Which Dyno Sheet would YOU choose? - TCCoA Forums
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 30 (permalink) Old 09-16-2004, 03:31 PM Thread Starter
Renegade
 
chadg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Minnesota
Age: 37
Posts: 529
Which Dyno Sheet would YOU choose?

Look at peaks, look at area under the curves, compare point to point. Which one do you think is a better curve? Keep in mind the differences in dyno-types.

JBA's/Cats/PI Intake


Kooks/No Cats/Bullitt Intake


Looking at these I see no reason why I should keep the bullitt intake. Everything about the PI graph seems better, higher peaks, quicker torque, almost every spot in my opinion is bested by the PI intake. I mean at 3500 RPM i'm down 40HP/90TQ!

Can't post it where'd like to at the moment so I thought i'd get some feedback from anyone here who has a opinion that isn't horsecrap.

-Chad
Down for the count
chadg is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 30 (permalink) Old 09-16-2004, 03:47 PM
Recidivistic Procrastinator
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Boynton Beach, FL
Age: 50
Posts: 1,040
Hey Chad,

Forgive me as I do have a knack for stating the obvious. I am sure you have thought of this and there is probably a reason but can't you run the new combo on the same dyno as the old one? At least then it is a more accurate comparison.

Flame suit on if I missed something!

94 LX 4.6
Hibernating...
Engine built by Jim O'[email protected] Racing
I live with "fear" everyday, sometimes she lets me race...
Cam94 is offline  
post #3 of 30 (permalink) Old 09-16-2004, 03:55 PM
Moderator
Red Sox Nation Rabid Fan
TCCoAAC Founding Member
Moderator
 
JordanSypek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Central Connecticut
Age: 38
Posts: 3,165
Send a message via AIM to JordanSypek

TCCOAAC (R.I.P. JOEL)
96 4.6 XR7 (T45 Swap, etc.)
97 4.6 Mustang Cobra (28k Miles)
95 4.9 F150 4X4 M5R2)
JordanSypek is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 30 (permalink) Old 09-16-2004, 04:16 PM Thread Starter
Renegade
 
chadg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Minnesota
Age: 37
Posts: 529
Quote:
Originally posted by Cam94
Forgive me as I do have a knack for stating the obvious. I am sure you have thought of this and there is probably a reason but can't you run the new combo on the same dyno as the old one? At least then it is a more accurate comparison.
I'm not going to go on a flaming tangent, no worries. I have a plan to do that but unfortunately I won't be able to until I get my pile of crap running again. Since I need to tear it down I figured I might as well put the cheaper/older/better intake on as in my eyes it seems to make more power than the overpriced hunk of aluminum on there now.

-Chad
Down for the count
chadg is offline  
post #5 of 30 (permalink) Old 09-16-2004, 04:47 PM
Geek w/Gearhead Complex
 
Fubarian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Georgia
Posts: 2,299
is the 1st one corrected -- if so, same type? What were the weather conditions? Was the motor hot/cold on both instances? Are the tunes the same or has both been tuned per the intake used? Are their other things added between the two that could've changed the outcome (other than the obvious)?

96 Mark VIII [email protected] :: 03 radiator/fan - j-modded trans - BBK UD pulley kit - dual gauge pod - 28,000 B&M transcooler (w/ AN fits) - 3.73 locker (with speedo gear) - 180' thermo - 8.5mm wires - colder plugs
soon to install : "fixed" heads and a damn tune. Project snaked8 continues...
Fubarian is offline  
post #6 of 30 (permalink) Old 09-16-2004, 05:00 PM
Seasoned PostWhore
 
Rich95XR7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lawton, OK
Age: 45
Posts: 4,205
Send a message via Yahoo to Rich95XR7
I'd more look at the difference in the STD correction and the STP correction, that could be a big difference, but by reading this, I would assume it should be the other way around. Your power should have read higher at STP, assuming you are making the same HP as before.

SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers), USA. Power is corrected to reference conditions of 29.23 InHg (99 kPa) of dry air and 77 F (25°C). This SAE standard requires a correction for friction torque. Friction torque can be determined by measurements on special motoring dynamometers (which is only practical in research environments) or can be estimated. When estimates must be used, the SAE standard uses a default Mechanical Efficiency (ME) value of 85%. This is approximately correct at peak torque but not at other engine operating speeds. Some dynamometer systems use the SAE correction factor for atmospheric conditions but do not take mechanical efficiency into consideration at all (i.e. they assume a ME of 100%).

STD or STP. Another power correction standard determined by the SAE. This standard has been stable for a long time and is widely used in the performance industry. Power is corrected to reference conditions of 29.92 InHg (103.3 kPa) of dry air and 60 F (15.5°C). Because the reference conditions include higher pressure and cooler air than the SAE standard, these corrected power numbers will always be about 5 % higher than the SAE power numbers. Friction torque is handled in the same way as in the SAE standard.
Rich95XR7 is offline  
post #7 of 30 (permalink) Old 09-16-2004, 05:49 PM
Veteran Poster
 
Sideoiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lewiston, Me
Age: 81
Posts: 793
Quote:
Originally posted by Rich95XR7
I'd more look at the difference in the STD correction and the STP correction, that could be a big difference, but by reading this, I would assume it should be the other way around. Your power should have read higher at STP, assuming you are making the same HP as before.

SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers), USA. Power is corrected to reference conditions of 29.23 InHg (99 kPa) of dry air and 77 F (25°C). This SAE standard requires a correction for friction torque. Friction torque can be determined by measurements on special motoring dynamometers (which is only practical in research environments) or can be estimated. When estimates must be used, the SAE standard uses a default Mechanical Efficiency (ME) value of 85%. This is approximately correct at peak torque but not at other engine operating speeds. Some dynamometer systems use the SAE correction factor for atmospheric conditions but do not take mechanical efficiency into consideration at all (i.e. they assume a ME of 100%).

STD or STP. Another power correction standard determined by the SAE. This standard has been stable for a long time and is widely used in the performance industry. Power is corrected to reference conditions of 29.92 InHg (103.3 kPa) of dry air and 60 F (15.5°C). Because the reference conditions include higher pressure and cooler air than the SAE standard, these corrected power numbers will always be about 5 % higher than the SAE power numbers. Friction torque is handled in the same way as in the SAE standard.
YeGads! I just love it when you talk dirty to us like this. I'm so excited!

Sideoiler

Even if you fall on your face, you're still moving forward.
Sideoiler is offline  
post #8 of 30 (permalink) Old 09-16-2004, 07:58 PM Thread Starter
Renegade
 
chadg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Minnesota
Age: 37
Posts: 529
Quote:
Originally posted by Fubarian
is the 1st one corrected -- if so, same type? What were the weather conditions? Was the motor hot/cold on both instances? Are the tunes the same or has both been tuned per the intake used? Are their other things added between the two that could've changed the outcome (other than the obvious)?
1) It's the numbers a Dynojet spits out, whatever type that is. (Different from STD/SAE as I understand)

2) Similar weather conditions, similar motor temps. Who knows about humidity.

3) Graph one was Last year from Jerry/Fordchip, graph two is this year Chris/SCT

4) Nothing else should have changed at all.

-Chad
Down for the count
chadg is offline  
post #9 of 30 (permalink) Old 09-16-2004, 08:00 PM Thread Starter
Renegade
 
chadg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Minnesota
Age: 37
Posts: 529
Quote:
Originally posted by Rich95XR7
I'd more look at the difference in the STD correction and the STP correction, that could be a big difference, but by reading this, I would assume it should be the other way around. Your power should have read higher at STP, assuming you are making the same HP as before.
Hell, I'd think with all the mods I did I'd end up with decently higher HP and at least a better looking curve w/ the bullitt intake.

-Chad
Down for the count
chadg is offline  
post #10 of 30 (permalink) Old 09-16-2004, 09:40 PM
Rob
Seasoned PostWhore
 
Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hubbard, TX
Age: 37
Posts: 3,902
Send a message via AIM to Rob
What does your car run in the 1/4 and what kinda mods do you have? I thought you had some kinda blower on your car and it was hella fast. Sorry, just saw your sig.
-Rob

-Rob
RIP '94 Amber Fire Pearl Metallic Thunderbird on Bullitts [email protected]
96 Sport '02 Explorer PI with ported heads, 90MM LMAF, DirtyDog Marauder TC, Lasota tune, Jmod, Magnaflow mid-mount with X, no cats. Urethane drivers motor mount. HIDs!
Rob is offline  
post #11 of 30 (permalink) Old 09-16-2004, 10:22 PM
TGJ
Baddest N/A NPI in Canada
 
TGJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Regina, Sask., Canada
Age: 44
Posts: 2,116
Chad, you can send your bullitt intake to me if you are not going to keep it!

R.I.P. Johnny Langton (1975 - 2011)

1996 Thunderbird 5.0L 2V-4R70W
12.64 @ 107 MPH -> DA 3315 Ft above Sea level
12.49 @ 109 -> DA 2967 Ft above Sea level
2005 Mustang GT 4.6L 3V-TR3650 - SOLD
13.39 @ 102 MPH -> DA 3617 Ft above Sea level
2011 Mustang GT 5.0L 4V-6R80 - Bolt-ons
12.32 @ 115 MPH -> DA 2980 Ft above Sea level
TGJ is offline  
post #12 of 30 (permalink) Old 09-16-2004, 11:02 PM
Seasoned Veteran Poster
 
95BLKLSC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Westport, MA
Posts: 974
that A/f looks like a coller coaster...........

95 LSC- Mods: 2.5 dual exhaust, 3.73s, 17x9 cobra R Rims, SCT dyno tune, MM driveshaft, 249 rwhp/ 268 ft lb tq
97 Base- Mods: Forged motor, Eaton m112, 2.76 pully, too many mods to list..........
My Car Domain Page
95BLKLSC is offline  
post #13 of 30 (permalink) Old 09-16-2004, 11:24 PM
PostWhore
 
AEDM8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Central MN
Age: 38
Posts: 1,702
Alot of good info for you in this post.


Some supercharged cars blow.......Others just pick up and move.
AEDM8 is offline  
post #14 of 30 (permalink) Old 09-16-2004, 11:38 PM
RIP Jake
 
Leland Jacobson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Homosassa, Fl
Age: 79
Posts: 1,598
The bullits only had a 3-5 hp advantage, stock, but with your kinda boost,RPM, the configuration probably works to a disadvantage.You might try fabbing up a spacer between the two halves of the lower plenum to adjust the volume, and that might help ....try picking off the HP/TQ on one sheet with a pair of dividers and transposing the readings to the other so you have both on the same scale graph, so a visual comparison is a bit easier...I dont know , but maybe the cats helped?
Leland Jacobson is offline  
post #15 of 30 (permalink) Old 09-17-2004, 12:29 AM
PostWhore
 
wilson502's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Fresno, California
Age: 34
Posts: 1,430
chadg, how much have you spent on your car?! almost 450 rwhp, you should be running 11s easy. Slowest car for most money spent lol. You probably have one of the fastest 4.6 mn12s or most powerful.


2007 White Ford Focus SE ZX3 Hatchback (The new driver)
1997 Alpine Green 4.6L Bird (SOLD!)


Mods:
Removed Air silencer, Clear Corners, Silverstar headlights and corner lights, Moroso Bluemax Spiral Core wires, Custom 3" Magnaflow exhaust with 2.5" Y-Pipe, 300-450 HP J-mod Kit by dirtyd0g , Hayden 30k GVWR Trans Cooler, Sport Front Suspension, 03-04 Cobra Rear Shocks, PBR Front Brake Swap, Xcal 2 by Lonnie @ Blueovalchips.com, 22C plugs, 180F T-stat, 02GT MAF/Airbox with K&N Drop in, Griffin Radiator, Cobra Water Pump
wilson502 is offline  
post #16 of 30 (permalink) Old 09-17-2004, 03:21 AM Thread Starter
Renegade
 
chadg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Minnesota
Age: 37
Posts: 529
12.5 old setup, 13.2 with the currently broken-car setup. i've put over 15k into the engine. the key is getting the right combination of components.

-Chad
Down for the count
chadg is offline  
post #17 of 30 (permalink) Old 09-17-2004, 08:41 AM
PostWhore
 
AEDM8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Central MN
Age: 38
Posts: 1,702
Quote:
Originally posted by Leland Jacobson
The bullits only had a 3-5 hp advantage, stock, but with your kinda boost,RPM, the configuration probably works to a disadvantage.
He had the intake ported by Jim @ Renegade. Fom what I saw this past weekend there is no reason why that intake should be hindering his performance. Please explain where your going with that statement, I dont follow.

Some supercharged cars blow.......Others just pick up and move.
AEDM8 is offline  
post #18 of 30 (permalink) Old 09-17-2004, 08:45 AM
Recidivistic Procrastinator
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Boynton Beach, FL
Age: 50
Posts: 1,040
Quote:
Originally posted by AEDM8


He had the intake ported by Jim @ Renegade. Fom what I saw this past weekend there is no reason why that intake should be hindering his performance. Please explain where your going with that statement, I dont follow.
I believe what he is referring to is that the Bullit intake on a N/A car was only worth 3-5 HP. The Bullitt Mustangs were only rated at 265 vs. 260 for your standard GT. On a SC engine it is on average worth 30-40 HP from what I have read.

94 LX 4.6
Hibernating...
Engine built by Jim O'[email protected] Racing
I live with "fear" everyday, sometimes she lets me race...
Cam94 is offline  
post #19 of 30 (permalink) Old 09-17-2004, 09:08 AM
Insert Title Here
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Shreveport, LA
Age: 32
Posts: 1,746
The graphs are misleading...

I guarantee if you were to stretch the other one out like the top one is than you would come out with a little bit more power with the better intake.

The only way to really compare the two is to make your own graph and plot the points your self or do the tests on the same Dyno with the same type of sheets.

1994 Ford Thunderbird Supercoupe - 3.8L V6 - 15.125 @ 90.76

”Sticks impress high-school kids, autos win races” – Unknown
EPelezo is offline  
post #20 of 30 (permalink) Old 09-17-2004, 09:15 AM
Seasoned PostWhore
 
4 Cam Bird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Claswon, MI
Age: 38
Posts: 2,314
Send a message via AIM to 4 Cam Bird
I got my car tuned in Chicago on a dyno jet. Then a local shop bought a Mustang and wanted to compare numbers with some cars that had recently been run on a dyno jet. They were trying to create a 'dyno jet correction factor' My curves looked a lot different on the Mustang. The torque curve was especially funny. It went from having a peak 23 higher than the HP to being about the same like would be expected based on the stock ratings. It also lost its flatness. You really can't compare numbers from the two at all. Just my thoughts on it, hope you get it straightened out.

Based on factory ratings and such and knowing how each loads the cars, I will definitely try to avoid using a dynojunk to tune my car in the future.

Former owner of 94 Bird with DOHC 4.6L swapped from a mark VIII

2011 CTS-V Wagon
1968 Torino was an original 289, C4, fully documented numbers matching car. Now: DOHC 4.6L/T-56 swapped, Cobra intake, IMRC delete, BBK long tubes and H pipe. Dynotech Aluminum Driveshaft, 9" rear with TrueTrac and 4.11's.
4 Cam Bird is offline  
post #21 of 30 (permalink) Old 09-17-2004, 09:45 AM
Boom.

Moderator
 
Palmguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Niceville, FL
Age: 33
Posts: 5,238
Quote:
Originally posted by EPelezo
The graphs are misleading...

I guarantee if you were to stretch the other one out like the top one is than you would come out with a little bit more power with the better intake.

The only way to really compare the two is to make your own graph and plot the points your self or do the tests on the same Dyno with the same type of sheets.
Look at the peak numbers just for example, and note the scale because that is important:

On the first graph, with JBAs, cats, and a PI intake:
443.6 RWHP @ approx. 6300 RPM
409.8 lb-ft @ approx. 5200 RPM

On the second graph, with Bullitt intake, Kooks, and no cats:
approx. 420 RWHP @ approx 6200 RPM
approx. 370 lb-ft @ 5300 RPM

That's only comparing peak numbers, and that is showing a peak to peak loss of ~25 RWHP and ~40 ft-lb.

Also of note is that the first graph shows the car making 370 ft-lb or more from ~3800-6300 RPM, and that is the peak of the second run.

TCCoABAMFC - Founding Member
Official Member of the TCCoA Evil Underground Moderator Conspiracy
TCCoA Gun Club

2003 Mach 1 - 4.6L DOHC V8/4R70W

1995 Cougar XR7 - PI 4.6L SOHC V8
Palmguy is offline  
post #22 of 30 (permalink) Old 09-17-2004, 09:47 AM
Insert Title Here
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Shreveport, LA
Age: 32
Posts: 1,746
Quote:
Originally posted by Palmguy


Look at the peak numbers just for example, and note the scale because that is important:

On the first graph, with JBAs, cats, and a PI intake:
443.6 RWHP @ approx. 6300 RPM
409.8 lb-ft @ approx. 5200 RPM

On the second graph, with Bullitt intake, Kooks, and no cats:
approx. 420 RWHP @ approx 6200 RPM
approx. 370 lb-ft @ 5300 RPM

That's only comparing peak numbers, and that is showing a peak to peak loss of ~25 RWHP and ~40 ft-lb.

1994 Ford Thunderbird Supercoupe - 3.8L V6 - 15.125 @ 90.76

”Sticks impress high-school kids, autos win races” – Unknown
EPelezo is offline  
post #23 of 30 (permalink) Old 09-17-2004, 11:19 AM
Seasoned PostWhore
 
Rich95XR7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lawton, OK
Age: 45
Posts: 4,205
Send a message via Yahoo to Rich95XR7
Yeah, but on 2 different dynos using 2 different correction factors you could have more than a 20HP difference. The dyno is just a tuning tool, it's the numbers at the track that count, so we'll see when Chad gets his new converter put in, and the car up and running again.
Rich95XR7 is offline  
post #24 of 30 (permalink) Old 09-17-2004, 11:29 AM
Boom.

Moderator
 
Palmguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Niceville, FL
Age: 33
Posts: 5,238
Quote:
Originally posted by Rich95XR7
Yeah, but on 2 different dynos using 2 different correction factors you could have more than a 20HP difference. The dyno is just a tuning tool, it's the numbers at the track that count, so we'll see when Chad gets his new converter put in, and the car up and running again.
Very true Rich...I was just bringing that up to point out that EPelezo wasn't quite accurate in describing the sheets.

TCCoABAMFC - Founding Member
Official Member of the TCCoA Evil Underground Moderator Conspiracy
TCCoA Gun Club

2003 Mach 1 - 4.6L DOHC V8/4R70W

1995 Cougar XR7 - PI 4.6L SOHC V8
Palmguy is offline  
post #25 of 30 (permalink) Old 09-17-2004, 12:23 PM
Seasoned PostWhore
 
Rich95XR7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lawton, OK
Age: 45
Posts: 4,205
Send a message via Yahoo to Rich95XR7
But if for some strange reason you decide to take the Bullitt intake off, give me a call, but I bet once you get the HGs fixed and the new converter in, you'll be more than happy.
Rich95XR7 is offline  
post #26 of 30 (permalink) Old 09-17-2004, 02:55 PM
PostWhore
 
wilson502's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Fresno, California
Age: 34
Posts: 1,430
Did you have your car reburned for the new intake, and everything? Maybe you should of kept the cats...... your losing a lot of torque losing those cats.


2007 White Ford Focus SE ZX3 Hatchback (The new driver)
1997 Alpine Green 4.6L Bird (SOLD!)


Mods:
Removed Air silencer, Clear Corners, Silverstar headlights and corner lights, Moroso Bluemax Spiral Core wires, Custom 3" Magnaflow exhaust with 2.5" Y-Pipe, 300-450 HP J-mod Kit by dirtyd0g , Hayden 30k GVWR Trans Cooler, Sport Front Suspension, 03-04 Cobra Rear Shocks, PBR Front Brake Swap, Xcal 2 by Lonnie @ Blueovalchips.com, 22C plugs, 180F T-stat, 02GT MAF/Airbox with K&N Drop in, Griffin Radiator, Cobra Water Pump
wilson502 is offline  
post #27 of 30 (permalink) Old 09-17-2004, 03:08 PM
Seasoned Veteran Poster
 
Dubbsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: ND/MN
Age: 35
Posts: 970
Quote:
Originally posted by wilson502
Did you have your car reburned for the new intake, and everything?
yes, tuned on the dyno by Chris of SCT...

Chad, wasn't there some question about the actual tune that Chris did? ..wondering if he wasn't really taking it easy with a conservative tune...



..I mean even Jerry said you'd be seeing significant gains from the Bullit after the first tune...

I'd like to see it tuned by Jerry on a Dyno Jet again.. (although the way this year's tune went, not sure if that'll happen)....take out those variables.

MidwestThundercats.com
15.183 @ 91.19mph - 2.236 60' :: nothing but a tune and 103s
178.7RWHP :: 244.2RWTQ
Sold

Driving a Chevy, next is a Mustang.
Dubbsy is offline  
post #28 of 30 (permalink) Old 09-17-2004, 03:50 PM
PostWhore
 
AEDM8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Central MN
Age: 38
Posts: 1,702
Quote:
Originally posted by Dubbsy


I'd like to see it tuned by Jerry on a Dyno Jet again.. (although the way this year's tune went, not sure if that'll happen)....take out those variables.
Come January we'll be working on that. No BS this time around though and Im not sure if we'll do RJR. Im thinking of talking to the ricer shop in Minneapolis to see if they'll let us use thier dynojet. That would give Chad an even better idea considering that was the first dyno he ever used. (Although not with his current setup and Jerry might have a contract with RJR.....)

I still dont get what Leland is saying. A ported Bullit intake on his motor shouldnt work against him. Its much better than the PI and with boost it should help more than hinder.

Some supercharged cars blow.......Others just pick up and move.
AEDM8 is offline  
post #29 of 30 (permalink) Old 09-17-2004, 06:30 PM
Still needs a clue
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Trolling under a bridge
Age: 35
Posts: 921
At this point in time, I'd be completely happy with either one
mylittleblackbird is offline  
post #30 of 30 (permalink) Old 09-18-2004, 10:49 PM
RIP Jake
 
Leland Jacobson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Homosassa, Fl
Age: 79
Posts: 1,598
Ok .... the porting doesnt make much diff to me ... I am saying that the Much higher flow with the boost and RPM he is running requires a bit more plenum than the Bullit has to make good power... he is flowing at a upper limit for the set up, and it doesnt appear to be giving him the huge boost in power he was looking for... I am not impressed with the bullit, as Mark phillips had a modified one on his 5.4, and was at a loss to figure out why it didnt make more power... I noticed then the smallish plenum, and did a bit of research, which indicated the plenum is a critical factor in making HP, small sux , bigger might be better, and just right is just right... I think the Idea of a spacer to increase the volume , altho off the wall, is a good, easy place to start.... But hey, what do I know? But I did pick up an xtra 18 hp average thru the power band useing a chainsaw on my F-150 intake, and I did stay at a holiday Inn express after the hurrycane
jake
Leland Jacobson is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TCCoA Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



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 On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome