Poll: Mobil 1 ATF or 10W30 for W123 (240D, 300D etc...)'s MANUAL transmission. - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

JimSmith · #16 04-29-2003, 08:11 PM

gsxr,

I have used the MTL in three manual transmissions, two 240D's and the 190E. I am preparing to put it into the 300E this Spring as it came with a fresh fill of ATF by the previous owner. It shifts ok, not as smooth or quick and light as the 190 which may be a feature of the transmission and not attributable to the lube. I will post any noticable changes when the deed is done. Overall I (and my family) have driven these cars about 550,000 miles with MTL in there and have had no problems. I conclude there are no chemical incompatibilities, and the essential performance claims are accurate from this experience.

I have never refilled with ATF so I am not in a position to make a valid comparison. I typically change the stuff out every 30,000 -45,000 miles and am satisfied with the MTL. I am not suggesting ATF, or synthetic ATF available now, is a bad selection, I am just happy with MTL. I am not associated in any way with Redline, so this is not a sales pitch although I am pretty satisfied with all the products of theirs I have tried.

It started with Diesel fuel additives (my first bottle was given to me by the local MB dealership as they were sure I would be back to buy more and they were correct) and grew to include their engine oils and gear lubricants. I no longer use their engine oils only because they are substantially more expensive than the Delvac 1 I use in everything now. But I have their gear lubes in my differentials and MTL in the manual transmissions. I had MB put their secret fluid in the 1998 E300D at 60,000 miles because I think "sealed for life" is too ambiguous when "life" is not defined. Obviously if you run it with same old crap in there from day one and it dies, you can call it "sealed for life" and be accurate, but I am interested in extending its life, and those of the transmissions of my other cars. Hope this helps, Jim

#17 04-30-2003, 07:08 AM

DO NOT USE ATF IN A MANUAL TRANSMISSION UNLESS YOU GO FIND SOME TYPE A!!!!!

That manual was written about 20 years ago. Automatic Transmission Fluid has gone through DRASTIC changes since that time and is NOT healthy for the seals in a manual transmission.

The last 350,000 miles or more of my manual transmission in my 240D was with Mobil One 10W30 in the unit. The transmission is still absolutely perfect and has never been apart in 533,000 miles.

I'm sure that the Redline Manual Transmission fluid would also work great, but modern Mercon will eventually ruin the seals.

Have a great day,

gsxr · #18 04-30-2003, 01:36 PM

Interesting tidbit from RedLine's site:

DIRECTIONS FOR USE
Red Line MTL may be used in transmissions which recommend 70W, 75W, 80W, or 85W GL-4 gear oils, or SAE 30 or 5W/10W30 motor oils. If a 90W GL-4 or SAE 40, 10W40, or 15W40 is required, MT-90 may be used. If the transmission or transaxle requires an SAE 90 GL-5 gear oil, then Red Line 75W90NS or 75W140NS Gear Oil may be used. In transmissions which recommend Dexron or Mercon fluids we recommend our D4 ATF which is very similar to the MTL, being a GL-4 Gear Oil also. The D4 ATF will provide better low-temperature shiftability, and the MTL would provide better wear protection for racing use.

http://redlineoil.com/redlineoil/mtlti.htm

Their graphs indicate that it is very similar to ATF though. Not sure if that's plain dino Dexron ATF, or synthetic ATF.

gsxr · #19 04-30-2003, 01:42 PM

Here's another opinion (lots of those floating around these days...!) As usual, YMMV, just wanted to add some other viewpoints. I hope Marshall doesn't mind me copying this here:

Dave, Redline MTL was designed to replace EP gear oil in manual
transmissions and it does that VERY well. EP gear oils use
sulfur/phosporous based additives - they are necessary for the materials
used in ALMOST all manual transmissions - but they will attack the
brass/bronze synchronizers in MB manual transmissions.

Here's the Best treatment of the subject (by someone that has NOTHING at
stake):

> In order to understand the effect of different fluids in a manual
> transmission it is necessary to understand how the synchronisers
> function.
>
> When changing gear the speed of the gearbox's layshaft and input shaft
> are actually determined by the output shaft speed (ie the vehicle
> speed). When changing up from, say, 2nd to 3rd gear, energy must be
> transferred from the output shaft via the layshaft, to the input shaft.
> This transfer is accomplished via the synchroniser mechanism (which is
> actually a kind of clutch unit). During the gear change the outer
> sleeve of the synchro mechanism is moved along the inner hub until the
> shift plates butt against the slots in the baulk ring. This is then
> brought into contact with its mating cone on the gear to be engaged.
> Because the synchro hub assembly is not spinning at the same speed the
> friction torque (transferred by the oil film on the cone) causes the
> baulk ring to turn slightly relative to the hub and the outer sleeve.
> Since the sleeve dog teeth are now axially misaligned with those on the
> baulk ring the dog clutch cannot engage (this stops 'crash through' and
> crunching of the gears).
> With continued pressure on the gear lever the shaft speeds gradually
> become equal and frictional drag between the mating cones ceases. When
> this happens the detent spring loading on the shift plates is overcome,
> the baulk ring teeth move aside and allow those on the hub sleeves to
> slide past and engage the dog teeth on the gear. The gear is then
> engaged.
>
> Obviously the speed of engagement is going to depend very much on the
> frictional coupling characteristics of the syrchro cones. This in turn
> will depend on:
> 1/ Design and materials used.
> 2/ Viscocity of gear oil (and therefore also temp. of oil).
> 3/ Frictional characteristics of oil (friction modifiers etc.)
>
> Taking these in turn. Well, there's not much we can do about 1/. MB
> have decided this for us.
>
> As for 2/. Clearly, oil viscosity will have a major impact on shifting
> speed because a film of oil must be squeezed off the cone before
> synchronising action can take place. A thicker oil will require more
> time (and gear lever pressure) to squeeze off. This is why cold
> gearboxes are more 'baulky' than hot ones. Using a thinner oil is good
> for shift speed, but may well result in a reduced level of gear
> protection (reduced film thickness on the gears and bearings etc.).
>
> For 3/. it is worth noting that conventional oils exhibit an
> undesirable 'stick-slip' characteristic. ATF's are basically SAE20
> mineral oils which have frictions modifiers added to prevent
> stick-slip and give a steady coefficient of friction as two rotating
> surfaces approach the same speed. This helps give a smooth and
> snatch-free clutch engagement in an auto transmission. Therefore, for
> a given viscosity, transmission fluids can exhibit quite different
> frictional characterisitics according to the type and amount of
> friction modifiers in the fluid.
>
> As regards the MB manual transmissions it is worth noting the
> following:
>
> Firstly, to experiment with normal gear oils of any viscosity may cause
> synchroniser damage due to chemical attack. In summary, the ATF's use
> Non-Extreme Pressure (EP) additives based on zinc technology (zinc
> dithiophosphates). EP gear oils, on the other hand, use additives
> based on sulphur and phosphorous (giving the characteristic 'gear oil
> odour'). These are chemically aggressive to the brass and bronze
> synchro components used in MB transmissions and will drastically
> shorten gearbox life.
>
> Secondly, the MB manual transmissions are designed for use with oil to
> their specification sheet 236.2 Sheet 236.2 refers to a Type A Suffix
> A ATF. This is an old ATF, a predecessor of the Dexron specification
> owned by GM. Type A Suffix A is a *mildly* friction modified ATF and
> the spec. for the MB fluid is:
>
> Relative density 0.879
> Kinematic Viscosity (40C) 36.5
> Kinematic Viscosity (100C) 7.1
> Viscosity Index 160
> Pour point (deg. C) -40
>
>
> A Dexron II fluid would have quite similar viscocities but much
> different frictional characterisitics (because of the greater amount of
> friction modifier). DII is basically a 'slippier' oil. Thus a DII
> would give a rather slower synchroniser action in the MB gearbox. This
> is, of course, all rather subjective, but I noticed the difference in
> my 190E on cool mornings on a 1-2 change for the first mile or two.
>
> Redline MTL is an altogther thicker oil than DII or MB 236.2 It is
> actually intended for use in manual transmissions that were designed to
> run with an 80W gear oil. Redline MTL-90 is thicker still and is for
> gearboxes designed for 90W gear oils. It is friction modified and
> therefore gives a smoother synchroniser action than the gear oils it
> can replace.
>
> The spec. for MTL is:
>
> Kinematic Viscosity (40C) 50.8
> Kinematic Viscosity (100C) 10.1
> Viscosity Index 170
>
> (Kinematic viscosities are in mm2 per second).
>
> Thus MTL is 20-30% thicker than Type A Suffix A (MB 236.2) at a given
> temperature. This slows the synchroniser action because a thicker oil
> film has to be squeezed out from between the cone and ring. Of course,
> if you use your car in a relatively warm (frost free) climate then you
> might well not notice this.
>
> Gearchange quality is, of course, a very subjective thing. Some folks
> prefer a light action and others a 'positive' engagement. Overall, I
> have never been overly impressed with MB's manual gearboxes. I find
> the lever rather long, with a long throw, and the detent springs are
> a bit too strong for me. It *is* very positive in action though.
> I drove an almost new C-class last summer and found the gearbox very
> baulky, much worse than the 190. I chose a manual 190 mainly to get
> the good cruising economy that the high 5th gear gives.
> I also can't understand why reverse gear is so crude on the
> MB's. It is just a straight-cut idler gear which crash-engages with
> corresponding gears on the layshaft and output shaft. Mine is quite
> noisy (maybe damaged?). Even Ford use synchro on reverse, why can't
> MB?.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Dr Eric Chowanietz
> Principle Lecturer
> Faculty of Computer Science and Engineering
> De Montfort University, Leicester. UK.

That should cover MOST of the bases. Oh, My mechanic Rick Ellinger
<http://www.rc-imports.com/> filled each of my 5 speeds with Redline MTL
and asked if I liked it. I HATED it - the way they shifted - late, slow
and balky. I pointed out the possibility of the EP additive incompatibilty
- and he acknowledged that his transmissions (in his race cars) didn't
last NEARLY as long as he though they should.

Marshall
--
Marshall Booth
"der Dieseling Doktor" mbooth@pitt.edu
'87 300TD 168Kmi,'87 190D 2.5 210Kmi, '84 190D 2.2 226Kmi, '85 190D 2.0
156Kmi, '87 190D 2.5 turbo 217kmi
Diesel Technical Advisor MBCA, member GWSection
http://www.dhc.net/~pmhack/mercedes/mbooth1.htm

JimSmith · #20 04-30-2003, 04:42 PM

gsxr,
I passed the information you provided on to RedLine to ask them if they have any issues with the points brought out that contradict RedLine's verbal advice to me and the data on their website which has been consistent over the past 15 years on this subject. I am curious what their response might be, but in general I found the case cited to be another man's opinion which we are all entitled to, and should be encouraged to voice.

As I noted, MTL has performed well in my cars for more than half a million miles. If it is "bad" for them I would have expected some sign of that by now. I suspect a number of solutions could be acceptable, however, I like the feel of shifting with MTL in my cars better, and I have first hand experience with transmissions that have been operated a lot with this lubricant. I am reluctant to jump to a conclusion that contradicts this first hand experience without any first hand evidence something is amiss.

It is my experience that the tribology and chemistry involved in "designer" lubricants made with synthetic oil molecules, chemical additives for marginal lubrication situations (thin film thicknesses in rubbing interfaces due to high pressures), corrosion prevention, stability (resistance to oxydation) and friction modifing characteristicst can be overwhelmingly complex. As an end user, selecting a lubricant by pulling a couple of these features out of the mix and comparing them in isolation is likely to lead to inaccurate assessments. Without an overt indication of a chemical incompatibility, like the oil dissolving the seal material (see some of the airconditioning threads for examples) or something equally apparent, like unusual wear rates or other damage noted from past experience or in simple testing it is not likely that someone can reliably predict the long term effects of any additive chemical without considering the entire combination of chemical additives. Predicting this kind of behaviour is very difficult, so most manufacturers of mechanical equipment and lubricant suppliers collaborate to run tests to find out how the parts behave. Selections and machine manufacturer recommendations are rarely, if ever, made without such tests. And once a selection has been made, the machine manufacturer has no incentive to run another test of another lubricant, unless the lubricant of record becomes obsolete and is no longer available.

This leaves the designer lubricant manufacturers in a tough spot, kind of like a Catch-22 situation. In order to push their products they market directly to us in what becomes an arena for designer lubricant manufacturers to do battle because testing it in every car, truck, SUV, etc is too expensive. The battle is typically waged with absolute claims that are really pretty simplistic, one dimensional arguments wrapped in technical jargon to make them sound convincing.

We end up being the supporters of this or that gladiator in the designer lubricant battles, and sometimes even throw a rock or bottle into the arena to support our favorite. Mobil 1, which I have used since the mid 1970's in my MB engines, is a classic case. This product has been under development for automotive applications for decades, paid for by guys like me (and you gsxr, apparently) who are willing to buy the stuff because we are sold by one of these arguments (Mobil 1 got me in Alaska when I could start my 1975 240D in the Winter without plugging it in), yet Mercedes-Benz did not accept and recommend its use until at least 20 years after I started using it. I kept using it because my experiences were very favorable on balance. I did develop a rear seal leak on that first car that was bothersome in the summer months, but that was on balance a problem I could deal with better than not being able to start the beast for 3 months a year unless I was parked near an electrical outlet.

Because of this, when you have it, I think first hand experience cannot be disregarded when making a lubricant selection. It is not always the only input to consider either. I would not have spent the extra cash and gone through the trouble to find MTL the second time around (it was not anywhere as well known fifteen years ago as it is today, and today it is not well known compared to Mobil 1 or any other major oil company developed and distributed products) if I had any indication it was not performing after the first use. Today I have a substantial record of good service from it and would be reluctant to toss that aside and use another lubricant without some incentive, either some improved performance, indication of longer life, etc. I would never do that based on another man's opinion of the shift feel since that is very subjective, and my opinion on that (which obviously counts more for me since it is something I formed based on my personal experience) subjective matter does not agree.

This is a nasty, long thread to get through, but I hope I made a point and did not waste everyone's time. Jim

gsxr · #21 04-30-2003, 05:07 PM

Jim,

Yup, you made a point - excellent post. the feel is definitely subjective, as you & Marshall used the same lube in MB trannies with different opinions. The experience of Rick was, as noted, in racing use - so that definitely throws a wrench in things. For street use, if you like the feel, MTL may be fine - your experience seems to be proof of that.

I guess my question would be, if using RedLine products, would the D4-ATF be a better choice? And if one did not use RedLine and wanted, for example, Mobil products... is the preferred lube M-1 ATF or M-1 motor oil? I'm mostly concerned about Larry's claims of seals being ruined, and also the additive packages damaging the brass/bronze synchronizers. I suspect any of these 4 are proobably OK, as long as we stay away from GL-5 stuff (I think).

Best regards,

JimSmith · #22 04-30-2003, 05:52 PM

gsxr,

The D4 ATF product is relatively new and was either not available or not recommended by RedLine for a manual transmission application when I bought a gallon of MTL for the other cars a year ago. Next purchase, I may call and discuss this with them, or write for a more in-depth recommendation/justification. But it does sound like a product that might be tempting if I was experiencing a problem or looking to try a new product.

As for corrosion of synchronizer parts by the additives for extreme pressure protection, I expect the overall chemical package of corrosion inhibitors, oxidation inhibitors and so on do not put activated metallic elements of the extreme pressure protection additives in contact with any parts of the transmissions. This is not unique to RedLine, as nearly all oils have chemical additives that alone would be more damaging to the machinery than any benefit they might offer. The real issue here is that the balance of these stabilizers and inhibitors can be disrupted by negligence or abuse of the equipment (operating too hot, for example, or too long without changing oil), leading to unanticipated chemical attack of unprotected parts. By changing the stuff at a reasonable interval this can be avoided. And by using stuff with higher high-temperature rating limits the rate at which the chemistry is degraded by use is much reduced as most of the chemical reactions of concern are temperature sensitive (rates increase with increased temperature).

I think I am checking out of this thread for a while. If RedLine sends back anything I will pass it along. Good luck, Jim

JimSmith · #23 05-02-2003, 09:30 AM

I wrote a pretty comprehensive summary and included a bunch of cut and paste sections of the posts on this thread and asked RedLine to specifically respond to the questions of:

Chemical compatibility of their MTL product with the MB manual transmission parts, most notably the brass and bronze materials cited, but all materials as well. Here is the response:

"The MTL is compatible with the synchro materials used, it isn't a GL-5 lube and is not corrosive to brass, bronze or copper components or harmful in any way."

I asked if they recommended MTL for MB manual transmissions since the manual says to fill it with ATF Type "A" Suffix "A" and here is their response:

"In the Mercedes transmissions especially the older vehicles I would recommend the MTL. In vehicles calling for an ATF the D4ATF is a suitable replacement."

RedLine included the following statement, which I can not quite place into context with the questions or other answers since I have never come across a requirement for this fluid in a manual MB transmission:

"Mercedes has called for an 80W GL-4 gear oil or a 20W20 motor oil, the MTL is a good match for these fluids offering good all around shiftability and protection."

The next question dealt with the benefit of lower viscosity fluid on shift lever resistance, which affects feel and speed of shifts. In the context of the question I believe RedLine is supporting the position that a higher viscosity requires more effort and time to squeeze the lubricant film thickness down to the point where energy can be transferred effectively from one part of the syncrhonizer to the other. The low temperature qualification preceding the direct response seems to suggest once warmed up the viscosity differences are not sufficient to be significant. Here is their response:

"At low temperatures a lower viscosity can speed up the shift and reduce effort in some instances."

On the subject of the friction modifiers in ATF and MTL, RedLine noted the following:

" A Dexron fluid would be slipperier than the MTL and would use a different type friction modifier."

This information was followed by the salutation:

"Regards, Dave
Red Line Oil"

I think the only really meaningful answer there is the chemical compatibility of the MTL additives with MB transmission materials. I would have expected some evidence of a problem in my experience if there were real incompatibilities by now, and from prior experience in the field am aware of the steps taken to ensure all the additives cooperate in the mixture to provide the desired results.

The remaining answers sound like brush offs to me, or a desire to avoid further debate. I can understand that perspective, but would have liked a better answer on the applicability of MTL to transmissions calling for ATF by the transmission manufacturer before D4 ATF was introduced by RedLine. I may go back at Dave for this one.

The rest of the discussion calls for revealing aspects of RedLine's tribology technical and manufacturing know how (selection of additive packages and their chemistry) that RedLine may well consider proprietary and is therefore unwilling to reveal to me (or this group) regardless of how much we would like to know it. This is not uncommon in industry. For example, I have always wanted to know exactly what is in Coca Cola, and how it is made since I consume a few gallons of it a year. That is not going to impress the Coke company enough to reveal it to me though.

I will ask Dave at RedLine for more specific data and report back if there is an answer, but think I will be blown off. Jim

gsxr · #24 05-02-2003, 01:53 PM

Interesting info - thanks! My only beef is their asertion about what MB spec is. My books say ATF, not 80W GL-4, etc... where did he get that info?

JimSmith · #25 05-02-2003, 02:00 PM

gsxr,

I don't know where he got that info, sounds like he may be older than me and has data for models preceding the first one I did more than ride in sitting in the back seat. I asked, in my email back to him this morning, but did not get an answer yet. If and when he responds, I will forward the reply.

By the way, what does the official MB list of lubricants say goes into a 1988 300E? I am getting ready to change that car's transmission and differential fluid and am curious. The operator's manual says manual transmission lubricant for the 5-Speed transmission, and to call MB for the type and brand. The local dealer says to use ATF, Dextron III. Jim

gsxr · #26 05-02-2003, 02:11 PM

The E-Class Owner's Bible says MB factory fluid 000-989-26-03 or Dexron III / Mercon ATF. The Haynes 201 manual says Dexron II ATF (it's an old manual). The 1985 and 1993 Mercedes TDM's both say ATF per spec sheet 236.2. I guess a peek at that spec sheet could help a little, huh...

JimSmith · #27 05-03-2003, 10:56 AM

I got another response from Dave at Red Line Oil, which I will pass along. Here are the questions from me and answers he provided:

Question: "As noted the transmission for the 1982 240D calls for ATF, Type "A" Suffix "A" while the W201 190E 2.3-16, as well as the recent addition, the W124 300E with a 5-speed, call for Dextron III. Should I continue to use MTL, or should I switch to another lubricant, like ATF? If MTL is not the correct product, why would D4 ATF be better? In your response are you suggesting D4 ATF is a suitable replacement for MTL, or for the factory fill, in transmissions calling for ATF Type "A" Suffix "A" and/or Dextron III by Mercedes?"

Answer: "I would stay with the MTL, if cold shiftability seems good, I wouldn't see any reason to switch."

Question: "I took your comment to mean that ATF in general has a lower viscosity when cold (at or below freezing of water) than MTL at the same temperature, but I am wondering about the the viscosity at operating temperature."

Answer: "An ATF would have a lower viscosity all around but it would be most noticeable at lower temperatures. The MTL would have a viscosity of 10.2 cSt at 100°C verses 7.5 cSt for the D4ATF, at operating temperature the MTL is slightly higher in viscosity."

Question: "Finally, if you can bear any more, I am curious about the differences in the friction modifiers used in the ATF products (Type "A" Suffix "A" and Dextron III, as well as D4 ATF by Red Line) and the MTL products by Red Line. If they are not the same, is that because they are aimed at the needs of the different transmissions (automatics don't really have synchronizers, they have clutches and the operation of each device is a little different), and if that is the case, what specifically about the actions of each device do the different friction modifiers address. Is it only relative percentages or are they supposed to modify different aspects of the fluid behavior as the film thickness is reduced? If the latter is the case, why?"

Answer: "At this point there isn't a Type A fluid available. The D4ATF is a Dexron III so would have comparable frictional characteristics and would be a little slipperier than MTL. The Dexron fluids as you note are designed primarily to smooth the engagement with clutches and bands in an automatic transmission. The MTL is designed to have optimum frictional characteristics for transmission synchro operation."

Question: "Any light you can shed on these questions would be very helpful as I am planning to purchase something to change the 1982 240D and 1988 300E fluids shortly."

Answer: "You have had such good results with the MTL and that is what I would continue to use."

Which is followed by the salutation:

"Regards, Dave
Red Line Oil"

I think the answers I got are about the end of the line. Pulling on this string any more is likely to break the string.

I do have an anectodal story on the subject that came out while sitting around enjoying a beer from the Fatherland with a buddy I have known for twenty years last night. He purchased a 1986 5-speed 190E used with 60,000 miles in 1988 or so, and came by the house when I was changing transmission fluid in my 16 valve shortly thereafter. I was ranting and raving about this MTL and synthetic differential fluid I was using and got him interested. I had enough extra, since I had to mail order it then I bought it by the gallon, and we did his car (looking back the fact that I gave it to him might have been key to getting him to use it). I had forgotten the episode, but we got to talking about this thread and he recalled we changed the lubricant and used the RedLine MTL, noting he had the remnants of a quart in his garage still. He also noted the car now has 236,000 miles on it and he has not changed it since. The car has had varied duties in the past 17 years including being used around town by his wife for a while. He drives the car, mostly highway miles, every day on I95 about 170 miles to work and back now. He reports he has never had any problems and was inclined to leave it that way. I convinced him to come over to the highschool shop when I do the 300E and change it again since he is looking to get 300,000 miles on the car before he figures the body will drop off. Based on checking the car last night, he better keep driving it around the clock as there are some nasty zones of body rot on the car.

Considering all the stuff above, I am going out to get MTL for the 300E, my buddy's 190E and my daughter's 240D. Seems to work fine and last a long time. There may be something better, but I think MTL is good enough. Jim

gsxr · #28 05-03-2003, 12:19 PM

Jim,

Thanks again for the research, and updated info. It has at least convinced me there's no need for motor oil in the tranny, and that either D4-ATF or MTL are suitable; depending on which one provides the subjective "feel" the driver prefers. Gosh I wish it were this easy with engine oil too!

Best regards,

JimSmith · #29 05-03-2003, 12:37 PM

Greg,

I can usually manage getting angry ok, it was disappointment that led to the selection of such stong words....LOL.

Off to play outside with the cars. Going to treat the 16 valve and the E300D Turbodiesel to a Zaino Brothers session this afternoon. Got to get moving as I suspect this will be a long term event. Jim

CarolinaMBZ · #30 05-07-2003, 09:41 AM

Does anyone have any idea what the specs are for the Mercedes Man. Trans fluid and how it compares to ATF and the MTL? I haven't used it yet but am considering it for next fluid change. I currently use 10w30.

View Poll Results: Poll: Mobil 1 ATF or Mobil 1 10W30 for W123's MANUAL transmission.
Mobil 1 ATF	19	38.00%
Mobil 1 10W30	9	18.00%
Red Line MT Fluid	22	44.00%
Voters: 50. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode