Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Thursday December 18, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > News & Rumors > Non-Subaru News & Rumors

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-08-2007, 04:46 PM   #1
NYCshopper
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 5126
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: www.nugateway.com
Default U.S. does not want fuel standards to hurt automakers

U.S. does not want fuel standards to hurt automakers

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070208/pl_nm/autos_fuel_dc

Quote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration does not want new fuel economy standards to have a disproportionate impact on any segment of the auto industry, U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters said on Thursday.

Responding to Senate concerns that raising fuel savings targets too aggressively to help reduce U.S. oil consumption could harm struggling Detroit-based carmakers, Peters told an appropriations hearing that her agency is weighing a range of safety, scientific and cost factors.

Peters said she favors a balanced plan that would not have a "disproportionate impact" on any area of the industry and says she has listened to manufacturers.

Regulators want to base new Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standards for automobiles on vehicle size instead of the current calculation of fleet performance.

"That is something U.S. automakers have told us will be easier for them to deal with," Peters told reporters after the hearing.

The administration earlier this week proposed a plan to Congress that would raise fuel standards on cars from the long-standing threshold of 27.5 miles per gallon. Regulators would use a size-based equation similar to one imposed last March for the light truck class -- sport utilities, pickups and vans.

While the White House has outlined a goal of cutting fuel consumption by 20 percent over a decade, or 4 percent annually beginning in 2009, the Transportation Department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration did not set a CAFE target in its proposal to Congress.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
NYCshopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2007, 04:54 PM   #2
BOY
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 232
Join Date: Sep 1999
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Ft Wayne, IN
Vehicle:
99 RS-T RIP
02 Forster-S

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCshopper View Post
U.S. does not want fuel standards to hurt automakers

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070208/pl_nm/autos_fuel_dc
great, want to cheat the system... make your cars bigger . This is totally counterproductive to the President's mandate. I guess in reality its "lead, follow, or cheat the system".
BOY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2007, 05:42 PM   #3
Ghosthound
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 110979
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sacramento, Ca
Vehicle:
2010 FJ Cruiser
1999 Miata

Default

thats retarded... they need to force american car companies to reach certain mpg levels, not give them loopholes to get out.
Ghosthound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2007, 06:18 PM   #4
drees
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 25905
Join Date: Oct 2002
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: San Diego, CA
Vehicle:
2003 Silver Wagon
Tuned with Enginuity

Default

Yeah, they already have enough loopholes. For example, the Navigator because of it's weight, is not subject to CAFE standards.

The intent of that loophole was to exempt heavy trucks which are supposed to be used for hauling crap.

20% improvement in fuel economy over 10 years is nothing. The auto industry could do that in one year if they really wanted to. You might give up a bit of horsepower in the short term due to smaller engines, but technology will catch up. And gasp - it might encourage auto manufactures to innovate a little!

Oh well. Gas prices are only going to go up, which will encourage people to buy fuel efficient vehicles on their own.
drees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2007, 06:29 PM   #5
grzydj
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 84984
Join Date: Apr 2005
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Vehicle:
2006 Impreza 2.5i 5D
'04 Toyota Tacoma TRD

Default

Let the consumers decide. If people really wanted fuel efficient cars, they'd be buying them. They've been around for ages, but people instead choose to drive trucks or SUV's or whatever.

Punish the consumer, the the manufacturer.
grzydj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2007, 06:58 PM   #6
Chromer
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 20325
Join Date: Jun 2002
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Vehicle:
08 Yamaha WR250R
07 Suzuki DL650

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BOY View Post
great, want to cheat the system... make your cars bigger . This is totally counterproductive to the President's mandate. I guess in reality its "lead, follow, or cheat the system".
Not only that, it encourages US domestic cars to continue to be poor competition for imports, and also would make US domestic cars even more unsuitable for export sales in the rest of the world.
Chromer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2007, 08:01 PM   #7
Hazdaz
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 14611
Join Date: Jan 2002
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drees View Post
Yeah, they already have enough loopholes. For example, the Navigator because of it's weight, is not subject to CAFE standards.

The intent of that loophole was to exempt heavy trucks which are supposed to be used for hauling crap.

20% improvement in fuel economy over 10 years is nothing. The auto industry could do that in one year if they really wanted to. You might give up a bit of horsepower in the short term due to smaller engines, but technology will catch up. And gasp - it might encourage auto manufactures to innovate a little!

Oh well. Gas prices are only going to go up, which will encourage people to buy fuel efficient vehicles on their own.
DING DING DING!

Exactly. Detroit has used loopholes that were supposed to be for commercial vehicles just so they don't have to spend the money on R&D and improving their products.

And I agree, that 20% across-the-board efficiency is NOTHING. That is a 15 MPG SUV being forced to get a measly 18 MPG. Is horsepower numbers have nearly DOUBLED in just a decade, I think some of that research can be paided back in better efficiency. I don't say force them to do it in a year, but phase in the higher CAFE numbers over a few years. Force Detroit to investigate LIGHTER and *GOSH* SMALLER cars. The very fact that the government hasn't been pushing Detroit for 20+ years is exactly WHY they are so uncompetitive right now.

Last edited by Hazdaz; 02-08-2007 at 08:07 PM.
Hazdaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2007, 10:52 AM   #8
SlideWRX
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 3803
Join Date: Jan 2001
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: South Carolina
Vehicle:
07 Mustang GT
285 is a wide tire!

Default

Sooo... if say, Compact cars had to hit a 33 mpg target (let's say highway mpg), and the whole impreza line is below 30, I doubt Subaru could afford to sell many WRX's or STi's here; they would hurt fuel economy too much. They would be forced to either buy someone else's hybrid tech and/or produce FWD econo boxes. Or, I guess if heavier cars can get worse mileage, make the STi heavier?

Tom
SlideWRX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2007, 10:56 AM   #9
Porter
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 486
Join Date: Nov 1999
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Roanoke, VA
Vehicle:
2004 Forester XT
bug spattered

Default

This whole commercial loophole should be closed.

If the vehicle isn't forced to be registered as a commercial vehicle, then it shouldn't be exempted from CAFE. That includes the average suburban contractor's work truck.

Big vehicles like dump trucks, 18-wheelers, buses, commercial delivery trucks, etc should be the only exempt classes.

NO vehicle sold through a standard public auto dealer should be exempt... no exceptions.
Porter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2007, 10:59 AM   #10
BSLICKOH
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 9712
Join Date: Aug 2001
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Boilerland
Vehicle:
2012 LifeSpan
TR1200-DT

Default

According to An Inconvenient Truth, which we just watched the other night, the US automakers are bitching about MPG guideline goals that are supposed to take effect in 10 years or something that are equivalent to what the Chinese already have TODAY.

We're #1! Or something.
BSLICKOH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2007, 12:21 PM   #11
sil0nt
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 30584
Join Date: Nov 2002
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Chicago
Vehicle:
05 STi Black
07 S4 Avant Black

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grzydj View Post
Let the consumers decide. If people really wanted fuel efficient cars, they'd be buying them. They've been around for ages, but people instead choose to drive trucks or SUV's or whatever.

Punish the consumer, the the manufacturer.
Absolutely. This is the way to do it. Increase fuel cost, and consumers will embrace higher MPG cars. Then, auto mfg's aren't burdened with making cars consumers don't want. Let the market sort it out instead of regulating it.
sil0nt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2007, 01:31 PM   #12
Hazdaz
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 14611
Join Date: Jan 2002
Default

Oh please, don't make me laugh... you guys are acting like Detroit is completely inocent on what cars consumers want to buy.

There might be plenty of idiots out there, but if not for advertising images of 'rough and tumble' SUVs climbing Everest ( ), there wouldn't be nearly as many of those monstrosities clogging Mall parking lots.

Detroit - like all automakers - make a purposeful effort when they market their vehicles. If they want to sell more small cars - first make BETTER small cars, and then learn to market them from their Japanese and European rivals that don't seem to have a tough time selling Civics and Scions and Versas.

This might come as a huge shock today, but as recently as the 70's "safety" as a marketing campaign to sell cars was nearly unheard of. Lee Iacocca was successful in the 80s to convince that safety was a selling point and installed airbags in all of those crappy K-cars. With that campaign other automakers not only added airbags to their cars, but also started using 'safety' as a sales pitch - and it worked.

Same exact deal with fuel efficient cars - the problem is unfortunately that Detroit doesn't have a clue how to make them, so it really has no clue how to market them.
Without prodding from the government, Detroit will never wake the hell up.
Hazdaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2007, 01:59 PM   #13
sil0nt
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 30584
Join Date: Nov 2002
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Chicago
Vehicle:
05 STi Black
07 S4 Avant Black

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazdaz View Post
Oh please, don't make me laugh... you guys are acting like Detroit is completely inocent on what cars consumers want to buy.

There might be plenty of idiots out there, but if not for advertising images of 'rough and tumble' SUVs climbing Everest ( ), there wouldn't be nearly as many of those monstrosities clogging Mall parking lots.
Here's an interesting look at the rise in popularity of SUV's over the past 20 years from someone who does market research for the automotive industry:


Quote:
The Hidden Force Behind SUV Sales
by Steve Lovett, Senior Editor

With fuel prices near all-time highs, and average fuel economy somewhat stagnant, much attention is being paid to the need of SUVs. Many are questioning the necessity of these and other light trucks such for family duty.

When I was a small child, I remember many road trips with my family of four. We’d load up ourselves and all our stuff in our 1979 Ford Pinto Squire 2-door wagon and traverse much of the countryside. We had plenty of room for ourselves and our baggage, and never had a complaint. And we weren’t alone. Many families were perfectly content with daily use and vacation travel in small and midsized cars. One of our editors at this publication can remember cross-country trips with 5 passengers in a Plymouth Horizon.

So why do today’s families drive vehicles that are so much larger than they drove 25 years ago? Have people become larger? While obesity rates are on the rise, this is hardly the reason. Do we carry more gear? Not likely. Not enough to make up the difference between a Pinto and an Expedition.


The hidden cause behind the shift to light trucks being necessary for family transport is an increased emphasis on child safety. Twenty-five years ago, kids didn’t wear seat belts. Booster seats were for restaurants, and nobody used child safety seats. As a result, we could do more with less. Back in those days, people believed that you really didn’t need to wear seat belts, especially if you were in the back. Back seats were a virtual cocoon, which protected its occupants against anything that could possibly happen. John Kapla, an engineer in Detroit recalls, “I remember there were three kids. On trips, one of us slept across the rear seat, one slept across the floor and the third slept across the rear package shelf.” And that felt fine, everyone was safe because they were in the back seat.

Fast forward. Today’s kids are growing up riding bikes with helmets and knee pads. When I grew up we had knee pads alright; they were called scabs! Child safety seats, booster seats and seat belts are now the norm. Britney Spears was publicly lambasted recently for driving with her infant in her arms. Today, there is a completely different outlook on child safety.

If you’ve ever installed one of these bulky child safety seats in a vehicle, it becomes very clear why larger, three row vehicles are now necessary. These seats are not only heavy and cumbersome, but they take up a lot of real estate. So much, that two seats in the second-row of a sedan almost touch one another in the center, and three abreast is simply out of the question. Not to mention space to store bottles, toys and other gear. John Kapla’s family today would abeslutely require a three-row light truck of some sort, likely a Caravan or Suburban. It’s simply a reality for families today.

Are today’s families buying utility that they don’t need? Are they buying SUVs and vans to keep up with the Jones’? No. They are simply doing what we did twenty-five years ago in the context of today. They’re buying vehicles that allow them to transport their families and their stuff with safety and comfort. Back then, safety was simply the back seat. Today it’s the added complexity of the child safety seat.
Taken from http://uh2l.blogs.com/realitydriven/...dden_caus.html
sil0nt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2007, 02:21 PM   #14
andypress
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 106921
Join Date: Feb 2006
Vehicle:
2006 Impreza 2.5i
Blue

Default

Because high cg=safety
andypress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2007, 02:47 PM   #15
sil0nt
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 30584
Join Date: Nov 2002
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Chicago
Vehicle:
05 STi Black
07 S4 Avant Black

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andypress View Post
Because high cg=safety
I'd guess that at least 75% of the population thinks SUV's are safer. Whether its from size, weight, height, whatever.. consumers think SUV's "win" in an accident. Most of the time they are right, but it's because the SUV does so much damage to the "loser" that they come out as the less damaged vehicle.

Sad but true.
sil0nt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2007, 02:54 PM   #16
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Just outside of Houston TX
Vehicle:
2013 F150 King Ranch
Datsun 71 240Z & 68 2000

Default

Sorry, but I call BS on your child seat driving cars to be bigger. I have many relatives that get by with two kids, two child seats in compact 4 door cars. They dont complain, they just manage. Their kids do not have to have DVD players in their face 24/7, they dont have every toy in Toys R Us in the trunk. The kids are expected to just enjoy whats in front of them.. one toy, a book, whatever. If you tell me because I have two children I suddenly need a 7 passenger 3 row vehicle? Overkill to say the least.

People in Europe dont have children or put them in car seats? They seem to do quite will with compact 4 door cars. SUV's still sell because of successful marketing on the domestics part. They are branded as big, bad and powerful. They also carry the illusion of safety. Cars need to be put in check if they keep getting bigger then safety standards will keep getting stricter. It takes a lot of standard safety features to stop a 6000 lb SUV.

Make vehicles smaller, I dont know how to make that happen, but if I were to talk to GM about this.. I would say simply.. ADAPT OR DIE.
SCRAPPYDO is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2007, 02:57 PM   #17
BSLICKOH
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 9712
Join Date: Aug 2001
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Boilerland
Vehicle:
2012 LifeSpan
TR1200-DT

Default

Followed to its conclusion, that line of reasoning will eventually have us all driving around in 18-wheelers.
BSLICKOH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2007, 03:06 PM   #18
sil0nt
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 30584
Join Date: Nov 2002
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Chicago
Vehicle:
05 STi Black
07 S4 Avant Black

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO View Post
People in Europe dont have children or put them in car seats? They seem to do quite will with compact 4 door cars. SUV's still sell because of successful marketing on the domestics part. They are branded as big, bad and powerful. They also carry the illusion of safety.
I feel like I have this discussion every week on NASIOC. Do people not understand basic economics around here?

Europeans have negative incentives to use smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles in the form of higher fuel taxes. If we had similar incentives, Americans would drive more fuel efficient cars. Instead we have very cheap gas and only care maximizing our own utility, which to a lot of people means buying a larger vehicle. To those of us on the board, it means buying small and fast cars (which are also not very fuel efficient). If we hurt people where it counts (the wallet), they will shape up. Unfortunately, no politician has the sac to propose increased fuel taxes.
sil0nt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2007, 03:16 PM   #19
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Just outside of Houston TX
Vehicle:
2013 F150 King Ranch
Datsun 71 240Z & 68 2000

Default

I know what I just paid in taxes this year...if there is one thing we dont need is more freaking taxes!!!!
SCRAPPYDO is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2007, 03:53 PM   #20
drees
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 25905
Join Date: Oct 2002
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: San Diego, CA
Vehicle:
2003 Silver Wagon
Tuned with Enginuity

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlideWRX View Post
Sooo... if say, Compact cars had to hit a 33 mpg target (let's say highway mpg), and the whole impreza line is below 30, I doubt Subaru could afford to sell many WRX's or STi's here; they would hurt fuel economy too much. They would be forced to either buy someone else's hybrid tech and/or produce FWD econo boxes.
Or they could sell smaller engines. They managed to keep fuel economy the same when upgrading the WRX from 2.0 to 2.5l. The 2.0l with some of the techniques they use on the 2.5l should manage over 30mpg on the freeway.

Raise the compression a bit, direct injection should get you power and economy. Switch to NOx burning cats so you can run leaner than stoich. More power? Lets make water injection come standard from the factory!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porter View Post
This whole commercial loophole should be closed.

If the vehicle isn't forced to be registered as a commercial vehicle, then it shouldn't be exempted from CAFE. That includes the average suburban contractor's work truck.

Big vehicles like dump trucks, 18-wheelers, buses, commercial delivery trucks, etc should be the only exempt classes.

NO vehicle sold through a standard public auto dealer should be exempt... no exceptions.
Good idea. Commercial vehicles should also be subject to some sort of fuel economy standards as well.

The tax breaks business owners get from heavy vehicles are ridiculous. I heard of a guy getting a $60k Denali and after taxe rebates his cost was around $30k. No wonder there are so many heavy SUVs on the road.
drees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2007, 04:35 PM   #21
sil0nt
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 30584
Join Date: Nov 2002
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Chicago
Vehicle:
05 STi Black
07 S4 Avant Black

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO View Post
I know what I just paid in taxes this year...if there is one thing we dont need is more freaking taxes!!!!
The additional fuel taxes could be revenue neutral by funding payroll tax cuts or other regressive taxation. Add to this some sort of Carbon tax, and you really start to incentivize more efficient vehicles.

Unfortunately, most people are just as short sighted as yourself, and all they see are more taxes not realizing the overall impact to your annual tax bill.
sil0nt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2007, 05:03 PM   #22
design1stcode2nd
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 112178
Join Date: Apr 2006
Default

Just because you can make a family trip with 4 or 5 in an Outback or similar size vehicle doesn’t mean you want to. Remember our parents and grandparents made due with one car and crackjack sized homes. People today don’t always have or want to make due anymore.

Taking a trip to the beach with my two kids (1 and 4) and my mother would require two cars unless I used a mini-van or large SUV/CUV. How would that save fuel? In the past you didn’t have any options so mom stayed home or you took two cars. Now I have room to schlep all the kids junk and there is more junk these days as well as plenty of individual space for everyone although I admit I don’t need the 14 cupholders.
design1stcode2nd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2007, 05:46 PM   #23
Master2192
RIP 10/12/83 to 02/10/08
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 83254
Join Date: Mar 2005
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Roy, Washington
Vehicle:
98 2.5 RS
04 WRX

Default

Alot of people in here are assuming that Detroit doesn't know how to build fuel efficient vehicles. They know how to do it, they just don't sell them here. GM already has a diesel Ecotec motor they put in cars over in Europe. I think it is more of a Detroit doesn't want to sell small fuel efficient vehicles because their big vehicles are the money.

Fuel prices are going to continue to climb. There are developing countries (namely China) that have a growing need for petroleum products, if demand continues to increase without an equal increase in supply then prices will go up. Detroit should start trying to market fuel efficient vehicles before gas gets into the $4-$5 range or else they may have a hard time selling their 15 mpg SUVs.
Master2192 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2007, 09:44 PM   #24
brainrally
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 3683
Join Date: Jan 2001
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Collinsville, IL 62234
Vehicle:
2007 Impreza WRX
Shagginwagon

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sil0nt View Post
The additional fuel taxes could be revenue neutral by funding payroll tax cuts or other regressive taxation. Add to this some sort of Carbon tax, and you really start to incentivize more efficient vehicles.

Unfortunately, most people are just as short sighted as yourself, and all they see are more taxes not realizing the overall impact to your annual tax bill.
And you trust the government to do it this way? More tax revenue means more money to spend. That's generally how it goes with Washington.
brainrally is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2007, 09:54 PM   #25
krzyss
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 8365
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Massachusetts
Vehicle:
2013 Ford Focus SE
Black

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BSLICKOH View Post
According to An Inconvenient Truth, which we just watched the other night, the US automakers are bitching about MPG guideline goals that are supposed to take effect in 10 years or something that are equivalent to what the Chinese already have TODAY.

We're #1! Or something.
Are you willing to drive Chinese cars?
What about 1.5L Subaru Impreza? Do you see any market here?
1.4 liter Golf?

Such cars are available but I do not think US public is ready to buy them.
If one wants to decrease consumption but there is enough product to keep it cheap one needs to increase the price. Who is voting 'Aye' for increased taxing on fuel?

Krzys
krzyss is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
hydra 2.5 does not want to start... acssa Other Engine Management 16 01-27-2009 10:53 AM
Pregnant coworker does not want to work new year's. urgewrx Off-Topic 59 12-22-2008 08:24 PM
Hales does not want to work on my a car?! Alaskan EJ20 Alaskan Impreza Club Forum -- AKIC 24 08-30-2008 05:00 PM
Rallispec does not want my money??!!? Osgood30 Tri-State Area Forum 51 04-10-2005 02:05 AM
How to delete a file that does not want to be deleted?(computer gurus out there) AustinSTi Off-Topic 12 10-13-2003 12:40 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2014 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.