The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network







Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.

Go Back   The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network > General Truck Forums > Suspension

Web 67-72chevytrucks.com


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-15-2014, 08:00 AM   #1
Bryantcm
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 37
Not Happy with 4.5/7 RQ, should I bag it?

So I just finished a complete overhaul of the suspension on my 67 with a 4.5/7 drop with all the usual parts: spindles, KYB, c-notch, new wheels/tires, etc etc.

The end result is I'm really happy with the look, but the ride quality is just not acceptable. The rear is particularly harsh, I'm assuming due to the 5" drop springs.

So my question is this: Is air ride that much better for a quality and compliant ride? While I am budget minded, I'm not one to spend thousands and it not be "right." I'm considering making the change to a basic air ride kit with manual valves since I'm not really concerned about laying frame or playing with Air. Just set ride height and enjoy.

Any opinions on the difference in ride quality? Is it worth the effort?
Attached Images
 
Bryantcm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2014, 08:51 AM   #2
SCOTI
Registered User
 
SCOTI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DALLAS,TX
Posts: 21,994
Re: Not Happy with 4.5/7 RQ, should I bag it?

Did you use shock relocation brackets w/those 5" drop springs?
What size are the tires?
How much gap between the bumpstop & the rear end?
How much room between the rear end & bed floor?
__________________
67SWB-B.B.RetroRod
64SWB-Recycle
89CCDually-Driver/Tow Truck
99CCSWB Driver
All Fleetsides
@rattlecankustoms in IG

Building a small, high rpm engine with the perfect bore, stroke and rod ratio is very impressive.
It's like a highly skilled Morrocan sword fighter with a Damascus Steel Scimitar.....

Cubic inches is like Indiana Jones with a cheap pistol.
SCOTI is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2014, 08:54 AM   #3
Bryantcm
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 37
Re: Not Happy with 4.5/7 RQ, should I bag it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCOTI View Post
Did you use shock relocation brackets w/those 5" drop springs?
What size are the tires?
How much gap between the bumpstop & the rear end?
How much room between the rear end & bed floor?

There is more than enough room for suspension travel. It's c-notched with pancake shaped bump stops. Its not bottoming out, just stiff.
Bryantcm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2014, 09:14 AM   #4
SCOTI
Registered User
 
SCOTI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DALLAS,TX
Posts: 21,994
Re: Not Happy with 4.5/7 RQ, should I bag it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryantcm View Post
There is more than enough room for suspension travel. It's c-notched with pancake shaped bump stops. Its not bottoming out, just stiff.
Quote:
Did you use shock relocation brackets w/those 5" drop springs?
And... How much is more than enough?
__________________
67SWB-B.B.RetroRod
64SWB-Recycle
89CCDually-Driver/Tow Truck
99CCSWB Driver
All Fleetsides
@rattlecankustoms in IG

Building a small, high rpm engine with the perfect bore, stroke and rod ratio is very impressive.
It's like a highly skilled Morrocan sword fighter with a Damascus Steel Scimitar.....

Cubic inches is like Indiana Jones with a cheap pistol.
SCOTI is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2014, 09:22 AM   #5
71swb4x4
Senior Member
 
71swb4x4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brookings, SD
Posts: 10,497
Re: Not Happy with 4.5/7 RQ, should I bag it?

The questions Scoti is asking will apply to bags and springs. So if there is a problem other than springs, adding bags will not solve your problem. Scoti's been around the block a few times, get him his answers and he will point you in the right direction.
__________________
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't good for anything, but you can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.
71swb4x4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2014, 09:52 AM   #6
Bryantcm
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 37
Re: Not Happy with 4.5/7 RQ, should I bag it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCOTI View Post
And... How much is more than enough?
I used both front and rear shock relocators. To give more detail, I started out with heated springs and worn out bilstiens from the previous owner. I installed:

Front:
Western Chassis front spindles and 2" drop springs from performance online and 344068 KYB shocks. All new control arm bushings, ball joints, tie rods, adjusting sleeves, pitman arm, idler arm, etc. Pretty much every wearable part and all hardware is new.

Rear:
CPP c-notch, rear shock relocators, performance online 5" drop spring, 2" lowering blocks and KYB 344055 shocks. New spring retainer cups, trailing arm bushings, 5-lug axles, etc.

I will have to measure the clearance when I get home for an exact measurement, but I'm guessing its in the neighborhood of 6-8".

My real issue with it is that even going over the smallest of bumps, such as a change from ashpalt to a brick paver crosswalk at the entrance to my community, it is really harsh, even at low speeds of 10 mph. I was expecting the truck to ride better than it did before I did all of this work and there is no change in ride quality.
Bryantcm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2014, 10:42 AM   #7
SCOTI
Registered User
 
SCOTI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DALLAS,TX
Posts: 21,994
Re: Not Happy with 4.5/7 RQ, should I bag it?

Since it has shock relocation brackets the angle should be close to OE. Many times the shocks aren't effective because they're in such a severe angle from dropping. We can focus on other possibilities....

What size are the tires? The big diameter wheels using short sidewalls are not going to help ride quality so I'm betting that's part of the issue.

And.... Thanks for providing a thorough list of parts. It makes 'helping' (providing insight?) much easier.
__________________
67SWB-B.B.RetroRod
64SWB-Recycle
89CCDually-Driver/Tow Truck
99CCSWB Driver
All Fleetsides
@rattlecankustoms in IG

Building a small, high rpm engine with the perfect bore, stroke and rod ratio is very impressive.
It's like a highly skilled Morrocan sword fighter with a Damascus Steel Scimitar.....

Cubic inches is like Indiana Jones with a cheap pistol.
SCOTI is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2014, 11:30 AM   #8
65Gregg
Registered User
 
65Gregg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Willis, Texas
Posts: 754
Re: Not Happy with 4.5/7 RQ, should I bag it?

When I dropped my 65 I used CPP 5" springs, shocks and relocation kit and had the same problem as you. The cure for my truck was to remove all of the rear CPP products and changed to 3" springs, 2" blocks and No Limit shock relocation kit. I don't have a notch yet but am quite pleased with the difference in ride quality now and I have the same "look" as before. I also have tires with a lot of sidewall which helps. Good luck.
Gregg
__________________
65Gregg

Blue long bed
White TBSS
61 Impala
“The two most important days in your life are the day you are born and the day you find out why.” Mark Twain
65Gregg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2014, 11:44 AM   #9
lolife99
67-72 parts collector,…
 
lolife99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mid-MO
Posts: 22,703
Re: Not Happy with 4.5/7 RQ, should I bag it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryantcm View Post
I used both front and rear shock relocators. To give more detail, I started out with heated springs and worn out bilstiens from the previous owner. I installed:

Front:
Western Chassis front spindles and 2" drop springs from performance online and 344068 KYB shocks. All new control arm bushings, ball joints, tie rods, adjusting sleeves, pitman arm, idler arm, etc. Pretty much every wearable part and all hardware is new.

Rear:
CPP c-notch, rear shock relocators, performance online 5" drop spring, 2" lowering blocks and KYB 344055 shocks. New spring retainer cups, trailing arm bushings, 5-lug axles, etc.

I will have to measure the clearance when I get home for an exact measurement, but I'm guessing its in the neighborhood of 6-8".

My real issue with it is that even going over the smallest of bumps, such as a change from ashpalt to a brick paver crosswalk at the entrance to my community, it is really harsh, even at low speeds of 10 mph. I was expecting the truck to ride better than it did before I did all of this work and there is no change in ride quality.
Great Post!
It would have been nice to have all this info in the first post.

I agree with SCOTI that the short sidewall tires will contribute to the rough ride.
IF you could swap on some 15" wheels with a 70 series tire,... you woud be amazed how much nicer it rides.
But that's the price of running big diameter wheels.
__________________
Keith

Convert to disc brakes.
http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=444823
lolife99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2014, 12:29 PM   #10
SCOTI
Registered User
 
SCOTI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DALLAS,TX
Posts: 21,994
Re: Not Happy with 4.5/7 RQ, should I bag it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lolife99 View Post
Great Post!
It would have been nice to have all this info in the first post.

I agree with SCOTI that the short sidewall tires will contribute to the rough ride.
IF you could swap on some 15" wheels with a 70 series tire,... you woud be amazed how much nicer it rides.
But that's the price of running big diameter wheels
.
While I agree w/this, a good suspension set-up should minimize the resulting firmer ride from the short sidewalls (within reason). This is why I'm curious about the actual/specific size.

If the truck isn't bottoming out, then the spring/shock/tire combo would be suspect. Bags definitely offer better ride quality over coils if set-up correctly (correct size bag @ correct pressures). And the OE shock arrangement can be improved (No Limits kit is spot on).

Good looking truck BTW....
__________________
67SWB-B.B.RetroRod
64SWB-Recycle
89CCDually-Driver/Tow Truck
99CCSWB Driver
All Fleetsides
@rattlecankustoms in IG

Building a small, high rpm engine with the perfect bore, stroke and rod ratio is very impressive.
It's like a highly skilled Morrocan sword fighter with a Damascus Steel Scimitar.....

Cubic inches is like Indiana Jones with a cheap pistol.
SCOTI is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2014, 12:34 PM   #11
PGSigns
Senior Member
 
PGSigns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Hayes Va
Posts: 4,569
Re: Not Happy with 4.5/7 RQ, should I bag it?

First thing I would do is borrow a set of stock wheels and tires and see how it rides. That will tell you how much of the ride issue is tire related. That part wont improve with the air. The air is a better ride but the tires and shocks have a huge influence on the ride quality.
Jimmy
__________________
60 to 66 Chevy and GMC window decals
http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=661131
Good friends, good food and a hotrod what else do you need?
1966 BBW long fleet Daily driver
1965 BBW short fleet Sold and going to a good home
1965 Suburban
2003 3500 Duramax
2005 Ultra Classic
PGSigns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2014, 02:10 PM   #12
Bryantcm
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 37
Re: Not Happy with 4.5/7 RQ, should I bag it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCOTI View Post
While I agree w/this, a good suspension set-up should minimize the resulting firmer ride from the short sidewalls (within reason). This is why I'm curious about the actual/specific size.

If the truck isn't bottoming out, then the spring/shock/tire combo would be suspect. Bags definitely offer better ride quality over coils if set-up correctly (correct size bag @ correct pressures). And the OE shock arrangement can be improved (No Limits kit is spot on).

Good looking truck BTW....

I appreciate everyone taking the time to provide input.

It does have short sidewalls, fronts are 245/35 and rear are 315/35 Nitto Invo on 20 x 8 and 20 x 10 wheels. But I'm familiar with the ride of short sidewall tires from other vehicles and it seems to be more than that. Granted the other vehicles are a more modern suspension, but I wouldnt expect tires to rattle my teeth out of my head when I go over a 3/4" change in elevation in the pavement. Also, most of the problem seems to stem from the rear which has more sidewall than the front tires. So that would lead me to believe its unrelated to tire sidewall height.

That's why my suspicion went straight to the spring. The earlier comment from another post about those 5" drop springs seems to reinforce my initial thought.

So I guess my real question is, giving all other things are equal (tires, shocks, suspension setup, etc.), is an air spring really that much of an improvement over a drop spring? Is it worth buying some bags and brackets from Porterbuilt and set them up with schrader valves to see if there is a marked improvement?
Bryantcm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2014, 02:38 PM   #13
PGSigns
Senior Member
 
PGSigns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Hayes Va
Posts: 4,569
Re: Not Happy with 4.5/7 RQ, should I bag it?

If you had a spring rate checker you could see what the springs are. A short stiff spring and a longer softer rate spring can give you the same ride height. So springs from one manufacturer to another can be much different. I like a air ride setup and the schrader valve test would not be that expensive.
Jimmy
__________________
60 to 66 Chevy and GMC window decals
http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=661131
Good friends, good food and a hotrod what else do you need?
1966 BBW long fleet Daily driver
1965 BBW short fleet Sold and going to a good home
1965 Suburban
2003 3500 Duramax
2005 Ultra Classic
PGSigns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2014, 03:32 PM   #14
SCOTI
Registered User
 
SCOTI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DALLAS,TX
Posts: 21,994
Re: Not Happy with 4.5/7 RQ, should I bag it?

Yes, properly spec'd & set-up air bags will offer better ride quality vs the 5" drop spring from CPP.
__________________
67SWB-B.B.RetroRod
64SWB-Recycle
89CCDually-Driver/Tow Truck
99CCSWB Driver
All Fleetsides
@rattlecankustoms in IG

Building a small, high rpm engine with the perfect bore, stroke and rod ratio is very impressive.
It's like a highly skilled Morrocan sword fighter with a Damascus Steel Scimitar.....

Cubic inches is like Indiana Jones with a cheap pistol.
SCOTI is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2014, 04:34 PM   #15
CHRIS67GMC
Registered User
 
CHRIS67GMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Tiffin Oh
Posts: 299
Re: Not Happy with 4.5/7 RQ, should I bag it?

After reading it appears the harsh ride is do to spring rate. Real heavy spring rate to hold truck up with such a big drop.

Will a air bag ride better of coarse it will as long as it is used properly with in its range and psi. If you have a ton of air in them they will ride harsh also.

The fix would be to put lower blocks in it to the spring more space. Change spring or a air bag.

If you want ride quality buy good shocks and no kyb are ok not good. The most important part of ride is in the shock.
CHRIS67GMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2014, 06:03 PM   #16
SCOTI
Registered User
 
SCOTI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DALLAS,TX
Posts: 21,994
Re: Not Happy with 4.5/7 RQ, should I bag it?

With the 2" blocks already in there, some 6" dbl convoluted bags in place of the coils would work well (Firestone 267c's or Slam Specialties RE-6's; 3" compressed height, approx 5" ride height, 7" max ext height).

And I agree w/CHRIS67GMC on the shocks.
__________________
67SWB-B.B.RetroRod
64SWB-Recycle
89CCDually-Driver/Tow Truck
99CCSWB Driver
All Fleetsides
@rattlecankustoms in IG

Building a small, high rpm engine with the perfect bore, stroke and rod ratio is very impressive.
It's like a highly skilled Morrocan sword fighter with a Damascus Steel Scimitar.....

Cubic inches is like Indiana Jones with a cheap pistol.
SCOTI is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2014, 06:29 PM   #17
Bryantcm
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 37
Re: Not Happy with 4.5/7 RQ, should I bag it?

So thanks to everyone's comments I came home and climbed under the truck to take a look. I had only seen it on the lift at the shop when I picked it up Saturday,
so that didn't give the whole picture.

Shocks look to be in a close to stock position, no bad angles. Space between axle and c-notch is good but there's less room between the pumpkin and the bed floor than I thought, maybe 5".

The real thing that concerns me is the driveshaft. There is maybe a half inch clearance between the driveshaft and the top of the crossmember. This seems
Like it would be a problem to me. Any thoughts? Here's the best pic I could get as it's pouring rain here rt now.
Attached Images
 
Bryantcm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2014, 07:52 PM   #18
SCOTI
Registered User
 
SCOTI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DALLAS,TX
Posts: 21,994
Re: Not Happy with 4.5/7 RQ, should I bag it?

Look closely where it passes through the x-member for a contact line. If it's ever hit, it will scribe a distinctive line on the shaft.

One thing to remember is the movement @ the back of the shaft (rear suspension travel) will be less than toward the front of the shaft. My old 68 was dropped w/bags (bolted directly between the T/A & frame), blocks, & bolt-in c-sections w/no bump stops. The differential definitely hit the bed floor (wood/what was left of it) but I didn't have issue w/the OE 1pc shaft making contact @ the x-member. All trucks are different so the concern is very valid. The only way to see what point it might make contact is to remove the rear springs & drop the truck to the bumpstops & see if contact is made. If you feel it's too close for comfort, ECE sells a replacement unit that allows more clearance.

Pop some bags in place of those short coils & I bet the ride will improve. Set it up w/schrader valves (don't T them; keep each side independent) for a static/air bag drop. Beautiful thing is you can add air to them when needed to allow extra capacity & then just bleed them back down when done.
__________________
67SWB-B.B.RetroRod
64SWB-Recycle
89CCDually-Driver/Tow Truck
99CCSWB Driver
All Fleetsides
@rattlecankustoms in IG

Building a small, high rpm engine with the perfect bore, stroke and rod ratio is very impressive.
It's like a highly skilled Morrocan sword fighter with a Damascus Steel Scimitar.....

Cubic inches is like Indiana Jones with a cheap pistol.
SCOTI is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2014, 08:18 PM   #19
Bryantcm
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 37
Re: Not Happy with 4.5/7 RQ, should I bag it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCOTI View Post
Look closely where it passes through the x-member for a contact line. If it's ever hit, it will scribe a distinctive line on the shaft.

One thing to remember is the movement @ the back of the shaft (rear suspension travel) will be less than toward the front of the shaft. My old 68 was dropped w/bags (bolted directly between the T/A & frame), blocks, & bolt-in c-sections w/no bump stops. The differential definitely hit the bed floor (wood/what was left of it) but I didn't have issue w/the OE 1pc shaft making contact @ the x-member. All trucks are different so the concern is very valid. The only way to see what point it might make contact is to remove the rear springs & drop the truck to the bumpstops & see if contact is made. If you feel it's too close for comfort, ECE sells a replacement unit that allows more clearance.

Pop some bags in place of those short coils & I bet the ride will improve. Set it up w/schrader valves (don't T them; keep each side independent) for a static/air bag drop. Beautiful thing is you can add air to them when needed to allow extra capacity & then just bleed them back down when done.
I appreciate all of your input SCOTI. I am definitely going to try the bags. Maybe Porter hilt will sell me just the bags and plates from the stage 1 rear kit since I already have the shocks and relocators
Bryantcm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2014, 08:23 PM   #20
72MARIO
Registered User
 
72MARIO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Huntsville Ontario Canada
Posts: 4,052
Re: Not Happy with 4.5/7 RQ, should I bag it?

Here is a good link on how to bolt bags in place of coils
http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=129463
__________________
1968 Suburban numbers matching all original truck now equipped with 6.0/4L80 on Accuair
http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=625017
1967 C/20 6.0/4L80 Roofing Truck
1990 V2500 Suburban "Plow Truck"
2005 TAHOE DD
72MARIO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2014, 08:38 PM   #21
SCOTI
Registered User
 
SCOTI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DALLAS,TX
Posts: 21,994
Re: Not Happy with 4.5/7 RQ, should I bag it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryantcm View Post
I appreciate all of your input SCOTI. I am definitely going to try the bags. Maybe Porter hilt will sell me just the bags and plates from the stage 1 rear kit since I already have the shocks and relocators
What's the 'ride height' spring dimension of the current springs (measure the distance between the bottom of the frame & top of the T/A)?
__________________
67SWB-B.B.RetroRod
64SWB-Recycle
89CCDually-Driver/Tow Truck
99CCSWB Driver
All Fleetsides
@rattlecankustoms in IG

Building a small, high rpm engine with the perfect bore, stroke and rod ratio is very impressive.
It's like a highly skilled Morrocan sword fighter with a Damascus Steel Scimitar.....

Cubic inches is like Indiana Jones with a cheap pistol.
SCOTI is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2014, 10:14 PM   #22
STPrider
Registered User
 
STPrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: chilliwack, BC
Posts: 136
Re: Not Happy with 4.5/7 RQ, should I bag it?

I had a similar setup to you when I was running a static drop. Didn't have so much of a problem with bad ride quality, but I went to bags on all four corners with schrader valves. I was very impressed with the ride quality! Some people don't like it, because the valves have a tendency to leak. Invest in a tube of Loctite pneumatic sealer, and TAKE YOUR TIME being meticulously clean. I daily drove it, and loved it!
__________________
'71 GMC pickup; "Ashley,"
STPrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2014, 08:15 AM   #23
Bryantcm
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 37
Re: Not Happy with 4.5/7 RQ, should I bag it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCOTI View Post
What's the 'ride height' spring dimension of the current springs (measure the distance between the bottom of the frame & top of the T/A)?
I will measure that tonight. That way I can get some good input on which bags are correct for my ride height as I have seen at least four different types of bags recommended.
Bryantcm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2014, 06:10 AM   #24
Bryantcm
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 37
Re: Not Happy with 4.5/7 RQ, should I bag it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCOTI View Post
With the 2" blocks already in there, some 6" dbl convoluted bags in place of the coils would work well (Firestone 267c's or Slam Specialties RE-6's; 3" compressed height, approx 5" ride height, 7" max ext height).

And I agree w/CHRIS67GMC on the shocks.
SCOTi. Just measured current ride height and it is 8". This seams to be quite a bit more than you mention in your post. What air spring would you recommend?
Bryantcm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2014, 09:13 AM   #25
SCOTI
Registered User
 
SCOTI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DALLAS,TX
Posts: 21,994
Re: Not Happy with 4.5/7 RQ, should I bag it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryantcm View Post
SCOTi. Just measured current ride height and it is 8". This seams to be quite a bit more than you mention in your post. What air spring would you recommend?
Same springs but use the adapter brackets on the install to make up the difference in height (they also make installation easier since no holes need to be drilled).
Attached Images
 
__________________
67SWB-B.B.RetroRod
64SWB-Recycle
89CCDually-Driver/Tow Truck
99CCSWB Driver
All Fleetsides
@rattlecankustoms in IG

Building a small, high rpm engine with the perfect bore, stroke and rod ratio is very impressive.
It's like a highly skilled Morrocan sword fighter with a Damascus Steel Scimitar.....

Cubic inches is like Indiana Jones with a cheap pistol.

Last edited by SCOTI; 04-17-2014 at 09:27 AM.
SCOTI is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright 1997-2022 67-72chevytrucks.com