Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-07-2018, 08:10 PM - 1 Like   #1321
Veteran Member
cooltouch's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 982
QuoteOriginally posted by lesmore49 Quote
GM has resisted going gas engine turbo in their pickup trucks, until the 2019 model year. They have introduced a new 2.7 liter, 4 cylinder, DOHC gas engine with a turbo with some unique features. This 2.7 liter turbo 4...isn't putting out much less power than the regularly aspirated 5.3 liter Chevy LS V8. It will be interesting to observe how this small turbo 4 sells, in comparison to the traditional LS V8. The Chevy LS V8 engines are very highly regarded by hot rodders and North American high performance enthusiasts. It is a really good, robust engine and OHV, at that.

This new 2.7 liter turbo 4 has been designed from a clean sheet of paper as a purpose built, truck engine. I'm very interested in seeing reviews, tests, etc. of this new powerplant.


---------- Post added 08-06-18 at 02:42 PM ----------

Despite the fact that I'm a born and bred Texan, I've always had more of a Euro mindset when it comes to automobile technology. Engine-wise, this means I have preferred twin-cam, 4-valve designs with fuel injection and often turbos. Nonetheless, I cut my teeth on older, 50s era technology, i.e. American style pushrod OHV carbureted engines. So when I finally graduated to something more current, tech wise, It was a major shift of paradigms for me to adapt to the "new school" of fuel-injected, overhead cam, turbocharged engine technology. But once I became familiar with the principles behind this tech and then later learned what could be done to tweak the performance, I was a convert. It's easier -- a lot easier -- to get major power out of a fuel-injected turbocharged engine than it is out of a normally aspirated carbureted (even fuel injected) OHV motor. I have watched with glee the rapid acceptance of the Ford Coyote motor and realize how easy it will be to supercharge it -- turbocharging will take more work and will need a lot more engine bay room -- and all I can say is it's about damn time. Should've introduced it back in the 70s, albeit with carbs mostly out of necessity. I've owned a couple of Jensens, a 1974 Healey and a 1976 GT, each with the Lotus 907 2l 4-cylinder twin-cam engine. So I'm very aware that 4-valve-per-cylinder tech in passenger cars was, at least, available. back then.

GM may claim that the 2.7l turbo i4 is a purpose built truck engine, but with a minor spec change it can be converted for reliable automotive use. Say the 2.7l has a longer stroke than normal, for instance, for better low-end torque. Well, easy enough to install a crank with a shorter stroke, give up some cubes, but have a more oversquare design for better top-end performance, for example. Besides, 2.7l is pretty large for a 4-cylinder. Drop displacement down to 2.5l with a shorter stroke and you could have a real powerhouse, especially if it has a bulleteproof bottom end. Better: educate the public that torque is what you're feeling in the seat of your pants when you depress the GO pedal, and not horsepower.

I think back to Ford's 460ci V8 that was originally intended for truck use, but made it into other applications over time. There are other examples. I guess what I'm saying is, why restrict a great design to a single market segment? I'm sure GM has big future plans for that motor. Like Ford's EcoBoost I suppose.



08-07-2018, 11:06 PM   #1322
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Lancaster
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,821
QuoteOriginally posted by Racer X 69 Quote
I hadn't heard of this. Certainly something that the manufacturer needs to get sorted out. I can understand their not wanting to take ownership of it, at least until they can be certain it is or is not a fault of their equipment and software.

Odd that there isn't any record of the application of the brake pedal, and other pertinent data. I know that there is a 'black box' in all motor vehicles in North America that works a bit like those in airplanes. It records the last minute or so of a vehicle's activity before a crash. Law enforcement agencies access the data for accident investigations, so the manufacturer should also have access to the data.

Too bad your customer care experience sucks, I have always heard good things about Honda from people I know who have them.
I thought there would be some form of recording too but my son says not, mind you, there were a few things you would think a car so technologically advanced would have, and it doesnt. Honda will lose out! He was brand loyal and in a well paid job. Mazda here we come!
08-08-2018, 05:49 AM   #1323
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
bhbrake's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Colorado
Photos: Albums
Posts: 331
I have the 16' expedition with the ecoboost twin turbo v6, and it blows the doors off the old V8 it replaced. Fuel economy is not significantly better, but the torque is spectacular. Despite being 6,000 lbs, the beast moves quick.
08-08-2018, 02:16 PM - 2 Likes   #1324
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 12,273
QuoteOriginally posted by cooltouch Quote


---------- Post added 08-06-18 at 02:42 PM ----------

Despite the fact that I'm a born and bred Texan, I've always had more of a Euro mindset when it comes to automobile technology. Engine-wise, this means I have preferred twin-cam, 4-valve designs with fuel injection and often turbos. Nonetheless, I cut my teeth on older, 50s era technology, i.e. American style pushrod OHV carbureted engines. So when I finally graduated to something more current, tech wise, It was a major shift of paradigms for me to adapt to the "new school" of fuel-injected, overhead cam, turbocharged engine technology. But once I became familiar with the principles behind this tech and then later learned what could be done to tweak the performance, I was a convert. It's easier -- a lot easier -- to get major power out of a fuel-injected turbocharged engine than it is out of a normally aspirated carbureted (even fuel injected) OHV motor. I have watched with glee the rapid acceptance of the Ford Coyote motor and realize how easy it will be to supercharge it -- turbocharging will take more work and will need a lot more engine bay room -- and all I can say is it's about damn time. Should've introduced it back in the 70s, albeit with carbs mostly out of necessity. I've owned a couple of Jensens, a 1974 Healey and a 1976 GT, each with the Lotus 907 2l 4-cylinder twin-cam engine. So I'm very aware that 4-valve-per-cylinder tech in passenger cars was, at least, available. back then.

GM may claim that the 2.7l turbo i4 is a purpose built truck engine, but with a minor spec change it can be converted for reliable automotive use. Say the 2.7l has a longer stroke than normal, for instance, for better low-end torque. Well, easy enough to install a crank with a shorter stroke, give up some cubes, but have a more oversquare design for better top-end performance, for example. Besides, 2.7l is pretty large for a 4-cylinder. Drop displacement down to 2.5l with a shorter stroke and you could have a real powerhouse, especially if it has a bulleteproof bottom end. Better: educate the public that torque is what you're feeling in the seat of your pants when you depress the GO pedal, and not horsepower.

I think back to Ford's 460ci V8 that was originally intended for truck use, but made it into other applications over time. There are other examples. I guess what I'm saying is, why restrict a great design to a single market segment? I'm sure GM has big future plans for that motor. Like Ford's EcoBoost I suppose.

I had a fair amount of experience with the Ford 385 series, 460 cube V8. I recall hearing somewhere that the 385 series (429, 460) got a lot of it's head design from the Chevy Daytona, Mystery Motor 427 that Ford bought a copy or two (NASCAR rules allowed) at the conclusion of the '63 Daytona 500. Chevy's mystery motor later on became the famous big block Rat motor (366, 396, 427, 454, 496, 502). An interesting aside to engine development.

Back in the '70's when I was attending U. , the job that paid my way, was driving a company 'Ford E 350, cab and chassis, dual rear wheel, with a 14 or 16 foot box attached (can't remember which) and it had the 460 and C6 transmission. It was a wonderful engine/transmission combo...scads of low and mid range torque which came in handy running that truck that was invariably loaded close to maximum GVW. Never a bit of trouble and that truck was used hard and put away wet. I loved it!

I've always been a fan of OHC engines, first one that I recall seeing was an early '50's Jag XK 120 that used to visit one of our neighbours when I was a young kid. I used to hang around (I was about 6-8) hoping the owner would come by and when he did, he was a nice guy would chat about it.

Most of my early experience with OHC engine design was with motorcycles in the 1960's...mostly Honda and Ducati...early mass production OHC proponents in the motorcycle world. Although the Ducati also had the 250cc single cylinder, Desmodromic, the Diana, if I recall. We had a motorcycle dealer who brought in a lot of motorcycle exotica, including desmo Ducatis....along with some interesting English Matchless motorcycles...the G85CS and G15CS scramblers...these were 500cc and 750cc OHV engines, but in a fairly high state of tune. In fact I have a '67 Matchless G15CS Scrambler, bought originally from this shop in my small M/C collection...two bikes.

My other bike was my first OHC engine, a '78 Yamaha 500cc OHC single.

In the '60's I was mostly into 2 stroke motorcycles, which really progressed technologically in the '60's, thanks mostly to the East German concern MZ and their racing engineer, Walter Kaaden. He understood principles of sound waves and was one of the first to develop expansion chambers for high performance 2 strokes. Both Suzuki and Yamaha street and racing 2 stroke engines benefited in a round about way, from MZ developed technology. I had a '60's Yamaha sport YDS3 2 stroke twin which belted out about 2 hp per cubic inch, not bad for an engine 50 odd years ago.

Two stroke engines unfortunately due to their image as polluters are pretty well a dead end engine now. Too bad IMO, as I think if development had continued the 2 stroke engine would be a very viable engine for modern times. .


Last edited by lesmore49; 08-08-2018 at 02:22 PM.
08-08-2018, 06:52 PM - 2 Likes   #1325
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Just1MoreDave's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Aurora, CO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,336
QuoteOriginally posted by bhbrake Quote
I have the 16' expedition with the ecoboost twin turbo v6, and it blows the doors off the old V8 it replaced. Fuel economy is not significantly better, but the torque is spectacular. Despite being 6,000 lbs, the beast moves quick.
Turbocharging is also better at high altitude, which happens a lot in Colorado.
08-08-2018, 07:48 PM   #1326
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
bhbrake's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Colorado
Photos: Albums
Posts: 331
QuoteOriginally posted by Just1MoreDave Quote
Turbocharging is also better at high altitude, which happens a lot in Colorado.
So true. I do a lot of mountain driving and my naturally aspirated vehicles suffer much worse above 8,000 ft.
08-08-2018, 08:06 PM   #1327
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Si Chiang Mai. Nong Khai Province
Photos: Albums
Posts: 358
Honda Forza 300cc, never owned a car, top box for lugging camera and lenses and that is that, Ian

08-08-2018, 08:58 PM   #1328
Veteran Member
cooltouch's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 982
Yeah, Ford has managed to do a good job with the Ecoboost. It seems to fit into a number of niches very well -- including the Le Mans winning Ford GT

After writing my earlier comment, it got me to thinking about early introduction of what is current tech now, but bleeding edge hi tech (for the USA at least) when it was introduced amongst American manufacturers, and I realized I'd completely forgotten about one engine design that I've always felt has languished because of the way it was finally put into service -- GM's Northstar V8, which appeared as the 4.0L 32-valve V8 in the Olds Aurora and the 4.6L 32-valver in some Cadillac models. I've driven a Northstar Cadillac and I felt the engine gave very good performance, and I own a 1997 Olds Aurora (all the more reason why I'm surprised I didn't think of it) and I can state for the record that the 250 hp 4.0L in my Aurora is capable of quite spirited performance. (N.B. My Aurora was given to me. It was my mother's and she is no longer able to drive. I've owned it for a couple of years, and I was lucky enough to have been gifted a 20 year old car with 38,000 original miles. But it wasn't without its problems, one of which is potentially serious.) But the reason why I say it languished is, here you had, at the time of its introduction, which was the mid-90s, a V8 fully capable of wiping out its competition with its performance on the racetrack, and what did GM do: they inserted it into a couple of FWD platforms. Sedan FWD platforms. The FWD Northstar Cadillac gave decent performance for what it was -- a heavy sedan with the misfortune of having an FWD configuration. But the Aurora was clearly dinged when GM decided to go with an FWD design with that car. Let's just take its suspension as a example: My car's suspension is totally inadequate, in stock trim, of being able to support that engine's capabilities, and this is with air shocks on the rear, no less. But then if power were being applied to the rear, then they may have been of some use. Sadly, there is almost nothing available that one can purchase to improve things. So, instead of it being a sport sedan capable of keeping up with Bimmers and Jaguars, instead it wallows around all over the place -- just what you'd expect from an American-designed sedan from the last half of the 20th century. No, if GM would have been smart, they'd have offered the Northstar with EFI and either a turbo or a supercharger, and an IRS suspension package as a Euro-spec option for the Camaro or TransAm -- or maybe even the Corvette (though the 'Vette already has IRS) -- or they should have just offered the Aurora the way it should have been offered -- as a RWD car with IRS. But nope, GM didn't do any of that. They just pissed it all away and finally discontinued their most technically advanced engine program in 2011. And the US auto manufacturers want to know why some of us prefer to buy European? Or Japanese? Or even Korean? Well Duh?! When they do stupid stuff like that, they're just running us off, is all they're doing.

---------- Post added 08-08-18 at 11:14 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by lesmore49 Quote
My other bike was my first OHC engine, a '78 Yamaha 500cc OHC single.
My second OHC engine was my 1981 Yamaha XS650. My first was a Volvo 745Turbo-Intercooled.

QuoteQuote:
In the '60's I was mostly into 2 stroke motorcycles, which really progressed technologically in the '60's, thanks mostly to the East German concern MZ and their racing engineer, Walter Kaaden. He understood principles of sound waves and was one of the first to develop expansion chambers for high performance 2 strokes. Both Suzuki and Yamaha street and racing 2 stroke engines benefited in a round about way, from MZ developed technology. I had a '60's Yamaha sport YDS3 2 stroke twin which belted out about 2 hp per cubic inch, not bad for an engine 50 odd years ago.

Two stroke engines unfortunately due to their image as polluters are pretty well a dead end engine now. Too bad IMO, as I think if development had continued the 2 stroke engine would be a very viable engine for modern times. .
I agree about the unfortunate demise of the 2-stroke, although it is still very much alive and well in other parts of the world (read China and India) that aren't so concerned about pollution as the rest of us.

In the 60s, I was mostly into bumming friends' Hondas for rides, which I did often. Knew how to ride at 14, didn't learn how to drive until 16. Never had much experience with 2-strokes, though. About their possibly premature demise, though -- it's just gas engine two-strokes that are faced with the ban. There's still two-stroke diesels everywhere. And they don't smoke anymore than other types of diesels. No, the way I see it is the basic design of the gasoline powered two stroke needs to be rethought. All gasoline engine two strokes that I know of draw their gas-air intake mixture in through the crankcase, which is why oil must be mixed with the gasoline, cuz if it weren't, it would carry the oil in the crankcase away with the intake gasses, drying out the engine's internals, and eventually causing it to seize. But I've always asked, why does the intake air have to pass through the crankcase? Is this the only way a 2-stroke can function? Seems to me it isn't, but I'm no engineer, so . . .
08-08-2018, 09:56 PM   #1329
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 12,273
QuoteOriginally posted by cooltouch Quote
Yeah, Ford has managed to do a good job with the Ecoboost. It seems to fit into a number of niches very well -- including the Le Mans winning Ford GT

After writing my earlier comment, it got me to thinking about early introduction of what is current tech now, but bleeding edge hi tech (for the USA at least) when it was introduced amongst American manufacturers, and I realized I'd completely forgotten about one engine design that I've always felt has languished because of the way it was finally put into service -- GM's Northstar V8, which appeared as the 4.0L 32-valve V8 in the Olds Aurora and the 4.6L 32-valver in some Cadillac models. I've driven a Northstar Cadillac and I felt the engine gave very good performance, and I own a 1997 Olds Aurora (all the more reason why I'm surprised I didn't think of it) and I can state for the record that the 250 hp 4.0L in my Aurora is capable of quite spirited performance. (N.B. My Aurora was given to me. It was my mother's and she is no longer able to drive. I've owned it for a couple of years, and I was lucky enough to have been gifted a 20 year old car with 38,000 original miles. But it wasn't without its problems, one of which is potentially serious.) But the reason why I say it languished is, here you had, at the time of its introduction, which was the mid-90s, a V8 fully capable of wiping out its competition with its performance on the racetrack, and what did GM do: they inserted it into a couple of FWD platforms. Sedan FWD platforms. The FWD Northstar Cadillac gave decent performance for what it was -- a heavy sedan with the misfortune of having an FWD configuration. But the Aurora was clearly dinged when GM decided to go with an FWD design with that car. Let's just take its suspension as a example: My car's suspension is totally inadequate, in stock trim, of being able to support that engine's capabilities, and this is with air shocks on the rear, no less. But then if power were being applied to the rear, then they may have been of some use. Sadly, there is almost nothing available that one can purchase to improve things. So, instead of it being a sport sedan capable of keeping up with Bimmers and Jaguars, instead it wallows around all over the place -- just what you'd expect from an American-designed sedan from the last half of the 20th century. No, if GM would have been smart, they'd have offered the Northstar with EFI and either a turbo or a supercharger, and an IRS suspension package as a Euro-spec option for the Camaro or TransAm -- or maybe even the Corvette (though the 'Vette already has IRS) -- or they should have just offered the Aurora the way it should have been offered -- as a RWD car with IRS. But nope, GM didn't do any of that. They just pissed it all away and finally discontinued their most technically advanced engine program in 2011. And the US auto manufacturers want to know why some of us prefer to buy European? Or Japanese? Or even Korean? Well Duh?! When they do stupid stuff like that, they're just running us off, is all they're doing.

---------- Post added 08-08-18 at 11:14 PM ----------



My second OHC engine was my 1981 Yamaha XS650. My first was a Volvo 745Turbo-Intercooled.



I agree about the unfortunate demise of the 2-stroke, although it is still very much alive and well in other parts of the world (read China and India) that aren't so concerned about pollution as the rest of us.

In the 60s, I was mostly into bumming friends' Hondas for rides, which I did often. Knew how to ride at 14, didn't learn how to drive until 16. Never had much experience with 2-strokes, though. About their possibly premature demise, though -- it's just gas engine two-strokes that are faced with the ban. There's still two-stroke diesels everywhere. And they don't smoke anymore than other types of diesels. No, the way I see it is the basic design of the gasoline powered two stroke needs to be rethought. All gasoline engine two strokes that I know of draw their gas-air intake mixture in through the crankcase, which is why oil must be mixed with the gasoline, cuz if it weren't, it would carry the oil in the crankcase away with the intake gasses, drying out the engine's internals, and eventually causing it to seize. But I've always asked, why does the intake air have to pass through the crankcase? Is this the only way a 2-stroke can function? Seems to me it isn't, but I'm no engineer, so . . .
I'm no engineer either, but Kevin Cameron who wrote this Cycle World article on 2 stroke engines, is one, I believe. Great writer who has the ability to take complex, technical stuff and explain it well for mechanical enthusiasts like myself. I have one of his books...'Classic Motorcycle Race Engines, Expert Technical Analysis of the Wrld's Greatest Power Units." The title is a mouthful, but it's a wonderful book that analyses in informative and entertaining detail, pretty well every type of motorcycle racing engine you can imagine.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact...1qlSM3TH-2T0PN
08-09-2018, 02:31 AM   #1330
Moderator
Man With A Camera
Loyal Site Supporter
Racer X 69's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Great Pacific Northwet, in the Land Between Canada and Mexico
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,027
QuoteOriginally posted by cooltouch Quote
There's still two-stroke diesels everywhere.
What manufacturer is offering a two stroke diesel today?

The last two stroke diesels produced were the Detroit 6-71, and Detroit 8V-92.
08-09-2018, 06:09 AM   #1331
Veteran Member
cooltouch's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 982
Well, I haven't kept current. I was aware of the Detroit diesels -- in fact, in a previous lifetime, I drove a 10-wheel International crane truck with a supercharged Detroit diesel. That was a very fun truck to drive. But I haven't kept up with it. Still, as the above link lesmore provided seems to suggest, there are still two-strokes alive and well in heavy industry. Not to mention scooters and mopeds in India, China, Vietnam, and elsewhere in Asia.
08-09-2018, 10:16 AM   #1332
Moderator
Man With A Camera
Loyal Site Supporter
Racer X 69's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Great Pacific Northwet, in the Land Between Canada and Mexico
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,027
QuoteOriginally posted by cooltouch Quote
Well, I haven't kept current. I was aware of the Detroit diesels -- in fact, in a previous lifetime, I drove a 10-wheel International crane truck with a supercharged Detroit diesel. That was a very fun truck to drive. But I haven't kept up with it. Still, as the above link lesmore provided seems to suggest, there are still two-strokes alive and well in heavy industry. Not to mention scooters and mopeds in India, China, Vietnam, and elsewhere in Asia.
Ocean going ships have two stroke diesel engines.

That is of course, if one considers bunker oil (the fuel they use) diesel fuel.
08-09-2018, 12:38 PM - 1 Like   #1333
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 12,273
QuoteOriginally posted by Racer X 69 Quote
What manufacturer is offering a two stroke diesel today?

The last two stroke diesels produced were the Detroit 6-71, and Detroit 8V-92.
I think you're right about modern day, heavy duty truck engines using 2 stroke engines. Don't exist anymore, I'm assuming due to emission issues. Unfortunately that closed the door on something like the Detroit Diesel V 12 2 stroker...the famous 'Buzzin' Dozen'. I remember hearing one many years ago...the driver was running his truck through the gears and it was a main downtown street...kind of a canyon of high buildings on either side..boy was that an aural treat...to hear that revvin' buzzin' dozen exhaust note ricochet off the buildings.

Modern 2 strokes seem to be resurfacing at least in the outboard engine industry. Evinrude has a line of powerful 2 stroker outboard engines.

Self Disclosure as the journalists say. I admit to having a 1993 Evinrude 4 hp Deluxe ( twin cylinder 2 stroke) for my 17.5 foot Old Town Freighter canoe and a 1988 Lawnboy (made by OMC) 4.5 hp 2 stroke powered lawnboy...and a Stihl 170 chainsaw. I like 2 strokers. I've always got 2 stroke oil...Evinrude and Stihl...on hand for my variety of 2 stroke engines.

Here's a link to the latest Evinrude 2 strokers...globally designed by Americans, Canadians and Austrians.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=24&cad=rja&uac...svxH12AO_0Km1Z

Interesting to note that the Austrian motorcycle manufacturer, KTM has some new 2 stroke racing bikes.
08-15-2018, 12:51 PM - 1 Like   #1334
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jhaji's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,141
SUrprised that nobody has mentioned the Fiero.
08-15-2018, 08:51 PM   #1335
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
bhbrake's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Colorado
Photos: Albums
Posts: 331
QuoteOriginally posted by jhaji Quote
SUrprised that nobody has mentioned the Fiero.
Those are getting rarer due to all the "Ferraro" type kit conversions they were used for over the years. My brother in law has slightly dysfunctional fiero rotting under a pile of junk in his garage.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
acceleration, auto, automobiles, boston, cabriolet, car, cars, celica, clutch, driver, ford, front, fun, information, light, mazda, mix, passenger, ride, roads, seats, sedan, space, suv, tires, tons, truck, trucks, ute, vans, vehicle
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What are your most used lens and what do you use them for? What lens do you have that pearsaab Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 55 01-26-2021 03:13 PM
You have 1100 to spend...what do you do? rzarector Pentax DSLR Discussion 51 03-16-2018 10:55 AM
How do you store your photos and what do you store? Conqueror General Photography 22 05-05-2015 09:55 PM
What do you like to do with all those pictures? daacon Photographic Technique 26 03-30-2010 09:55 PM
Camera collection-what do you have + how do you show it? lesmore49 Photographic Technique 23 05-26-2009 10:43 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:26 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top