Re: [MBZ] The new G-wagen

[clay monroe]

looks like an obese, new wave variation of a Toyota FJ

clay

On Nov 29, 2012, at 6:56 AM, Rich Thomas wrote:

> http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/11/mercedes-ener-g-force/
> 
> Mipsie needs this to go to her pedicure appointment.
> 
> --R
> 
> 
> ___
> http://www.okiebenz.com
> For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com
> To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
> 
> To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
> http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com


___
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

Re: [MBZ] The new G-wagen

[Craig]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:56:30 -0500 Rich Thomas
 wrote:

> http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/11/mercedes-ener-g-force/
> 
> Mipsie needs this to go to her pedicure appointment.

But as the article says, 

 As for the powertrain, we’ll have whatever Mercedes’ design
 team is smoking. Individual electric motors power each wheel
 – not that far-fetched – but a “hydro-tech converter” fueled
 by recycled water stored on the roof is transformed into
 hydrogen, which powers the space-age G for a claimed 500 miles
 of emissions-free motoring.

So she will be able to drive it as a "green" vehicle and not need to
worry about emissions. Parking will be quite another thing, however.


Craig

___
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

[MBZ] The new G-wagen

[Rich Thomas]

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/11/mercedes-ener-g-force/

Mipsie needs this to go to her pedicure appointment.

--R


___
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

Re: [MBZ] The new G-Wagen

[David Brodbeck]

Donald Snook wrote:
> I think if you want an older Jeep with amazing off road performance, you
> should look at a Wagoneer.  I know people either love them or hate them.
> They are amazing off roaders.  When I had mine I would roam the trails,
> streams, mudpits, woods, etc and never got stuck.  More than a few times
> I had to use the Wagoneer to pull other people’s 4X4’s out.  The old
> quadra track (with granny low) never failed me.  The clearance is not as
> good as the other jeeps, so large rock hopping is not really possible. 
> I did see a guy with a Wagoneer who put a big lift kit on it and
> modified it and he could climb anything. 

My roommate in college had a '76 Wagoneer, until I hit black ice on the
freeway with it and rolled it.  I can vouch for the strength of the roof
structure, as I walked away with no injuries after a triple rollover
accident.  The roof was about a half inch lower in front from the A
pillars pushing into the fenders, but it didn't collapse.

Before I wrecked it, it got amazingly bad fuel economy (6-10 mpg) and
handled like crap on the road, but that's sort of to be expected in a
4x4.  The departure angle in the rear isn't so hot; my roommate used to
drag the tail of the truck a lot while offroading.  It did seem really
sturdy.  It was a heavy, heavy vehicle, like a lot of older AMC stuff.

Don't charge through water too fast, though; I once helped out a hunter
who hydro-locked the engine in his Wagoneer because he tried to make a
big roostertail going across a ford.  It was an embarassing day for him.
 He was pulled out of the water by a Subaru station wagon, and I lent
him my tools so he could take out his spark plugs.  I was driving a VW Bus.

[MBZ] The new G-Wagen

[Donald Snook]

Ernest Breakfield wrote:

 

"as the owner of a J**p Cherokee (XJ) i special ordered over a decade
ago to modify for off-pavement and have put over 200K miles on (much of
that in the Great Unpaved), i don't see anything on the market that
would replace my slightly modified XJ for any amount of money."

 

I think if you want an older Jeep with amazing off road performance, you
should look at a Wagoneer.  I know people either love them or hate them.
They are amazing off roaders.  When I had mine I would roam the trails,
streams, mudpits, woods, etc and never got stuck.  More than a few times
I had to use the Wagoneer to pull other people's 4X4's out.  The old
quadra track (with granny low) never failed me.  The clearance is not as
good as the other jeeps, so large rock hopping is not really possible.
I did see a guy with a Wagoneer who put a big lift kit on it and
modified it and he could climb anything.  

 

 

 

Donald H. Snook

McDonald, Tinker, Skaer, Quinn & Herrington, P.A. 

300 West Douglas

P.O. Box 207

Wichita, Kansas 67201 0207

Tel. (316) 263-5851

This confidential message may be subject to the attorney-client
privilege or protected by the attorney work-product doctrine. If you
have recieved this message in error, please delete it and notify me.  

 

Re: [MBZ] The new G-Wagen

[redghost]

Cherokee upgrades with Furd Exploder parts.  My BiL is in the process 
of taking a salvage cherokee and has upgraded axles with exploder bits. 
 Gets better gearing.  Has to play with the transfer case.  There is a 
problem where the seal will pop and poop the shaft out.  Fix for that 
is the newer boot.


On Tuesday, September 13, 2005, at 07:24 AM, Curt Raymond wrote:

The solid axle debate is also one of those east coast/west coast 
things that I think the 4x4 magazines make into a big dumb thing thats 
really not that big a deal. On the east coast, particularly in the 
northeast I'd say theres not a whole lot of rock crawling to be done 
so what they California crowd values in a 4x4 is not that important. 
Mostly what we've got here is mud. Southern Maine in particular has 
sink it to the axles clay/sand mud that'll get yeh.


For a woods truck I place more value on things like a limited slip (or 
locker) in the  diff and a manageable amount of power. Too often 
during hunting season we'll ease through a tough spot following a 
trail of parts and gear oil up to the guy with the big block V8 thats 
gotten too happy with the go pedal.
My Dad has a Liberty with a limited slip rear end and for normal 
conditions its not bad at all. He had a Chevy Tracker before that also 
with a limited slip that was nice. My mother had a Cherokee that was a 
steaming pile of dog crap in the woods. Had way too much power for the 
gearing, and bad clearance. Places the Tracker could slide through in 
2wd with the limited slip just barely engaging the Cherokee could 
barely bounce through in 4wd churning snorting and sucking fuel like 
it was going out of style. I hated that Cherokee...


-Curt

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of TimothyPilgrim
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 11:08 PM
To: Mercedes mailing list
Subject: Re: [MBZ] The new G-Wagen


Could someone elaborate why a solid axle is preferable to independent
suspension when it comes to a 4x4?

Tim
1982 300TD Moby








Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. 
___

For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/
For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://striplin.net/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_striplin.net




--
Clay
Seattle Bioburner

1972 220D - Gump
1995 E300D - Cleo
1987 300SDL - POS - DOA
The FSM would drive a Diesel Benz

Re: [MBZ] The new G-Wagen

[ernest breakfield]

one of the reasons Real J**ps™ have solid axles isn't only the simplicity
of them that someone mentioned, it's the fact that when a wheel moves up
onto an obstacle the center differential has to move up somewhat with it
improving clearance at the center as well. (this doesn't matter as much to
off-roaders that see only mud, and doesn't happen nearly at all with IFS.)
   comparing vehicles of different weights or with/without lockers is
irrelevant; it's comparing apples and oranges. most anything will work
better in *some* situations with a Traction Aiding Device like a
locker/limited slip, but even TADs aren't perfect for all situations.

   as the owner of a J**p Cherokee (XJ) i special ordered over a decade
ago to modify for off-pavement and have put over 200K miles on (much of
that in the Great Unpaved), i don't see anything on the market that
would replace my slightly modified XJ for any amount of money.
   that said, i'd still trade it for a 5-door G-Wagen with a 617 if i
could find one in good enough shape...   ;-)


cheers!
e

'85 300D - 144K miles
'94 J**p XJ - 204K miles (OME/TeraFlex custom suspension, JB Conversions
custom NP231 Xfr case, Goodyear MT/Rs, etc.,...)
'02 BMW GS Adventure - 37K miles


> I remember reading that Jeep took flak from enthusiasts for putting
> independent front suspension on the Liberty, but they contend that
> it's just as tough as any other Jeep.
>
> http://www.jeepsonly.com/jeepliberty.html
>
> Tim
> 1982 300TD Moby
>
> On 9/13/05, Alex Chamberlain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yeah, that's basically the explanation I've always heard from my
>> hard-core rock-crawling acquaintances, who turn up their noses at
>> independent suspension (hence my comments about the new G---but I
>> didn't know about the Range Rover system).
>>
>> On 9/12/05, TimothyPilgrim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Ahhh. Very good. Thank-you.
>> >
>> > Tim
>> > 1982 300TD Moby
>> >
>> > On 9/13/05, David Brodbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > TimothyPilgrim wrote:
>> > > > Could someone elaborate why a solid axle is preferable to
>> independent
>> > > > suspension when it comes to a 4x4?
>> > >
>> > > It's easier to get a lot of suspension travel with a solid axle,
>> > > especially in a situation where one wheel is on a tall obstacle and
>> the
>> > > other is on the ground.  Off road types call this "articulation."
>> It
>> > > helps avoid situations where one wheel is hanging in mid air.
>> Here's an
>> > > extreme example:
>> > > http://www.fag.hiof.no/~frodehaa/forandringer/pics/extreme%20articulation%20side.jpg
>> > >
>> > > Independent suspensions are hampered, among other things, by the
>> > > relatively small range of angles that CV joints can handle.
>> > >
>> > > ___
>> > > For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/
>> > > For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > >
>> > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
>> > > http://striplin.net/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_striplin.net
>> > >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/
>> > For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
>> > http://striplin.net/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_striplin.net
>> >
>>
>
> ___
> For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/
> For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
> http://striplin.net/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_striplin.net
>

Re: [MBZ] The new G-Wagen

[Curt Raymond]

The solid axle debate is also one of those east coast/west coast things that I 
think the 4x4 magazines make into a big dumb thing thats really not that big a 
deal. On the east coast, particularly in the northeast I'd say theres not a 
whole lot of rock crawling to be done so what they California crowd values in a 
4x4 is not that important. Mostly what we've got here is mud. Southern Maine in 
particular has sink it to the axles clay/sand mud that'll get yeh.

For a woods truck I place more value on things like a limited slip (or locker) 
in the  diff and a manageable amount of power. Too often during hunting season 
we'll ease through a tough spot following a trail of parts and gear oil up to 
the guy with the big block V8 thats gotten too happy with the go pedal.
My Dad has a Liberty with a limited slip rear end and for normal conditions its 
not bad at all. He had a Chevy Tracker before that also with a limited slip 
that was nice. My mother had a Cherokee that was a steaming pile of dog crap in 
the woods. Had way too much power for the gearing, and bad clearance. Places 
the Tracker could slide through in 2wd with the limited slip just barely 
engaging the Cherokee could barely bounce through in 4wd churning snorting and 
sucking fuel like it was going out of style. I hated that Cherokee...

-Curt

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of TimothyPilgrim
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 11:08 PM
To: Mercedes mailing list
Subject: Re: [MBZ] The new G-Wagen


Could someone elaborate why a solid axle is preferable to independent
suspension when it comes to a 4x4?

Tim
1982 300TD Moby




-
Yahoo! for Good
 Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. 

Re: [MBZ] The new G-Wagen

[Royce Engler]

Fewer moving parts, i.e. fewer things to go wrong when you're out in the
boonies?

Royce Engler

1985 300TD Turbo 265K



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of TimothyPilgrim
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 11:08 PM
To: Mercedes mailing list
Subject: Re: [MBZ] The new G-Wagen


Could someone elaborate why a solid axle is preferable to independent
suspension when it comes to a 4x4?

Tim
1982 300TD Moby

On 9/12/05, Kevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> FWIW, the current range rover has fully independent suspension, and is
> extremely capable offroad (if you're crazy enough to wheel a vehicle that
> expensive).
>
> independent suspension does not necessarily mean something cannot wheel
> (see the pinzgauer or hummer H1), just requires good engineering to make
> something that WILL actually wheel. The range rover uses air suspension to
> make the independent suspension behave like a straight axle when in 4L.
H1s
> require a new style of driving as one almost always has at least one wheel
> in the air when going over obstacles (rocks on a trail, trees in a creek,
> miatas on the interstate...).
>
> K

___
For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/
For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://striplin.net/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_striplin.net

Re: [MBZ] The new G-Wagen

[TimothyPilgrim]

I remember reading that Jeep took flak from enthusiasts for putting
independent front suspension on the Liberty, but they contend that
it's just as tough as any other Jeep.

http://www.jeepsonly.com/jeepliberty.html

Tim
1982 300TD Moby

On 9/13/05, Alex Chamberlain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, that's basically the explanation I've always heard from my
> hard-core rock-crawling acquaintances, who turn up their noses at
> independent suspension (hence my comments about the new G---but I
> didn't know about the Range Rover system).
> 
> On 9/12/05, TimothyPilgrim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ahhh. Very good. Thank-you.
> >
> > Tim
> > 1982 300TD Moby
> >
> > On 9/13/05, David Brodbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > TimothyPilgrim wrote:
> > > > Could someone elaborate why a solid axle is preferable to independent
> > > > suspension when it comes to a 4x4?
> > >
> > > It's easier to get a lot of suspension travel with a solid axle,
> > > especially in a situation where one wheel is on a tall obstacle and the
> > > other is on the ground.  Off road types call this "articulation."  It
> > > helps avoid situations where one wheel is hanging in mid air.  Here's an
> > > extreme example:
> > > http://www.fag.hiof.no/~frodehaa/forandringer/pics/extreme%20articulation%20side.jpg
> > >
> > > Independent suspensions are hampered, among other things, by the
> > > relatively small range of angles that CV joints can handle.
> > >
> > > ___
> > > For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/
> > > For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
> > > http://striplin.net/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_striplin.net
> > >
> >
> > ___
> > For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/
> > For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
> > http://striplin.net/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_striplin.net
> >
>

Re: [MBZ] The new G-Wagen

[Alex Chamberlain]

Yeah, that's basically the explanation I've always heard from my
hard-core rock-crawling acquaintances, who turn up their noses at
independent suspension (hence my comments about the new G---but I
didn't know about the Range Rover system).

On 9/12/05, TimothyPilgrim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ahhh. Very good. Thank-you.
> 
> Tim
> 1982 300TD Moby
> 
> On 9/13/05, David Brodbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > TimothyPilgrim wrote:
> > > Could someone elaborate why a solid axle is preferable to independent
> > > suspension when it comes to a 4x4?
> >
> > It's easier to get a lot of suspension travel with a solid axle,
> > especially in a situation where one wheel is on a tall obstacle and the
> > other is on the ground.  Off road types call this "articulation."  It
> > helps avoid situations where one wheel is hanging in mid air.  Here's an
> > extreme example:
> > http://www.fag.hiof.no/~frodehaa/forandringer/pics/extreme%20articulation%20side.jpg
> >
> > Independent suspensions are hampered, among other things, by the
> > relatively small range of angles that CV joints can handle.
> >
> > ___
> > For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/
> > For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
> > http://striplin.net/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_striplin.net
> >
> 
> ___
> For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/
> For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
> http://striplin.net/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_striplin.net
>

Re: [MBZ] The new G-Wagen

[TimothyPilgrim]

Ahhh. Very good. Thank-you.

Tim
1982 300TD Moby

On 9/13/05, David Brodbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> TimothyPilgrim wrote:
> > Could someone elaborate why a solid axle is preferable to independent
> > suspension when it comes to a 4x4?
> 
> It's easier to get a lot of suspension travel with a solid axle,
> especially in a situation where one wheel is on a tall obstacle and the
> other is on the ground.  Off road types call this "articulation."  It
> helps avoid situations where one wheel is hanging in mid air.  Here's an
> extreme example:
> http://www.fag.hiof.no/~frodehaa/forandringer/pics/extreme%20articulation%20side.jpg
> 
> Independent suspensions are hampered, among other things, by the
> relatively small range of angles that CV joints can handle.
> 
> ___
> For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/
> For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
> http://striplin.net/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_striplin.net
>

Re: [MBZ] The new G-Wagen

[David Brodbeck]

TimothyPilgrim wrote:
> Could someone elaborate why a solid axle is preferable to independent
> suspension when it comes to a 4x4?

It's easier to get a lot of suspension travel with a solid axle,
especially in a situation where one wheel is on a tall obstacle and the
other is on the ground.  Off road types call this "articulation."  It
helps avoid situations where one wheel is hanging in mid air.  Here's an
extreme example:
http://www.fag.hiof.no/~frodehaa/forandringer/pics/extreme%20articulation%20side.jpg

Independent suspensions are hampered, among other things, by the
relatively small range of angles that CV joints can handle.

Re: [MBZ] The new G-Wagen

[TimothyPilgrim]

Could someone elaborate why a solid axle is preferable to independent
suspension when it comes to a 4x4?

Tim
1982 300TD Moby

On 9/12/05, Kevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> FWIW, the current range rover has fully independent suspension, and is
> extremely capable offroad (if you're crazy enough to wheel a vehicle that
> expensive).
> 
> independent suspension does not necessarily mean something cannot wheel
> (see the pinzgauer or hummer H1), just requires good engineering to make
> something that WILL actually wheel. The range rover uses air suspension to
> make the independent suspension behave like a straight axle when in 4L. H1s
> require a new style of driving as one almost always has at least one wheel
> in the air when going over obstacles (rocks on a trail, trees in a creek,
> miatas on the interstate...).
> 
> K

Re: [MBZ] The new G-Wagen

[Kevin]

On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 03:49:29PM -0700, Alex Chamberlain wrote:
> The styling doesn't bother me as much as the fact that it's now based
> on the same platform as the M-class, making it more of a
> soccer-mom/poser vehicle and no longer a serious offroader like the
> old G.  Unitbody?  Independent rear suspension?  Bleah.

FWIW, the current range rover has fully independent suspension, and is 
extremely capable offroad (if you're crazy enough to wheel a vehicle that
expensive).

independent suspension does not necessarily mean something cannot wheel
(see the pinzgauer or hummer H1), just requires good engineering to make
something that WILL actually wheel. The range rover uses air suspension to
make the independent suspension behave like a straight axle when in 4L. H1s
require a new style of driving as one almost always has at least one wheel
in the air when going over obstacles (rocks on a trail, trees in a creek,
miatas on the interstate...).

K

Re: [MBZ] The new G-Wagen

[Alex Chamberlain]

The styling doesn't bother me as much as the fact that it's now based
on the same platform as the M-class, making it more of a
soccer-mom/poser vehicle and no longer a serious offroader like the
old G.  Unitbody?  Independent rear suspension?  Bleah.

Alex Chamberlain
'87 300D

Re: [MBZ] The new G-Wagen

[John Ervine]

Zeitgeist wrote:

That thing's an embarassment...not unlike the new R-Class rolling
turd.  What the hell's gone wrong with German designers these
days?  They used to be so reliably solid and distinctive, now
they're all agog over weird arcs and pointless embellishments.  Sad


I like to call it "Keeping up with the Bangles".

--
John L. Ervine
1981 240D 4-spd 268+kmi
1980 300TD 170+kmi
1980 300SD 277+kmi
1977 280S 4-spd 80+kmi

Re: [MBZ] The new G-Wagen

[Zeitgeist]

That thing's an embarassment...not unlike the new R-Class rolling
turd.  What the hell's gone wrong with German designers these
days?  They used to be so reliably solid and distinctive, now
they're all agog over weird arcs and pointless embellishments.  Sad

On 9/10/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.autobild.de/projektor/projektor.php?artikel_id=8186&pos=12

Casey
Olympia, WA
Biodiesel:
'87 300TD intercooler (209k)
'84 300D (204k)
Gashuffer:
'89 Vanagon Wolfsburg Edition (185K)

Re: [MBZ] The new G-Wagen

[Steve MacSween]

My god, it looks like the next generation Suzuki XL-7.

Why torpedo on roof? Special U-boat commemorative edition?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I was afraid this was going to happen during the cross pollination.

On 9/10/05, John Ervine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 > wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://www.autobild.de/projektor/projektor.php?artikel_id=8186&pos=12


It looks like a Chrysler Pacifica got drunk and knocked up a Chevy
Trailblazer. 

--
John L. Ervine
1981 240D 4-spd 268+kmi
1980 300TD 170+kmi
1980 300SD 277+kmi
1977 280S 4-spd 80+kmi

___
For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/
For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://striplin.net/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_striplin.net

Re: [MBZ] The new G-Wagen

[LT Don]

I was afraid this was going to happen during the cross pollination. 

On 9/10/05, John Ervine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > http://www.autobild.de/projektor/projektor.php?artikel_id=8186&pos=12
> 
> It looks like a Chrysler Pacifica got drunk and knocked up a Chevy 
> Trailblazer.
> 
> --
> John L. Ervine
> 1981 240D 4-spd 268+kmi
> 1980 300TD 170+kmi
> 1980 300SD 277+kmi
> 1977 280S 4-spd 80+kmi
> 
> ___
> For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/
> For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
> http://striplin.net/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_striplin.net
> 



-- 
1977 240D
1972 Honda CB-500K motorcycle

http://www.airamericaradio.com/listen

Re: [MBZ] The new G-Wagen

[John Ervine]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

http://www.autobild.de/projektor/projektor.php?artikel_id=8186&pos=12


It looks like a Chrysler Pacifica got drunk and knocked up a Chevy Trailblazer.

--
John L. Ervine
1981 240D 4-spd 268+kmi
1980 300TD 170+kmi
1980 300SD 277+kmi
1977 280S 4-spd 80+kmi

[MBZ] The new G-Wagen

[RELNGSON]

http://www.autobild.de/projektor/projektor.php?artikel_id=8186&pos=12