Print Page | Close Window

Tow Vehicle Recommendation?

Printed From: R-pod Owners Forum
Category: R-pod Discussion Forums
Forum Name: I need HELP!!!
Forum Discription: Perplexed/need help with a problem - ask here
URL: http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=12319
Printed Date: 29 Mar 2024 at 12:35am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.64 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Tow Vehicle Recommendation?
Posted By: rjmarlatt
Subject: Tow Vehicle Recommendation?
Date Posted: 17 Oct 2018 at 11:14pm
We have an RPOD 179 with a 2002 Dodge Dakota 4x4 V8

We would like to upgrade to a newer Pickup.  We are considering a Ford F150 4x2 with Tow Package

Any advice for 4X2 vs 4x4
Other recommendations for Tow Vehicle.  We want to optimize of Gas Mileage as we are planning a cross country trip.


-------------
rjmarlatt
rpod 179



Replies:
Posted By: harrypodder
Date Posted: 18 Oct 2018 at 6:29am
Got a 2009 F-150 4X2 with a 4.6L V-8 with a tow package and towing a 189 with no problem getting 13-14mpg average in the tow/haul mode. You should get anti sway control with the package but would get a factory brake controller if possible. Would recommend a sway bar even with Fords standard electronic sway control. Pod tows level with the 150 with Tow package did not need to add anything.


Posted By: offgrid
Date Posted: 18 Oct 2018 at 7:00am
rjmarlatt, an F150 would be just fine for the application, lots of folks tow RPODs with them. The choice of 4x2 vs 4x4 depends on where you go and the time of year. If you found you used and needed the 4x4 capability of your present tow vehicle, stick with that. If not 4x2 will return a bit better fuel economy and cost less for maintenance in the long run. 

RPODS are light enough that you have a broad range of TV choices, most vehicles with a tow rating of 5000 lbs or higher with a tow package and weight distribution hitch will work as long as you're not carrying lots of gear and people in the TV. 

So consider what you want the tow vehicle to do for you when you're not towing. In the end, I chose a midsized SUV for my 179 TV because I no longer really need a pickup truck and find my Highlander more comfortable and useful the 90% of the time I don't have the RPOD back there. 

Don't expect to get much better fuel economy towing with an SUV vs a recent vintage pickup. Assuming the tow vehicle has a modern efficient drivetrain the highway fuel economy is mostly going to be limited by the air drag of the trailer anyway. For reference, I get about 14mpg on flat ground, no wind, at 60 mph. I don't think its possible to do much better than that burning gasoline unless you drive slower. 


-------------
1994 Chinook Concourse
1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft
2015 Rpod 179 - sold


Posted By: GlueGuy
Date Posted: 18 Oct 2018 at 9:32am
rjmarlatt, pretty much any of the F-150 engine combinations will work fine pulling an R-pod. You will find that the 4x2 will generally get better mileage and have a bit higher GVWR than the 4x4, but if you have used 4x4 with your Dakota, then you would probably miss it with the F-150. Don't expect the MPG to be too much different when pulling the R-pod though. The added wind resistance is the primary MPG factor.


-------------
bp
2017 R-Pod 179 Hood River
2015 Ford F150 SuperCrew 4WD 3.5L Ecoboost


Posted By: lostagain
Date Posted: 18 Oct 2018 at 12:30pm
We tow with a 2004 Dodge Dakota 4x4 with nearly 150K miles on it and it does just fine.  We replaced the ball joints [upper and lower - with zerk fitting to grease them] and it drives like a new truck.  We also added an transmission cooler after returning from CO last May.  We cross Sierra passes in it all the time and have had no issues.  Like most Chrysler products, though, the mileage isn't as good as one would like.  Got about 12 mpg going from Carson City to Sacramento recently.  

Our plan is to run the Dakota indefinitely.  Even if we had to replace the motor and/or the tranny, we'd still be a long way from the cost of a new truck these days.  Pickups cost way, way too much for what you get.  


-------------
Never leave footprints behind.
Fred & Maria Kearney
Sonoma 167RB
Our Pod 172
2019 Ford F-150 4x4 2.7 EcoBoost


Posted By: offgrid
Date Posted: 18 Oct 2018 at 3:05pm
Lostagain, I don't think 12 mpg crossing the Sierras is bad at all. I doubt I would have done much better with my Highlander. I think folks sometimes have an unrealistic expectation of increased fuel economy with a different tow vehicle because it has better highway fuel economy not towing. But the two may not correlate. 

Aerodynamic drag will govern at highway speeds so vehicles that have lower drag will have better fuel economy. But its the drag of the trailer that really matters when towing, not the TV's. If the drivetrain is operating efficiently probably most folks mileage won't vary too much as long as they're travelling at the same speed. 


-------------
1994 Chinook Concourse
1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft
2015 Rpod 179 - sold


Posted By: furpod
Date Posted: 18 Oct 2018 at 3:37pm
From Carson City to Sacramento is almost all downhill.. I did that area 4 times in the last month, Sacramento to Winnemuca and back. My 6.8 V10 Excursion got 12.6 +/- a tenth going up, and 16.5 exactly, (again +/- a tenth) coming down.. 5-8 people and gear, or a cargo trailer, every trip.


-------------


Posted By: TheBum
Date Posted: 18 Oct 2018 at 3:47pm
From anecdotal evidence, V8s or higher seem to have less of a difference in mileage between towing and non-towing than V6s do.

-------------
Alan
2022 R-Pod 196 "RaptoRPod"
2022 Ram 1500 Lone Star 4x4
Three cats


Posted By: offgrid
Date Posted: 18 Oct 2018 at 4:20pm
TheBum, that makes sense. 

Let's assume the same trailer and tow vehicle, the only difference is the engine. HP requirement is aero drag plus rolling resistance. So the aero drag will be identical and the rolling resistance will be nearly so, insignificantly more for the V8's slightly higher weight. And that will be true whether towing or not towing. 

So, if the HP requirements to run down the road are nearly identical why wouldn't the fuel economy be the same for both? It won't because engine efficiency varies with loading. And the smaller engine is seeing a larger percentage variation in its loading than the larger engine is, so its fuel economy will likely vary more. 

Nearly always the vehicle/engine combo has been designed so the smaller engine is a better match to its requirements when its lightly loaded/not towing. That way the manufacturer can advertise the highest possible highway fuel economy. Whether or not the larger or smaller engine is better towing will depend on where the engine ends up operating. The smaller engine is going to need to drop to a lower gear sooner and that's bad for efficiency because of the higher friction and pumping losses at higher rpm. It can easily be the case that the smaller engine is less efficient than the larger one when towing.

If anyone is interested, here's a cool calculator for fuel economy based on aero drag, rolling resistance, and engine/drivetrain efficiency.

https://ecomodder.com/forum/tool-aero-rolling-resistance.php




-------------
1994 Chinook Concourse
1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft
2015 Rpod 179 - sold


Posted By: mcarter
Date Posted: 18 Oct 2018 at 5:34pm
I have both a 2WD and a 4WD tow vehicle. The 4WD is a V8, the 2WD is a V6. Both have a 7000 lb tow capacity. The mileage on the 2WD is reduced more when towing than the 4WD. I use the 4WD for many things other than towing a Pod. To me it is a valuable asset. The 2WD my wife drives on a somewhat daily basis, and it gets very good mileage for an everyday driver. If I had to pick one to tow, I would choose the V8, 4WD. AND I do on most occasions. IMHO

-------------
Mike Carter
2015 178
" I had the right to remain silent, I just didn't have the ability."


Posted By: fwunder
Date Posted: 18 Oct 2018 at 5:40pm
Originally posted by furpod

... 5-8 people and gear, or a cargo trailer, every trip.

Holy rest stop, furpod! How often did you have to pull over or, did you just dehydrate everyone before?! Are we there yet?! Star

fred


-------------
2014 RPod 178 => https://goo.gl/CV446f - MyMods and Buying Habits
2008 4Runner Limited 4.0-liter V6
Yes, those are wild ponies dining on grass while dumping tanks!


Posted By: furpod
Date Posted: 18 Oct 2018 at 6:08pm
Originally posted by fwunder

Originally posted by furpod

... 5-8 people and gear, or a cargo trailer, every trip.

Holy rest stop, furpod! How often did you have to pull over or, did you just dehydrate everyone before?! Are we there yet?! Star

fred


I won't go into details, but most legs, no stops. None of it was fun. My family is used to my military ingrained need to get there, get it done, and get back. My baby brother is also prior service, so he was no problem. Mom groaned a little first time up.. but by the last trip down after the funeral, she was "get home, now. not a peep out of her"..


-------------


Posted By: lostagain
Date Posted: 18 Oct 2018 at 8:30pm
furpod, the thing that really sucks up the gas on the way to Sacramento is climbing from Dayton, to Moundhouse, then Spooner summit grade, then Echo Summit.  Once you're past those, it's just a matter of wind resistance.  And, yes, the trip starts at 4500 ft and ends about 100 ft above sea level.  I just try to go a little slower and reduce the wind drag.  There's not much more I can do besides keeping my engine in good repair and the tires properly inflated.  Like I said, Chrysler/Dodge is not noted for wonderful fuel economy in any of their vehicles.  But, the difference in gas savings will fall far short of buying my dream truck, so I'll just live with what I have and be happy.

-------------
Never leave footprints behind.
Fred & Maria Kearney
Sonoma 167RB
Our Pod 172
2019 Ford F-150 4x4 2.7 EcoBoost


Posted By: offgrid
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2018 at 4:29am
How can both furpod and lostagain be seeing the fuel consumption they're seeing climbing and descending the same mountain range? 

You put fuel/$ into you rig climbing a mountain. For a typical 9000 lb rig figure on about 1 gal per 2000 ft climb.  Basic physics of potential energy, no getting around it. The trick is to try to get that back going down. But if the road isn't cooperating by providing you with a grade where you can just coast, there's a big part of that you don't get back. That part just is wasted as heat either out tailpipe if you're engine braking or into your discs if you're wheel braking. 

This is the reason my Prius gets the same great fuel economy in town as on the highway. Regen braking puts that energy back in the battery for reuse by the electric motor. I originally wanted to get a Highlander Hybrid for that reason but its not up to towing an rPod.  

I was unpleasantly surprised the first time I took my rig to the WV mountains, from sea level to 4000 ft or so. I expected bad fuel economy once I hit the mountains. Instead of my usual 14 mpg plus I got 9.5. Bummer, but I'm getting it back coming down, right?

Nope, I got 11 mpg. Why? Because I have to make 7 2000 plus foot climbs and descents to get to the final climb up to 4000. That's the Appalachians. Then, engine and wheel braking all the way down each ridge heating up the air for next to no benefit. On the way back I have one less climb so its a little better, not much. 

All this is why comparing fuel economy towing is so confusing. Unless you're comparing running a dead flat highway at the same speed in a zero wind condition, there are way too many variables making the numbers bounce around. Even a 5 mph headwind will drop my fuel economy from 14 to 12.5 or so mpg. 

To bring this thread back to rjmarlatt's original question. You probably don't want to get a new tow vehicle expecting some great improvement in fuel economy towing, you're likely to be disappointed. Almost certainly you'll never recover your investment with fuel savings.  Most of the engineering that makes newer vehicles more efficient is washed out when you're dragging around a big heavy box. 

My recommendation is to get a new tow vehicle because that's what you want to drive, make sure it meets your towing and other requirements, and enjoy. If your towing fuel economy improves along the way, that's gravy. And one requirement needs to be a big fuel tank, I'd say about 20 gal is the minimum. Less than that and you'll be looking for a gas station every couple of hours.





-------------
1994 Chinook Concourse
1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft
2015 Rpod 179 - sold


Posted By: furpod
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2018 at 8:01am
LOL.. well, part of the difference for us is at nearly 8.5K pounds just in truck and passengers, we coast most of the way down. There are in fact a couple reverse grades you could call them coming down, but of course they are also easier on the way up. I gear down "coming home", (going back to my parents place) because, if not, the big eX would fall down that mountain.. I don't know, maybe 100 miles an hour. I have to brake a fair amount to keep it under 80, unless I kick the OD off.

But yes, it takes "X" horsepower to do "Y" work.. and it takes "X" amount of fuel and "Y" amount of air, to make that horsepower number.

So regardless of engine size, everybody gets the same mileage towing, +/- a few percentage points, when towing.


-------------


Posted By: offgrid
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2018 at 8:28am
Well, I guess I could try to coast down the WV rural highways too, but there's always a bunch of 15 to 25 mph hairpins on the way up or down and I'm not sure how well the rPod axle will hold up to going around the curves on one wheel.....

If you have properly inflated road tires and add in wind speed and vehicle speed to your mix of variables that you're keeping the same, I agree. Tow with whatever you want, as long as its "modern", ie, has a multispeed auto tranny, efi and good electronic engine controls, and it will probably show pretty much the same fuel economy on the same piece of highway going the same direction. 

One thing that might help a little is to add one of the roof mounted spoilers to your TV to try to improve the drag coefficient. I'm thinking of trying that just of fun. I have access to the local airstrip here to run coast down tests to see if I can measure the effect, but I'd have to wait for a calm wind day, which are few and far between here on the OBX. 




-------------
1994 Chinook Concourse
1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft
2015 Rpod 179 - sold


Posted By: Shane
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2018 at 11:32am
The only problem I see with a 4x2 to a 4x4 is getting stuck in the mud, we just went on a trip to a campground near Starved Rock in Illinois, and it rained all weekend long, mud mud mud it was bad. Two trucks gotten stuck and could not pull there rv's out. 4x4 saved my trip from becoming even worse.

-------------
ENGINE 55,TRUCK 44,BATALLION 12


Posted By: GlueGuy
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2018 at 12:16pm
Originally posted by Shane

The only problem I see with a 4x2 to a 4x4 is getting stuck in the mud, we just went on a trip to a campground near Starved Rock in Illinois, and it rained all weekend long, mud mud mud it was bad. Two trucks gotten stuck and could not pull there rv's out. 4x4 saved my trip from becoming even worse.
That is truly the dilemma. We had an easy decision in this department, as we needed 4x4 without regard to the towing issue in the first place.


-------------
bp
2017 R-Pod 179 Hood River
2015 Ford F150 SuperCrew 4WD 3.5L Ecoboost


Posted By: lostagain
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2018 at 8:51pm
The Dodge Dakota I have now doesn't do much better than the Ram 1500 with a hemi I sold almost 10 years ago.  It was a 2006.  Chrysler has never gotten the fuel efficiency of some other brands.  But towing is towing and you're never going to get really good mileage.  As I said earlier, it'd take a lot of towing to make up the difference between current fuel consumption for my Dakota and the price I'd pay for my dream truck.  So, I just carry an extra 20 gallons of gas so I can by pass the really expensive gas stations, try not to drive with a lead foot, and when the wind is blowing, I just slow down or wait it out if possible.

-------------
Never leave footprints behind.
Fred & Maria Kearney
Sonoma 167RB
Our Pod 172
2019 Ford F-150 4x4 2.7 EcoBoost


Posted By: offgrid
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2018 at 8:11am
lostagain, I think probably Ram 1500 has caught up with F150 on fuel economy now. The 2019 1500 comes standard with a mild hybrid powertrain which might even give it the edge on the city cycle. 

But these are all for empty trucks not towing anything. it looks like we all agree that there wouldn't really be any difference to speak of towing with any of these choices. 


-------------
1994 Chinook Concourse
1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft
2015 Rpod 179 - sold


Posted By: lostagain
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2018 at 11:56am
I'll have to wait for a recession to slam the auto industry before I can think about buying a new truck.  But then my IRA will get slammed to, so I guess I'll stick with my Dakota and see how many miles I can squeeze out of it.

-------------
Never leave footprints behind.
Fred & Maria Kearney
Sonoma 167RB
Our Pod 172
2019 Ford F-150 4x4 2.7 EcoBoost


Posted By: mcarter
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2018 at 3:48pm
I considered a newer truck, then couldn't justify the expense, I have two tow vehicles now and prefer the older 4WD. My odds of stuck are minimal and if I get so poor to worry about gas mileage, the RV would be the first to go. I have spent considerable time equipping my primary tow vehicle to do what I want it to do and starting over even with a heavy optioned 30-50K expense isn't what I want to do. I'm used to not having warranties and enjoy fixing things myself.

-------------
Mike Carter
2015 178
" I had the right to remain silent, I just didn't have the ability."


Posted By: Ifishlbj
Date Posted: 08 Nov 2018 at 12:31pm
Just pulled our 179 back from Port Aransas, Texas to Georgetown, Texas. TV is a 2018 GMC Canyon CC 2wd with V6. 13.5 mpg cruising at 65 mph. Very little wind. Strong head wind knocks it down some. We are happy with these numbers and the 179.


Posted By: offgrid
Date Posted: 08 Nov 2018 at 1:58pm
Those are normal numbers for towing an rPod. You should get that with pretty much any vehicle with a modern drivetrain at that speed. That's because at 60-65 mph about 2/3 of the hp requirement is aero drag on the trailer.  For that same reason, you'll find headwinds/tailwinds will make a huge difference. 

-------------
1994 Chinook Concourse
1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft
2015 Rpod 179 - sold


Posted By: lostagain
Date Posted: 09 Nov 2018 at 7:15am
I say always drive down wind for the best mileage.  Don't worry about where you are going, just keep going down wind.  You'll end up somewhere.  Just  check the weather each day, and follow the wind direction.  Who knows the amazing places where you will end up. Wink

-------------
Never leave footprints behind.
Fred & Maria Kearney
Sonoma 167RB
Our Pod 172
2019 Ford F-150 4x4 2.7 EcoBoost


Posted By: GlueGuy
Date Posted: 09 Nov 2018 at 9:12am
Originally posted by lostagain

I say always drive down wind for the best mileage.  Don't worry about where you are going, just keep going down wind.  You'll end up somewhere.  Just  check the weather each day, and follow the wind direction.  Who knows the amazing places where you will end up. Wink
Best idea I've heard since they invented sliced bread. Driving into headwind? Turn around! You might discover something! Star


-------------
bp
2017 R-Pod 179 Hood River
2015 Ford F150 SuperCrew 4WD 3.5L Ecoboost


Posted By: offgrid
Date Posted: 09 Nov 2018 at 9:42am
lostagain, I think you're confusing towing with sailing.LOL How about we design a trailer like a sail/wing so we could tack to windward?  We could have a curved slide on both sides of the trailer and pop one or the other side out depending on the wind direction, or both to go downwind...

-------------
1994 Chinook Concourse
1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft
2015 Rpod 179 - sold


Posted By: Craneman
Date Posted: 09 Nov 2018 at 12:29pm
Originally posted by lostagain

I say always drive down wind for the best mileage.  Don't worry about where you are going, just keep going down wind.  You'll end up somewhere.  Just  check the weather each day, and follow the wind direction.  Who knows the amazing places where you will end up. Wink
  
 I really like that,that way you would never late


-------------
Jo and Gary, 2010-174,2011 F150

Jo and Gary
2010 174
2011 Ford 150





Posted By: offgrid
Date Posted: 09 Nov 2018 at 1:24pm
Since the prevailing winds on the West Coast are from the NW y'all will wind up in Baja and then either have to stay there or learn how to tack to windward, just like the sailors do. There are far worse places to wind up though....

-------------
1994 Chinook Concourse
1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft
2015 Rpod 179 - sold


Posted By: lostagain
Date Posted: 09 Nov 2018 at 3:01pm
Offgrid: "How about we design a trailer like a sail/wing so we could tack to windward?  We could have a curved slide on both sides of the trailer and pop one or the other side out depending on the wind direction, or both to go downwind..."

Well, there wouldn't be much surface area on the sides of the pod, it'd be awfully cramped inside the air foil, and you'd have a hard time making shape switch from port to starboard tack with a rigid foil system..

When we drove from New Jersey to Dayton, NV, to look for a house to buy for retirement, I managed to hit headwinds in both directions.  It's just a question of planning.  The prevailing winds are often redirected by low and high pressure troughs and ridges.  If you want to go to the north west, just wait for a storm and catch the SE wind; a piece of cake.  If you want to cross the country, just follow the opposite of the winds we had when we drove to/from Nevada the first time.  On the east coast, it's common for an onshore wind in the morning and an offshore wind in the afternoon, thus go to the beach in the afternoon, then a couple days later, leave for home in the morning.  


-------------
Never leave footprints behind.
Fred & Maria Kearney
Sonoma 167RB
Our Pod 172
2019 Ford F-150 4x4 2.7 EcoBoost


Posted By: offgrid
Date Posted: 09 Nov 2018 at 3:46pm
lostagain, I never said that a sail shaped travel trailer would be practical, but it would be easy to change from port to starboard tack to address a wind shift, just retract one slide and extend the other one. 

If you're on the southeast coast in the summer, you could just wait for a tropical storm to make your move, depending on where the eye was you could go in any direction, or even go around in a circle if you wanted to. Probably could go pretty fast too, for a little while...

I believe we just participated in another round of the dreaded thread drift...


-------------
1994 Chinook Concourse
1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft
2015 Rpod 179 - sold


Posted By: lostagain
Date Posted: 09 Nov 2018 at 4:01pm
Much of the discussion in this thread has addressed the issue of mileage, to which I thoughtfully added that one could arrange one's travel down wind to avoid the dreaded up wind trips.  The use of a sail's airfoil was a logical extension of the concept, though a bit impractical.  Thus, we have come full circle back to fuel economy depending on wind direction.  Certainly, to the extent the topic was driven in one direction or another by the wind, one could accurately call it drift, the circular motion of the wind brought us right back to the topic.

-------------
Never leave footprints behind.
Fred & Maria Kearney
Sonoma 167RB
Our Pod 172
2019 Ford F-150 4x4 2.7 EcoBoost


Posted By: offgrid
Date Posted: 09 Nov 2018 at 4:17pm
10-4.

And just to cement the notion that we are back on topic, I'll include here an excellent online tool for calculating fuel economy where you can load in your numbers and see the impact of aero drag. I put in .01 for rolling resistance, 8600 lbs wt, left the drag coefficient at 0.34, and plugged in 47 ft2 for frontal area. Left all the other inputs as is.

Comes out very close to my actual numbers. You can see to what extent aero drag on the trailer controls fuel economy. All you have to do to get 18 mpg is drive 50 mph (or have about a 20-25 mph tailwind).  

https://ecomodder.com/forum/tool-aero-rolling-resistance.php


-------------
1994 Chinook Concourse
1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft
2015 Rpod 179 - sold


Posted By: marwayne
Date Posted: 09 Nov 2018 at 4:41pm
I once used ( but only once ) used 12.2 litres per 100 km, that is 19.3 miles per US gallon with a 30 miles an hour tail wind. So that means I defied Murphy's Law once.

-------------
If you want something done right, do it yourself.
2011 RP172, 2016 Tundra 5.7 Litre, Ltd.




Posted By: offgrid
Date Posted: 09 Nov 2018 at 4:48pm
I did get 18 mpg with a 25 mph tailwind once as well, so that's 2 Murphy anomalies...Happened to be the day I first brought the trailer home, so for a short time I had a very unrealistic idea of what I could expect. I was quickly dissuaded however as Murphy raised his head quickly after that. 

-------------
1994 Chinook Concourse
1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft
2015 Rpod 179 - sold


Posted By: lostagain
Date Posted: 09 Nov 2018 at 6:16pm
So, in the last analysis, mileage isn't entirely the quality and capacity of the TV, the original topic, but a function of swirling air masses galloping around the planet.

And sorry Marwayne and offgrid, you didn't pull a fast one on my cousin Murphy.  You only addressed the first two elements of the law, which is incomplete.  What can go wrong, will go wrong at the worst possible moment.  Each of you lacked the element of "worst possible moment."  Thus Murphy is still waiting patiently for the proper combination of the three elements of the law.  And he will strike with out warning.  You probably had plenty of gas stations along the way, plenty of cash in your pockets or a hefty credit card limit, and/or agreeable weather making it a lousy time to impose the effects of the first two elements of the law.Disapprove


-------------
Never leave footprints behind.
Fred & Maria Kearney
Sonoma 167RB
Our Pod 172
2019 Ford F-150 4x4 2.7 EcoBoost



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.64 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com