GT350 vs. Z/28

[thePill]

How is track width measured? Center of tire to center of tire, or outer edge to outer edge?

Good question, yes, center to center of the tire (which should also be the center of the wheel.

What we are looking for is called "The Golden Ratio" between the Wheelbase and Track. Some argue it is 1.7, most argue that it is 1.6. Personally, I can't say there is actually a rule of thumb however, that "Golden" area is between 1.6 and 1.7. The reason is, there are other variables that could make a "Golden" ratio ungolden. Excessive weight, high roll center/center of gravity, wheelbase too long (over 108/109) and not enough tire to name the major few.

Now, the ATS... good lord...

It is bad as is, its like above a 1.8 on a 109.3x60/62.3 (1.75fr/1.82rr). That is not going to make it to the Camaro. The ATS-V has an increased track but still, it doesn't break 1.7.

Now, the GT... It is right at 1.7 (1.72fr/1.65rr). That is almost perfect. Now, the regular GT350 has a 35mm track increase in the front (no word on rear or GT350R yet). That is 1 3/8ths increase over the GT's 62.3 (about 63.7) bringing the front up to 1.68.

In my opinion, a 1.6 is better for road work. The 430 has a 1.58/1.64 and is considered optimal. The Mustang is competing with the Corvette and 430 now on the foot. There is only so far you can go with a front engine, rear drive and rear seats. The Mustang GT and GT350 are pushing the boundaries of an optimal foot print.

The Camaro will need to be equal to the Mustang or spend an entire generation making up for it.

Here, as the Math Gods say...

The golden ratio (symbol is the Greek letter "phi" shown at left)
is a special number approximately equal to 1.618

1.618...

However, this does not consider vehicular variables as I mentioned before. Although, this 1.618 is THE geometry vehicles in this class strive for.

Same can be said for weight distribution. The is a desired optimal setting but, many real world factors can see advantages either way. 40/60 is actually optimal but unobtainable in a front engine/rear drive car.

Sponsored

 

[Stuntman]

Good question, yes, center to center of the tire (which should also be the center of the wheel.

What we are looking for is called "The Golden Ratio" between the Wheelbase and Track. Some argue it is 1.7, most argue that it is 1.6. Personally, I can't say there is actually a rule of thumb however, that "Golden" area is between 1.6 and 1.7. The reason is, there are other variables that could make a "Golden" ratio ungolden. Excessive weight, high roll center/center of gravity, wheelbase too long (over 108/109) and not enough tire to name the major few.

Now, the ATS... good lord...

It is bad as is, its like above a 1.8 on a 109.3x60/62.3 (1.75fr/1.82rr). That is not going to make it to the Camaro. The ATS-V has an increased track but still, it doesn't break 1.7.

Now, the GT... It is right at 1.7 (1.72fr/1.65rr). That is almost perfect. Now, the regular GT350 has a 35mm track increase in the front (no word on rear or GT350R yet). That is 1 3/8ths increase over the GT's 62.3 (about 63.7) bringing the front up to 1.68.

In my opinion, a 1.6 is better for road work. The 430 has a 1.58/1.64 and is considered optimal. The Mustang is competing with the Corvette and 430 now on the foot. There is only so far you can go with a front engine, rear drive and rear seats. The Mustang GT and GT350 are pushing the boundaries of an optimal foot print.

The Camaro will need to be equal to the Mustang or spend an entire generation making up for it.

Here, as the Math Gods say...

1.618...

However, this does not consider vehicular variables as I mentioned before. Although, this 1.618 is THE geometry vehicles in this class strive for.

Same can be said for weight distribution. The is a desired optimal setting but, many real world factors can see advantages either way. 40/60 is actually optimal but unobtainable in a front engine/rear drive car.

^I thought so too. While roll centers are calculated off of the center of the contact patch, the outer-to-outer wheel widths still play a significant role in cornering. Keeping the track width constant (center-to-center) if you put a wider wheel on a car, it will improve the handling capability of the car by having a wider outer-to-outer width.

Z28:
112.3"
66.14 F 64.65 R
= 1.70/1.74
305 F 305 R
= 72.14" F 70.65" R Outer-to-Outer Track Width

S550 GT:
107.1"
62.3 64.9
= 1.72/1.65
255 F 275 R
= 67.32" F 70.31" R OTO TW

E92 M3:
108.7"
60.5 60.5
= 1.80/1.80 - no one would argue the M3 handles poorly....
245 F 265 R
= 65.32" F 65.72" R OTO TW

F82 M4:
110.7"
62.2 63.1
= 1.78/1.75
255 F 275 R
= 67.22" F 68.51" R OTO TW

Nissan GTR:
109.4"
62.6 63.0"
= 1.75/1.74 - the GTR is an incredibly capable handling car
255 F 285R
= 67.62" F 68.61" R OTO TW

F430
102.4"
65.7 63.6
= 1.56/1.61
225 F 285R
= 70.13" F 69.21" R OTO TW

458 Italia
104.3"
65.8 63.2
= 1.59/1.65
235 F 295 R
= 70.42" F 69.00" R OTO TW

Why is 109" a magical number not to cross for wheelbase length? IIRC, I think F1 cars have around a 123" wheelbase and 57" track widths, which would give an F1 car a 2.16 ratio...

 

[thePill]

^I thought so too. While roll centers are calculated off of the center of the contact patch, the outer-to-outer wheel widths still play a significant role in cornering. Keeping the track width constant (center-to-center) if you put a wider wheel on a car, it will improve the handling capability of the car by having a wider outer-to-outer width.

Z28:
112.3"
66.14 F 64.65 R
= 1.70/1.74
305 F 305 R
= 72.14" F 70.65" R Outer-to-Outer Track Width

S550 GT:
107.1"
62.3 64.9
= 1.72/1.65
255 F 275 R
= 67.32" F 70.31" R OTO TW

E92 M3:
108.7"
60.5 60.5
= 1.80/1.80 - no one would argue the M3 handles poorly....
245 F 265 R
= 65.32" F 65.72" R OTO TW

F82 M4:
110.7"
62.2 63.1
= 1.78/1.75
255 F 275 R
= 67.22" F 68.51" R OTO TW

Nissan GTR:
109.4"
62.6 63.0"
= 1.75/1.74 - the GTR is an incredibly capable handling car
255 F 285R
= 67.62" F 68.61" R OTO TW

F430
102.4"
65.7 63.6
= 1.56/1.61
225 F 285R
= 70.13" F 69.21" R OTO TW

458 Italia
104.3"
65.8 63.2
= 1.59/1.65
235 F 295 R
= 70.42" F 69.00" R OTO TW

Why is 109" a magical number not to cross for wheelbase length? IIRC, I think F1 cars have around a 123" wheelbase and 57" track widths, which would give an F1 car a 2.16 ratio...

The z28 was the 5th Gens best case scenario for this golden ratio. All other Camaro's were less than optimal and 1.7/1.74 is barely there.

The S550 is pretty stout. Ford even has an extra 0.2 (1/4 inch) left that the convertible uses that the Coupe does not. I can say that the GT350 could absorb this 0.2 in the rear but it might be more. I still can't say where Ford is getting this extra 0.2 in the GT Vert but, that is a valuable asset to have in say Solo or TT.

The E92 is one of those exceptions to the rule because of one of those variables. The E92 was Corvette light and contributed to it's success as well had fantastic engineering for the time. The ATS follows this suit because it has a similar mission... However, the ATS-V needs to compensate with some decent tire and an increase in track.

F82 M4... What a poor decision it was to go to 110. The same suspension, track and drivetrain in an E92 M3 and it would have been nearly impossible to stop. It would have weighed less, been more nimble and would have required less tire overall.

GTR. All Wheel Drive is another one of those band aids for poor geometry.

The Ferrari's = Doing it right...




Why would anyone sacrifice optimal geometry and weight savings? suspension packaging, cargo and passenger space, safety and many other factors.

You can see above that the vehicles that are closer to "Phi" actually use less tire overall. This reduces rotational mass, unsprung weight and curb weight overall.

Why is 108/109 the cut off? Actually, I would say the Corvette and Mustang are pushing the limits of a performance wheelbase to be honest. Anything over the 107 the Mustang has starts to encounter the realities of geometry. Sure, an ATS-V could shoot for Phi or, just get two wheels inside 1.7. But what would that make the ATS-V?

At 109.3, the ATS-V would need a 63.5fr/65.9rr to match the GT's 1.65/1.72. Once you figure in the tire and the fender that covers it, total width is usually 10-12 inches over the track. That would mean that the car would be 74 to 77 inches wide. That is almost a half a foot wider and 6 inches of steel running 188 inches down the total length of the car spells weight gain. The higher the wheelbase is the harder it is to rotate the vehicle too. This is why little cars feel nimble regardless of the track, tire size or WB:T ratio.

That is the only issue with the Alpha being shared with the Camaro... major weight gain will be expected if the WB:T will stay competitive.

BUT... If Chevy did go down to a 107 wheelbase, only passenger space and suspension packaging will suffer.

In my opinion, the 6th Gen Camaro should be riding on a 107 inch wheelbase at nearly the same track as the Mustang.

Also, keep in mind, track can only increase using the wheel by a limited amount. 3/4 inches is about as offset as you want to get. That would be 1.5 inches total.

The saying goes...

One in the Track is worth Two in the Tire. Meaning...

An inch of track increase is about the same as two tire sizes (meaning a 255 to a 275). If you think about it, a 20mm increase in about 3/4 inches. That would be gained on each side of the vehicle... So, an inch in track is roughly worth 1.5 inches of tire...

This is all rule of thumb though.

As your tire and track increase, your acceleration will plummet as well as top speed (MPG's as well). Always a downside.

 

[CarFan]

At what point does a shorter wheelbase reduce the ride quality noticeably? Most of us will spend our time driving these cars out on the roads for fun and half a second on a track won't make any difference to us.

 

[thePill]

At what point does a shorter wheelbase reduce the ride quality noticeably? Most of us will spend our time driving these cars out on the roads for fun and half a second on a track won't make any difference to us.

I am not sure a shorter wheelbase has a direct effect on ride quality... or any changes to wheelbase for that matter. A longer wheelbase can make a car feel sluggish when turning compared to a shorter one. A longer wheelbase can also make the car feel floaty and, encourages the rear to come around on tighter turns. A shorter wheelbase will drastically reduce cabin area and, could come in conflict with the IRS's sub-frame.

The issue isn't ride quality, its handling quality. The 6th Gen Camaro cannot roll out on the 16th with a 60, 61, 62 or 63 inch wheelbase. It needs to settle around the GT's ratio's of 1.65/1.72 (62.3fr/64.9rr).

I am not for certain but, the Camaro looks like it may have adopted the Corvette's wider front than rear. The C7's track is wider in the front than it is in the rear. This would allow them to get away with less tire up front. Suspension packaging is also a concern in the front and, it would help keep changes on the Hi-Po models lesser.... As I was saying...

The LT1 Camaro needs a 65.5 in the front (5 and 1/2 inches wider than the ATS) to put it at a 1.66. The rear (which I think is more narrow than the front) would need to be around 63.3 ( 2 inches over the ATS) at 1.72. That is close enough to beat with tire or equal curb weight at -3700lbs.

As you can see though, the Camaro needs to be a lot wider than the ATS Coupe and the ATS-V. When guesstimating weight loss or gain from wheelbase changes, it is easier to project. Track increases are a combination of wheel and suspension placement up to 3/4's of an inch. Anything after that is structure widening.

I guessed that the Camaro would use a wider track in the front than in the rear. Other than the capability to run a narrower tire in the front, the vehicle could possibly rotate better if the front track is dominate. I have no evidence to back this up nor have I ever witnessed this in person on another application. Just speculative or at least inconclusive at best.

No Grabber Blue GT350 this year :(

I won't move until Grabber Blue is available (per the wife)

 

[CarFan]

Grabber blue is what I'd want as well.

 

[thePill]

Grabber blue is what I'd want as well.

If they charge an additional MSRP for Grabber I will flip the F' out.

(Grabber Blue is NOT available on the GT350 yet)

Over 12,000 Mustang's sold this month. Still not impressed...

We’ll be saying this one a lot — the 2015 Mustang is a hot seller. The new S550 Mustang not only surpassed 10,000 in sales last month, but it demolished it and the competition.

To be precise, Ford sold 12,663 Mustangs in March 2015, marking a 36% increase from the same time last year. This comes as the Dodge Challenger overtook the Chevrolet Camaro in sales for the first time since 2009.

Regardless, the new Mustang outsold both of its main competitors combined.

Hey Fenwick!!! Never gonna happen?

March 2015 Delivery (sales):

Mustang March 2015 Deliveries (actual sales): 12,663 36% (Pr Ye)

Compared to Competition:

Camaro March 2015 Delivery (sales): 5,956 -31% (Pr Ye)
Challenger March 2015 Delivery (sales): 6,110 25% (Pr Ye)

Challenger topples the Camaro!!!

 

[Stuntman]

The E92 is one of those exceptions to the rule because of one of those variables. The E92 was Corvette light and contributed to it's success as well had fantastic engineering for the time. The ATS follows this suit because it has a similar mission... However, the ATS-V needs to compensate with some decent tire and an increase in track.

F82 M4... What a poor decision it was to go to 110. The same suspension, track and drivetrain in an E92 M3 and it would have been nearly impossible to stop. It would have weighed less, been more nimble and would have required less tire overall.

GTR. All Wheel Drive is another one of those band aids for poor geometry.

Actually E92s rarely weighed less than 3,500lbs (a lot more than a Vette) and were typically 3,600-3,700lbs and more so with DCT.

Its a bit ignorant to give that blanket statement for the GTR which is an impressive engineering masterpiece.

 

[thePill]

Actually E92s rarely weighed less than 3,500lbs (a lot more than a Vette) and were typically 3,600-3,700lbs and more so with DCT.

Its a bit ignorant to give that blanket statement for the GTR which is an impressive engineering masterpiece.

M3's rarely actually tracked or raced stock nor full of gasoline. It eventually grew to become a heavy car, just as the S197. A lot of the legendary M3 we hear about is actually from a Championship winning platform/drivetrain and team support. It's reputation is mostly professional.

It isn't ignorance, All Wheel Drive is an aid. It certainly does compensate for a sub-optimal geometry as well as the large, mid-sized wheelbase it rides on. Another inch and it would be a full size wheelbase...

The 6th Gen desperately needs a Corvette wheelbase. It would solve more weight issues than a 109 I can tell you that much. If 109 is the deal then 109 needs about 63-66 inch track to make it competitive.

As for being competitive with the GT350. I don't think that will be up for much discussion. Chevy doesn't have an engine with the b@lls and they are sitting on a 109 inch wheelbase.

Edit: For the record, a main strut tower brace is useless if it is bent like that. It's pretty much useless anyway... The real meat is the triangulation that the S550 has in that area. The main support needs to be flat if possible although, I'm sure this helps by a fraction of a C-hair and it would be a toss up for the 2lbs or the 2lbs of extra torsional rigidity. It is Aluminum so, it should be solid for all the thickness it is. There needs to be an aftermarket replacement for this... And bolted in???? Why this??


Ha!!! Can't get enough of this!!!

Annual Sales Lead Grows
The Ford Mustang has posted very strong sales through the first three months of 2015, moving a total of 29,811 cars during the coldest months of the year. It took Ford well into May to sell that many Mustangs in 2014 and in leading each of the first three months in the muscle car sales race, Ford has already built a huge lead in the annual muscle car sales race. GM has delivered just 17,320 new Camaros in the first quarter, so the Mustang has an early lead of almost 12,500 units in 2015.

POW POW!!!

 

[thePill]

I think there are just as many M3s as Mustangs (running in relatively stock form) at a given track day across the country.

That is a vast assumption that has absolutely no data to collaborate. Track days maybe, but in Pro where the M3 made a name for itself, about 99.99% had modification of some sort. I think you will find that Pro M3's probably had an increased track as well as adjusted camber.

One of the strong E92 areas for these track days. I think you will find most people on these track days are also making some kind of adjustments

If everything works out, the Convertible GT's slight track increase will be a hot item depending on what it is. Since it is 0.2 inches total, it would be about an 1/8 inch increase on each side. Not Earth shattering but, it is small enough to pass Tech.

1.645fr/1.713rr on a Mustang GT is insane. The GT350 is even crazier...

 

[thePill]

Here are the specs from Ford. It says right there the convertible has a slight track increase. I can't see the convertible using special wheels to get an 1/8th inch offset.

Does anyone have any information on how this slight increase was achieved? It seems like a transparent modification to me... Hopefully it's not a spacer but it seems like the only logical option.

PLEASE?

I don't want to go over to TMS. It always feels like I'm in a public library over there and nothing above a whisper is allowed.

 

[Sasuketr]

Just saw the new interior pics of the Chevy Malibu! Chevy did an amazing job, the exterior was a copy of Chrystler 200 but inside looks really nice. The car also lost 300 lbs! I think chevy is taking the weight loss really seriously this time! I can't wait to see what really the gt350 will deliver for what its worth? Come on Ford give us the real numbers!!!

 

[thePill]

Don't expect the GT350 to melt a quarter mile... but it should manage a better performance than say.... a z28...

Some impressive numbers from a semi-skilled drag racer.

The Legendary z28...

I have had a lot of experience with many different cars at the drag strip. The Z/28 is possibly the worst car for the drag strip with the factory R comp tires. I did reduce the rear psi to 25 and did not try to adjust further. A burnout after getting the tires wet results in severe axle tramp and tire shake...problem 1. The car hates the drag strip typical launch and results in more axle tramp and more shaking which feels destructive...problem 2. The last thing I want to do is destroy a speciality rear end or snap an axle due to stupidity. I tried going around the burnout box also and doing a "clean off" scrub of the tires with worse results. I may try again with my ZL1 M/T drag radials instead of the Pirelli Trofeos. Some wouldn't post such an experience, but I felt it necessary. So, here is my best run which happened to be my first: The DA was +1600ft.

60' 2.1081
330 5.6665
1/8 [email protected]
1/4 [email protected]

Traction control & stabilitrak were turned completely off. My other runs were aborted due to trials and tribulations...horrible tire shake & wheel hop. I may try again but this car isn't a drag car (duh). The car felt like a bucking bronco begging me not to ride(drive) it...lol! I'm not disappointed, but this car is going to take some patience and some more seat time to get decent e.t.s.

He's not disappointed... just demoralized.

I would be too if my $80,000 garage ornament just managed a best of 13.0@110mph.





I remember Al Openbudwieser's reply to a magazine that asked "what's it do in the 1/4"


Al said "I don't know, we never tested it"


You know what? This is the first time I agree with Al... It doesn't appear that they ever actually did test the z28.


Props to Stephen for this insight. He goes through Camaro's like Bic razors so I doubt it's any skin off his ass.

Sweet, another C5 member found the fix.

Really not surprising but interesting post. It's a manual transmission and manuals suck at the drag strip.

Wh@t the F@&$ is going on over there?!?!?!

This car is one dimensional and great at the road course. I believe that when advertised it's not recommended for a hard launch as in drag racing. That's why the OP that said it's a 11 second car completely stock faced so much opposition to prove it. I love the Z/28 and what it can do on a road course but it's not a car I would buy.

The car is "One dimensional" (not to be confused with a "One Trick Pony"). This means it's limited to just road work. However, we are finding that more and more Chevy's aren't just a one trick pony, they are also a "One Lap Wonder".

Need to do more than a blazing lap and call it a day.

Chevy claimed 11's all day in more than one Camaro. Neither of them could really manage that. Motor Trend says 12.1, real life says 13's

 

[Taneras]

60' 2.1081
330 5.6665
1/8 [email protected]
1/4 [email protected]

You'd have a tough time selling that to me as a "good run".

Even taking into account a poor launch, which would explain the horrible 60 ft time, the trap speed seems way off for a car with a power:weight ratio that's only about 15hp off of that of a C7 vet.

Launching aside, I'd tend to believe Motor Trend's 117 mph trap, which would make it an obvious 12 second car - low to mid 12's to be a little more specific.

 

[thePill]

It's not a good run, not even close. This is another case of challenge the owner/driver or challenge the media. I am a firm believer that the media gets preproduction versions of the cars. They always seem to do a lot better. A perfect example is their own ZL1. A 13 in a 500hp car in 2015 is a sad affair.

Anyway...

The GT350 and GT350R seem poised to kill the z28 at every angle. From geometry, output, curb weight, rubber, MSRP and pretty much every other aspect I can think of. The Base GT350 seems like more of a '14-'15 z28 competitor, regardless of the cost.

I have been prying into some info that was recorded at some of the amazing US tracks. It doesn't look good for anything Camaro. The GT350 was rumored to be just as fast as the outgoing Boss 302R at the same tracks it ran in IMSA CTSC last year. Laguna Seca comes to mind... The geometry, tire and downforce are winning this battle, not really the lower weight although it does help. Being 100lbs lighter than a Boss 302 won't let the GT350 do the things it's doing.

The advantage with the lower weight will come in the form of expendables as well has a better control and feel, sure. But the GT350 is deriving it's handling prowess from geometry, an area that it just completely embarrasses the z28. Rubber aside, the GT350 will be hard to handle even if they can manage to build an NA V8 to cope.

Which brings me to Chevy's NA V8...



...there isn't one :(



I was sure they would have figured it out enough to get it into the OEM lineup. I guess that is just NOT going to happen. Here is the issue...

I have two handfuls of people, one group in each hand. One handful is telling me it isn't dead yet but delayed for a DOHC engine (Possibly a Twin Turbo) that will be Motorsport engine and homologated in the Mid-engine Corvette.

The other handful claims that it is dead, at least at the OEM level. The reason was, once the engine went over 7000-ish RPM's, the valves floated before even peak power could be reached. While the new angled pushrods made space for DI, it may have impeded the operation just ever so slightly. Enough to scrap the program and THEN moved to the Zora DOHC V8. That almost makes too much sense for Chevy to have gone this route... Just kidding, a DOHC is a grand idea... 25 years later...

So, that means the next z28 could be fitted with the LT4. It's heritage continues to evolve. Or, the Camaro continues to search for heritage of some kind.

I was kinda hoping for a ZL2 like the April Fools piece said. I think scaling the ZL up every Gen is a great way to built heritage. Just don't stick the LT4 into the z29 for now, then yank it later for an NA V8 (that is probably not working very well) and transplanting the LT4 into the ZL2. Why not... Your never gonna have a GT500-like nameplate. Nicholas Cage never said anything about a damn Bumblebee... It was Eleanor... The GT500...

I fear as good as the SS/LT1 may try and be, it may be it's best efforts due to poor engine investments by Chevrolet over the last... 50 years...

We had initial ballpark estimates from Ford of 500+hp, 130lbs lighter... We also heard $53,000, 6.63-ish PtW, a 63.7 front track or a 1.68 (1.65rr) and 295/305 and 305/315 tire. We are hearing now that 520+hp was always the goal. I am not sure if it will shatter that figure or not. We are betting Ford targeted the M4's US curb weight of 3530lbs. That is a tall order considering a GTPP weighs between 3730-3760lbs. Just 130lbs off of that won't get you below 3600lbs.

Although, we hear that the GT350TP may actually be a little bit lighter than the GTPP. Possibly breaking back into the 369x range. The Base GT350 (Motorsport Legal Version), will be a tad lighter if Lightweighting isn't included into any packages.




As time goes on, it is becoming more and more clear that the GT350 is a showcase of future Mustang technology. We got to speak with someone briefly about structure weight loss. I brought up that the BIW gained weight... I was told that was not the case. The S550 BIW actually lost 25lbs and then some in the panels and glass.

The main concern in the beginning was sales and MSRP. Ford had to release an S550 Mustang to compete and beat a 5th Gen Camaro. One of the major draws for the Mustang is that it is actually cheaper than the base Camaro (at every level if I remember correctly). This was not possible using some of the light weighting planned for the future...

FWIW:

---and rthat is something they are engaged in. The Fusion project was a good example of what they have the ability to do.

"Other than CF???"

What's CF?

Okay. There is a press release I am sure that states the body in white lost the 25lbs. You will need to look around. I know it is on the web. There is over 50 pounds that was put back in because of budget. XXXXX told me it was almost 70 but some of that stuff was expensive. You will see some of that on the GT350.

xxxxxxxxx

You might not know him. I was told that the weight savings were good enough. The confidence in the structure allowed them to incorporate the convertible support into the existing coupe. These supports actually double as high performance reinforcement. A lot of that efficiency you talk about is put to use here.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I can't say anything about the 350 GT. I worked xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (regular Mustang)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Nothing on the 350. Some of the light weight ideas that were suppose to be on the GT is all i know.

The crash test added some weight but nothing major. Most of the extra strength comes from the design. The weight loss is pretty much all design right now. They didn't want use to rely on expensive materials at first. The Mustang needed to be designed to be as light as possible with the cheap stuff.

----yeah and that is still good. Sales was the big talk last year and we will find out in the beginning of April and May if it worked.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Unverified and with a grain...

(Edit: I have motor talk, I am not sure about it. Multiple sources)

Sponsored