A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

1988 ( Cadillac runaway acceleration)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 21st 15, 01:37 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
Ashton Crusher[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,874
Default 1988 ( Cadillac runaway acceleration)

Is this a rear wheel drive caddy with a v8 engine? Assuming it is
would appear that the CC is the old style vacuum canister with a cable
connected to the throttle body. As far as I can tell it's not drive
by wire so both the gas pedal and the CC use a cable to "give it the
gas". So the first thing you should verify is that your mechanic
actually disconnected and removed the cable that goes from the CC
vacuum canister to the throttle body. Maybe he just unplugged an
electric connector and figured that would be enough. And maybe it is,
but if you disconnect the cable it's a done deal, no ifs ands or
butts. Once that is removed there is simply no way that the CC can
control the throttle even if it was working perfectly and you wanted
to use it. So that's the first thing to check. Once that cable is
gone there really isn't any intended way for the throttle to open by
itself unless you push on the gas pedal. There is a remote
possibility that the throttle return spring has come off or broke
(sometimes there are two of them and maybe only one came off). If
it's missing, for example, one of two return springs there is at least
a possibility that if you push on the pedal that the air rushing thru
the throttle body will open it even further then you intended, maybe
open it all the way. I don't know, just a guess. There also remains
the chance that the new parts your mechanic put on, like the idle air
control valve/gizmo is bad.

Item 22 in this diagram is the cable...
http://www.tonkinonlineparts.com/sho...ey_model=15756

On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 15:29:20 -0700, The Real Bev
> wrote:

>On 04/19/2015 01:30 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>> Bev,
>>
>> My first thought was disconnect the cruise control. I see you listed
>> that it had been disconnected. What specifically was disconnected?
>> Electrical connections? Vacuum connections? A control cable from a
>> "box" to the throttle body?

>
>I don't know. I assume he did it in a way that would completely
>preclude it from causing the problem. It's a 1988, BTW. I stupidly
>forgot to mention that :-(
>
>> My limited experience with idle speed valves/controllers is that they
>> can't "do enough" to really feel like "full throttle" although they
>> could make the engine go perhaps 2000 rpm with no load and when under
>> load make it like you still have your foot on the gas when you are
>> trying to coast down, i.e. it might be able to keep you going 60 mph
>> on a level road.

>
>Nope, this was full throttle pedal-to-the-metal. Seriously hard braking
>to get the car to actually stop such that I don't think my mom could
>have done it. No idea what the RPM was -- you have to push several
>buttons on a hard-to-see console to get to that, and I was kind of busy :-)
>
>> So aside from really weird stuff like a computer gone mad, I'm still
>> thinking something is going on with the cruise control system but that
>> depends on how the one on this car is set up.
>>
>> When the car does this "sudden acceleration" does your foot on the
>> brake make it stop trying to accelerate and it returns to just idle
>> speed or does it fight you to a stop and keep revving till you turn
>> the engine off? If tapping the brakes makes the engine stop "running
>> away" and causes it to return to idle speed it sure sounds like the
>> cruise control has somehow engaged.

>
>Nope, it fights me every step of the way until I can turn the engine
>off. I don't want to do this in a traffic lane on the freeway, so I
>pull over to the shoulder. I've been thinking that perhaps I should
>shift into neutral and shut the engine off, but steering and braking
>without the engine is a nasty business and I don't like to think about
>having to do that in traffic. OTOH, if I can't get over to the shoulder
>that's probably the only option.
>
>I also don't feel comfy restarting an engine until the RPM drop to 0.
>Nasty sounds from the starter gears :-(
>
>> I'm guessing this car is "drive by wire" making the cruise control
>> just a bunch of speed sensors feeding a computer that then tells the
>> throttle how far to open. Disconnecting some of the wires from the
>> buttons in the steering wheel won't fix it if one of the parts of that
>> wire going to the computer is worn thru and shorting out somewhere
>> buried under the dash.

>
>Art is pretty smart -- I would guess that he would have thought of
>something like this. I don't know why the cruise control stopped
>working, it just wouldn't come on the next time I tried it -- after
>maybe a couple of years of never using it. I hate cruise controls and
>was just testing it.
>
>If it were a wiring problem I would guess that it would happen more
>frequently. Last time it happened, BTW, was over a year ago.
>
>> BUT, one of the other issues is that all cruise controls I've had are
>> set up so that they WILL NOT engage under about 25 mph. That would
>> mean it couldn't be the cruise control doing this from a dead stop
>> unless the computer or wiring or sensors was seriously messed up.

>
>The CC in the monsterhome resumes speed in a civilized manner, not a
>full stomp on the accelerator. Given the wussy nature of the Cad, I
>would guess it behaves the same way.
>
>
>> On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 09:29:22 -0700, The Real Bev
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>This (rec.autos.driving) used to be a good group. What happened? On
>>>the off chance that anybody is still actually alive, posted below is
>>>what I've posted into two Cadillac "forums" with no help whatsoever,
>>>although one person suggested replacing the stuff that had already been
>>>replaced.
>>>
>>> At least 5 times (2 with witnesses) this car (which I inherited
>>>from my mom in 2007 with 65K miles on the odometer and which has
>>>sentimental value) has suddenly accelerated as if I had floored the
>>>accelerator. I brake as hard as I can, pull to the side and shut the
>>>engine off. When I start up again everything is normal. The first time
>>>was from a full stop, with two more occurrences within the next 50 miles
>>>at freeway speeds. One time going uphill on a mountain road, and the
>>>remaining times at freeway speeds.
>>>
>>> I've had this stuff replaced by a trusted GM independent mechanic:
>>>
>>> Feb 2011 Replaced the idle speed actuator (idle air control valve
>>>D6576 due to accelerating on its own.
>>> Mar 2012 Replaced the throttle position connector HP4460, Throttle
>>>position snsr/throttle position sensor TH38, throttle spring kit (fast idle)
>>> Oct 2012 Rebuilt smog pump 32-428, serpentine belt. Disconnect
>>>cruise control and inspect powertrain computer for internal failure (tap
>>>test). Replace broken engine mount.
>>>
>>> I never used the cruise control, which stopped working while my mom
>>>still owned the car. It has 85K miles now.
>>>
>>> It's done the runaway thing at least once, possibly twice since
>>>then. No codes.
>>>
>>> The mechanic thinks it may be the computer dropping out and then
>>>resetting itself at full throttle, which sounds even dumber than
>>>deciding that a car should decelerate SLOWLY when you take your foot off
>>>the gas, and that there is no guarantee that a replacement will be any
>>>better.
>>>
>>> More recently it has started to occasionally maintain speed on
>>>level ground when I take my foot off the gas, and may have occasionally
>>>slightly increased speed, but braking stops this instantly. I haven't
>>>talked to the mechanic about this yet.
>>>
>>> I really hate to junk a car with only 85K miles, especially my
>>>mom's car, but even though I'm 5 for 5, it's still scary.

Ads
  #2  
Old April 21st 15, 06:37 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
The Real Bev[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 570
Default 1988 ( Cadillac runaway acceleration)

On 04/20/2015 05:37 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> Is this a rear wheel drive caddy with a v8 engine?


V8, but front-wheel drive.

And speaking of front vs rear wheel driving -- I seem to remember that
the standard with rear-wheel drive is to brake going into a curve and
accelerate going out to maximize traction. Wouldn't it be exactly
opposite with front-wheel drive, even though it sounds absolutely
unworkable?

> Assuming it is
> would appear that the CC is the old style vacuum canister with a cable
> connected to the throttle body. As far as I can tell it's not drive
> by wire so both the gas pedal and the CC use a cable to "give it the
> gas". So the first thing you should verify is that your mechanic
> actually disconnected and removed the cable that goes from the CC
> vacuum canister to the throttle body. Maybe he just unplugged an
> electric connector and figured that would be enough. And maybe it is,
> but if you disconnect the cable it's a done deal, no ifs ands or
> butts. Once that is removed there is simply no way that the CC can
> control the throttle even if it was working perfectly and you wanted
> to use it. So that's the first thing to check.


I'll ask him. I believe, based on conversations with him about other
stuff, that he's both sharp and thorough and would have done the most
conservative thing, especially since it was part of the third attempt at
fixing the problem.

> Once that cable is
> gone there really isn't any intended way for the throttle to open by
> itself unless you push on the gas pedal. There is a remote
> possibility that the throttle return spring has come off or broke
> (sometimes there are two of them and maybe only one came off). If
> it's missing, for example, one of two return springs there is at least
> a possibility that if you push on the pedal that the air rushing thru
> the throttle body will open it even further then you intended, maybe
> open it all the way. I don't know, just a guess. There also remains
> the chance that the new parts your mechanic put on, like the idle air
> control valve/gizmo is bad.


Intermittent things suck. It's the same model number as on-line parts
houses show, so at least that's one less thing to worry about.

> Item 22 in this diagram is the cable...
> http://www.tonkinonlineparts.com/sho...ey_model=15756


Saved for reference.

--
Cheers, Bev
Exercising would be so much more rewarding if calories
screamed while you burned them.
  #3  
Old April 21st 15, 10:38 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
The Real Bev[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 570
Default 1988 ( Cadillac runaway acceleration)

Two data points:

(1) On the freeway, at roughly 55 mph, I gunned the engine. Passenger
reported it went up to 3K before I backed off, at which point it dropped
normally. Just a test...

(2) Leaving a parking lot, with my foot on the brake, the involuntary
acceleration started. I immediately shifted to neutral and watched the
rpm rise to 2700 before I tapped the accelerator, bringing it back to
normal.

Curiouser and curiouser...


--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== ============
"I am working for the time when unqualified blacks, browns and
women join the unqualified men in running our government"
-- Cissy Farenthold
  #4  
Old April 22nd 15, 12:07 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
Ashton Crusher[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,874
Default 1988 ( Cadillac runaway acceleration)

On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 22:37:14 -0700, The Real Bev
> wrote:

>On 04/20/2015 05:37 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>> Is this a rear wheel drive caddy with a v8 engine?

>
>V8, but front-wheel drive.
>
>And speaking of front vs rear wheel driving -- I seem to remember that
>the standard with rear-wheel drive is to brake going into a curve and
>accelerate going out to maximize traction. Wouldn't it be exactly
>opposite with front-wheel drive, even though it sounds absolutely
>unworkable?
>


In my 1965 drivers ed behind the wheel training they said to slow down
before the curve, then apply gentle power thru the curve. Not sure
really why they bothered, it's entirely pointless for normal driving
and they were not trying to get us up to speed for grand prix events.
I think it partly had to do with how RWD cars, esp back then, would
over steer if you gave them too much gas and spin out but if you went
into a curve too fast they would under steer and the front end just
plow off the outside of the curve. So they had you slow down going in
to avoid running off the outside from under steer and then only give
it a little power thru the curve so you wouldn't spin out. But again,
at normal driving speeds it's just a silly thing to worry about. On a
slippery road in the rain it might make sense if you tend to not slow
down much and with RWD. With FWD it think it's too complicated to
have a fixed rule, it will depend on how the car handles but since the
front tires handle 80% of the braking and 100% of the steering forces,
anything you do at "too high a speed" exposes you to problems with
loss of control if you then add to the high speed a change in the
demands on the front tires, such as changes in steering angles or
brake application. Maybe some of the weekend racers will chime in
with better explanations/corrections to my thoughts.
  #5  
Old April 22nd 15, 12:12 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
Ashton Crusher[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,874
Default 1988 ( Cadillac runaway acceleration)

On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 14:38:57 -0700, The Real Bev
> wrote:

>Two data points:
>
>(1) On the freeway, at roughly 55 mph, I gunned the engine. Passenger
>reported it went up to 3K before I backed off, at which point it dropped
>normally. Just a test...
>
>(2) Leaving a parking lot, with my foot on the brake, the involuntary
>acceleration started. I immediately shifted to neutral and watched the
>rpm rise to 2700 before I tapped the accelerator, bringing it back to
>normal.
>
>Curiouser and curiouser...



I'm still thinking two things, broken or disconnected throttle return
springs or that CC cable still connected. Also, if your mechanic
disconnected the cruise cable ONLY at the servo end but left it
connected at the throttle body that could cause problems too because
it means there is nothing pulling that cable back "off" anymore so the
still connected end at the throttle body could be swiveling around and
flopping around and hitting things down under the air cleaner where
you can't see it.


  #6  
Old April 22nd 15, 12:15 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
The Real Bev[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 570
Default 1988 ( Cadillac runaway acceleration)

On 04/21/2015 04:07 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 22:37:14 -0700, The Real Bev
> > wrote:
>
>>On 04/20/2015 05:37 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>> Is this a rear wheel drive caddy with a v8 engine?

>>
>>V8, but front-wheel drive.
>>
>>And speaking of front vs rear wheel driving -- I seem to remember that
>>the standard with rear-wheel drive is to brake going into a curve and
>>accelerate going out to maximize traction. Wouldn't it be exactly
>>opposite with front-wheel drive, even though it sounds absolutely
>>unworkable?

>
> In my 1965 drivers ed behind the wheel training they said to slow down
> before the curve, then apply gentle power thru the curve. Not sure
> really why they bothered, it's entirely pointless for normal driving
> and they were not trying to get us up to speed for grand prix events.
> I think it partly had to do with how RWD cars, esp back then, would
> over steer if you gave them too much gas and spin out but if you went
> into a curve too fast they would under steer and the front end just
> plow off the outside of the curve. So they had you slow down going in
> to avoid running off the outside from under steer and then only give
> it a little power thru the curve so you wouldn't spin out. But again,
> at normal driving speeds it's just a silly thing to worry about. On a
> slippery road in the rain it might make sense if you tend to not slow
> down much and with RWD. With FWD it think it's too complicated to
> have a fixed rule, it will depend on how the car handles but since the
> front tires handle 80% of the braking and 100% of the steering forces,
> anything you do at "too high a speed" exposes you to problems with
> loss of control if you then add to the high speed a change in the
> demands on the front tires, such as changes in steering angles or
> brake application. Maybe some of the weekend racers will chime in
> with better explanations/corrections to my thoughts.


Why would anybody ever want a car with oversteer?

Given the importance of front tires, I'm amazed that modern
tire-replacement theory says you put the new pair of tires on the rear.
It was explained that this was due to needing more traction on the
lighter rear end for slowing/stopping. It still sounds like bull****.

--
Cheers, Bev
=============================================
"Life is actually fair. It just doesn't seem to be common
knowledge that 'fair' sometimes sucks." -- Jim Cook

  #7  
Old April 22nd 15, 03:19 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
Ashton Crusher[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,874
Default 1988 ( Cadillac runaway acceleration)

On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:15:37 -0700, The Real Bev
> wrote:

>On 04/21/2015 04:07 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 22:37:14 -0700, The Real Bev
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On 04/20/2015 05:37 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>>> Is this a rear wheel drive caddy with a v8 engine?
>>>
>>>V8, but front-wheel drive.
>>>
>>>And speaking of front vs rear wheel driving -- I seem to remember that
>>>the standard with rear-wheel drive is to brake going into a curve and
>>>accelerate going out to maximize traction. Wouldn't it be exactly
>>>opposite with front-wheel drive, even though it sounds absolutely
>>>unworkable?

>>
>> In my 1965 drivers ed behind the wheel training they said to slow down
>> before the curve, then apply gentle power thru the curve. Not sure
>> really why they bothered, it's entirely pointless for normal driving
>> and they were not trying to get us up to speed for grand prix events.
>> I think it partly had to do with how RWD cars, esp back then, would
>> over steer if you gave them too much gas and spin out but if you went
>> into a curve too fast they would under steer and the front end just
>> plow off the outside of the curve. So they had you slow down going in
>> to avoid running off the outside from under steer and then only give
>> it a little power thru the curve so you wouldn't spin out. But again,
>> at normal driving speeds it's just a silly thing to worry about. On a
>> slippery road in the rain it might make sense if you tend to not slow
>> down much and with RWD. With FWD it think it's too complicated to
>> have a fixed rule, it will depend on how the car handles but since the
>> front tires handle 80% of the braking and 100% of the steering forces,
>> anything you do at "too high a speed" exposes you to problems with
>> loss of control if you then add to the high speed a change in the
>> demands on the front tires, such as changes in steering angles or
>> brake application. Maybe some of the weekend racers will chime in
>> with better explanations/corrections to my thoughts.

>
>Why would anybody ever want a car with oversteer?
>
>Given the importance of front tires, I'm amazed that modern
>tire-replacement theory says you put the new pair of tires on the rear.
> It was explained that this was due to needing more traction on the
>lighter rear end for slowing/stopping. It still sounds like bull****.


No one wants a car with over steer but if you have a RWD car with lots
of power AND you spin the rear tires in the middle of a turn the
resultant effect is that the rear end swings wide and you "over
steer". It could be argued that it's not really over steer I suppose.
My 60 Corvair had bad over steer due to the way the rear suspension
reacted to front steering inputs so if you turned kinda fast you then
had to back off once you were "set" where you wanted to be.
  #8  
Old April 23rd 15, 06:25 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
Jeff[_27_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 672
Default 1988 ( Cadillac runaway acceleration)

The Real Bev > wrote in news:mh6lkv$728$1@dont-
email.me:

> On 04/21/2015 04:07 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 22:37:14 -0700, The Real Bev
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On 04/20/2015 05:37 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>>> Is this a rear wheel drive caddy with a v8 engine?
>>>
>>>V8, but front-wheel drive.
>>>
>>>And speaking of front vs rear wheel driving -- I seem to remember that
>>>the standard with rear-wheel drive is to brake going into a curve and
>>>accelerate going out to maximize traction. Wouldn't it be exactly
>>>opposite with front-wheel drive, even though it sounds absolutely
>>>unworkable?

>>
>> In my 1965 drivers ed behind the wheel training they said to slow down
>> before the curve, then apply gentle power thru the curve. Not sure
>> really why they bothered, it's entirely pointless for normal driving
>> and they were not trying to get us up to speed for grand prix events.
>> I think it partly had to do with how RWD cars, esp back then, would
>> over steer if you gave them too much gas and spin out but if you went
>> into a curve too fast they would under steer and the front end just
>> plow off the outside of the curve. So they had you slow down going in
>> to avoid running off the outside from under steer and then only give
>> it a little power thru the curve so you wouldn't spin out. But again,
>> at normal driving speeds it's just a silly thing to worry about. On a
>> slippery road in the rain it might make sense if you tend to not slow
>> down much and with RWD. With FWD it think it's too complicated to
>> have a fixed rule, it will depend on how the car handles but since the
>> front tires handle 80% of the braking and 100% of the steering forces,
>> anything you do at "too high a speed" exposes you to problems with
>> loss of control if you then add to the high speed a change in the
>> demands on the front tires, such as changes in steering angles or
>> brake application. Maybe some of the weekend racers will chime in
>> with better explanations/corrections to my thoughts.

>

With FWD, I usually brake lightly before a curve to carry enough speed that
the throttle can be held steady until exiting the turn and then accelerate.
Accelerating while in the turn can increase the understeer and cause you to
drift farther to the outside of turn on exit than you want to go. This can
vary between cars, of course. Many small FWD cars will lift the inside rear
tire when accelerating through a hard turn but I had one once that would
lift the inside _front_ tire.

> Why would anybody ever want a car with oversteer?
>
> Given the importance of front tires, I'm amazed that modern
> tire-replacement theory says you put the new pair of tires on the rear.
> It was explained that this was due to needing more traction on the
> lighter rear end for slowing/stopping. It still sounds like bull****.
>

The last time I bought tires they told me that nonsense. I went ahead and
put the new pair of tires on the front anyway. After about three years, I
still haven't had the rear swing around like they say it will.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

  #9  
Old April 24th 15, 02:04 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
Ashton Crusher[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,874
Default 1988 ( Cadillac runaway acceleration)

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 05:25:39 GMT, Jeff > wrote:

>The Real Bev > wrote in news:mh6lkv$728$1@dont-
>email.me:
>
>> On 04/21/2015 04:07 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 22:37:14 -0700, The Real Bev
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 04/20/2015 05:37 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>>>> Is this a rear wheel drive caddy with a v8 engine?
>>>>
>>>>V8, but front-wheel drive.
>>>>
>>>>And speaking of front vs rear wheel driving -- I seem to remember that
>>>>the standard with rear-wheel drive is to brake going into a curve and
>>>>accelerate going out to maximize traction. Wouldn't it be exactly
>>>>opposite with front-wheel drive, even though it sounds absolutely
>>>>unworkable?
>>>
>>> In my 1965 drivers ed behind the wheel training they said to slow down
>>> before the curve, then apply gentle power thru the curve. Not sure
>>> really why they bothered, it's entirely pointless for normal driving
>>> and they were not trying to get us up to speed for grand prix events.
>>> I think it partly had to do with how RWD cars, esp back then, would
>>> over steer if you gave them too much gas and spin out but if you went
>>> into a curve too fast they would under steer and the front end just
>>> plow off the outside of the curve. So they had you slow down going in
>>> to avoid running off the outside from under steer and then only give
>>> it a little power thru the curve so you wouldn't spin out. But again,
>>> at normal driving speeds it's just a silly thing to worry about. On a
>>> slippery road in the rain it might make sense if you tend to not slow
>>> down much and with RWD. With FWD it think it's too complicated to
>>> have a fixed rule, it will depend on how the car handles but since the
>>> front tires handle 80% of the braking and 100% of the steering forces,
>>> anything you do at "too high a speed" exposes you to problems with
>>> loss of control if you then add to the high speed a change in the
>>> demands on the front tires, such as changes in steering angles or
>>> brake application. Maybe some of the weekend racers will chime in
>>> with better explanations/corrections to my thoughts.

>>

>With FWD, I usually brake lightly before a curve to carry enough speed that
>the throttle can be held steady until exiting the turn and then accelerate.
>Accelerating while in the turn can increase the understeer and cause you to
>drift farther to the outside of turn on exit than you want to go. This can
>vary between cars, of course. Many small FWD cars will lift the inside rear
>tire when accelerating through a hard turn but I had one once that would
>lift the inside _front_ tire.
>
>> Why would anybody ever want a car with oversteer?
>>
>> Given the importance of front tires, I'm amazed that modern
>> tire-replacement theory says you put the new pair of tires on the rear.
>> It was explained that this was due to needing more traction on the
>> lighter rear end for slowing/stopping. It still sounds like bull****.
>>

>The last time I bought tires they told me that nonsense. I went ahead and
>put the new pair of tires on the front anyway. After about three years, I
>still haven't had the rear swing around like they say it will.
>
>---
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>http://www.avast.com



I bought 4 new tires at costco. But they only had two in stock. They
insisted on installing the two new ones on the back. When the other
two tires came in a week later they insisted on rotating the one week
old back tires to the front so they could install the new tires on the
back. The whole thing is BS driven by lawyers because some idiot drove
too fast in the rain and blamed the tire shop for not putting the new
tires on "the right end of the car".
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.