Any experience with Ford Escape 2.0L? - Page 3 - Fiberglass RV


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-31-2016, 08:11 PM   #41
Senior Member
 
Radar1's Avatar
 
Name: Dave (and/or John)
Trailer: Scamp 16 SD std layout 6
Georgia
Posts: 946
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Baglo View Post
What if it is raining or snowing? Does the extra weight of the precipitation hitting the trailer decrease the allowable frontal area?
The extra power available from the water injection would offset the extra drag.
__________________

__________________
John-Dave and Marilyn
Sharpsburg, GA
04 Dodge Dakota V-8 and 17 Dodge Durango V-6
radar1-scamping.blogspot.com
Radar1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2016, 09:29 PM   #42
Senior Member
 
floyd's Avatar
 
Name: Floyd
Trailer: 2004 13 ft Scamp Custom Deluxe
IllAnnoy
Posts: 7,352
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by steelypip View Post
2.3L Escape /= 2.0L EcoBoost Escape.

The good news is that the 2.0 makes a lot more power. The bad news is that it does it with a turbo, and that means that the engine probably can't stand to make its rated power (or torque) for more than about 30 seconds at a shot without bad things starting to happen. It's also relatively young, which means that we don't really know it will fare over the next 5-10 years. Ford has had mixed fortunes with their light truck engines recently - The staged turbo PowerStroke didn't win fans with turbo problems and high repair bills.

The 2.3 is an engine of long pedigree that appeared in a lot of Ranger pickups over the years. Thoroughly debugged, and certainly up to 100% output for as long as necessary. It was a successful competitor to the Toyota R engine in their small pickups for decades, which tells you just how good it is.

It's all about the designed maximum duty cycle. If Ford designed the engine (and transmission) to run at maximum torque for many minutes at a time, as they did with turbo V6 in the F-150 (which is a great engine by all accounts), then all's well, and you'll have nothing but the expected fuel economy hit - expect 16 MPG at best and 13 or so at worst.

If, on the other hand, the drivetrain isn't up to continuous operation at maximum torque, things could get very expensive very quickly...
The Duratec engine family is not related to the Lima engine family.
The Lima engine... (Pinto/ early Ranger... 2.0,2.3,2.5) had a cast iron block and head and a timing belt so it avoided the foibles of the 22R .

The 2.3L Duratec engine in the Escape was enlarged to 2.5L in 2009 and is now used as the base engine in the Escape.

The unrelated 2.0L Ecoboost engine is not your father's turbo!
No need to wait 5-10 years since the 2.0L Ecoboost has been in production for eight years already and uses essentially the same approach and technology as the 3.5L V6.
The new Ecoboost engines do best with spirited driving using first tier gasoline due to the direct injection.

Powerstroke was a diesel.
__________________

floyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 09:16 AM   #43
Junior Member
 
Name: Jerry
Trailer: In the market
California
Posts: 2
2016 Ford Escape Titanium Towing

I have the 2.5 liter with tow package and it is rated for 3500 pounds by Ford.
charlesjerrywalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 10:00 AM   #44
Senior Member
 
Name: Patrick
Trailer: Shopping for new RV
North Carolina
Posts: 686
Your trailer comes in at about 2,000 pounds add another 10-15% for cargo etc and you still have a safety margin considering the 3,500 lbs Ford rates your ecoboost escape at.

If that gives you cause for concern consider another tow vehicle with a higher rating. Higher tow ratings mean lower gas mileage but a much higher safety margin.

Too often on this site I see folks trying to push the limits of tow vehicles.
They post a question and wait for strangers to post an opinion that fits what
they want to hear. Why not ask Ford for their opinion....might be more fact
than fiction.

Your real question is does an increase in trailer frontal area
reduce the tow rating of a vehicle and if so by how much ?
Is there a formula for this reduction ?

Happy Camping !
Uplander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 10:34 AM   #45
Senior Member
 
floyd's Avatar
 
Name: Floyd
Trailer: 2004 13 ft Scamp Custom Deluxe
IllAnnoy
Posts: 7,352
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uplander View Post
Your trailer comes in at about 2,000 pounds add another 10-15% for cargo etc and you still have a safety margin considering the 3,500 lbs Ford rates your ecoboost escape at.

If that gives you cause for concern consider another tow vehicle with a higher rating. Higher tow ratings mean lower gas mileage but a much higher safety margin.

Too often on this site I see folks trying to push the limits of tow vehicles.
They post a question and wait for strangers to post an opinion that fits what
they want to hear. Why not ask Ford for their opinion....might be more fact
than fiction.

Your real question is does an increase in trailer frontal area
reduce the tow rating of a vehicle and if so by how much ?
Is there a formula for this reduction ?

Happy Camping !
Considering that there is a point of diminishing returns,you can not get a "much higher safety margin" by simply going to an oversized TV.
Using a 15MM wrench on a 15MM nut is actually safer than using an oversized Cresent wrench adjusted to fit. The right tool is the safe tool.

What is the frontal area of a ball? Is it height times width?
What about a flat, vertical surface or a parachute?
It really is an important question because frontal area can have more effect than weight.
My 1975 Ford Econoline had a drag coefficient of .33. An average bicyclist has a drag coefficient of 1.0.( only a third as good.)
An empty rooftop carrier can actually hurt more than the same cubic feet of space filled with cargo inside a vehicle.
I think the frontal area question is largely ignored, primarily because it is hard to define and quantify its effect.

I have real world experience with drag when it comes to open and closed trailers when subjected to real world conditions, but...
The math and theory itself is a stretch for me, so I will defer to others expertise, or reluctantly to Wikipedia (not claiming it as true or as personal knowledge)
Here's what they have...
Check out the chart at the right side of the page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient
floyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 10:50 AM   #46
Senior Member
 
Name: Steve
Trailer: Casita 17 ft DLX SD & 21 ft SOB
NW Wisconsin
Posts: 3,659
When the J2807 towing standards were adopted ,many vehicles could not meet the standards while towing the maximum trailer weight listed for that vehicle. Vehicle manufacturers could lower their tow rating , redesign the vehicle or lower the listed frontal area . In order to meet the J2807 standard ,they took the easiest route and decreased the allowed frontal area , basically because no one pays attention to the frontal area limit. Many vehicles especially small SUV'S kept their towing weight limit where they were and cut the frontal area limit in half . There are 2013 vehicles that had a 60 sg ft limit yet that identical vehicle has a 30 Sq ft limit for 2014 . This change happened after the implementation of J2807.
In my area more people tow boats than Travel trailers so frontal area is of little concern , tow weight rating are the only limit for towing a boat.
steve dunham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 11:11 AM   #47
Senior Member
 
Jon in AZ's Avatar
 
Name: Jon
Trailer: 2008 Scamp 13 S1
Arizona
Posts: 8,242
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve dunham View Post
When the J2807 towing standards were adopted ,many vehicles could not meet the standards while towing the maximum trailer weight listed for that vehicle. Vehicle manufacturers could lower their tow rating , redesign the vehicle or lower the listed frontal area . In order to meet the J2807 standard ,they took the easiest route and decreased the allowed frontal area , basically because no one pays attention to the frontal area limit. Many vehicles especially small SUV'S kept their towing weight limit where they were and cut the frontal area limit in half . There are 2013 vehicles that had a 60 sg ft limit yet that identical vehicle has a 30 Sq ft limit for 2014 . This change happened after the implementation of J2807.
In my area more people tow boats than Travel trailers so frontal area is of little concern , tow weight rating are the only limit for towing a boat.
If I'm not mistaken, Ford published frontal area limits long before SAE J2807. I recall my 1985 Ranger had a frontal area restriction for towing.

In some cases, the reduced frontal area specifications may simply represent alignment with the test parameters, which were not designed with RVs in mind. It's not just an issue with our small egg trailers, either- the frontal area parameters used in the J2807 test are not realistic for RVs in the larger weight classes, either.
Click image for larger version

Name:	SAEJ2807 Frontal Area.jpg
Views:	16
Size:	157.8 KB
ID:	100972

Quote:
Originally Posted by floyd View Post
...What is the frontal area of a ball? Is it height times width?
No, it's pi times the radius squared. Same as an end-on cylinder of the same radius. But aerodynamically, the ball does much better than the cylinder, as the linked Wikipedia chart indicates, despite having the same frontal area. Even more interesting, the short cylinder is much worse than the long cylinder, which makes me suspect a Scamp 16 may be more aerodynamic than a Scamp 13. Airflow doesn't like short, stubby shapes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by floyd View Post
...I think the frontal area question is largely ignored, primarily because it is hard to define and quantify its effect...
I'll have to agree. I did a little reading on several other forums since my earlier post, and facts seem scarcer than hens' teeth and opinions all over the map.

All I know is my Pilot labors to pull an 1800 pound Scamp up a 5-6% grade against a 35mph headwind. Without the headwind, it barely notices the grade. I would not want to be towing right at the edge of my tow rating of 3500 pounds under those conditions (which are pretty normal out here).

My 2011 Pilot owner's manual does not say anything about frontal area, but it does include this statement: "When towing a fixed-sided trailer (e.g., camper), do not exceed 55 mph (88 km/h)."
Jon in AZ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 01:54 PM   #48
Senior Member
 
frank_a's Avatar
 
Name: Frank
Trailer: 2012 ParkLiner #006
New York
Posts: 2,272
We are not towing our Parkliner with our 2l ecoboost Escape (3500# tow capacity and factory tow package) anymore. I believe the frontal area of the Parkliner has contributed to poor towing performance, poor mileage and has done something to the Escape's AC. We're getting another truck next summer to tow it. The Escape would probably be fine with a very low profile trailer.

Frank
__________________
2012 ParkLiner #006
2013 4wd 4 door F150 3.5L Ecoboost with 9200# tow package
frank_a is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 02:34 PM   #49
Senior Member
 
Name: Steve
Trailer: Casita 17 ft DLX SD & 21 ft SOB
NW Wisconsin
Posts: 3,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon in AZ View Post
If I'm not mistaken, Ford published frontal area limits long before SAE J2807. I recall my 1985 Ranger had a frontal area restriction for towing.

In some cases, the reduced frontal area specifications may simply represent alignment with the test parameters, which were not designed with RVs in mind. It's not just an issue with our small egg trailers, either- the frontal area parameters used in the J2807 test are not realistic for RVs in the larger weight classes, either.
Attachment 100972


I'll have to agree. I did a little reading on several other forums since my earlier post, and facts seem scarcer than hens' teeth and opinions all over the map.

All I know is my Pilot labors to pull an 1800 pound Scamp up a 5-6% grade against a 35mph headwind. Without the headwind, it barely notices the grade. I would not want to be towing right at the edge of my tow rating of 3500 pounds under those conditions (which are pretty normal out here).

My 2011 Pilot owner's manual does not say anything about frontal area, but it does include this statement: "When towing a fixed-sided trailer (e.g., camper), do not exceed 55 mph (88 km/h)."
I agree Ford did list a frontal area limit long before J 2807 was adopted.
From what I have read and been told by a friend of mine who is an automotive engineer for one of big three. , many cars and small SUV'S could not pass the J2807 acceleration , towing up grade , maintaining speed, and start stop tests with their 4 & 6 cylinder engines pulling a trailer with a large frontal area. Some current vehicles powered by a V8 engine have a frontal area limit of 60 Sq ft.. Many smaller vehicles had their towing limit greatly reduced when J2807 was implemented.
Whether exceeding the recommended frontal area limits set by the vehicle manufacturer causes any long term mechanical problems is up in the air. Using the frontal area formula developed by the automotive industry, my Casita exceeds the frontal limit for my 1/2 ton, V8 full size truck.. It seems rather odd that it should require a 3/4 ton HD diesel powered truck to pull a 3000 lb fiberglass trailer.
Maybe the standards set by J2807 are too high or just unrealistic or the day is coming where smaller vehicle / SUV'S will no longer be rated to tow.
steve dunham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 03:13 PM   #50
Senior Member
 
frank_a's Avatar
 
Name: Frank
Trailer: 2012 ParkLiner #006
New York
Posts: 2,272
We're only looking for a 1/2 ton truck, even 2wd would be fine. Little woman wants 4 doors, and I would rather just an extended cab with 6 or 7' bed. I want a tow capacity of around 8000#s.

Our F150 (engine went on me) towed the Parkliner like there was nothing behind it and was rated for 5400#s. We want a larger RV, and figure we want twice the weight of the trailer for tow capacity.

Frank
__________________
2012 ParkLiner #006
2013 4wd 4 door F150 3.5L Ecoboost with 9200# tow package
frank_a is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 03:29 PM   #51
Senior Member
 
Name: Steve
Trailer: Casita 17 ft DLX SD & 21 ft SOB
NW Wisconsin
Posts: 3,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by frank_a View Post
We're only looking for a 1/2 ton truck, even 2wd would be fine. Little woman wants 4 doors, and I would rather just an extended cab with 6 or 7' bed. I want a tow capacity of around 8000#s.

Our F150 (engine went on me) towed the Parkliner like there was nothing behind it and was rated for 5400#s. We want a larger RV, and figure we want twice the weight of the trailer for tow capacity.

Frank
We have a Ram 1500 Quad Cab. The bed length is 76 1/2" , it has 4 doors and a towing capacity of 10,250 lbs. . We really like the quad having 4 doors, it is much easier to get in and out of plus there is more cargo space in the rear seat area. plus there is enough passenger space for people to ride comfortably.Listen to the little women , my wife did not like the extended cab either and I have come to realize that she was right.
steve dunham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 05:17 PM   #52
Senior Member
 
Name: JD
Trailer: Scamp 16 Modified (BIGLY)
Florida
Posts: 1,682
On newer vehicles it is important to note the requirements for higher tow ratings.
For my VW Jetta (euro ratings) requires the towing module and the proper hitch.The Ford Escape (Kuga in Europe) also requires the towing stability module and the factory wiring harness, not just the stronger hitch itself.
My new 2016 Town and Country also requires the trailer stability modue and also the heavy duty radiator and other coolers.
Without these the rating is 1800 lbs and with the trailer towing package 3500lbs.
The towing package includes the self leveling suspension, cooling bits and the module for trailer stability.
These ratings are usually indicated by a * which indicated the necessary bits.
The Ford Escape also includes that *
redbarron55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 05:49 PM   #53
Senior Member
 
sokhapkin's Avatar
 
Name: Sergey
Trailer: 2014 Scamp 16 layout 4, 2018 Winnebago Revel 4x4
SW Florida
Posts: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by floyd View Post
My 1975 Ford Econoline had a drag coefficient of .33. An average bicyclist has a drag coefficient of 1.0.
Do you really believe this?
__________________
Sergey
www.callwithus.com
sokhapkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 06:19 PM   #54
Senior Member
 
frank_a's Avatar
 
Name: Frank
Trailer: 2012 ParkLiner #006
New York
Posts: 2,272
We bought our Escape brand new with the 3500# tow capacity package from the factory, whatever that entailed.

Frank

Quote:
Originally Posted by redbarron55 View Post
On newer vehicles it is important to note the requirements for higher tow ratings.
For my VW Jetta (euro ratings) requires the towing module and the proper hitch.The Ford Escape (Kuga in Europe) also requires the towing stability module and the factory wiring harness, not just the stronger hitch itself.
My new 2016 Town and Country also requires the trailer stability modue and also the heavy duty radiator and other coolers.
Without these the rating is 1800 lbs and with the trailer towing package 3500lbs.
The towing package includes the self leveling suspension, cooling bits and the module for trailer stability.
These ratings are usually indicated by a * which indicated the necessary bits.
The Ford Escape also includes that *
__________________
2012 ParkLiner #006
2013 4wd 4 door F150 3.5L Ecoboost with 9200# tow package
frank_a is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 07:49 PM   #55
Senior Member
 
floyd's Avatar
 
Name: Floyd
Trailer: 2004 13 ft Scamp Custom Deluxe
IllAnnoy
Posts: 7,352
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by frank_a View Post
We are not towing our Parkliner with our 2l ecoboost Escape (3500# tow capacity and factory tow package) anymore. I believe the frontal area of the Parkliner has contributed to poor towing performance, poor mileage and has done something to the Escape's AC. We're getting another truck next summer to tow it. The Escape would probably be fine with a very low profile trailer.

Frank
The only way that it is possible for the trailer to affect the A/C is that the car shuts it off at wide open throttle.
In addition to its being taller and wider than a Scamp16, the Parkliner easily pushes 3000 pounds loaded in the "real world".
MPG is affected by weight during acceleration and by MPH while cruising.
All of these factors plus wind and weather etc. add up to your results.
Another factor would be the use of top tier or even premium fuel instead of discount RBOB.
The regular use of Progard fuel injection cleaner will help with injector efficiency over time. Regular oil changes with API service category SN motor oil and top tier fuel will help with prevention of carbon deposits including intake valve deposits.
Have you experimented with the use of "sport mode" or even "manual shift mode" when towing? What does your owner's manual or your service tech say about that?
floyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 09:11 PM   #56
Senior Member
 
Name: Steve
Trailer: Casita 17 ft DLX SD & 21 ft SOB
NW Wisconsin
Posts: 3,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by floyd View Post
The only way that it is possible for the trailer to affect the A/C is that the car shuts it off at wide open throttle.
In addition to its being taller and wider than a Scamp16, the Parkliner easily pushes 3000 pounds loaded in the "real world".
MPG is affected by weight during acceleration and by MPH while cruising.
All of these factors plus wind and weather etc. add up to your results.
Another factor would be the use of top tier or even premium fuel instead of discount RBOB.
The regular use of Progard fuel injection cleaner will help with injector efficiency over time. Regular oil changes with API service category SN motor oil and top tier fuel will help with prevention of carbon deposits including intake valve deposits.
Have you experimented with the use of "sport mode" or even "manual shift mode" when towing? What does your owner's manual or your service tech say about that?
I use mid grade top tier gasoline as recommended in my owners manual . I change my oil and filter every 3000 miles with approved SN synthetic motor oil. I run a full tank of techron treated fuel every 8 to 10 K miles . I keep my tires properly inflated . I have yet to find my efforts in maintaining my vehicle has done one thing to improve my towing experience. Not everyone will have the same experience as you towing with a Ford Escape . Franks experience is very similar to others I know who have tried towing with a Ford Escape.
I tow with a 1/2 ton fullsize V8 truck and as I've said many times,
" I find it adequate at best"
steve dunham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2016, 10:07 AM   #57
Senior Member
 
floyd's Avatar
 
Name: Floyd
Trailer: 2004 13 ft Scamp Custom Deluxe
IllAnnoy
Posts: 7,352
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve dunham View Post
I use mid grade top tier gasoline as recommended in my owners manual . I change my oil and filter every 3000 miles with approved SN synthetic motor oil. I run a full tank of techron treated fuel every 8 to 10 K miles . I keep my tires properly inflated . I have yet to find my efforts in maintaining my vehicle has done one thing to improve my towing experience. Not everyone will have the same experience as you towing with a Ford Escape . Franks experience is very similar to others I know who have tried towing with a Ford Escape.
I tow with a 1/2 ton fullsize V8 truck and as I've said many times,
" I find it adequate at best"
I'm not towing with an Ecoboost and don't own one.
My Escape is an old school normally aspirated 2.3L 4CYL with a 5spd manual transmission.
Of course proper maintenance will result in an improved towing experience! Without it, your only "towing experience" will soon be when you call a tow truck!

While my post will pretty much apply to any Ecoboost vehicle, it was addressed specifically to the 2.0L Escape.

I am considering a new Transit Connect for my next TV. It offers a 1.6L Ecoboost or a normally aspirated 2.5L engine.
Turbocharged and direct injected engines generally need more attention paid to preventative care and driving habits than normally aspirated intake injected engines.
Since I tend to keep my vehicles ( average fleet age 16years right now) I am weighing the pro and cons. Both are great, but the older technology can tolerate more neglect.
floyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2016, 05:07 PM   #58
Senior Member
 
Name: Terry
Trailer: 1996 Casita Freedom Deluxe 17 ft
Colorado
Posts: 412
Ford, like most manufacturers, builds in many safeguards to make sure you don't damage your engine. There are temperature sensors on both the engine and the transmission. I recently towed my 17 foot Casita on a 1500 mile from Denver down to Guadalupe Mountains NP and back with my 2016 2.0L Escape. Even at highway speeds and on most grades, I never found the engine to strain and it was usually in a lower gear running a little over 2000 RPM. However, as I was approaching the park and we were going up a rather stiff grade, the car gave it's message of something like "REDUCING POWER TO PREVENT ENGINE OVERHEATING". The only other time I've seen this message was on difficult grades when I've been pulling the trailer along some Colorado dirt roads. This was often at low speed, as slow as 20 mph. From my experience, I would have to conclude that trailer frontal area isn't as critical as the published specifications would have us believe. And it's certainly not as important as the steepness of the hill you are climbing. Somebody is sure to jump in and disagree with me but I intend to keep pulling my Casita with my Escape. It's a great combination.
Terry G is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2016, 05:57 PM   #59
Raz
Senior Member
 
Raz's Avatar
 
Name: Raz
Trailer: Trillium 2010
Vermont
Posts: 4,576
Quote:
I am considering a new Transit Connect for my next TV. It offers a 1.6L Ecoboost or a normally aspirated 2.5L engine.
It's my understanding that the government went after Ford on their importing the Transit Connect as a passenger vehicle, removing the rear seats, and selling it as a truck and Ford now has to pay the 25℅ "chicken" tax. Any idea how much the price went up?
Raz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2016, 09:04 PM   #60
Senior Member
 
floyd's Avatar
 
Name: Floyd
Trailer: 2004 13 ft Scamp Custom Deluxe
IllAnnoy
Posts: 7,352
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raz View Post
It's my understanding that the government went after Ford on their importing the Transit Connect as a passenger vehicle, removing the rear seats, and selling it as a truck and Ford now has to pay the 25℅ "chicken" tax. Any idea how much the price went up?
Different vehicle altogether, Don't know about how it affects the retail, but the price between the van and the wagon is negligible.
The new generation of Connect is built in Valencia Spain, but there is serious talk of Louisville,KY. Whadaya bet the price don't drop?
BTW, they now start at about 22,000 dollars, and max out around 31.(list)
You can buy a 2016 off the lot for under 20 otd, but you can't get a straight deal on custom ordering a 2017.
I drive a hard bargain or I drive what I drove in, so I may never really buy another new car again.
Ranger wherefore art thou?
__________________

floyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
ford escape


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Any experience with a Go Little Guy trailer? jgoldwood General Chat 10 06-05-2012 12:58 PM
Any experience with Yamaha 2000W Generator? Vic&Kathy Care and Feeding of Molded Fiberglass Trailers 6 09-12-2010 08:48 AM
Overnighting at Casinos? any experience? KarenH General Chat 7 09-03-2010 07:31 PM

» Upcoming Events
No events scheduled in
the next 465 days.
» Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
×