Redline or not - Saturn Sky Forums: Saturn Sky Forum
General Saturn Sky Discussion Forum for discussing general topics on the Saturn SKY.

User Tag List

 6Likes
  • 1 Post By Robotech
  • 1 Post By JohnWR
  • 3 Post By skersfan
  • 1 Post By Robotech
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 15 (permalink) Old 04-17-2019, 03:43 AM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 82
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Redline or not

would like to hear pros and cons for a redline and or 2.4.
Tomypasta is offline  
post #2 of 15 (permalink) Old 04-17-2019, 05:34 AM
First 2000 Sr. Member
 
marlboromike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Bonita Springs, Florida
Posts: 17,064
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 898 Post(s)
Garage
R/L is 2.5 secs quicker than the NA but will give u more headaches than the 2.4....R/L is designed richer than the NA but that can be changed easily. Try to purchase either with less than 10K. You will be happier.
marlboromike is offline  
post #3 of 15 (permalink) Old 04-17-2019, 10:39 AM
Super Moderator
 
Robotech's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Temecula, CA
Posts: 10,540
Mentioned: 59 Post(s)
Tagged: 3 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1646 Post(s)
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by marlboromike View Post
R/L is 2.5 secs quicker than the NA...
Is that 0-60 Mike because I think 1/4 mile times have a bigger gap.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomypasta View Post
would like to hear pros and cons for a redline and or 2.4.
Hmmmm...it really comes down to what you like. First I'll cover your question from the objective points as best I can.

Redline Pros:
  • More power stock. 177 for the NA and 260 for the Redline. When it comes to passing and accelerating, the Redline will feel more capable.

  • Easier to make more power. If you plan on modifying the power level of the car, it's far easier to do so on the Redline. A tune and some minor bolt ons have been shown to increase the power output substantially over stock. (From 260 at the crank to well over 330)

  • More capable suspension. The Redline comes with firmer springs with appropriate damping and stiffer anti-roll bars.

  • Front brake cooling. While minimal, the Redline has functional lower brake cooling ducts that direct air into the front wheel wells but not directly to the calipers. Does it help??? Meeehhhhhh...no one's really tested them.

Redline Cons:

  • Water pump. The water pump seems to fail far more frequently on the Redline.

  • Boost leaks. The stock clamps on the charge tubes and intercooler, if not properly tightened, can allow boost to leak past them reducing performance. Also, if you increase the boost level even on the stock turbo, the factory intercooler can balloon and eventually start leaking as well.

  • Thrashing by Previous owner. With any performance level car, the odds that the previous owner really gave it a good ringing out while they owned it are greater. However, this is a case by case basis and generally a lower mileage car is still going to be in good shape.

  • Price. The cost of a used Redline is hardly expensive but compared to the 2.4, it's generally always going to be more if the mileage between both cars is the same. I talk about this more with the 2.4 but generally speaking the lower the mileage of the two compared cars, the greater the difference in price.


2.4 Pros
  • Less water pump failures. The 2.4 seems to suffer from fewer water pump failures than the 2.0 turbo.

  • Larger displacement. While it makes less power, the larger displacement engine gives slightly better initial low end acceleration. Key words though, slightly and initial.

  • Smoother ride. The softer stock suspension on the 2.4 gives it a smoother ride than the Redline.

  • A Cruiser. Because it is a lower performance level car than the Redline (but not low performance period) the likelihood of the car being as rung out as a Redline is less. Not to say it couldn't happen, but it is far less likely.

  • Price. Generally speaking the 2.4 is going to run a couple thousand less than the Redline if mileage is similar. That gap does get smaller however as the miles increase. A Redline with 10,000 miles on it may be $10K+ more expensive than a 2.4 with 10,000 miles on it but if that same Redline has 120,000 miles on it the price difference between it and a 120,000 mile 2.4 may be less than $1,000.

  • LS (or 2JZ) SWAP THE WORLD! Our cars were designed in a way...and I have no idea if this was intentional or not but sometimes it sure feels like it is...where you can swap a variety of engines into them. The most obvious choice (and by far most common) is the GM LS V8 family of engines but the famous Toyota 2JZ out of the last gen Supra (won't be able to say that much longer) can also go in it. This kind of ties into the last pro for the 2.4 because while both the Redline and 2.4 can have this done without either really being more difficult to do it in than the other, if you're swapping the engine then all the pros for the Redline's power either stock or modified go out the window and the price difference between the Redline and 2.4 make the 2.4 a less expensive starting point for the swap.


2.4 Cons
  • Low Power. The 2.4 is normally aspirated so it's not going to have the power of the Redline. With the 2.4, you have to plan overtaking maneuvers and get a run up before making them. The power difference is substantial.

  • Softer suspension. What gives the 2.4 a smoother ride also makes it slightly less capable in the turns. For 99.9% of drivers out there though, this difference is a non issue since most will never come close to the edge of either car's handling envelope.

  • Power modifications. While the 2.4 can be modified and, in some ways, give you more modification paths to your power goals, there is no way to make Redline like power without putting on a power adder like a blower, turbo, or a Nitrous Oxide system. Since these systems are not cheap, often times the price to get a 2.4 to Redline power levels would be the same or more than just buying a Redline to start with. Also, the OEM clutch on the Redline is designed to handle more power than the one on the 2.4 so to go to power levels above what a stock Redline makes, there are a number of other components on the 2.4 that have to be addressed whereas the Redline can just add a tune and a few minor changes and make a substantial amount of additional power. The only exception to this is the above mentioned engine swap modification.


Now I know there are those out there saying "But Robotech, what about the black headlights? What about the twin exhausts?" etc, etc, etc...

Well, those kinds of things are COMPLETELY subjective. Here though are a list of other differences between the two cars that you can decide for yourself are pros or cons because these are totally up to you.

  • Headlights. The Redline has black headlights, the 2.4 has chrome. Which look do you like better? You can also change the color of the headlight by taking it apart and painting the piece that is either chrome or black. If you look closely at my car (a 2.4) you'll see the headlights are not chrome or black but a Midnight Blue that matches the color of the body.

  • Lower grills/fog lights. While both cars have the same fog lights, the style of the fixture and the grill next to it are different. The reason is the grill on the Redlines is functional (this is the brake cooling duct) and on the 2.4 are not. However, there is a visual difference to how they look and some like one over the other.

  • Exhaust. The Redline has twin exhaust outlets, the 2.4 has a single. There is NO performance difference between these exhausts. While there is a different muffler between the two, there really is no performance advantage to the exhaust alone as many 2.4 owners have put stock Redline exhausts on their cars and have seen no performance gain. What look do you like? There is the only question.

  • Guages. The Redline has white gauge faces, the 2.4 has black. On later 2.4s, the gas gauge is white faced as the black face gauge is hard to see during the day. I have an early 2.4 with the black gas gauge face and sometimes can't read it at all in the daylight. I list this here and not as a con to the 2.4 because not every 2.4 has it. Other than the gas gauge, it's a personal preference as to which look you like.

That covers it in a nutshell. BOTH cars are capable handlers. The only time a Redline pulled away from me on a twisty road is on a straight section. In the turns, there was no problem keeping pace and it was more how far the driver wanted to press it than what the car could do. Both will be enjoyable but if you're a performance guy, the 2.4 may leave you wanting for more when you hit the gas. You'll note I didn't mention fuel economy because they both average the same. Some will tell you the Redline gets 1 mpg better highway, which is true, but they leave out the fact it gets 1 mpg worse in the city.
a280z likes this.


V.A.L. (#1108)
2007 2.4 Base
MagnaFlow dual outlet, quad tip exhaust test car
**Sold**

Max (#1547)
2007 TURBO 2.4
Too much to list here. See my Garage for details.

Last edited by Robotech; 04-17-2019 at 02:17 PM.
Robotech is online now  
post #4 of 15 (permalink) Old 04-17-2019, 11:47 AM
Moderator
 
JohnWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 4,552
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Very good comparison Robotech. The only thing I didn't see mentioned is stability control. All RLs have it, but most (or maybe all) 2.4s do not.

The RL does have a somewhat stiffer suspension. In some cases this is better, but in others it is worse. On anything but glass-smooth pavement I think that the 2.4 is easier to control, although a better driver is probably going to disagree.

Either model could have been abused, just as either could have been lovingly cared for, so it is important to do a careful inspection. I would consider performance modifications more of a danger sign for potential abuse.

I have one of each, and regularly drive both of them. Except for the power difference the cars might as well be the same, as every other difference is cosmetic and parts can be interchanged to make them look identical.
mstrjon32 likes this.

John
Lexington, KY
Sky NA 2007 Midnight Blue
Sky RL 2008 Carbon Flash - Naked
JohnWR is online now  
post #5 of 15 (permalink) Old 04-17-2019, 11:56 AM
Senior Member
 
wspohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,168
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 314 Post(s)
Garage
The only way to tell which is right for you is to drive them both. We've seen several people that bought NA without test driving the LNF version and regretted it later (as well as many who were no doubt quite happy with the NA, but they don't seem to speak up as often).

TS did a good job summing things up. The only one I'd disagree with is the low end acceleration, i.e. torque on NA vs. turbo. The LNF hits 260 ft-lbs by 2,000 rpm while the LE5 is a good 100 ft-lbs down at that point. In fact it never attains the same levels as the LNF anywhere in the power curve.

1957 Jamaican MGA
1958 MGA Twincam
1962 MGA Coupe
1971 Jensen Interceptor
2007 BMW Z4M coupe
2009 Pontiac Solstice GXP Coupe
departed
1965 Jensen CV8
1969 MGC roadster,
1969 Lamborghini Islero S
1988 Pontiac Fiero GT

Bill in BC
wspohn is offline  
post #6 of 15 (permalink) Old 04-17-2019, 12:11 PM
Senior Member

 
skersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Near Idyllwild, California
Posts: 4,970
Mentioned: 81 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 775 Post(s)
Garage
Again this is all personal opinion/preference. I have two RL and two NA's. If I had driven the NA first, most likely, I would never have bought the car. Really do not like the performance. I have always had high horsepower vehicles, so that is what is important to me. As to handling, really not that much difference to me, I guess because I do not drive the NA as hard.

But you must drive both of them. The only way to tell which one is better for you.
marlboromike, Robotech and 44thSKY like this.

Last edited by skersfan; 04-17-2019 at 03:58 PM.
skersfan is offline  
post #7 of 15 (permalink) Old 04-17-2019, 12:15 PM
Super Moderator
 
Robotech's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Temecula, CA
Posts: 10,540
Mentioned: 59 Post(s)
Tagged: 3 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1646 Post(s)
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnWR View Post
Very good comparison Robotech. The only thing I didn't see mentioned is stability control. All RLs have it, but most (or maybe all) 2.4s do not.

The RL does have a somewhat stiffer suspension. In some cases this is better, but in others it is worse. On anything but glass-smooth pavement I think that the 2.4 is easier to control, although a better driver is probably going to disagree.

Either model could have been abused, just as either could have been lovingly cared for, so it is important to do a careful inspection. I would consider performance modifications more of a danger sign for potential abuse.

I have one of each, and regularly drive both of them. Except for the power difference the cars might as well be the same, as every other difference is cosmetic and parts can be interchanged to make them look identical.
Very good points and totally forgot about Traction Control...probably because my car doesn't have it. LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by wspohn View Post
TS did a good job summing things up. The only one I'd disagree with is the low end acceleration, i.e. torque on NA vs. turbo. The LNF hits 260 ft-lbs by 2,000 rpm while the LE5 is a good 100 ft-lbs down at that point. In fact it never attains the same levels as the LNF anywhere in the power curve.

You're thinking WOT torque curves. Think partial throttle low RPM application of power. Accelerating gently from a stop light, increasing speed from 25 mph to 35 mph, moments like those. This is the reason the 2.4 gets 1 mpg better in city stats. We're not talking a ton here, but that is a benefit to the 2.4.


V.A.L. (#1108)
2007 2.4 Base
MagnaFlow dual outlet, quad tip exhaust test car
**Sold**

Max (#1547)
2007 TURBO 2.4
Too much to list here. See my Garage for details.
Robotech is online now  
post #8 of 15 (permalink) Old 04-17-2019, 01:15 PM
Moderator
 
JohnWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 4,552
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wspohn View Post
The only way to tell which is right for you is to drive them both. We've seen several people that bought NA without test driving the LNF version and regretted it later (as well as many who were no doubt quite happy with the NA, but they don't seem to speak up as often).

TS did a good job summing things up. The only one I'd disagree with is the low end acceleration, i.e. torque on NA vs. turbo. The LNF hits 260 ft-lbs by 2,000 rpm while the LE5 is a good 100 ft-lbs down at that point. In fact it never attains the same levels as the LNF anywhere in the power curve.
People who are happy with something don't generally feel as much need to speak up about it. Also, those who say that they are happy with a 2.4 are generally put down, dismissed, or even ridiculed by "others" by being told that they are not serious drivers, or that the 2.4 is fine for "puttering around town" but not for real driving. Given that, why would they speak up?

I know what Robotech is referring to about initial acceleration, and went out at lunch to reinforce my impressions. The RL does have a lag. Not much, and not for long, but it is there. The 2.4 does not, so there is an initial "kick" when launching. I don't think it lasts long enough to be taken seriously, but for that first second or two it is there.

Of course if you really want low-end aceleration, bolt on a roots supercharger. With it the engine actually seems to anticipate throttle input.

John
Lexington, KY
Sky NA 2007 Midnight Blue
Sky RL 2008 Carbon Flash - Naked
JohnWR is online now  
post #9 of 15 (permalink) Old 04-17-2019, 01:17 PM
Senior Member
 
44thSKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 1,267
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Send a message via MSN to 44thSKY
I concur with all that has been said in comparing the two models (we have a NA SKY and a GXP Solstice).

When Robo sites the difference of: "When it comes to passing and accelerating, the Redline will feel more capable. ", that is my definite favored opinion of the REDLINE/GXP (turbo models of the Saturn and the Pontiac) over the NA of either model.
44thSKY is offline  
post #10 of 15 (permalink) Old 04-17-2019, 01:41 PM
Super Moderator
 
Robotech's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Temecula, CA
Posts: 10,540
Mentioned: 59 Post(s)
Tagged: 3 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1646 Post(s)
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnWR View Post
People who are happy with something don't generally feel as much need to speak up about it. Also, those who say that they are happy with a 2.4 are generally put down, dismissed, or even ridiculed by "others" by being told that they are not serious drivers, or that the 2.4 is fine for "puttering around town" but not for real driving. Given that, why would they speak up?
Ain't that the truth. I've posted pictures on FB before I had the graphics and interior done and got comments like "What's so special about that? It's just a base Sky" from another Sky owner...who had no idea the car had been turbocharged. I've learned to let it go. Woe be it to the Redline/GXP owner that ever does it to me after the new engine is in...

Quote:
I know what Robotech is referring to about initial acceleration, and went out at lunch to reinforce my impressions. The RL does have a lag. Not much, and not for long, but it is there. The 2.4 does not, so there is an initial "kick" when launching. I don't think it lasts long enough to be taken seriously, but for that first second or two it is there.

Of course if you really want low-end aceleration, bolt on a roots supercharger. With it the engine actually seems to anticipate throttle input.
Exactly...it's not a ton and not like it's going to give this huge advantage...but it is there. There are times it is helpful and this is why I really liked the GMPP intake because it improved this trait of the larger displacement engine. You have to give the 2.0 slightly more gas in the situations I mentioned above to get it moving (or like when going up a hill, to maintain speed) because that is out of the operating range of the turbo and you're relying on just engine torque levels on Vacuum. I've actually experienced better gas mileage on my Harley Davidson Sportster when I went from a 883cc displacement to a 1200cc displacement because I didn't have to use as much throttle to go up hills to maintain my speed. It's the same here just a smaller operating window. The larger displacement engine doesn't have to work as hard as the smaller one does in situations where the turbo isn't making boost.


V.A.L. (#1108)
2007 2.4 Base
MagnaFlow dual outlet, quad tip exhaust test car
**Sold**

Max (#1547)
2007 TURBO 2.4
Too much to list here. See my Garage for details.
Robotech is online now  
post #11 of 15 (permalink) Old 04-17-2019, 01:52 PM
Super Moderator
 
Robotech's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Temecula, CA
Posts: 10,540
Mentioned: 59 Post(s)
Tagged: 3 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1646 Post(s)
Garage
I do want to address something for Tomypasta though that I just remembered and isn't really a part of the above response.

When you look at what I've done with my 2.4 and if you know I got it in 2014 you may wonder why I've gone this route with it and, if I knew I was going to do this, why did I start with a 2.4? In 2006 I bought a very early model (number 1108 off the line thereabouts) and loved it. This was before the Redline was even offered so I didn't know what was coming. I adored the car and wanted to do so much to it. I got to ride in a turbocharged version (still a 2.4) and knew I wanted that for my car some day. However, life got in the way and a year after I got it, I had to sell it. I didn't want to and I vowed that one day I'd get another.

Fast forward to 2014 and I was in a position to get another car and I wanted my son to learn to drive stick. I got REALLY lucky and found another early build 2007 (number 1547 off the line thereabouts)...obviously still a 2.4. On the lot was also a Solstice GXP which I also drove and had it not been for the interior I may have bought it, however, the Sky they had looked exactly like my first Sky but with three noticeable differences. First, it had the billet grills which I kinda liked. Second, it had the rear spoiler that my first car didn't have but that I had always wished it had. Third, it had a stock exhaust rather than the MagnaFlow I had on the first car.

Other than those three simple (and easily accepted or changed) things, it was a clone of my first car. Driving it felt like I had put my car in storage for 7 years and then brought it back out. Even to this day, it feels like no time has passed and this is still my "first" Sky. Had it not been for that kind of emotional tie, I would have had a Redline.


There is ONE more pro to the NA to the Redline I didn't mention...Price. Generally speaking NAs can be had for significantly cheaper than Redlines if mileage is similar. IF you are thinking about doing some kind of engine swap (like an LS or 2JZ), then starting out with an NA may be the better choice since the power part doesn't play a factor. I think I may add this to my original post for those that may come along after this thread has ran it's course...
a280z likes this.


V.A.L. (#1108)
2007 2.4 Base
MagnaFlow dual outlet, quad tip exhaust test car
**Sold**

Max (#1547)
2007 TURBO 2.4
Too much to list here. See my Garage for details.
Robotech is online now  
post #12 of 15 (permalink) Old 04-17-2019, 02:06 PM
Senior Member
 
wspohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,168
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 314 Post(s)
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotech View Post
You're thinking WOT torque curves. Think partial throttle low RPM application of power. Accelerating gently from a stop light, increasing speed from 25 mph to 35 mph, moments like those. This is the reason the 2.4 gets 1 mpg better in city stats. We're not talking a ton here, but that is a benefit to the 2.4.
So you are comparing the NA curve with the unboosted LNF curve. That's valid, but OTOH, if you aren't accelerating reasonably hard, just puttering about, who cares which engine might produce more torque at that point. And have you ever known LNF owners that keep it completely out of boost except cruising on the highway...?

1957 Jamaican MGA
1958 MGA Twincam
1962 MGA Coupe
1971 Jensen Interceptor
2007 BMW Z4M coupe
2009 Pontiac Solstice GXP Coupe
departed
1965 Jensen CV8
1969 MGC roadster,
1969 Lamborghini Islero S
1988 Pontiac Fiero GT

Bill in BC
wspohn is offline  
post #13 of 15 (permalink) Old 04-17-2019, 03:51 PM
Senior Member

 
skersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Near Idyllwild, California
Posts: 4,970
Mentioned: 81 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 775 Post(s)
Garage
I have a very modified 2.0. And it seems to perform better if it isn't under full throttle immediately. I have scared the crap out of my self at 1/2 to 3/4. Less hesitation and quicker spooling seems to be what I feel. But mine is not right yet so may make a big difference if we can figure it out.

Next week is my favorite phrase it seems. Pulling the Turbo and the ECM, then reprograming to stock and starting over.

All I truly notice with the NA at any speed, when stepping down on it is noise. Not much go, but I haven't had another vehicle with that little horsepower since I drove a Fiat Abarth for a couple of months back in 1968. @wspohn you most likely know about the damned thing. It was a replica of the one they set the land speed record with at Bonneville. I don't even remember the year of it. Gawd awful ugly, but it ran pretty darned good. And they were quite proud of the land speed record, it was plastered in several places on the car. Dash and front fenders if I remember correctly..

Last edited by skersfan; 04-17-2019 at 04:00 PM.
skersfan is offline  
post #14 of 15 (permalink) Old 04-17-2019, 04:14 PM
Senior Member
 
wspohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,168
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 314 Post(s)
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by skersfan View Post
All I truly notice with the NA at any speed, when stepping down on it is noise. Not much go, but I haven't had another vehicle with that little horsepower since I drove a Fiat Abarth for a couple of months back in 1968. @wspohn you most likely know about the damned thing. It was a replica of the one they set the land speed record with at Bonneville. I don't even remember the year of it. Gawd awful ugly, but it ran pretty darned good. And they were quite proud of the land speed record, it was plastered in several places on the car. Dash and front fenders if I remember correctly..
Do you mean the one based on the Fiat 124, or the older humpier cars - small sedans?

1957 Jamaican MGA
1958 MGA Twincam
1962 MGA Coupe
1971 Jensen Interceptor
2007 BMW Z4M coupe
2009 Pontiac Solstice GXP Coupe
departed
1965 Jensen CV8
1969 MGC roadster,
1969 Lamborghini Islero S
1988 Pontiac Fiero GT

Bill in BC
wspohn is offline  
post #15 of 15 (permalink) Old 04-18-2019, 12:31 AM
Senior Member

 
skersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Near Idyllwild, California
Posts: 4,970
Mentioned: 81 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 775 Post(s)
Garage
It was a two door I think Bill, I honestly can not remember, the wife says it was a 2 door. Tiny little thing for sure. Drove it between Memphis and Millington Naval Air Facility.. Got great gas mileage for sure. Ugly as heck. I was having a 428 Cobra Jet being built by Huoman and Moody, and needed a car to get to work in. It has been rolled on its side and had the passenger side door held closed with a leather belt. Those were the days for sure. I don't remember what year it was, but it looked very similar to the new Abarth in honesty. Older humpier describes it to a T.
skersfan is offline  
Reply

  Saturn Sky Forums: Saturn Sky Forum > Saturn Sky Discussion > General Saturn Sky Discussion

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Saturn Sky Forums: Saturn Sky Forum 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
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

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