RV Trip Planning Discussions

Go Back   iRV2 Forums > POWER TRAIN GARAGE FORUMS > Allison Transmission Forum
Click Here to Login
Join iRV2 Today

Mission Statement: Supporting thoughtful exchange of knowledge, values and experience among RV enthusiasts.
View Poll Results: Are you currently running oil analysis on your engine or your Allison transmission?
Yes. I'm a believer in oil analysis! 216 34.67%
Not at this time but I might if I knew more about it. 352 56.50%
No. I think it costs too much. 39 6.26%
No. I don't believe in it. I think it's pure "bunk" ! 20 3.21%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 623. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-22-2011, 09:49 PM   #43
Senior Member
 
Oemtech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Jarrell, TX 76537
Posts: 4,322
Send a message via AIM to Oemtech
Quote:
Originally Posted by waco kid View Post
Hey Tom, Can you tell us the best place to send fluid for analysis? Bruce
Try this site... JG Lube Services
__________________

__________________
Dale
AKA - Oemy
Oemtech is online now   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 RV Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

iRV2.com RV Community - Are you about to start a new improvement on your RV or need some help with some maintenance? Do you need advice on what products to buy? Or maybe you can give others some advice? No matter where you fit in you'll find that iRV2 is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with other RV owners, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create an RV blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 05-02-2011, 02:01 PM   #44
Senior Member
 
Texun1's Avatar
 
National RV Owners Club
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 231
[/QUOTE] PS: If I could come up with a TranSynd replacement that would do 100,000 miles and cost maybe $10/gallon less, would IRV2 members be interested? This is not an advertisement, just a notion I'd like to float out to the forums. It wouldn't necessarily be "blessed" by Allison, but it would have my name backing up the quality.

Comments?[/QUOTE]


OK, Iam in sign me up for 5 gallons.
__________________

__________________
2000 National Tradewinds
2008 Chevy HHR Toad
Our Travel Photos- www.Lookingglassphotos.com
Texun1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2011, 02:26 PM   #45
Moderator Emeritus
 
Mike Canter's Avatar


 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Freeport, ME
Posts: 4,707
It would have to be an Allison approved TES295 fluid and be listed on the Allison approval website list. Just because a company says their fluid meets TES295 does not mean it has been tested and approved as TES295 by Allison.
__________________
Mike Canter
"Gunner" USN Retired, Airdale
2004 Monaco Signature 44' Conquest. Detroit 60
Mike Canter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2011, 07:10 PM   #46
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,943
10 gallons for $250 for TranSynd every 4 or 5 years? Come on. That's cheap insurance.
Perry White is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2011, 08:39 PM   #47
Senior Member
 
hzjcm8's Avatar
Commercial Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Avon, IN
Posts: 621
Send a message via AIM to hzjcm8 Send a message via MSN to hzjcm8 Send a message via Yahoo to hzjcm8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Canter View Post
It would have to be an Allison approved TES295 fluid and be listed on the Allison approval website list. Just because a company says their fluid meets TES295 does not mean it has been tested and approved as TES295 by Allison.
Mike,

I'm the guy that wrote the TES-295 specification so I can write one that does 100,000 miles and cost less. It doesn't need to be synthetic to go 100,000 miles. Also, TranSynd will remain pourable and pumpable at -55C (you don't need that either) but you're paying for it. I'm trying to help out here.

I'm not bad mouthing TranSynd or Allison. Far from it since I'm always recommending it. It's a miraculous fluid and I've never seen it fail. It's just that you're paying for extreme low temperature performance which you never use.
hzjcm8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2011, 08:45 PM   #48
Senior Member
 
powerboatr's Avatar
 
Damon Owners Club
Freightliner Owners Club
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: North East Texas
Posts: 4,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by hzjcm8 View Post
Powerboatr,

Economy Mode changes the "shift schedule" This means the "brains" of the transmission (the Transmission Control Module) or "TCM" goes to a lookup table program and finds a different set of engine speeds (transmission output speeds) to use for shift points. Basically, the transmission shifts at a lower engine speed and also engages the "lockup clutch" at lower engine speeds. It's like shifting a manual transmission at lower speeds to get into a higher gear earlier than normal. The lockup clutch is connected to the torque converter and when it engages, it's just like a manual transmission clutch in that it locks the transmission to the engine. This increases transmission efficiency be avoiding viscous drag and parasitic losses experienced when the transmission is transmitting torque through the torque converter.

On newer transmissions, Allison has taken this a step further by introducing LBSS (Load Based Shift Schedules). This lets the transmission cycle between "Economy Mode" and "Performance Mode" as needed to minimize fuel consumption. It's a "super secret" algorithm that only the Controls Engineers know.

Does this help !!!!

HMMMMM YOU bet it does
would an 08 tranny fall into that
__________________
USN Retired, Life time member of the DAV.
Enjoying the 2008 Damon Tuscany 4056, no your eyes are fine, there are really 6 slides
2016 Expedition Toad on Hauler flat bed
powerboatr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2011, 08:59 PM   #49
Moderator Emeritus
 
Mike Canter's Avatar


 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Freeport, ME
Posts: 4,707
Tom, I know exactly who you are and what your accomplishments and I respect that. My concern is how much money is involved in fixing a 4000 and the pain if it fails on a trip in towing and everything else while it is being fixed. For peace of mind I feel safer on continuing to use the Transynd that you so well designed and have no problem in paying that extra for that. I understand about the cold weather side but isn't a synthetic also better in the extreme summer heat and towing and during climbing steep grades. .

We use synthetic ATF in racing automatic transmissions and I find that the transmission oil runs much cooler plus the clutches last a lot longer.
__________________
Mike Canter
"Gunner" USN Retired, Airdale
2004 Monaco Signature 44' Conquest. Detroit 60
Mike Canter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2011, 09:20 AM   #50
Senior Member
 
wa8yxm's Avatar
 
Damon Owners Club
Workhorse Chassis Owner
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 24,022
There is an old joke where some guy feeds a drop of a mix of many fluids to a machien that is designed to make medical diagnosis from a drop of urine. I won't type it out, mostly cause I forget it, but one of the fluids he mixed was some motor oil, the computer diagnosed his car, along with other thigns.

Oil analysis is not that expensive, Since the schedule for change is a bit.. Shall we say, paranoid, Sendind a sample to a lab and paying say 20-40 dollars for a read out can save you big bucks in the fluid change department. Clearly worth it

I could use contact info for a good lab.
__________________
Home is where I park it!
wa8yxm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 01:48 AM   #51
Senior Member
 
DAN L's Avatar
 
Winnebago Owners Club
Workhorse Chassis Owner
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by wa8yxm View Post
There is an old joke where some guy feeds a drop of a mix of many fluids to a machien that is designed to make medical diagnosis from a drop of urine. I won't type it out, mostly cause I forget it, but one of the fluids he mixed was some motor oil, the computer diagnosed his car, along with other thigns.

Oil analysis is not that expensive, Since the schedule for change is a bit.. Shall we say, paranoid, Sendind a sample to a lab and paying say 20-40 dollars for a read out can save you big bucks in the fluid change department. Clearly worth it

I could use contact info for a good lab.
i use blackstone labs.

Blackstone Labs
__________________
01 WINNEBAGO 35U W20.8.1L SW Wa, Hi. Good Sam, SKP. AMSOIL fluids. BANKS ecm program. SCAN GAUGE II w/ Ally temp. 2 LIFELINE GPL-6CT AGM Batts on their sides. TST tptts. K&N panel air filter. AERO mufflers. TAYLOR plug wires. ULTRA POWER track bar. KONI fsd shocks, toad '14 smart car
DAN L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 05:10 AM   #52
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by hzjcm8 View Post
The transmission S/N break points were released in a service bulletin; I don't have a copy but the service outlet should know to install the newer seal.
I believe this is the serial number cutoff info:
S/N 6310670488 and up for Indianapolis built transmissions
S/N 6320784373 and up for Baltimore built transmissions used in GM pickups.

Interestingly, my 2006 GM 3500HD truck owners manual and even the dipstick say to use "DEX VI", but my unit serial number is actually pre-cut-off, and so I should not be using DEX VI.




hzjcm8 - I have a large laundry list of questions, so feel free to pick and choose as you see fit.

* Have you ever had a chance to test and/or analyze the "cloned" TES-295 fluids (Amsoil ATD, Schaeffers 204S-AT, DA AutoTrans-5)? If so, how did they stack up to the "approved" fluids? These products, while not tested and licensed, are PAO based products and represent a fairly large cost savings. I realize you're going to be loyal to your former employer, but an honest assessment would be welcome, if you are in a positioni to do so. While these clones are not "licensed" or "approved" by Allison, how does their performance stack up to Transynd and Delvac 1, etc?

* Also, you mentioned that the Allison filter is engineered to 30um; I presume that's the absolute rating? Wix is one of the few filter companies that publishes it's filter data, including nominal and beta ratings, so I can at least see how one competitor stacks up. As Allison has not released the filter data, most of the competitors simply "reverse engineer" their product by testing the ISO filtration capability of the Allison product, and matching/exceeding that data with their own product offerings. My question: what "nominal" or beta rating is the Allison filter capable of?

* There was a time when Allison was owned by GM fully, and they recommended DEX VI (after the cutoff). Now, the DEX VI is no longer licensed. I presume that was a "family feud" and once GM sold Allison, they parted ways with a difference of opinion? Having formerly worked for Ford, I can understand how corporate politics often muddy the waters. Also, GM still owns part of the manufacturing/use/naming rights to the "Allison" 1000 series, for it's Baltimore produced product, right?

* If it understand it correctly, you wrote the TES-295 and TES-389 specs? Do I understand it correctly that the TES-389 fluid is generally a fluid that would have met the (former, and no longer licensed) DEX IIIh specs? This newer TES-389 spec gives owners a non-synthetic option versus the PAO fluids, correct?

* There is a small but adamant contingent of people that insist on changing their internal filter when they do the routine fluid service on their Allison tranny. I have been a big proponent of NOT doing that. Could you put this topic to rest please. Is there any sane reason to pull the pan and replace the internal sump filter (which is basically a "chunk catcher" in case of catastrophe) short of a complete teardown? What I find absolutely crazy is that for years we had not option but to pull the pan and change the internal filter. Then, finally, the OEM stared getting more "customer friendly" and added a drain plug. Now, there is even an external filter. If the OEMs made it any easier, the tranny would service itself. Why a person wants to change the internal filter is beyond sensible means of rational thought, to me. I believe they feel that if "some" amount of service is good, more must be "better". What is your postion?
dnewton3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 07:05 PM   #53
Senior Member
 
hzjcm8's Avatar
Commercial Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Avon, IN
Posts: 621
Send a message via AIM to hzjcm8 Send a message via MSN to hzjcm8 Send a message via Yahoo to hzjcm8
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnewton3 View Post
I believe this is the serial number cutoff info:
S/N 6310670488 and up for Indianapolis built transmissions
S/N 6320784373 and up for Baltimore built transmissions used in GM pickups.

Interestingly, my 2006 GM 3500HD truck owners manual and even the dipstick say to use "DEX VI", but my unit serial number is actually pre-cut-off, and so I should not be using DEX VI.




hzjcm8 - I have a large laundry list of questions, so feel free to pick and choose as you see fit.

* Have you ever had a chance to test and/or analyze the "cloned" TES-295 fluids (Amsoil ATD, Schaeffers 204S-AT, DA AutoTrans-5)? If so, how did they stack up to the "approved" fluids? These products, while not tested and licensed, are PAO based products and represent a fairly large cost savings. I realize you're going to be loyal to your former employer, but an honest assessment would be welcome, if you are in a positioni to do so. While these clones are not "licensed" or "approved" by Allison, how does their performance stack up to Transynd and Delvac 1, etc?

I have never tested these products. Testing was not up to me to pick and choose. Oil companies had to submit oils for testing at an independent lab and then pay for the testing. Then, if they had test data, they could submit it to Allison (me) for approval. None of the oils you mention did any of that. I cannot do any evaluation on any oil without test data.

* Also, you mentioned that the Allison filter is engineered to 30um; I presume that's the absolute rating? Wix is one of the few filter companies that publishes it's filter data, including nominal and beta ratings, so I can at least see how one competitor stacks up. As Allison has not released the filter data, most of the competitors simply "reverse engineer" their product by testing the ISO filtration capability of the Allison product, and matching/exceeding that data with their own product offerings. My question: what "nominal" or beta rating is the Allison filter capable of?

It's not published and I can't recall the beta rating; in fact, I'm not sure I ever knew the beta rating. I'm pretty sure the filter 30 micron rating is nominal. The other parameter to consider when designing a filter is total capacity or how much debris the filter can hold prior to reaching a given pressure drop (delta P).

* There was a time when Allison was owned by GM fully, and they recommended DEX VI (after the cutoff). Now, the DEX VI is no longer licensed. I presume that was a "family feud" and once GM sold Allison, they parted ways with a difference of opinion? Having formerly worked for Ford, I can understand how corporate politics often muddy the waters. Also, GM still owns part of the manufacturing/use/naming rights to the "Allison" 1000 series, for it's Baltimore produced product, right?

Right. However, the overwhelming factor today has to do with Allison no longer participating on the GM ATF Committee (a position I held for many years). Without a seat on the committee, GM can change the spec and Allison would not know about it. What you don't know can, in this case, hurt you.

* If it understand it correctly, you wrote the TES-295 and TES-389 specs? Do I understand it correctly that the TES-389 fluid is generally a fluid that would have met the (former, and no longer licensed) DEX IIIh specs? This newer TES-389 spec gives owners a non-synthetic option versus the PAO fluids, correct?

That is correct. The TES-389 specification (which is available for reading, printing, and downloading at www.allisontransmission.com, is DEXRON-IIIH with one additional test for FKM (Viton) seals compatibility. It's an option for those who just will not pay for a TES-295 fluid.

* There is a small but adamant contingent of people that insist on changing their internal filter when they do the routine fluid service on their Allison tranny. I have been a big proponent of NOT doing that. Could you put this topic to rest please. Is there any sane reason to pull the pan and replace the internal sump filter (which is basically a "chunk catcher" in case of catastrophe) short of a complete teardown? What I find absolutely crazy is that for years we had not option but to pull the pan and change the internal filter. Then, finally, the OEM stared getting more "customer friendly" and added a drain plug. Now, there is even an external filter. If the OEMs made it any easier, the tranny would service itself. Why a person wants to change the internal filter is beyond sensible means of rational thought, to me. I believe they feel that if "some" amount of service is good, more must be "better". What is your postion?
I can think of no technical reason to change the internal sump filter. As you say, it's basically a rock catcher designed to protect the pump from catastrophic failure where there may be large chunks of whatever material (clutch pieces, wires, chunks of plastic, etc.) in the sump.
hzjcm8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2011, 05:01 AM   #54
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 8
Very kind of you to reply so quickly and honestly! Obviously, your input and experience are a benefit to this forum.

All your comments makes sense, except that I don't know that I agree with the filter efficiency topic. In a nutshell, I suspect the 30um figure is absolute, and not nominal.

I understand the "filtration triangle" concept of efficiency, size and life expectancy. If one characteristic is held as a constant, the two others will react inversely (althought not always in pure proportion). For example, if you keep the size of the spin-on filter the same, and increase the capture efficiency, the life-cycle decreases. If you want tighter media, and a long life-cycle, you must make the filter physically larger. Etc, etc. That in mind, I suspect the filter rating of the Allison brand filter of "30um" is more likely to be an absolute at 30um and not "nominal". "Nominal" is typically understood to be it's efficiency of 50% for a stated particle size; I'd like to think the Allison filter is much greater than 50% efficient at 30um. For example, I believe Wix's alternative to the Allison brand filter for the 1000 tranny application is nominal at 15 um; that is MUCH tighter than 30um. And the life-cycle of the Wix is set to the same standard of filter change intervals, as well as the delta-pressure drop. I don't work for Wix, nor am I trying to infer they are superior; I just find them to be most open about their filter performance, so they are good reference for data. Their website is one of the best resources for general filter info.

Also, I meant to ask about the 1000 series fluid flow by design. As I understand it, the spin-on external filter serves only to protect the flow of oil going directly to the valve body; is that correct? It does not filter 100% of the full flow from the pump, but rather filters that portion of the flow that only heads to the valve body? In essence, it functions as a "bypass filter" in that concept? I do understand that eventually all fluid will pass through the valve body, but not all at once. Or, do I misunderstand the concept of fluid process diversion in the 1000 series? What percentage of fluid flow goes to the spin-on filter, versus the total flow, for each unit processed by the main pump?
__________________
2006 Cherokee Lite 18DD
2006 Chevy 3500HD 4x4 CCLB W/T with Duramax/Allison 1000 (all stock performance wise; heavy on reliability mods)
dnewton3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2011, 09:03 PM   #55
Senior Member
 
hzjcm8's Avatar
Commercial Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Avon, IN
Posts: 621
Send a message via AIM to hzjcm8 Send a message via MSN to hzjcm8 Send a message via Yahoo to hzjcm8
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnewton3 View Post
Very kind of you to reply so quickly and honestly! Obviously, your input and experience are a benefit to this forum.

All your comments makes sense, except that I don't know that I agree with the filter efficiency topic. In a nutshell, I suspect the 30um figure is absolute, and not nominal.

I understand the "filtration triangle" concept of efficiency, size and life expectancy. If one characteristic is held as a constant, the two others will react inversely (althought not always in pure proportion). For example, if you keep the size of the spin-on filter the same, and increase the capture efficiency, the life-cycle decreases. If you want tighter media, and a long life-cycle, you must make the filter physically larger. Etc, etc. That in mind, I suspect the filter rating of the Allison brand filter of "30um" is more likely to be an absolute at 30um and not "nominal". "Nominal" is typically understood to be it's efficiency of 50% for a stated particle size; I'd like to think the Allison filter is much greater than 50% efficient at 30um. For example, I believe Wix's alternative to the Allison brand filter for the 1000 tranny application is nominal at 15 um; that is MUCH tighter than 30um. And the life-cycle of the Wix is set to the same standard of filter change intervals, as well as the delta-pressure drop. I don't work for Wix, nor am I trying to infer they are superior; I just find them to be most open about their filter performance, so they are good reference for data. Their website is one of the best resources for general filter info.

Also, I meant to ask about the 1000 series fluid flow by design. As I understand it, the spin-on external filter serves only to protect the flow of oil going directly to the valve body; is that correct? It does not filter 100% of the full flow from the pump, but rather filters that portion of the flow that only heads to the valve body? In essence, it functions as a "bypass filter" in that concept? I do understand that eventually all fluid will pass through the valve body, but not all at once. Or, do I misunderstand the concept of fluid process diversion in the 1000 series? What percentage of fluid flow goes to the spin-on filter, versus the total flow, for each unit processed by the main pump?
DNewton3,

The spin-on is filtering what is called "Control Main". This is the oil feeding the solenoid valves in the valve body (as you suspected). The valves are 2-stage meaning they have a solenoid that controls the movement of a spool valve. The solenoids have a tiny screen on them (not sure what the micron rating is on the tiny screen). If I knew it at one time, I've forgotten it now. Anyway, the purpose of the control main filter is to protect the solenoids and keep the screens clear of debris so the solenoids can function. I believe the Control Main filter is 30 micron meaning anything less will be passed and anything greater will be captured. I'm sure you understand a general concept that all filters will get finer as they load up. As the media begins to load up, the filter can catch finer and finer particles because some of the "holes" in the media get partially blocked by the already captured debris. However, at some point, the filter loading rate increases and the filter quickly blocks.

Hope this helps !!

PS: I would need to see side by side tests using the same filter debris and loading procedures to assess one filter vs another. Don't know if Wix has this vs. the Allison production spin-ons or not.
hzjcm8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 06:16 AM   #56
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 8
Thanks for the explanation; that was my understanding.

Yes, I understand, and fully agree with, the filter loading comments. Most people don't understand the concept of media filtration. I spend a lot of time trying to get people to understand the you can "go backwards" so to speak, by changing oil and filters too often. There is an interesting SAE study (done by Ford/Connoco several years ago) that showed wear is actually accelerated when oil is changed too frequently; most folks would find that hard to believe, but it is true and proven in a white paper study. Most people think that if changing oil is a good thing (which it obviously is) then changing it more often must be "better". Nothing could be further from the truth. Same goes for filters; as they age, their efficiency becomes greater. People think that if a new filter is good, a new filter more often must be "better". Ironically, people often cheat themselves out of "better" filtration by simply by changing it too often. It's the American way; if "some is good, then more is better". As long as the media is not loaded to a point where it the circuit would either starve the componets, or go into bypass, then all is well. I'm sure the OEM OCIs are set to a very safe limit that still assure good filter efficiency. Once people understand how a filter works, and you explain the concept of media loading, you can convince them otherwise. Media loading is a GOOD thing! The more holes that get plugged with particles, the higher the probability to catch ever-increasingly smaller ones; it is a self-fulfilling prophesey.

Most all OEMs spend a great amount of time and money researching, developing and designing lubrication systems that assure long, effective operation of the equipment they produce. I marvel how people often think that they know "better" than the people who spend years immersed in the product/process. I am NOT saying there cannot be improvements made, from aftermarket solutions. But those "upgrades" need to be understood in both their benefits and limitations. "Better" needs to be first defined, and only then can it be approached. And "more" is not always "better".

Also, it seems that you and I might agree in that the topics of synthetics is a very facinating, and yet confusing, topic for many people. I am a big fan of synthetics, but they too have benefits and limitations. Often, people will buy synthetics (at a 3x factor in cost) and yet get zero return for their investment, because they do not operate in condition, nor for a term long enough, to capitalize on the opportunity. I spend a LOT of time trying to explain to people that synthetics can offer operational benefits, but unless E-X-T-R-E-M-E temps are experienced, or significantly increased OCIs are acheived, there will be a very poor ROI for synthetics, where the normal conventional lubes work just fine for a very good ROI.
__________________

__________________
2006 Cherokee Lite 18DD
2006 Chevy 3500HD 4x4 CCLB W/T with Duramax/Allison 1000 (all stock performance wise; heavy on reliability mods)
dnewton3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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 Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Allison transmission on kenworth truck C500 Haddadi Allison Transmission Forum 2 04-05-2011 08:32 PM
Allison Transmission Seminar DriVer Workhorse Chassis Motorhome Club (WCMC) 0 09-27-2010 09:23 AM
Allison Transmission Filter Change Interval (New Policy) Always-RVing Allison Transmission Forum 5 09-07-2010 08:42 PM
Allison Transmission Leak gMw Allison Transmission Forum 3 08-30-2009 06:42 PM
Allison Transmission Leaks Beethovin Winnebago Industries Owner's Forum 21 12-30-2008 02:03 PM

» Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.