High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource

Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
Rules HDTV Forum Gallery LINK TO US! RSS - High Def Forum AddThis Feed Button AddThis Social Bookmark Button Groups

Car Forum Talk about your favorite cars, setups, garages (got pics?)!

Anyone altering their driving habits due to outrageous gas prices?

Reply
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-10-2007, 06:26 PM   #76  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 
DSNY FN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London Ont Canada
Age: 50
Posts: 2,317
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unotis View Post
I'll just have to live with the Honda Civic Hybrid until something better comes along (we get 48 to 56 mpg) and we didn't pay all that much for it. That crap about them getting 25% less gas mileage then listed by the EPA is pure bullshit (sorry), we do not baby the car and drive it like any other kind of car and still get that kind of mpg (higher on the highway using the cruise control).

And Honda has offered Hydrogen Fuel cell cars in California for several years and they do extremely well (I don't know why everyone ignores this fact) and I keep hearing people say that Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars are years from being built and being feasible.

If we as a people actually stopped appearing to not care about fuel economy (14 to 20 mpg trucks and SUVs being bought for driving by 1 or 2 people) the availablity of Fuel Cell vehicles would happen very quickly along with the electrical power to produce the fuel.

I actually think it will take the Federal government taxing the heck out of gasoline and oil and causing huge increases in cost to the consumer to force us to realize and look at alternative fuels and energy (the Democratic party has discussed this possibility) if they will do it remains to be seen.

Actually up here the mileage isn't quite what they specify it is only about 10% less than listed but still less. Add in the cost of a Civic hybrid up here at a premium of almost 26 grand base for one it is really not economical to purchase. To get one with floor mats and a few other options that most people would actually want it pushed the price to over 35K. The Toyota Prius is also not economical to purchase. Especially with one equiped with the options I would like it is at 48 grand.
DSNY FN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2007, 08:00 PM   #77  
High Definition is the definition of life.
Thread Starter
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 7,120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unotis View Post
I'll just have to live with the Honda Civic Hybrid until something better comes along (we get 48 to 56 mpg) and we didn't pay all that much for it. That crap about them getting 25% less gas mileage then listed by the EPA is pure bullshit (sorry), we do not baby the car and drive it like any other kind of car and still get that kind of mpg (higher on the highway using the cruise control).

And Honda has offered Hydrogen Fuel cell cars in California for several years and they do extremely well (I don't know why everyone ignores this fact) and I keep hearing people say that Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars are years from being built and being feasible.

If we as a people actually stopped appearing to not care about fuel economy (14 to 20 mpg trucks and SUVs being bought for driving by 1 or 2 people) the availablity of Fuel Cell vehicles would happen very quickly along with the electrical power to produce the fuel.

I actually think it will take the Federal government taxing the heck out of gasoline and oil and causing huge increases in cost to the consumer to force us to realize and look at alternative fuels and energy (the Democratic party has discussed this possibility) if they will do it remains to be seen.

That is one of the most economically reckless POS i've ever heard of. Seeing how dependent our economy is on fuel, that would simply just down our economy. In the short run, people will have no choice but to pay the higher prices and will cut down on their spending elsewhere because they isn't much they can do in the short run. Even alternative fuel vehicle owners and hybrid owners will feel the pinch as they will still have to spend more of their disposable income on fuel. This would also raise both fixed and variable costs for any buisness, which means that their ability to be competitive has just diminished greatly. This is critical because we are no longer isolationists, and we live in a global economy. A firm being able to compete globally depends on the prices of their inputs in the region they are operating in. If we raise the costs of them doing buisness high enough, they will simply either shut down from being unable to make profits or relocate their resources and capital to another country further worsening the outsourcing problems we are already seeing. A reduction in consumer spending would also send us and possibly the rest of the world into another recession as America is the biggest market for goods from many countries around the world. That's the frickin problem I have with democrats as many of the more left wing members have no respect for what the economic outcome might be from such legislation. Everything in the US revolves around cheap sources of energy. Some many firms, cheap sources of fuel is everything to their ability to operate their buisnesses.

If people stopped buying trucks and suv's, how would we have more electricity available to produce more hydrogen? Considering how energy intensive obtaining H2 by hydrolysis of water is, perhaps they need to research alternative methods of obtaining this source of energy. How would this help to speed along development of fuel cells when manufacturers are already pumping lots of money into research in these fields. Toyota and Ford have especially been agressive with their R&D departments.
junehhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2007, 08:49 PM   #78  
HD Fan
 

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Little Rock, Arkansas
Posts: 1,023
Default Little changes

Remember, we live in a democracy where angry calls to congressmen make a difference. If taxes were raised on oil based products it would create a lot of political pressure to lower or repeal the tax alltogether. Every new candidate would run on repealing "this unjust tax".

As the GM chairman said, we are entering a time where there will be multiple sources of fuel for vehicles: gasoline, diesel, ethenol, electric, fuel cells (of all sorts). He indicated that he wanted GM to be the choice for all people, regardless of the fuel source.

The government needs to get with the experts and plan where we as a country need to go energy-wise, and I am talking about all energy (auto fuel, power plants, etc). If the choice is moving to hydrogen fuel cells, then policy needs to be put in place that gradually moves us there. This was the same tact that was taken in the switch from leaded to unleaded.

Little changes are what work. A large percentage of the vehicles on the road today will be gone 10 - 15 years from now, but there will still need to be gasoline available at some price 10 - 15 years from now for the remaining cars. We certainly don't need Jessie Jackson standing in front of the television cameras and railing about the "racist" government oil policies that hurt the "poor and disadvantaged", the ones likely to have old gasoline cars long after everyone else has moved to other fuel sources. The government can and should guide (not force) the population to whatever is deemed to be the future fuel source that will replace oil products.

Finally, I expect a breakthrough in creating hydrogen, a process cheaper and easier than hydrolysis of water. Plants are able to take large quantities of carbon dioxide and break this molecule into carbon (absorbed by the plant) and oxygen (returned for us to breath). Understanding this process may yield a lower energy approach than hydrolysis of water.
SLedford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2007, 10:04 PM   #79  
High Definition is the definition of life.
Thread Starter
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 7,120
Default

Well said. We live in a capitalistic government and if the price of one source of energy goes too high, people will start to look for an alternative. At the rate things are going, oil prices are going to continue going up as demand for it is simply not going to go down at a time when two of the biggest countries in the world are starting their period of their industrial revolution. If oil prices are expected to continue going up, why should a tax be put on it when its going to hurt such a large portion of the population? They should never be forced into adopting an alternative as you say. It really tears me everytime they keep trying to talk about taxing stuff, because when will enough be enough? Things need to be coaxed from the federal level at moving faster because the situation we are in is only going to get worse, and possibly much faster than we might think. The problem with this is that I don't think we really know which alternative fuel will prevail just like we simply don't know whether HD-DVD or BD will prevail in the end. Due to the limitations of each fuel source, we may be facing an error where we may have to fulfill our energy needs with multiple alternative sources instead of a single or near single source as we have up till now. Right now, we mainly have petrol and diesel for our automotive needs. I can see a future where instead of choosing 87,89, or 93 pump octane at the station, we may be pushing a button to choose between biodiesel, E85, or even H2(although this will be a challenge since its a gas and very volatile).

Quote:
Originally Posted by SLedford View Post
Remember, we live in a democracy where angry calls to congressmen make a difference. If taxes were raised on oil based products it would create a lot of political pressure to lower or repeal the tax alltogether. Every new candidate would run on repealing "this unjust tax".

As the GM chairman said, we are entering a time where there will be multiple sources of fuel for vehicles: gasoline, diesel, ethenol, electric, fuel cells (of all sorts). He indicated that he wanted GM to be the choice for all people, regardless of the fuel source.

The government needs to get with the experts and plan where we as a country need to go energy-wise, and I am talking about all energy (auto fuel, power plants, etc). If the choice is moving to hydrogen fuel cells, then policy needs to be put in place that gradually moves us there. This was the same tact that was taken in the switch from leaded to unleaded.

Little changes are what work. A large percentage of the vehicles on the road today will be gone 10 - 15 years from now, but there will still need to be gasoline available at some price 10 - 15 years from now for the remaining cars. We certainly don't need Jessie Jackson standing in front of the television cameras and railing about the "racist" government oil policies that hurt the "poor and disadvantaged", the ones likely to have old gasoline cars long after everyone else has moved to other fuel sources. The government can and should guide (not force) the population to whatever is deemed to be the future fuel source that will replace oil products.

Finally, I expect a breakthrough in creating hydrogen, a process cheaper and easier than hydrolysis of water. Plants are able to take large quantities of carbon dioxide and break this molecule into carbon (absorbed by the plant) and oxygen (returned for us to breath). Understanding this process may yield a lower energy approach than hydrolysis of water.
junehhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2007, 12:38 AM   #80  
RIP Neil
 
Razor05's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,810
Default

I don't know, I really think we are our own worst enemy. Why is it that anytime someone invents, or comes up with a great fuel efficient carburetor, they just disappear? They get bought out, never to be seen again. Our automobiles should probably be getting 200mpg, we have the technology. It's just sad, instead of progressing forward, we take one step ahead and two back. But hey, everything evolves around the almighty dollar.
Razor05 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2007, 06:29 AM   #81  
HD Fan
 

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Little Rock, Arkansas
Posts: 1,023
Default We are our own worst enemy

Razor05,

We are our own worst enemy in so many ways.

As far as 200 MPG carburators, my understanding is that fuel injection is far more precise and efficient than the old fashioned carburator. I suspect that the 200 MPG carburator only exists in messages on the web.

There is no free lunch when it comes to MPG. Something has to give, be it size (option chosen by the Smart Car people) or technology (example: diesel is more efficient than gas, both the engines and the fuel) or power. The way we drive is also a huge factor in the equation.

The dollar does rule in economics, and this will actually work for more efficient cars. I have friends who never cared about mileage before (and have huge cars) that are now paying attention. Why? Because it costs them $50 - $75 to fill their tank now.

Part of this is the perception that one attaches to a car. For me it is basic transportation, so I am looking for something safe, reliable, comfortable and economical. For others it is a reflection of their personality, a "statement" to the world, and for these folks "style" and image play a bigger role. This is why the auto makers change styles some every year, and why some people trade perfectly good cars every 3 years or so.

Things do change. Remember when Detroit started to put out "economy cars"? The Duster, Hornet, etc. got 18 MPG or so and they were touted as economy cars. Now we are looking at 70 MPG for a diesel and possibly 150 MPG for a Volt, where a small fuel engine is used to generate electricity instead of moving the car.

We will get to the promised land some day, but because of the way we are, we still have some more wandering around in the desert to do.
SLedford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2007, 09:44 AM   #82  
UNOTIS
 
unotis's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: FLORIDA
Age: 64
Posts: 4,139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSNY FN View Post
Actually up here the mileage isn't quite what they specify it is only about 10% less than listed but still less. Add in the cost of a Civic hybrid up here at a premium of almost 26 grand base for one it is really not economical to purchase. To get one with floor mats and a few other options that most people would actually want it pushed the price to over 35K. The Toyota Prius is also not economical to purchase. Especially with one equiped with the options I would like it is at 48 grand.
I know you're using Canadian dollars but, wow. I can get a Civic Hybrid (without the GPS) for around $21,000 with the floor mats, pinstripes, fully equipped. And I don't know we have always gotten the listed fuel economy or little better, more like 10% better then worse.

And the Toyota Prius, yes they are expensive (I've seen them for $29,000) and they do not get their listed fuel economy (easily 10% less). I've read in many magazines about how the mpg of the Prius does not live up to what is advertised and on top of that the Federal tax deuction is much less then the one for the Civic (something to do with number of cars sold) I guess the deduction reduces with the higher number of a model sold.

My next car might very well be a smart fortwo coupe, for around $14,000 and it should get between 40 to 45 mpg (which with an automatic transmission is pretty good).
unotis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2007, 09:44 AM   #83  
Muscle Cars Forever!
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 47,456
Default

The problem with MPG is the leap necessary to go to the next fuel source.

Fuel Cell technology is YEARS away and not just because we have no infastructure of filling stations. The cost is estimated at selling a FC powered car at $120,000 per vehicle. There need to be some revolutionary breakthroughs as opposed to eveloutionary.

The electric car has been around for over 30 years and still has the problem of disposing of the batteries (which by the way do not last the life of the car and cost more than the original price of the car to replace)

Plus they are only really good for urban environment. Plus they put strain on the electric grid which is powered by fossil fuel anyway so we are moving the problem from the left pocket . . . to the right pocket.

In the early 1960's Chrysler showed the Turbine Car. It will run on ANYTHING that is combustible, which means the cheaper by -proiducts of refining. Maybe it's time has come again . . .
Lee Stewart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2007, 10:29 AM   #84  
HD Fan
 

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Little Rock, Arkansas
Posts: 1,023
Default Short solution / long-term solution

Lee,

Lets break this down into a short-term and long-term solutions.

Short-term problem:
We depend upon foreign oil for fueling our autos, and it is a declining, non-renewable resource controlled by unstable people in unstable parts of the world. We and our economy are hostages to oil.

Short-term solution:
Multiple fuel sources including gasoline, electric vehicles and ethanol / biodiesel mixes.

What is fixed / not fixed:
We do reduce the impact of foreign oil, hopefully enough that if push came to shove we could depend upon "friendly" sources such as Canada & Mexico. Electric vehicles depend upon whatever power source is providing the current (mostly domestic, however). Biodiesel & ethanol impact food production and use a massive amount of water.

The fact that much of our electricity is powered by fossil fuels (including coal & natural gas) doesn't help when you are looking at reducing greenhouse gasses, but it does help with the primary short term problem (IMO) which is reducing our reliance on foreign oil. Also, the electric grid will eventually have to evolve and move away from non-renewable fuels as well.

There are issues with whatever route we take. You are correct in mentioning that electric cars have issues with short battery life and disposal of spent batteries. Both ethanol & biodiesel consume massive amounts of water to produce and use productive farmland to produce fuel instead of food.

But we have to move away from oil for transportation. Right now a terrorist group could blow up Saudi oil facilities and our economy would suffer and gas prices would skyrocket.

Long term we need to look at reducing CO2 emissions and perhaps hydrogen fuel cells figure into that picture.
SLedford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2007, 03:21 PM   #85  
Muscle Cars Forever!
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 47,456
Default

CO2 prodution . . .

Funny you should mention that, as I was listening to a radio show a fews weeks ago on my way to the airport. The DJ was talking to a PHD in NOAA about global warming and the subject of CO2 came up.

1. The USA produces 25% of the worlds CO2.

2. China produces 23% of the worlds CO2.

In 2009, China will surpass us in producing CO2 and they have no intention at this time or in the forseeable future in lowering their CO2 as that costs money.

No matter what we do to reduce CO2, it is a "spit in the bucket" as we only control 25%. . . not enough to turn global warming around.

Yes, we are between a rock and a hard place when it comes to depending on other countries for oil.

We can go to nuclear powered electic plants and solve many of the oil problems right there . . . and substitute another set of problems . . . how to move the spent fuel to Yucca Mountain out west for proper storage . . .for 10,000 years.

Unfortunately, IMO, there is no short term fix to the problem. Europe has been paying close to $5.00 a gallon for years. That is why the cars are so small.

We the USA are not a country of "belt tighteners." We would rather pass the problem on to the next generation while we enjoy our Lexus's and BMW's and such.

The automobile is too much a part of our culture.

The short term solution, again IMO, is public transportation . . .to get rid of the cars altogether.

So are you going to get up 1 hour early to take the bus to work, which makes your comute over an hour instead of 20 minutes?

Not me.

Last edited by Lee Stewart; 05-11-2007 at 03:24 PM..
Lee Stewart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2007, 04:29 PM   #86  
HD Fan
 

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Little Rock, Arkansas
Posts: 1,023
Default No easy answers

When gas hit $3 a year or so ago (Hurrican Katrina) I rode the bus for a month. Thought I would check it out so I would know what to expect if we were forced by rationing, etc to limit personal auto driving.

I am 11 miles from work. Drove 2 miles to the Walmart parking lot (24 hour security) where I caught the bus. It let me off 2 blocks from my downtown office.

Normal drive time both ways: 40 minutes
Drive / ride time on bus: 90 minutes
Miles saved riding the bus: 7 miles each way = 14 miles total per day
Cost (at that time): $1.25 each way = $2.50 total (now is $3).

This actually cost me more than driving my car. Of course if I had cancelled my $50 per month parking I would have saved money (and lost 50 minutes of time each day).

We are a society that tends to "punt" problems to the next generation rather than solving them. A great example is Social Security. They started talking about running out of money when I was in college (I am 56 years old). Still talking about it and have done nothing, and now the cash negative days are nearly on hand.

But sometimes something happens that slaps us in the face and forces us to make tough choices. Pearl Harbor was the slap that forced us to abandon isolationism and pay attention to the rest of the world. 9/11 was the slap that forced us to pay attention to radical Islam and other terrorism around the world. There will be another "slap" when (not if) there are major disruptions in oil supplies that pushes up gasoline to $5 per gallon. It will happen, and it will force us to make some tough choices.
SLedford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2007, 06:20 PM   #87  
Muscle Cars Forever!
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 47,456
Default

"it will force us to make some tough choices."

And once again . . we will be caught off guard as opposed to trying to deal with the problem now, without the terrible cost, that again will be paid, because we turned a blind eye.
Lee Stewart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2007, 06:52 PM   #88  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 
DSNY FN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London Ont Canada
Age: 50
Posts: 2,317
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unotis View Post
I know you're using Canadian dollars but, wow. I can get a Civic Hybrid (without the GPS) for around $21,000 with the floor mats, pinstripes, fully equipped. And I don't know we have always gotten the listed fuel economy or little better, more like 10% better then worse.

And the Toyota Prius, yes they are expensive (I've seen them for $29,000) and they do not get their listed fuel economy (easily 10% less). I've read in many magazines about how the mpg of the Prius does not live up to what is advertised and on top of that the Federal tax deuction is much less then the one for the Civic (something to do with number of cars sold) I guess the deduction reduces with the higher number of a model sold.

My next car might very well be a smart fortwo coupe, for around $14,000 and it should get between 40 to 45 mpg (which with an automatic transmission is pretty good).

Our Smart for 2 starts at 18 grand and goes up to a top of the line model at 24 grand. Much better price than the Civic or Prius plus the Smart gives you a 2000 dollar rebate the downfall for our family atleast is we usually need to pick up more than 1 person at a time so a 2 seater just doesn't work for us. With a family of 6 we are hard pressed to find anything to accomodate us less than a minivan or SUV.
DSNY FN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2007, 09:40 AM   #89  
UNOTIS
 
unotis's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: FLORIDA
Age: 64
Posts: 4,139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
The problem with MPG is the leap necessary to go to the next fuel source.

Fuel Cell technology is YEARS away and not just because we have no infastructure of filling stations. The cost is estimated at selling a FC powered car at $120,000 per vehicle. There need to be some revolutionary breakthroughs as opposed to eveloutionary.
Not actually totally true.

Honda has sold/offered a Hydrogen Fuel Cell car in California since 1999 called the FCX and it doesn't cost much more then a conventional car does (a little because of economy of scale) it will run 210 miles on one tank full. The Federal Government offers a large tax deduction on the car of $4000. Most of the cars have been purchased by local government agencies and a few families mostly because of limited public knowledge or interest.

And within 3 to 4 years (maybe sooner) Honda will offer a new enlarged version 4 door called the FCX-V which will be priced aggressively to mass market the car globally (around the same as a well equpped regular gasoline engined car). At the same time they will offer with the car what they call the Home Energy Station or HES which will be a Hydrogen fueling station at your home which will use natural gas to to produce Hydrogen fuel for your car and energy for your home to run off of (the estimate a savings of 60% on energy to run your home alone). So you could buy a Honda FCX-V the HES and drive a car that produces no emissions runs 350 miles per fill-up (for very little cost compared to gas costs, 60% less) and use the HES to run your home's energy needs and to fuel your car at your home garage.

Later when the gradual change takes over to Hydrogen cars the fuel stations for Hydrogen will happen to appear inorder to sell the fuel (we live in country where if there is a market then there will be people that want to fulfill the need). Sure the usage of electricity will increase but with the new nuclear technology of not needing to use fuel rods (instead fuel pellets) that do not produce enough heat to ever cause a melt down, like 3 mile island. The production of the electrity will become easy, clean and totally renewable.

Last edited by unotis; 05-12-2007 at 09:51 AM..
unotis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2007, 01:23 PM   #90  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 
DSNY FN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London Ont Canada
Age: 50
Posts: 2,317
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unotis View Post
Not actually totally true.

Honda has sold/offered a Hydrogen Fuel Cell car in California since 1999 called the FCX and it doesn't cost much more then a conventional car does (a little because of economy of scale) it will run 210 miles on one tank full. The Federal Government offers a large tax deduction on the car of $4000. Most of the cars have been purchased by local government agencies and a few families mostly because of limited public knowledge or interest.

And within 3 to 4 years (maybe sooner) Honda will offer a new enlarged version 4 door called the FCX-V which will be priced aggressively to mass market the car globally (around the same as a well equpped regular gasoline engined car). At the same time they will offer with the car what they call the Home Energy Station or HES which will be a Hydrogen fueling station at your home which will use natural gas to to produce Hydrogen fuel for your car and energy for your home to run off of (the estimate a savings of 60% on energy to run your home alone). So you could buy a Honda FCX-V the HES and drive a car that produces no emissions runs 350 miles per fill-up (for very little cost compared to gas costs, 60% less) and use the HES to run your home's energy needs and to fuel your car at your home garage.

Later when the gradual change takes over to Hydrogen cars the fuel stations for Hydrogen will happen to appear inorder to sell the fuel (we live in country where if there is a market then there will be people that want to fulfill the need). Sure the usage of electricity will increase but with the new nuclear technology of not needing to use fuel rods (instead fuel pellets) that do not produce enough heat to ever cause a melt down, like 3 mile island. The production of the electrity will become easy, clean and totally renewable.

In the PDF file link I posted GM will have 100 Fuel Cell vehicles available for customers by the fall of 07 I am guessing for testing purposes but this is a far greater number than any of the other big 3 and many of the import manufacturers. They are building the largest Hydrogen fuel cell fleet on the Chevy Equinox platform for the Canadian market.

Here is the link again for those that missed it the first time around.
http://www.gmcanada.com/inm/gmcanada...y_Pamphlet.pdf
DSNY FN is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Reply

Thread Tools

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


to Anyone altering their driving habits due to outrageous gas prices?
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LCD TV Monitor Panel Prices on the Rise eHDMI High Definition News & Informative Articles 1 08-24-2006 03:02 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:40 PM.



Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2018, MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands