68fastback Posted May 31, 2006 Report Share Posted May 31, 2006 Well, the current cylinder spacing and deck heights do limit the modular motor's displacement, but a V10 modular goes to 427 or 429CID -- 650HP naturally aspirated (Cobra concept) or +/-825HP Whipple'd (just a rumor but I've heard it's already been prototyped). Would either of those be good enough? ;-) The V10 could fit in a 'stang engine bay. Would you feel a V10 'Stang is good/bad? Or if the '09 (probably '10) mustang were to be a less retro, would a 427/429 V10 cammer work for you? I'm asking, 'cause if it has to be a BIG v8, a.k.a. Boss 429, I think it won't happen. ... For me an all-aluminim 650HP nat.asp. V10 cammer in a new semi-retro design WITH A LIGHT-WEIGHT, REAL SPORTS CHASSIS, AND 50/50 WEIGHT DISTRIB, would uncork $50-55K. Would it have to go head-to-head with a Z07 'vette? Should such a vehicle even be a mustang? How about a gen-II Shelby Cobra? Or a gen-II Daytona? Or ??? Design point: under 3500lbs, 0-60 4-flat/10.50-120s qtr? What would you pay for it in today's dollars? ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JETSOLVER Posted May 31, 2006 Report Share Posted May 31, 2006 For me an all-aluminim 650HP nat.asp. V10 cammer in a new semi-retro design WITH A LIGHT-WEIGHT, REAL SPORTS CHASSIS, AND 50/50 WEIGHT DISTRIB, would uncork $50-55K. Would it have to go head-to-head with a Z07 'vette? Should such a vehicle even be a mustang? How about a gen-II Shelby Cobra? Or a gen-II Daytona? Or ??? Design point: under 3500lbs, 0-60 4-flat/10.50-120s qtr? What would you pay for it in today's dollars? Ask and ye shall receive!!! JK :P Here it is almost as you described it with the exception of the price. I will take a WAG and say 75k? Stangnet/05 COBRA concept Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted May 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2006 Ask and ye shall receive!!! JK :P Here it is almost as you described it with the exception of the price. I will take a WAG and say 75k? Stangnet/05 COBRA concept Exactly! Now if we had the right chassis planned for the '09 ('10) new 'stang, this would be killer. But would a V10 violate what most think a Mustang has to be? If the weight is 2-tons and 60/40, fugettaboutit, yes? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JETSOLVER Posted May 31, 2006 Report Share Posted May 31, 2006 Mustang? Affordable, V-8, instantly recognizable as a Stang. Refinement and tech savy? Nope. I really think that Ford has maxed the Mustang at the 41k mark. I personally wish they had used more brain and less brawn, but I would guess that in a couple of years the S197 will have paid for itself and be pure profit. I wish they could lever the GT and its new tech into something usable for true blue enthusiasts(not really rich folks). Do you think that Mercury could do with something edgey, with serious high performance(handling, braking, tech, and the alum. 4.6 wound right out? At say about 55k? Sort of the Mercury Lincoln flagship for the way ahead. Say about 10000 cars? That would spread the GT cost over 2 cars and allow the filter down of the engineering of a chassis like that into volume cars? A real tour d force of materials and weightsaving tech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DVS2XS Posted May 31, 2006 Report Share Posted May 31, 2006 Personally, I think going light is the answer. Reduce weight where ever they can on the next platform. A larger modular engine is already in the works - the Hurricane engine. Build it with an aluminum block, high compression, and a decent rod/stroke ratio for a naturally asperated high winding powerhouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted May 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2006 Mustang? Affordable, V-8, instantly recognizable as a Stang. Refinement and tech savy? Nope. I really think that Ford has maxed the Mustang at the 41k mark. I personally wish they had used more brain and less brawn, but I would guess that in a couple of years the S197 will have paid for itself and be pure profit. I wish they could lever the GT and its new tech into something usable for true blue enthusiasts(not really rich folks). Do you think that Mercury could do with something edgey, with serious high performance(handling, braking, tech, and the alum. 4.6 wound right out? At say about 55k? Sort of the Mercury Lincoln flagship for the way ahead. Say about 10000 cars? That would spread the GT cost over 2 cars and allow the filter down of the engineering of a chassis like that into volume cars? A real tour d force of materials and weightsaving tech. I like the idea of spreading it into Linc/Merc-land, but might not be attractive to the traditional Linc/Merc audience. Don't get me wrong, I'll buy it wherever, but I doubt Ford would do anything, realistically, to canibalize sales from Ford division to it's [step]child division. That's been a sore point for decades now but I think you are right that the price tag would be less of a problem there and spreading the R&D across more units can;t be bad. Hey, there may even be more hi-po mercury oriented boomers from back-in-the-day than I'm thinking. They sure had no problem selling hi-po big-block Merc when Parnelli was piloting that 427 to Monterey to all thoses checkered flags -- and the Cougar variant on the GT sold well, so you may have something there. Now if Ford could only think cross-division-parity a little more... In that price point, a nat.asp V10 might put some air under Mercury's wings... <grin> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted June 3, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2006 Personally, I think going light is the answer. Reduce weight where ever they can on the next platform. A larger modular engine is already in the works - the Hurricane engine. Build it with an aluminum block, high compression, and a decent rod/stroke ratio for a naturally asperated high winding powerhouse. Yeah, Devious, I have to admit that I'm biased toward nat.asp. free revving cubic inches my self. My understanding is that we'll not see any real oversquares due to emission management being tougher on them (not to mention the form factor of the present modular would make them small displacement). But even a square design (like the 4.6) which is good to 6,800-7,000 stock would be nice with more CID. Do you have any idea on the bore spacing on the Hurricane? Or any other insight on it? -Dan . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JETSOLVER Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 I like the idea of spreading it into Linc/Merc-land, but might not be attractive to the traditional Linc/Merc audience. Now if Ford could only think cross-division-parity a little more... In that price point, a nat.asp V10 might put some air under Mercury's wings... <grin> I guess my point is that if the premium end of Ford North America is going to make it(and there has been news that they were thinking of killing it off) and the fact that the PAG is hemoraging $ still, combined with the fact that the traditional Lincoln buyer is all but in the grave, the way forward(yep I like to use their words) is going to need a rethink. Cadillac has done a VERY good job of rebranding itself and build good stuff in the process. Caddy's are now a destination brand in GM , where just a decade ago, thats where pre BOOMERS bought their last car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted June 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 I guess my point is that if the premium end of Ford North America is going to make it(and there has been news that they were thinking of killing it off) and the fact that the PAG is hemoraging $ still, combined with the fact that the traditional Lincoln buyer is all but in the grave, the way forward(yep I like to use their words) is going to need a rethink. Cadillac has done a VERY good job of rebranding itself and build good stuff in the process. Caddy's are now a destination brand in GM , where just a decade ago, thats where pre BOOMERS bought their last car. Ah, I see your point.... I thought the LS was off to a good start in that vein and then there was no follow-through. Even the hi-po Caddy recognized the need for light-weight rear-drive V8 and the 'vette was a perfect donor. But the LS was underpowered for it's market, I think. And you had to get it loaded-down to get the V8. That was a mistake, I think. Not to change the subject, but that's why I think Ford desparately needs a front-eng/rear-drive small V8 in a platform like the Fusion. It's an awsomely well-designed vehicle and could be the basis of several variants spanning Ford and L/M. Ford can't run the CrownVic and Merc forever as the police cruiser. A V8 rear drive Fusion could hit several segments -- more than the mustang can cover. Even a wagon version with all-wheel drive would be nice. Ford needs a light weight 5-seater V8 rear-drive somewhere... it would be the basis of fun for a new-gen 'hot-rog' generation. I mean, if I was a kid growing up today and inherited a v8 r.d.Fusion from my dad, I'd be in heaven cause there's so many modular V8 goodies now available. Isn't that how the whole thing began in the 50s/60s? Today, there's nothing for the kids, so they play with Honda 'cause they're light and you drop the Acura engines/mods in. And Ford has nothing they can 'play' with. If you don't sell the kids today, there is no tomorrow. Sorry if I'm preaching - I know you're part of the choir... yeah, I share your frustration that fundamental cross-market building blocks are either missing or not being exploited to their fullest -- or so it seems. Caddy has done a great job remaking the brand. If not a Fusion derivative, how about a v8, rear-drive 500? As a family car I would love that and it would play across the premium end of L/M too -- a performance luxury car that seats 5 in comfort actually can get out of it's own way! And, as you suggest, the mustang could be the basis of a peformance L/M but it would have to have some upscale bling in that market... a folding hard-top IRS XR7?! ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadTony Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 back to thread topic - make one available (special order) that's lighter than whatever the competition is at the moment (vette,challenger,camaro,etc..). Make it orderable as ala carte (having lots of choices) with special high performance parts. Oh hell, just make a version available that has a 1000 rear wheel horse power and call it a day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted June 11, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 back to thread topic - make one available (special order) that's lighter than whatever the competition is at the moment (vette,challenger,camaro,etc..). Make it orderable as ala carte (having lots of choices) with special high performance parts. Oh hell, just make a version available that has a 1000 rear wheel horse power and call it a day! Oh yeah!!!! <now we're back on topic..... lol> There's some guy in Brooklyn with n.a. non-nitrous 302 small-block making well over 1000 rwHP -- really! He used to run nitrous but didn't like the fact that the HP is 'peaky'. He tried turbos with good success but found them a pain to work on and wanted a killer n.a. motor. I say well over 1000HP because the chassis dyno they tested on was good to 1000HP and it switched to emergency shut-down mode at 4800rpm! They figure there's somewhere around 1200 ponies in it. Oh yeah!!! But, back to reality, the more I think on this the more I'm convinced that Ford has gone the s/c route because you can get good HP with mild cam grinds which permits good emissions cert without a lot of costly tech which might be easy to cover in the price points of a 'vette but not a mustang. But if we want the high-revving hi-perf of a n.a. oversquare with reasonable displacement, it can't fit in the bore-spacing of the mod form factor. If Ford does do the Hurricane, which would also address the dire need for more cubic inches in the super-dutys, it would be like the 60s all over again!!! It kills me to see Bob Glidden (the winningest pro stock driver ever) who is back in prostock again but running hemis because Ford dropped out of prostock a dog's-age ago with the demise of the big-block and FRP has little to offer (though there is a 460 crate). The Hurricane could end all that. And can you imagine the trickle-down big-block peformance goodies if Ford were to re enter prostock and put the huricane is a Boss. Oh yeah!!!! A DOHC 427/429 would rule! I mean the stock 429s were less than they could have been because the huge valves just started bringing on the breathing near redline! But fully-prepped they really cooked and people like Connie Kalitta was whipping the competition in his bounty-hunter (AA/FD) but Ford never followed through so the independent racers moved back to the 427 and eventually away from Ford for lack of support. Anyhow, I'm off-topic again (on my own forum thread <lol>) These forums are just such a superb way of mind-sharing with folks you'd otherwise have no way to meet -- stangs unleashed is awasome! And all the superb insights are much appreciated. If I had to pick the most leveraged need for where Ford should go with the '09/'10 stang I guess it would have to be: Make the platform fundamentally lighter so that all hi-po variants perform better at any design point and permit more room in the CAFE nums to give us the gooodies we want! Now then.... what should that 'stang look like? Retro/heritage, but early 70s? Fresh mustang-sized design that redefines muscle car? Smaller? ... : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JETSOLVER Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 If I had to pick the most leveraged need for where Ford should go with the '09/'10 stang I guess it would have to be: Make the platform fundamentally lighter so that all hi-po variants perform better at any design point and permit more room in the CAFE nums to give us the gooodies we want! Now then.... what should that 'stang look like? Retro/heritage, but early 70s? Fresh mustang-sized design that redefines muscle car? Smaller? ... Ford needs to do a much better job of leverageing the global engineering. Use the manufacturing ability to build the All Aluminum Jag in as many places as possible. Why not with the mustang? Its going to sell very well as long as they stay with the formula so why not demonstrate the benefits of engineering with a car you know has a loyal customer base? As long as it has the long hood/short deck low greenhouse style it can't help but be a pony car. The retro forward thing is great but the mustang can/has pushed style and gotten away with it. I submit that while we are very happy with this redesign, the customer base that has fond memories of the sixties cars is getting older and less and less likley to buy a gazillion sporty/fun cars. So what has today's university age kids attention? Tech. There is no reason that the next car cannot be both instantly recognized as a Mustang(remember the SN-95 debate? Jenner vs. Schwartzenegger in the end they made both and they sold) and have for example a hybride/all wheel drive small V8. Anybody who thinks oil will ever go under 65k a barrel needs to spend a couple of weeks in the middle east. I love the big engines torque as much as any of us, but an electric motor has 100% torque at zero rpm. Make it cheap and fast and they will come. If they can get the modern internal combustion engine to that point so much the better. But you should never crap where you sleep and like it or not that is where personal transportation has got us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted June 11, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 name='JETSOLVER' date='Jun 11 2006, 02:18 PM' post='19817']Ford needs to do a much better job of leverageing the global engineering. Use the manufacturing ability to build the All Aluminum Jag in as many places as possible. Why not with the mustang? Its going to sell very well as long as they stay with the formula so why not demonstrate the benefits of engineering with a car you know has a loyal customer base? As long as it has the long hood/short deck low greenhouse style it can't help but be a pony car. The retro forward thing is great but the mustang can/has pushed style and gotten away with it. I submit that while we are very happy with this redesign, the customer base that has fond memories of the sixties cars is getting older and less and less likley to buy a gazillion sporty/fun cars. So what has today's university age kids attention? Tech. There is no reason that the next car cannot be both instantly recognized as a Mustang(remember the SN-95 debate? Jenner vs. Schwartzenegger in the end they made both and they sold) and have for example a hybride/all wheel drive small V8. Anybody who thinks oil will ever go under 65k a barrel needs to spend a couple of weeks in the middle east. I love the big engines torque as much as any of us, but an electric motor has 100% torque at zero rpm. Make it cheap and fast and they will come. If they can get the modern internal combustion engine to that point so much the better. But you should never crap where you sleep and like it or not that is where personal transportation has got us. I sure do like the way you think, JETSOLVER... we must have been brothers in another life. ;-) And that Aluminum composite tech used in the Jag (and FordGT?), the multi-layer/honeycomb composites fused with UV light, would have to come down in cost with volume... I suspect the logic that's prevented it from going more mainline is that the base mustang can't bear the added expense, and you can't realistically do some stangs one way and others another. But, to pick up on your point, gotta find a way to take something like the Jag technology and move it to multiple bases so the fundamental technology costs come down and make it available to lower price applications that need it. And if you skin it to be a 'mustang' they will buy it. I'm sure there's reasons we're missing, but I totaly agree with that as the goal. And that rear-mounted torsen transaxle IRS of the Jag... that is slick... lightweight and puts the weight it has where you want it. Could that be why the Jag costs like a 'z06? ;-) Changing the subject a bit, have you seen the Aussie Falcon based FPV MkII GT-P? 390HP NA 5.4 rear drive. Has the right shape to be a 'stang, doesn't it? [ .. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JETSOLVER Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 Changing the subject a bit, have you seen the Aussie Falcon based FPV MkII GT-P? 390HP NA 5.4 rear drive. Has the right shape to be a 'stang, doesn't it? Seen and noted Car & Driver/Cars that could save Ford NOW The powerplant is just good picking and matching of stuff Ford already has lying around. The thing that peaks my interest is that Ford Australia blew it a few years ago and had to make a bet the company effort to reengineer the line. And it worked. Just how desperate does Ford N.A. have to get to have the same mentality? I can't figure out if its the senior management vs the workers, or the shareholders need to live off of incremental dividends thats killing the blue, but just a few years ago Ford was poised to kick everybodys butt and take names. Now they are back and forth on every decision from armrests to Hurricanes and nobody, least of all the people doing the work, has a freaking clue what this "road ahead" is, was, or will be. Ford is one of the planets largest companies and has no excuse for not being able to supply a vehicle for all things to all people. Performance, Efficiency? Look at the Modern F1 engine. Green, carry ability? Any Europeian long haul, clean diesel van. Where is the benefit of the 15 yr research into fuel cells? And advanced materials? And computer control? If I squint I can just see it. And I am looking. Hey Ford if you want a marketing/corparate ethos for the years ahead make it performance. Just remind yourselves that performance is applicable to all area's of transportation not just 0-60. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted June 13, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 Thanks for that link, JETSOLVER... good article and some nice rides. I was not aware of most of them. Part of what I think Bill Ford is having to deal with right now is undoing the plundering that Jacques Nasser did so well. While it appeared Ford was riding high and fat with profits, it was at the expense of draining-down all the 'buffers' (the resilience) in FMC just to post great results on the books. That's no way to run a business and is definately not how you'd run your own. It is what I've seen at other Fordtune 500 companies that rewarded their executive solely on the performance of the stock and the numbers, not on the true health and competitiveness of the business. I think Bill Ford is painfully aware of this and has several really big problems to solve -- concurrently! He has to reinvigorate the business with new product (new-new and/or portable technology as you suggest) and he has to do this somehow while the business is already 'drained' of resiliency, complements of Jacques' legacy. That's why Ford appears to be hoarding $21B in cash and liquid assets while going for junk bonds at 10%. It's counterintuitive but it's far a better to borrow money for 'food' on your signature (junk bonds) at a higher rates (as long as you have a revenue plan to pay it back) then it is to mortgage your house for 'food' even though at more favorable rates. Ford knows how drained-down things are and knows that they cannot make new revenue appear instantly, so they've set the business up to tough it out and will use borrowed money to finance the future rather than mortgage their remaining assets. I know many at Blue Oval folks think this is nuts (because of job cuts and closings), but it is actually smart if Ford doesn't want another name on the door in the future -- if you're Bill Ford you have to do this so that the business can actually recover rather than just be more attractive to suitors if you fail -- regardless of how it looks in the short term (just the opposite of the Jacques Nasser approach to make it look good in the short term no matter the core consequences). Another great American company, IBM, faced very similar problems in the early '90s as a result of relentless Japanese targeting at both the semiconductor and mainframe (full frontal attack) ends of the spectrum and IBM almost stumbled past the point of no return, but fortunately realized that the only way back is to listen to the customer on what's needed and listen to the employees on how best to achieve that -- and transformed itself into a fundamentally different company in about 5 years. Of course IBM isn't unionized, and the culture is less manufacturing oriented, but the challenges were very similar. Amazingly, because of the durable beliefs of their founder, IBM did keep many benefits and medical, but at lower levels. IBM's founder once summarized his philosophy most elegantly when he made his "three profits" speech in the 1920s: "IBM is about three profits: profit for the customer, profit for the employee, and profit for the stockholder; take care of the first two and the third will take care of itself." These are words many corporate executives today do not understand -- their priorities are backward. Thomas Watson Sr (IBM founder) was a lot like Henry Ford Sr in many ways, and, not coincidentally, both created amazingly innovative 'clockwork' enterprizes that regarded "doing the right thing," character, integrity, ethics, and resourcefullness as traits to be rewarded (even though there were exceptions along the way). It's ironic that both of these truly great companies have found that the very traits that made them great has made it easy for them to be abused by management interested in their own wellbeing based on looking good to the stockholders first and foremost -- something unthinkable to their founders. IBM made it back from the brink and I think Ford will too -- largely because Bill Ford is there and he truly is a car person, not just a talented executive, who understands cars, car people, and how people feel about cars. But it won't be easy and it won't happen quickly. And, like IBM, I think Ford will look back 5 years from now and say "thanks, I needed that wake-up call." It will either break Ford or remake Ford into an unstoppable juggernaut (like it was "back when", but different) by rediscovering it's roots: giving the customer what they want&need and doing it better than the competition does. I think they will do it. BillFord is making some tough and unpopular decisions but he has the best interests of the enterprise squarely in mind. Had I bought IBM stock at it's '93 low, I'd be wealthy now. Ford is saddled with some different challenges -- a broader spectrum of things to fix, including the manufacturing end -- they're off to a good start there -- and I do believe they will rise again and are approaching it correctly from a business fundamentals viewpoint. Now the right products that BOLDLY (for real) capture customer mindshare must follow. For its small part, the GT500 gives me a tiny bit of hope. It says we aren't going to forget who we are while we address the tough problems -- and in that sense it's huge! I guess we shall see. As usual I'm off-topic on my own thread again...appologies to the intrepid who have made it this far ;-) , but it does relate overall, I think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JETSOLVER Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 Thank you. That was as elqouently written sumation of the reasons for some of Fords corporate decisions as I have read. These overall factors translate directly to the Mustang we will be offered next year and in the years ahead. Thanks also to anyone who has let us discuss this in and around the car discussion. So this is back to other passionate fans of the car and the brand. If you have strong feelings, pipe up folks. This is a key time for all believers in Ford, the Mustang, and performance in general. I think we have good evidence that some people at Ford are listening to us if we have something to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted June 13, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 Thank you. That was as elqouently written sumation of the reasons for some of Fords corporate decisions as I have read. These overall factors translate directly to the Mustang we will be offered next year and in the years ahead. Thanks also to anyone who has let us discuss this in and around the car discussion. So this is back to other passionate fans of the car and the brand. If you have strong feelings, pipe up folks. This is a key time for all believers in Ford, the Mustang, and performance in general. I think we have good evidence that some people at Ford are listening to us if we have something to say. ...my pleasure ...can only hope it helps a tiny bit (we love you Ford; don't forget why you are one of the most respected corporations in the world and you'll do ok) others, please, feel free to jump in -- don't let this be the JETSOLVER/68fastback forum thread ;-) Your opinions are ALL welcome here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted June 26, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 ...my pleasure ...can only hope it helps a tiny bit (we love you Ford; don't forget why you are one of the most respected corporations in the world and you'll do ok) others, please, feel free to jump in -- don't let this be the JETSOLVER/68fastback forum thread ;-) Your opinions are ALL welcome here... Has anybody heard any good rumors on Boss content??? It would seem to me that if it was pushed out to accommodate GT500 production, then it must have a very complete package design already. ANyone have a whif of what that might already be??? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustangFanatic Posted June 27, 2006 Report Share Posted June 27, 2006 Has anybody heard any good rumors on Boss content??? It would seem to me that if it was pushed out to accommodate GT500 production, then it must have a very complete package design already. ANyone have a whif of what that might already be??? . I'm interested to know, where did you hear that the Boss was pushed out to accomodate GT500 production? I haven't heard that rumor before so I'd be interested to know more on that topic. Thanks!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted June 28, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2006 I'm interested to know, where did you hear that the Boss was pushed out to accomodate GT500 production? I haven't heard that rumor before so I'd be interested to know more on that topic. Thanks!! MustangFanatic, I just spent about 20 minutes looking for that but cannot find it (I'm quite sure it was on this site somewhere though). If I can find it I'll post a link. . Anybody else spot the thread, please let us know, thanks.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustangFanatic Posted June 28, 2006 Report Share Posted June 28, 2006 MustangFanatic, I just spent about 20 minutes looking for that but cannot find it (I'm quite sure it was on this site somewhere though). If I can find it I'll post a link. . Anybody else spot the thread, please let us know, thanks.... I found it in this thread, seems Robert has some inside information .... :happy feet: http://www.stangsunleashed.com/forums/inde...?showtopic=1781 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted June 28, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2006 I found it in this thread, seems Robert has some inside information .... :happy feet: http://www.stangsunleashed.com/forums/inde...?showtopic=1781 Yeah, thanks, that's where I likely saw it... we shall see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.