565" Ford revisited: Rebuild of 2007
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 14 of 29

Thread:
565" Ford revisited: Rebuild of 2007

  1. #1
    Resident Ford Nut Sleeper CP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Diego County
    Posts
    10,072

    Default 565" Ford revisited: Rebuild of 2007

    My 565” 2007 rebuild:


    The “old” combo made 856 HP at 6,600 rpm’s & 712 lbs trq at 5,800 with 10.8: 1 comp., A-460 heads that flow 404 at .750 and a Motorsport A-460 single intake.

    I freshened up the engine in July because after moving 3 times over the last 4 yrs the boat set out and even though it was covered the engine got a bunch of moisture in it. Damn!!
    Since it had to come apart anyway I decided to put it back together with some parts that I had on the shelf for 5-6 yr’s.

    I had a Trick Flow Hi-Rise single plane intake that I purchased when they first came out and I had a second set of A-460 heads that my friend Geoff Mummert of Mummert Machine and Development did for me 5 yrs ago. He totally re-shaped the combustion chamber (apple shape) for high swirl effect since these heads came for someone else they had been decked and with the combustion chamber re-work they were 12 cc’s smaller than the old heads, coming in at 66cc’s which raised the compression to 11.8:1.

    The heads were built with Manley 2.4” Ti intake’s and 1.88” ss ex valves with Isky Tool Room valve spring’s. The heads flow 450 cfm’s at .750 lift.

    I was using the same roller cam that Danny Crower @ www.crowerpower.com ground for me yrs ago, but to take advantage of the new head flow number’s I purchased a set of T&D 1.8 shaft rocker’s. .433 lobe lift = .781 and .438 = .788 ex lift .
    The cam is dur @ .050 278/285 adv dur 317/325 lobe sep 113. This cam was desined to work well with or without Nos. Can't wait to hit the button.

    Part’s list:

    565” { 4.60 bore x 4.25 stroke}
    Ford Motorsport A-460 block, A-460 Heads (’92),Crower/SVO 4.25” forged crank, Crower 6.536” rods, Arias Pistons, Total Seal Rings, Crower Roller cam, Manton Push rods, Trick Flow High rise intake, T& D shaft rocker’s, Manley 2.4” Ti intakes, Isky Tool Room valve springs, MSD Crank Trigger and distributor.


    My original thought was to get it one the dyno and run the old FordMotorsport intake and then switch on the new Trick Flow Hi-rise for a back-to-back run. Unfortunately that didn’t happen because we lost a few hrs (3.5) with various problems with the dyno set-up. Headers didn’t fit, re-done carb didn’t work, just crap that cost us a bunch of time, and this dyno facility isn’t cheap and I wasn’t getting any deals for the day. It was run on a DTS dyno by the way. The carb problem rally pissed me off because I had sent it to a guy here in So Cal that is supposed to know his shit and it didn’t work correctly. I should have driven home and got my C & S 1,100 aerosol billet carb and put on for the dyno run’s but I decided I wanted to figure out what was wrong with the carb that I had just spent a bunch of money on.

    Anyway here are a few pictures’ and a copy of the dyno sheet(s) I’ll add the observed sheet when I get a chance. You notice it’s a single carb, no vacuum pump and an old style Dooley 12 qrt oil pan. These runs were also made with out Mobil One in the engine. From past experience we have found that Mobil one oil has added 12-15 hp to this engine. I also know that there is HP to be had with the addition of a vacuum pump and a Steph’s kick out pan. And a lager carb would help a lot. The engine was pulling 1.0'' of vaccum at 5,800 and 1.4" of vac at 7,000. The engine is breathing through a straw. It could use a lot more air, but it runs so good with the single dominator. It idels at 900-1,000 rpm's with a lope and doesn't use much gas if my brother and I keep our foot out of it.







    Edit's to come: Current set up in boat turns a MPD blueprinted "B" cut SS impeller 6,200 at 98 mph. The pump combo is an AT 9.25" bowl with an adapter to fit the Legend 9.125" impeller both pump and bowl were blueprinted by Jack at MPD.

    The 98 mph was acheived with full tanks and full interior and probably 80 lbs of extra crap in the boat. The intake was only showing 28 psi of pressure. With a few adjustments I hope we can get the intake pressure up to 32-34 psi off the bottle, it should be able to run 102-104 off the bottle.

    Looking to pull 6,800-7,000 on the bottle 112 mph+/-.

    Sleeper CP
    Big Inch Ford Lover
    Last edited by Sleeper CP; 08-20-2009 at 02:56 PM.

    "Dark Sarcasm"
    Going fast is only half the fun ... what you make go
    fast is the other half.
    " A Government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have"
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  2. Remove Advertisements
    PerformanceBoats.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Resident Ford Nut Sleeper CP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Diego County
    Posts
    10,072

    Default

    The following was posted on the DanHerc thread about his BBF. I had asked Lakes what he uses the BMEP #'s(Brake Mean Effective Pressure) for and what he compairs them to, so I did a little reading and a lot of thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by cfm View Post
    Sleeper - I'm actually suprised you don't look at BMEP's. Type in 'BMEP' into your search engine and read away.
    So I did and here is one of the explanations I found:
    This tool is extremely handy to evaluate the performance which is claimed for any particular engine. For example, the 200 HP IO-360 (360 CID) and 300 HP IO-540 (540 CID) Lycomings make their rated power at 2700 RPM. At that RPM, the rated power requires 389 lb-ft and 584 lb-ft of torque respectively. (If you don't understand that calculation, CLICK HERE).

    From those torque values, it is easy to see (from equation 8 above) that both engines operate at a BMEP of about 163 PSI. (1.08 lb-ft of torque per cubic inch) at peak power. The BMEP at peak torque is slightly greater.

    For a long-life, naturally-aspirated, gasoline-fueled, two-valve-per-cylinder, pushrod engine, a BMEP over 200 PSI is difficult to achieve and requires a serious development program and very specialized components.

    For comparison purposes, let's look at what is commonly believed to be the very pinnacle of engine performance: Formula-1 (Grand Prix).

    An F1 engine is purpose-built and essentially unrestricted. For 2006, the rules required a 90° V8 engine of 2.4 liters displacement (146.4 CID) with a maximum bore of 98mm (3.858) and a required bore spacing of 106.5 mm (4.193). The resulting stroke to achieve 2.4 liters is 39.75 mm (1.565) and is implemented with a 180° crankshaft. The typical rod length is approximately 3.94, for a Rod/Stroke ratio of about 2.51. These engines are typically a 4-valve-per cylinder layout with two overhead cams per bank, and use pneumatic valvesprings. In addition to the few restrictions stated above, there are the following additional restrictions: (a) no beryllium compounds, (b) no MMC pistons, (c) no variable-length intake pipes, (d) one injector per cylinder, and (e) the requirement that one engine last for two race weekends.

    At the end of the 2006 season, these F1 engines made in the vicinity of 750 HP at an astonishing 19,000 RPM. Assuming peak power is around 18,500, the torque at peak power would be 213 lb-ft and peak-power BMEP would be 219 psi. Peak torque BMEP would likely be at least 10 psi greater. There can be no argument that 219 psi at 18,500 RPM is truly amazing.

    However, let's look at some astounding domestic technology. The 2006 Nextel Cup engine is a severely-restricted powerplant, being derived from production components. It is based on a production cast-iron 90° V8 block and 90° crankshaft, with a maximum displacement of 358 CID (5.87 liters). A typical configuration has a 4.185" bore with a 3.25" stroke and a 6.20" conrod (R/S = 1.91). Cylinder heads are similarly production-based, limited to two valves per cylinder. The valves are operated by a single, engineblock-mounted, flat-tappet camshaft (that's right, still no rollers as of 2007) and a pushrod / rocker-arm / coil-spring valvetrain. It is further hobbled by the requirement for a single four-barrel carburetor. Electronically-controlled ignition is not allowed, and there are minimum weight requirements for the conrods and pistons.

    How does it perform? At the end of the 2006 season, the engines were producing in the neighborhood of 840 HP at 9000 RPM (and could produce more at 10,000 RPM, but engine RPM has been restricted by means of a rule limiting the final drive ratio at each venue). 840 HP at 9000 RPM requires 490 lb-ft of torque, for a peak-power BMEP exceeding 206 PSI. Estimating peak torque to be 550 lb-ft (probably in the neighborhood of 7800 RPM) yields a peak BMEP of nearly 232 PSI.

    THAT is truly astonishing: End of article

    Now here is an example where the number's don't tell the entire story: a 840 hp 358" Nascar engice makes 2.34 hp/cu. in
    And a 750hp F-1 engine 146 cu. in. makes 5.13 hp cu.in which is more impressive and what would you rather have 232 psi BMEP vs 219 BMEP or 5 hp/ cu. in vs 2.34 hp cu/in. I bet I can guess the answer. The 358" engine would make 1,836 hp at the 5.13 hp cu. in number.

    It should also be noted that at least two F-1 teams were making over 800 hp in 2006. (That's 5.47 hp/cu.in) No turbo, no blower


    I ran the numbers a minute ago and it looks like this:.

    BMEP= (HPx13000)/(L x RPM) L= liter engine size 565" = 9.26 liters

    Equation at max hp = (935x13000)= 12,155,000/(9.26x7000)=64820

    BMEP at peak power = 12,155,000/64,820= 187.5 psi @ peak power

    BMEP at peak trq= (874x13000)11,362,000/(9.26 x 6000)= 55,560

    BMEP at peak trq rpm= 11,362,000/55,560= 204.5 psi at 6,000


    After looking at info about the BMEP's it is basically a high tech way of looking at HP/cu.inch. I have compared HP/cu inch number's in 1992 when I started having engine's dyno'd. Our(brother James and me) first dyno experience in 1992 was a 710 HP 512" Ford, it made 710 HP or 1.39 HP/cu. in and the next was a 783 hp 565" it was also 1.39 hp/cu. in. next came the 855 hp 565" it was 1.51 hp/cu.in. This 565 makes 935 hp or 1.65 hp/cu. in. The HP/cu. in. is a good barometer, I know Steel (I'm sure he'll post) had a bad ass BBC with a very high hp/cu.in. #. As stated the BMEP is a high tech way of doing the same thing although it's strange that the NASCAR engine would have a higher number than an F-1 engine.

    As a measuring gauge a 840 HP 358" Nascar engine would be 2.34hp/cu. in and a 1,400 hp 500" pro-stock engine would be 2.80 hp/cu.in and a 1,700 hp Jon Kaase 813" engine is just 2.09 hp/cu.in.

    I wish I had a dyno chart so I could run some actual number's on them. Since I don't I'll have to use the dyno chart of the baddest single carb engine I have ever seen run on the dyno. It's the chart from Jon Kaase's 700 hp 409" sm/blk Ford that won the 2004 Engine Masters competition. I was there when it ran and the way it's set up they had a big screen TV showing the dyno number's as the engine is running. When this thing broke 700 hp, 50+ plus guy's stood up and cheered and clapped for 1 minute. This sm/blk built with limited rules sounded and pulled like a big block. It made 1.71 hp/cu.in on 91 octane. Kaase gave me an autographed copy of his sheet:


    When you do the math on it, it made 1.71 HP/cu.in.(on pump gas) and the BMEP's look like this:
    BMEP at peak hp is: 219.0 psi and BMEP at peak trq is: 229.8 psi that's smokin. Both set's of number's make the 935 HP 565 look almost weak.

    Sleeper CP
    Last edited by Sleeper CP; 01-16-2008 at 10:57 PM.
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  4. #3
    steelcomp was here
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    n/e TN
    Posts
    26,283

    Default

    My 467 made [email protected], and 679lbs/ft at 5500, and had a BMEP of 200 @ peak tq. It also had over 600 lbs/ft from 4400 past 7000. It made over 700hp from 5500 up. 1.76 hp/ci.
    The way I understand it is BMEP indicates engine efficiency more than anything, and is really another way of indicating torque. Peak BMEP will be at peak torque, and BMEP will fall off as torque does.

    Good reading Sleeper.
    I'll post up a dyno sheet tomorrow.
    Last edited by scott foxwell; 01-16-2008 at 11:55 PM.
    If God is your co-pilot, change seats!
    Acts 2:38, the perfect answer to the perfect question.
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  5. Remove Advertisements
    PerformanceBoats.com
    Advertisements
     

  6. #4
    cfm
    cfm is offline
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,263

    Default

    Sleeper -glad you are looking into this. The more you think and read, the more it will dawn on you why it is used.

    ===============================

    Just to make this clear before this discussion goes further, everyone reading this thread: BMEP is Brake Mean Effective Pressure.

    The 'Brake' part means as measured at the brake.

    There are NO correction factors made before or at the dyno brake. Therefore, there is no such thing as Corrected BMEP's. Yes, you may have seen it on a sheet, but this does not mean that it actually means anything. Anything that says corrected along with BMEP's needs to go in the trash.

    The BMEP's posted by sleepercp above in regards to F1, Nextel CUp, Pro Stock, etc,etc are from uncorrected measurements, because again, that's part of the meaning of BMEP.


    Steel - take a look at your BMEP's from your corrected info and take a look at the BMEP's from the corrected info on the recent 468bbc and 528bbf build ups in this forum.

    It will show you why uncorrected info needs to be used to compare the builds. Also, Feel free to compare those BMEP's SleeperCP put up from those billion dollar engine projects.

    ======================

    This is a great subject btw. Looking forward to learn more insight from everyone.
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  7. #5
    www.highflowdynamics.com LakesOnly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    1,160

    Cool

    Very impressive build, Sleeper.

    Unless I missed it, I think you should try a 1250 cfm carb on that baby.

    LO
    High Flow Dynamics
    Performance Components for the 429/460 Engine Family


    This post © Copyright 2007-2017 Paul Kane. No copying, linking, printing or otherwise without express written permission.
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  8. #6
    Resident Ford Nut Sleeper CP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Diego County
    Posts
    10,072

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cfm View Post
    Sleeper -glad you are looking into this. The more you think and read, the more it will dawn on you why it is used.

    ===============================

    There are NO correction factors made before or at the dyno brake. Therefore, there is no such thing as Corrected BMEP's. Yes, you may have seen it on a sheet, but this does not mean that it actually means anything. Anything that says corrected along with BMEP's needs to go in the trash.-======================

    This is a great subject btw. Looking forward to learn more insight from everyone.
    CFM,

    I don't understand the un-corrected part of this? I need to do some more reading. If I test my engine at 62* or test it at 110* air temp I will get a different trq and hp reading. I've been around dyno's twice when the air was great 58-60* and the humidity was just right and the computer corrected down.

    So how do you compair one engine or one location to another if you don't use corrected #'s: Say Costa Mesa Ca.(Sea level) at 5 p.m. on a Winter evening vs Boulder CO. at 2p.m. (5,350 ft above sea level) on a Summer night?

    I think I might just keep it simple and worry about HP/Cu in. if you can compare a F-1 engine to a NASCAR engine. I'll take 5 hp cu/in over 2.34 hp/cu.in any day. ( I think)

    Sleeper CP
    Last edited by Sleeper CP; 01-17-2008 at 06:55 PM.

    "Dark Sarcasm"
    Going fast is only half the fun ... what you make go
    fast is the other half.
    " A Government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have"
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  9. #7
    steelcomp was here
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    n/e TN
    Posts
    26,283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cfm View Post
    Sleeper -glad you are looking into this. The more you think and read, the more it will dawn on you why it is used.

    ===============================

    Just to make this clear before this discussion goes further, everyone reading this thread: BMEP is Brake Mean Effective Pressure.

    The 'Brake' part means as measured at the brake.

    There are NO correction factors made before or at the dyno brake. Therefore, there is no such thing as Corrected BMEP's. Yes, you may have seen it on a sheet, but this does not mean that it actually means anything. Anything that says corrected along with BMEP's needs to go in the trash.

    The BMEP's posted by sleepercp above in regards to F1, Nextel CUp, Pro Stock, etc,etc are from uncorrected measurements, because again, that's part of the meaning of BMEP.


    Steel - take a look at your BMEP's from your corrected info and take a look at the BMEP's from the corrected info on the recent 468bbc and 528bbf build ups in this forum.

    It will show you why uncorrected info needs to be used to compare the builds. Also, Feel free to compare those BMEP's SleeperCP put up from those billion dollar engine projects.

    ======================

    This is a great subject btw. Looking forward to learn more insight from everyone.
    From what I understand, BMEP numbers are typically measured and not corrected. I know mine aren't. (corrected)
    I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. You want to compare corrected info off other engines with my corrected info, and that's supposed to show why uncorrected info needs to be used for comparison? I don't get that. You want me to compare my numbers to the BMEP's of (billion dollar) engines? Those are most likely corrected numbers for Q and HP, so from what you say, there's no point. I don't see there's any comparison on any of these engines in either direction. They're all completely different engines.
    What I do know is I got exactly what I expected out of my engine. Well, maybe a little more, (thanks to Chris Straub...phenominal job on the cam) but not much.
    Last edited by scott foxwell; 01-17-2008 at 11:17 PM.
    If God is your co-pilot, change seats!
    Acts 2:38, the perfect answer to the perfect question.
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  10. #8
    steelcomp was here
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    n/e TN
    Posts
    26,283

    Default

    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  11. #9
    steelcomp was here
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    n/e TN
    Posts
    26,283

    Default

    Sleeper, on your build...just a thought.
    565ci at 6600 rpm, with an int. duration of [email protected] .050, you're only needing 349cfm. I'm wondering at what lift you're getting that with those heads.
    If God is your co-pilot, change seats!
    Acts 2:38, the perfect answer to the perfect question.
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  12. #10
    Resident Ford Nut Sleeper CP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Diego County
    Posts
    10,072

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steelcomp View Post
    Sleeper, on your build...just a thought.
    565ci at 6600 rpm, with an int. duration of [email protected] .050, you're only needing 349cfm. I'm wondering at what lift you're getting that with those heads.
    The heads flowed 308cfm at .400 and 365 cfm at .500 I don't have the flow sheet here at home to tell you the .450 numbers. I'll look tomorrow if you would like.

    Steel , As far as CFM goes I don't think he is saying anything negative about your build. And I still don't understand the un-corrected part and I haven't had time to read tonight.

    Sleeper CP

    Big Inch Ford Lover

    "Dark Sarcasm"
    Going fast is only half the fun ... what you make go
    fast is the other half.
    " A Government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have"
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  13. #11
    cfm
    cfm is offline
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,263

    Default

    BMEP is just another 'very good' indicator to look at. It puts all engines on a level playing ground to make effeciency and etc comparisons with.

    It gives a good sense on how 'strong and effecient' a certain engine is.

    It does not tell you a 220BMEP 250ft/tq at 19,000rpm F1 engine will be better at the dragstrip in a 3800 pound Chevelle then a much less effecient 750cid BBC with 200BMEP 900ft/lb at 5500rpm. This is not what BMEP is all about.
    I made the #'s up above so don't take them as factual.

    Again, BMEP tells you how effecient your motor is making power.

    =====================

    Say I put together a 6 cylinder 'race' engine together. This being my first 6 cyl engine build. It makes (making this up) 350hp at 'x' rpm and 300 ft/tq at another rpm.

    I say to myself 'Okay that looks good I guess. ?????' And then I look at BMEP and it is at 150psi. Damn !!!! Right away I know its a dog as a well thought out + executed 'race' motor should fall within 205-210psi.

    Say one builds an old PackardV8 for a street engine that I know nothing about and the person tells me it made X horsepower and X tq. I'll have no idea if that's good for that engine or not....as impressive or lackluster it may sound comparing to my head full of street/strip/and marine sbc and BBC. I do the math and find out the BMEP's are 185psi. Knowing BMEP's from strong street/strip other builds I now know how effecient the build is. BTW: 185psi is pretty good for relatively lower compression strong street / marine build.

    I know people that haven't used this piece of Data before can be confused and/or dismissive on importance of BMEP's because most of us (drag cars/performance boats )care more about peak hp, tq and their 'curves.' It's all about who crosses the finish line first.

    If you read, re read, and think about all the uses for BMEP's you will start to understand why it is used. It tells a lot about an engine and others your comparing it too.

    As all tools are, this is made for one specific purpose. No tool is a 'do everything' other than maybe a 5lb sledgehammer. LOL.
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  14. #12
    cfm
    cfm is offline
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steelcomp View Post
    I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. You want to compare corrected info off other engines with my corrected info, and that's supposed to show why uncorrected info needs to be used for comparison? I don't get that.
    Yup. I want you to compare them for you. Privately. You know your motor better than anybody else, therefore using it will help give you insight. It will help show what/how BMEP is used. Use others you know intimintly (sp?) too, and compare...then compare with others found in boards.

    That's all.
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  15. #13
    Resident Ford Nut Sleeper CP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Diego County
    Posts
    10,072

    Default

    I edited my first post today and added this graph:


    ==================

    Okay CFM,

    I haven't had the time to do a lot more reading,but I'll do that tonight, but I did take a look at a few number's:

    The corrected BMEP's I posted earlier are:

    204 psi peak trq and 187 peak pwr.

    That's 765 lbs. ft. at 6,000 w/ 874 hp and 935 hp at 7,000 w/ 701 lbs ft trq.

    If I look at them uncorrected they are :
    (this is from one formula I found. I need to look for another to compare it to)

    188 psi peak trq and 171 psi peak pwr.

    The uncorrected dyno #'s are:

    706 lbs. ft @ 6,000 and 858 hp @ 7,000 rpm's.

    The BMEP of 171 psi at peak power is the same as Steel's engine. He has me covered at peak trq by 12 psi. I quess I would have to ask what the conditions were when he tested ,air temp, humidity and elevation. If I don't know that we could be compairing apples to oranges.

    Sleeper CP

    Learning more everyday and loving it.
    Last edited by Sleeper CP; 01-18-2008 at 06:00 PM.

    "Dark Sarcasm"
    Going fast is only half the fun ... what you make go
    fast is the other half.
    " A Government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have"
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  16. #14
    Resident Ford Nut Sleeper CP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Diego County
    Posts
    10,072

    Default

    Here is another way of looking at BMEP number's:

    The definition of BMEP is: the average (mean) pressure which, if imposed on the pistons uniformly from the top to the bottom of each power stroke, would produce the measured (brake) power output.

    Note that BMEP is purely theoretical and has nothing to do with actual cylinder pressures. It is simply an effective comparison tool.

    If you work through the arithmetic, you find that BMEP is simply a multiple of the torque per cubic inch of displacement. A torque output of 1.0 lb-ft per cubic inch of displacement equals a BMEP of 150.8 psi. in a four-stroke engine and 75.4 psi. in a two-stroke engine.

    (The discussion on the remainder of this page is with respect to four-stroke engines, but it applies equally to two strike engines if you simply substitute 75.4 everywhere you see 150.8)
    If you know the torque and displacement of an engine, a very practical way to calculate BMEP is:

    BMEP = 150.8 x TORQUE (lb-ft) / DISPLACEMENT (ci)

    This formula is easier than the above one of:

    (HP x 13,000)/(LxRPM) L= liter of displacement.

    The answer will be the same.

    Sleeper CP
    Last edited by Sleeper CP; 01-18-2008 at 08:25 PM.

    "Dark Sarcasm"
    Going fast is only half the fun ... what you make go
    fast is the other half.
    " A Government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have"
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Tags for this Thread

Digg This Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95