshces handle so good and not many people attempt to make rear engined cars.[/img]
mindgam3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2004, 12:36 PM   #29
lakatu
Regular User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 408
Default

Originally Posted by mindgam3
Originally Posted by lakatu
Are rear engine designs fundamentally flawed
The answer to that question is yes they are. An ideal sports car has perfect weight distribution and minimum overhang fornt and rear. Overhang being the part of the car in front of the front wheels and behind the rear wheels. Porsche does not have this as the engine is situated on the rear axle which should upset the balance of the car.

Its not just the rear engined cars though, in exactly the same way front engined cars are flawed as they have most of their weight over the front axle. However front engined cars can minimize this by having the gearbox placed at the rear.

The reason porsches are so well balanced are.... well thats porsches secret and the reason why you don't see many other rear engined cars.

What does help the rear engined porshce though is the fact that they use flat configurated engines. This means that the pistons are placed horizontally. The two big advantages of this are that 1. it reduces the centre of gravity - the lower the centre of gravity of a car, the better it will corner. And 2. flat configurated engines produce next to no vibrations which means that it will not affect any other components around the rear, for example suspension which also helps the handling.



Rear engined cars also have good traction as they accelerate. This is because as cars accelerate, most of the weight is transferred to the rear. The more weight you have their in the first place, the more grip you're going to get when accelrating.

This has the opposite effect when braking - the front has most of the weight transferred to it and the back will go light. As most of the weights at the back, the car becomes naturally unstable.

With cornering, as the weight distribution is not perfect, as the fron wants to go around the corner, the back end will want to go sideways.

These are the physics of a rear engined car and you cannot change the,. What porsche have done is minimise the disadvantages of a rear engined car and maximised the advantages. This is why porshces handle so good and not many people attempt to make rear engined cars.[/img]
Excellent post 8) . I really appreciate your thoughts and feedback. I have been patiently awaiting some discussion about the post and appreciate your contribution. I was kind of hoping that others would posts their thoughts about the subject in a similar manner as you’ve done. It is obvious that you are knowledgeable about the handling characteristics of cars. Especially as it applies to weight distribution.

BTW, I notice that you are relatively new to JW and I wanted to extend a welcome. It is great to have members that provide intelligent contributions 8) to our discussion here at “Porsche Central”.

You make some good points. Several of which I was planning on covering in later posts. Specifically, the points about lower center of gravity with the boxer engine design and the higher polar moment of inertia of having mass located farther from the center of gravity in a rear engine verses a mid engine design. To be honest I have never considered the smoothness of the boxer design and any effects this would have on stabilizing handling verses a more vibrating design.

My point of the posts is that the design isn’t fundamentally flawed :roll: . To be honest I have some basic concepts in mind and I have been doing research to pursue these thoughts. At this point I don’t know if I can make the case that the rear engine design is the preferred design. Maybe somebody else can help me make that point . At this point, I think that if the rear engine design was the best solution that it would be utilized more in racing designs which are almost exclusively mid engine as far as I know. Another point that seems to indicate that the rear engine design may not be the preferred design is that even Porsche’s own two latest designs, the CGT and Boxster, have been mid engine designs.

My point is that the rear engine design works well and provides advantages to its drivers. With most things in life there are tradeoffs and the rear engine design does have them but I believe that racing experience has shown that they can be utilized to more than offset its disadvantages.

BTW, another way front engine cars shift weight towards the rear, other than a transaxle, is to locate the engine behind the front axle. This is used on the Corvette and M3. Another benefit to locating the engine behind the front axle is it also lowers the center of gravity as it doesn’t have to clear front suspension structures.

To anyone else who is thinking of contributing, please feel free to add your comments 8) . I’m not worried that some of the discussion will get ahead of points that I was planning to make in later posts. As I’ve stated before, I am interested in the subject and am trying to work through the issues, so additional points of view would be helpful .
__________________
Porsche, there is no substitute. Well except RS Tuning and Manthey.
lakatu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2004, 06:31 PM   #30
crasherror
Regular User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Dallas Texas
Posts: 258
Default

To anyone who thinks that the 911’s rear engine layout is fundamentally flawed think about this. The Porsche 911 is the most successful racing car of all time. It has dominated the GT class of racing for almost 40 years. It is not only successful on the road courses but also in rallying. The 911 won the Monty Carlo rally three years in a row, 1968, 1969, and 1970.Back when it was real racing with no computer controlled anything. Only the driver’s right foot had control over the car. Also the rear layout help Porsche take a victory at the Paris Dakar in the 959 where it placed 1st, 2nd, and 6th (Was driven by an engineer). The only sports car to every win the grueling challenge. In the same month the 959 racing car the 961 won it class in the GTX class at lemans.

The rear layout has been reinterpreted in many ways throughout the years. Porsche created not only superior racing cars but, Icons of racing. When someone mentions group 5 racing of the 70s. I immediately think of the 500+ horsepower 935 that dominated its class. Also with its smaller brother the 934 in group 4 racing. These cars defined their era.

In 1973 the 911RS won the 24 hours of Daytona out right betting the prototypes and setting a new record in racing history. 30 years later that feet was accomplished with the 911 GT3rs of Kevin Buckler. The “flawed” 911 did the impossible not only beating out their competitors but also betting out the prototypes and the GTS class for the overall win.

This small glimpse of the 911s-racing heritage. As you can see, if the 911 is flawed it is the most successful flaw in racing history.
__________________
Porsche:
Spiritually,we never stray too far from the racetrack!
crasherror is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not 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

Forum Jump