Jump to content
dwightlooi

Cadillac ATS Forecast

  

14 members have voted

  1. 1. How do you like this lineup?



Recommended Posts

Nice but i just do not think this is what we will get.

What do you think we'll get?

In any case, the power trains I forecasted are based on the following deductions:-

  • 2.0T -- Basically a LNF engine tuned for 87 octane; boost goes down, hp decreases by 10, torque by 38, torque plateau extended.
  • 2.0TD -- OPC Twin Sequential Turbo 4-pot Diesel engine burrowed from Opel
  • 3.6 -- Same engine as the Camaro; 87 octane
  • 6.2 -- Gen V Small Block V8; ATS-V gets naturally aspirated version, Supercharged version reserved for CTS-V and Vette

The basic Turbo-4 + V6 strategy is similar to VW-Audi's. For the specialty ATS-V, a small block provides class beating performance and unique Cadillac character.

Edited by dwightlooi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds spot-on to me, although I could see slight differences in displacements being a possibility.

Agree completely. I don't at all expect the 6.2, I expect the replacement motor that will be put in the C7. Something in the mid 5.x liter range that will produce 420+ HP (depending on the vehicle's weight).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree completely. I don't at all expect the 6.2, I expect the replacement motor that will be put in the C7. Something in the mid 5.x liter range that will produce 420+ HP (depending on the vehicle's weight).

I am assuming that they'll keep it as a 6.2. The 5.5 is a racing engine limited by class rules to 5.5 liters, I don't think it'll have any bearings on the production engine's displacement(s). Chances are they'll have a few displacements like they do today.

Realistically, though the engine outputs will vary quite a bit depending on displacement and configuration:-

Gen V Pushrod Small Block

  • 7.0 Supercharged -- N/A (Cylinder Walls Too Thin)
  • 7.0 NA -- 525hp / 500 lb-ft
  • 6.2 Supercharged -- ~620hp / 620 lb-ft
  • 6.2 NA -- ~470hp / 440 lb-ft
  • 5.5 Supercharged -- ~550hp / 550 lb-ft
  • 5.5 NA -- ~420hp / 390 lb-ft
  • 4.8 Supercharged -- 480hp / 480 lb-ft
  • 4.8 NA -- 370 hp / 340 lb-ft

These estimates assume the incorporation of Direct Injection along with a 1 point increase in compression ratio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's too bad they had to design the 427 with such thin cylinder walls.

I wouldn't at all mind seeing the 4.8 SC or 5.5 make its way into an ATS-V given your estimated numbers. And put the 4.8 NA in some Buicks, full size Chevrolets, and small trucks (as the performance model).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the powertrains look good, except the curb weights are quite porky.

where's the all wheel drive?

22/32 mpg for the 'common model' is promising.

ATS is distant, they should really bring out 8 speeds for them.

If GM does indeed do something like a nice 4.8l 72 degree v8 DOHC i'd much rather see that in the ATS than a pushrod.

Edited by regfootball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The engines seem likely, GM often doesn't release an all new engine on an all new model. So I'd expect the 2.0 Turbo 4 out of the Regal/Solstice, the CTS's current 3.6 V6 and a Camaro/Corvette 6.2 V8. I don't think the weights will be that low though, 3500 lbs is ambitious for a GM product. Which means I don't see 32 mpg highway happening either, the 2.0T in the Solstice (a small, light car) got 26 mpg, although it does get 30 mpg highway in the Regal. I think 30 is tops in the ATS, more likely 29 mpg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget DOHC! With an engine like that, people will be too busy to care, as they'll be melting into their seats, mouths agape, because that car will go 0-60 faster than you can say Holy Shi-.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you think we'll get?

In any case, the power trains I forecasted are based on the following deductions:-

  • 2.0T -- Basically a LNF engine tuned for 87 octane; boost goes down, hp decreases by 10, torque by 38, torque plateau extended.
  • 2.0TD -- OPC Twin Sequential Turbo 4-pot Diesel engine burrowed from Opel
  • 3.6 -- Same engine as the Camaro; 87 octane
  • 6.2 -- Gen V Small Block V8; ATS-V gets naturally aspirated version, Supercharged version reserved for CTS-V and Vette

The basic Turbo-4 + V6 strategy is similar to VW-Audi's. For the specialty ATS-V, a small block provides class beating performance and unique Cadillac character.

I like what you have but I just get the gut feeling the ATS will not get a V8.

I think you are correct on a 4 cylinder non turbo but not a 2.0.

A Turbo 2.0 will be there but it will not be Diesel in this country. GM just is not showing the will to do it.

I see a NA V6 3.6

The V my gut says it will be the Twin Turbo V6. GM will leave the V8 for the bigger Alpha CTSV. GM has to make these car different in some way. THe ATS V will be like a Camaro SS while the CTS V will be the Z28. Note I kind of expect the 6th gen Camaro will get a V6 TT SS and a V8 Z/28.

My feelings are coming on hints from people I know that can't really say much so I have to fill in around their hints for now. I know GM is hard at work in the TT V6 and they will not just use it only in a car or two but many models. I also have been told the V8 is alive but will be more limited to less models in the future. It has also been noted the cost buy a the V8's will climb too it will be mostly in higher end models. The MFG want people to chose smaller engines and will make them pay for it in the top models.

I could be wrong but this is only my obervations. Either way we will still have some very sweet cars. I just hope you are high on you weights. GM has been working for the new models to be lighter and I hope they can do much better than you have listed. If they don't they have failed at something they need to do. A lighter car is coming from most MFG Mazda has already show some results.

GM can gain some real ground with a lighter car. The GM engineer stated that if they can get it light like they would like it will advance the car in all directions not just one area as power does. Less mass improves not only acceleration buy MPG, braking distances and handling. I just hope they can achieve this with the Alpha as it would give GM a leg up.

The trannys I suspect will remain 6 speed. The Vette engineers are already stating that more is not better in all cases and hinted that the C7 would not gain gears. I don't really care one way or the other but that is what they are saying so it tells me more gears are not a priority with them.

Like I state this is just my gut feeling and I may be totaly wrong or even on part right but just my own thoughts till I get something more to base it on.

Might want to change the tire make on teh V to Pilots. Michelin is doing the OE work on the V series of late. Goodyear has cut back some on OE work as there is little profit and often the tires are not as good as if they were built to the tire companies spec vs the comprimised automaker spec. Goodyear is now back being profitable and they have killed many OE contracts I just see them working were it is to their advantage or the auto makers want a special tire that they have and is will to pay more for it like the Volts Fuel Max tires.

Edited by hyperv6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TTV6 vs. V8 for the ATS-V is a very tough call to make.

I give it even money.

I just see it in steps as the TT V6 will give the ATS a very Euro like driveline that would appeal there and here. The V8 would make the CTS a car that people would pay mroe to own and make it a different car from the ATS. With them both on the Alpha it will be very very important to make them different vs just making CTS a bigger version of the ATS.

The CTS will need to offer things the ATS does not have and make make the CTS a better car to be worth the extra money. Also offer the CTS with the TT V6 in a middle model too. The NA V6 is the base model CTS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just see it in steps as the TT V6 will give the ATS a very Euro like driveline that would appeal there and here. The V8 would make the CTS a car that people would pay mroe to own and make it a different car from the ATS. With them both on the Alpha it will be very very important to make them different vs just making CTS a bigger version of the ATS.

The CTS will need to offer things the ATS does not have and make make the CTS a better car to be worth the extra money. Also offer the CTS with the TT V6 in a middle model too. The NA V6 is the base model CTS.

Everything rides on the specifics of the Alpha architecture that we don't yet know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll try to make a comprehensive response to the multiple posts above.

(1) MPG numbers on the 2.0T are derived from that of the Solstice GXP -- 22/31 MPG. The engine here will have a higher static compression and lower boost (est. 10.2:1 vs 9.2:1; 13.2psi vs 18 psi). This should result in Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) numbers lower than the LNF in the Solstice GXP. I expect the EPA City numbers to be unchanged despite a 400 lbs weight growth mainly due to the wider ratio spread of the 6L45 vs the 5L40 in the GXP and improved off-boost/low-load BSFC. EPA Highway numbers are basically a function of the top gear ratio and aerodynamics; weights does not matter very much because it is practically a constant speed test cycle. For the Highway cycle I expect a 1 MPG improvement simply because of the 6.05 ratio spread of the 6L45 vs the 4.56 ratio spread of the 5L40 in the Solstive GXP.

(2) I don't believe that they'll go for a 3.0TT or 3.6TT simply because there will be no weight, packaging or performance advantage. Plus it'll be an additional development whereas a DI Small Block V8 is already available from the Vette. The same thing goes for a DOHC V8, that is a new, separate development whereas the SB V8 is already a given. It too offers no weight, packaging or performance advantages. A 6.2 Pushrod V8 will fit in roughly the same space as the 3.6 DOHC V6, a TT 3.6 is actually harder to fit because of the space required for the turbos, intercooler plumbing and intercooler itself.

(3) If they do commit to a second V8 line that is DOHC, I strongly believe that it'll be a 60 deg engine based off of the 3.0 and 3.6 V6es. 90 deg engine will have to be all new. A 72 deg based off the 4.5 Duramax DOHC Diesel is unlikely -- that is a relatively heavy iron block.

(4) I'll like to see the ATS 2.0 weigh in at 3300 lbs and the ATS-V tipping the scales at 3500 lbs. But I don't think it's going to happen. GM is not going to splurge on aluminum space frames and the like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything rides on the specifics of the Alpha architecture that we don't yet know.

This is true. We do know it will be suited for a 4 and V6 but we have yet to hear anything on a V8. Most of us assume with the CTS and Camaro heading for this a V8 may be an option. But till we hear more there is a chance a V8 still may not be part of the program. Note I only say a chance.

I hope they do keep it as an option so cars like a CTSV and Camaro Z28 Can still have the bigger engine.

Right now we still need to hear more on the new Ecotec and the variations they will be offered in. Also the V6 will we see a 3.6 TT or will it be a different engine that is smaller in displacement.

I talked to one of the Camaro Disciples and while I could not get specific info I was told things will not be disapointing with some new things that we do not know that are on the table. Not sure if this means the Zeta or Alpha. I know they are speaking to them already in terms of the Alpha and giving feed back. Just none are able to say what they are being asked. They are still also giving feed back on the Zeta cars too.

I mentioned something about Buick and I was told there are some very interesting things going on. Note they all were given many of the new 2011 cars to drive in Warren including CTS V coupe and sedan as well as other new GM models.

Camaro 5 had a post from one of the others that were there and again he was not able to say much of anything but also set the tone that the things covered were in the wow territory.

GM has clamped down and we will just have to wait till things get closer as they no longer have to show cars 5 years out to keep the stock prices up.

In fact I have not seen things this quiet on new product in years. Even Scott Settlemire is not saying much anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll try to make a comprehensive response to the multiple posts above.

(1) MPG numbers on the 2.0T are derived from that of the Solstice GXP -- 22/31 MPG. The engine here will have a higher static compression and lower boost (est. 10.2:1 vs 9.2:1; 13.2psi vs 18 psi). This should result in Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) numbers lower than the LNF in the Solstice GXP. I expect the EPA City numbers to be unchanged despite a 400 lbs weight growth mainly due to the wider ratio spread of the 6L45 vs the 5L40 in the GXP and improved off-boost/low-load BSFC. EPA Highway numbers are basically a function of the top gear ratio and aerodynamics; weights does not matter very much because it is practically a constant speed test cycle. For the Highway cycle I expect a 1 MPG improvement simply because of the 6.05 ratio spread of the 6L45 vs the 4.56 ratio spread of the 5L40 in the Solstive GXP.

(2) I don't believe that they'll go for a 3.0TT or 3.6TT simply because there will be no weight, packaging or performance advantage. Plus it'll be an additional development whereas a DI Small Block V8 is already available from the Vette. The same thing goes for a DOHC V8, that is a new, separate development whereas the SB V8 is already a given. It too offers no weight, packaging or performance advantages. A 6.2 Pushrod V8 will fit in roughly the same space as the 3.6 DOHC V6, a TT 3.6 is actually harder to fit because of the space required for the turbos, intercooler plumbing and intercooler itself.

(3) If they do commit to a second V8 line that is DOHC, I strongly believe that it'll be a 60 deg engine based off of the 3.0 and 3.6 V6es. 90 deg engine will have to be all new. A 72 deg based off the 4.5 Duramax DOHC Diesel is unlikely -- that is a relatively heavy iron block.

(4) I'll like to see the ATS 2.0 weigh in at 3300 lbs and the ATS-V tipping the scales at 3500 lbs. But I don't think it's going to happen. GM is not going to splurge on aluminum space frames and the like.

1 You may be close on the MPG. THe LNF in the HHR at 3200 with an auto is 22 city and 30 Highway in real life. With the Turbo upgrade kit it increases 1-2 MPG confirmed by Bill Duncan of GMPD. This is with the 290 HP and 315 FT LB. Note too the HHR is not the most aero vehicle too and was hindered with a 4 sp auto.

2 You are only looking at it from a techincal side while I look at it from a Marketing side. They can make the TT engine fit if they really want it too. Cost is not so much a factor in a Cadillac vs if this was a Malibu. GM does have plans for a TT turbo as they do not hide the engine much. The idea with the Cadillac is to offer something more than a Chevy. This engine will be added value to the people who pay more for a Cadillac. Also I just will be suprised if they offer a V8 in a ATS. If they do not make the ATS and CTS fundimentally different they will have another CTS vs STS issue on their hands and we know how that effected the STS. They can have to different but quaity cars on their hands if they can give them different options.

3 I just do not see them spending a lot of money on a new second V8. More investment in the V6 but not anymore than they are already doing on the new Vette/pickup engine. Each and every year forward I see a decline in the sales of V8 engines.

4 As for weight 3300 would be a major win. Odds are against it but we can hope. Again more expensive materials are something that Cadillac could do but not Chevy. We will see an increase in the next 10 years of more aluminum and composites and with more use the prices will drop. The cars to use them first will be the Vette and Cadillacs. Just where and how they will be used will just have to wait and see.

Edited by hyperv6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 You may be close on the MPG. THe LNF in the HHR at 3200 with an auto is 22 city and 30 Highway in real life. With the Turbo upgrade kit it increases 1-2 MPG confirmed by Bill Duncan of GMPD. This is with the 290 HP and 315 FT LB. Note too the HHR is not the most aero vehicle too and was hindered with a 4 sp auto.

2 You are only looking at it from a techincal side while I look at it from a Marketing side. They can make the TT engine fit if they really want it too. Cost is not so much a factor in a Cadillac vs if this was a Malibu. GM does have plans for a TT turbo as they do not hide the engine much. The idea with the Cadillac is to offer something more than a Chevy. This engine will be added value to the people who pay more for a Cadillac. Also I just will be suprised if they offer a V8 in a ATS. If they do not make the ATS and CTS fundimentally different they will have another CTS vs STS issue on their hands and we know how that effected the STS. They can have to different but quaity cars on their hands if they can give them different options.

3 I just do not see them spending a lot of money on a new second V8. More investment in the V6 but not anymore than they are already doing on the new Vette/pickup engine. Each and every year forward I see a decline in the sales of V8 engines.

4 As for weight 3300 would be a major win. Odds are against it but we can hope. Again more expensive materials are something that Cadillac could do but not Chevy. We will see an increase in the next 10 years of more aluminum and composites and with more use the prices will drop. The cars to use them first will be the Vette and Cadillacs. Just where and how they will be used will just have to wait and see.

(1) I won't be surprised if the did a TT DOHC V6. My suspicions is that it'll be a low boost (~0.8 bar; 11.8 psi) ~350hp 3.0 liter rendition. The TT V6 will most likely be in the vicinity of 350 lb-ft with a very low peak of 1600~1800 rpm. This puts it in the same power class as the BMW N55 and the Ford Ecoboost 3.5. It'll be useful in applications where the 3.6 is under torqued. The SRX and perhaps the entry Suburbans and others can use such an engine. The reason I favor the 3.0 over the 3.6 is that it has 14mm cylinder walls whereas the 3.6 has somewhat marginal 9 mm cylinder walls. The 3.0 also has an integrated exhaust collector in the heads (it has one exhaust port per bank) meaning the manifold feeding the turbo can be very simple and efficient. The reason I doubt it'll be a used in the ATS-V is that it'll have to be a high boost engine using the 3.6 block. To match a Small block, it'll be something along the lines of the Nissan GT-R's 480hp VQ38DETT -- neither cheap nor particularly efficient given its low compession, plus those 9mm cylinder walls on the 3.6 and ~17.4 psi of boost is on the edge at best.

(2) The ATS and CTS are separated by vehicle size. They are also substantially different in powertrain. The CTS starts with a six andd ends with a Supercharged V8. The ATS starts with a turbo four and ends with a normally aspirated V8. The separation of the ATS-V and the CTS-V will be that the CTS has a superrcharged version of the engine. In many ways it'll be like the previous generation AMG cars. The C55 had a NA 5.5 V8. The E55 had the Supercharged version. In all likelihood, you'll see a 450~470hp engine in the ATS-V and a 550~625 hp engine in the CTS-V -- quite substantially different.

(4) Aluminum is not new. Aluminum and its various alloys have been an industrial mainstay for a century. Aluminum is every where from sidings to cases to blinds to shower doors. Any process economies have probably been tapped. If Aluminum usage in cars increase, prices may actually increase due to increased demand and a relatively mature and inelastic supply. Aluminum promises an ~33% weight savings on the chassis, high strength steel about 15%. A typical car has a chassis weight of about 500~750 lbs (227~340 kg) That is about 1/6th the vehicle's curb weight. The rest is the driver train, the interior, the doors, the suspensions, the wheels, etc. So the use of aluminum space frames really amounts to about 150~225 lbs of savings. High strength steel gets you 70~100 lbs off. At some point you start wondering if the 80~125 lbs its worth the cost of aluminum which is almost twice that of steel in a per unit strength basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(1) I won't be surprised if the did a TT DOHC V6. My suspicions is that it'll be a low boost (~0.8 bar; 11.8 psi) ~350hp 3.0 liter rendition. The TT V6 will most likely be in the vicinity of 350 lb-ft with a very low peak of 1600~1800 rpm. This puts it in the same power class as the BMW N55 and the Ford Ecoboost 3.5. It'll be useful in applications where the 3.6 is under torqued. The SRX and perhaps the entry Suburbans and others can use such an engine. The reason I favor the 3.0 over the 3.6 is that it has 14mm cylinder walls whereas the 3.6 has somewhat marginal 9 mm cylinder walls. The 3.0 also has an integrated exhaust collector in the heads (it has one exhaust port per bank) meaning the manifold feeding the turbo can be very simple and efficient. The reason I doubt it'll be a used in the ATS-V is that it'll have to be a high boost engine using the 3.6 block. To match a Small block, it'll be something along the lines of the Nissan GT-R's 480hp VQ38DETT -- neither cheap nor particularly efficient given its low compession, plus those 9mm cylinder walls on the 3.6 and ~17.4 psi of boost is on the edge at best.

(2) The ATS and CTS are separated by vehicle size. They are also substantially different in powertrain. The CTS starts with a six andd ends with a Supercharged V8. The ATS starts with a turbo four and ends with a normally aspirated V8. The separation of the ATS-V and the CTS-V will be that the CTS has a superrcharged version of the engine. In many ways it'll be like the previous generation AMG cars. The C55 had a NA 5.5 V8. The E55 had the Supercharged version. In all likelihood, you'll see a 450~470hp engine in the ATS-V and a 550~625 hp engine in the CTS-V -- quite substantially different.

(4) Aluminum is not new. Aluminum and its various alloys have been an industrial mainstay for a century. Aluminum is every where from sidings to cases to blinds to shower doors. Any process economies have probably been tapped. If Aluminum usage in cars increase, prices may actually increase due to increased demand and a relatively mature and inelastic supply. Aluminum promises an ~33% weight savings on the chassis, high strength steel about 15%. A typical car has a chassis weight of about 500~750 lbs (227~340 kg) That is about 1/6th the vehicle's curb weight. The rest is the driver train, the interior, the doors, the suspensions, the wheels, etc. So the use of aluminum space frames really amounts to about 150~225 lbs of savings. High strength steel gets you 70~100 lbs off. At some point you start wondering if the 80~125 lbs its worth the cost of aluminum which is almost twice that of steel in a per unit strength basis.

1 You can has the numbers but the fact is a TT V6 is coming and I will GM decide what is best. You numbers give us something to play with till then. We wll see domething over 400 HP and one in the 300 HP range.

2 We all know size is different even in the STS and CTS today. But the flavor of the cars is very similar. The CTS works out to be the better so there is no reason to buy a STS. The ATS if left to a 4 and V6 with a Turbo V6 V car would give way to a CTS with the V6 and Turbo V6 with the not available V8 in the CTS V. The key here is to offer more advaced and mre technally advanced engines in the CTS to give people a reason to move up and pay more. We do not want CTS buyers to want the ATS but we want ATS buyers to want to move to a CTS if they can afford too. Tech and marketing are key in this class. You can afford to spend the money on more advanced systems as people will pay for them here. Yes all are not must haves but they all are selling points that attract. It is not alway the point of the best thing in this class but more about the more fancy, exciting and coolest thing that helps sell this class.

4 We are all aware of the use of aluminum. Reclaim keep the price down as it has for years. The fact is Aluminum is only a part of this. Besides GM has already been using much in the way of Aluminum. Just look under a W body and the front Cradle. It save just over 50 pounds alone on the nose of a 03 and 04 and later Imapala Regal and GP. If they can afford a Aluminum Sub frame on a Impala they will incorperate more into the more expensive cars too. Besides the cost is also factored by weight vs MPG and often anymore they will spend more to get more MPG such as with the many engine systems.

Compsites and othe alloys will come into play. The industry as a whole is looking to move to and help cut the cost of mass produced Cabon Fiber. Several deals have been struck even with GM. The ZR 1 is not the last car to have Carbon Fiber at GM.

At this point all either of us can do is guess as neither of us have the full story and I think we both will find suprises will be in store. We both I think are on the right track in some areas and out to lunch on others. Time will tell what we did get right and wrong.

Edited by hyperv6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My gut feeling is that:

CTS will not be on Alpha

Sigma/Zeta will merge into a single architecture and move forward.

An ATS lineup, the next Camaro, and a new Buick will all share Alpha but will be dramatically differentiated. Both in appearance and drivetrains.

No separate DOHC V8 will be produced, but a new V8 capable of both DOHC and pushrod configurations could be very appealing to GM. Short of that, I expect no DOHC V8s at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My gut feeling is that:

CTS will not be on Alpha

Sigma/Zeta will merge into a single architecture and move forward.

An ATS lineup, the next Camaro, and a new Buick will all share Alpha but will be dramatically differentiated. Both in appearance and drivetrains.

No separate DOHC V8 will be produced, but a new V8 capable of both DOHC and pushrod configurations could be very appealing to GM. Short of that, I expect no DOHC V8s at all.

I would like to see the CTS on the Hybird. I read some that feel this could happen. Hard to tell yet but could is in play yet as far as we know. The more they can keep the CTS and ATS appart the better. Similar but different is improtant here.

I knew about the Camaro Alpha but the Buick is still a mystery. That is where I posted a couple weeks ago a insider that talked of a new GN like car with w TT V6. That tells me RWD may be in play and Alpha would be prime.

I know you hate hearing this but the V8 while around will become smaller and smaller in numbers sold and built. I see them keeping the present engine upto date but no large investment. With 4 cylinders now 70+% of the market it will only grow and V6 engines with Turbo's will be the main players for upscale in most cars in 10 years.

Once GM makes the move for a Turbo V6 in the trucks I see the numbers really dropping on the V8. I expect Ford and Chevy to both offer this and they will move the price of the V8 up that it will be around but may force many into the turbo engine. Or GM could just make a even smaller V8 as that is always on the table and could be a smart move.

Bit I agree there will not be two v8 engines and I just don't see a duel DOHC and In block cam coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We  Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×