Nissan 3.0 TD auto.

Submitted: Sunday, Sep 14, 2003 at 22:24
ThreadID: 7228 Views:2221 Replies:16 FollowUps:22
This Thread has been Archived
I have been tossing up about upgrading to my final 4WD and am looking more and more towards the Nissan 3.0 litre turbo diesel automatic (auto as 'She Who Must Be Obeyed') won't (not can't) drive the Mexican version 'manual'. She wants the Subaru Outback because it 'looks good' and reckons we don't need such a large vehicle. (Forgets we have 2 boys almost 2 metres tall).
.
I have heard differing things from different diesel mechanics about having a 4 cylinder diesel in a large 4WD. I can't see the point in paying Toyota over $20,000 extra for the privilege of 2 more cylinders.
.
Please give me honest appraisals of this type of vehicle. It will be the commuter car for Mother during the week and maybe I might get my tail into it once in a while to head away from it all. Maybe once in a while towing a caravan or camper trailer.
.
I've read the Archived Forum details about this sort of vehicle but I'm after current feedback. Any experiences in country trips towing camper trailers and the like. Fuel economy? Any problems?

Thanks folks,

Pete Halden
Casula
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: David N. - Sunday, Sep 14, 2003 at 22:44

Sunday, Sep 14, 2003 at 22:44
The Subaru Outback will get similar fuel economy to the Patrol according to a friend who has the Subaru... and a Patrol!
If your talking new, IMHO I'd go the Patrol every time- buts that's still only my opinion.
If you're talking second-hand, rather than an early 3.0 TD Patrol I'd go the 4.2 as it's probably more reliable- but again that's only my opinion. (I have an elderly 4.2 GQ and it's bullit-proof)
I have two friends (including the one above) with early 3.0TD Patrols who have had no problem and love their Patrols....
AnswerID: 31042

Follow Up By: joshinthecity - Sunday, Sep 14, 2003 at 23:46

Sunday, Sep 14, 2003 at 23:46
For what it's worth to the discussion.
I have a 3.0 GU 5-speed and couldn't possibly be happier with it.
Great truck for a very reasonable price.

Josh.

0
FollowupID: 22021

Follow Up By: Member - Rick - Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 18:48

Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 18:48
peter and otheres.
i have read this post and had quite a chuckle.
what a widely ranging base of opinion you seem to have generated.
ok...personal experience with a feb 02 build 3.otdi manual patrol is as follows. purchased late april 02, by the end of may we were on our way to denham(approx 800k north of perth).spent two weeks up around the cape peron national park doin lots of off-road stuff.(towed a jayco swan up there with -two adults , two teenagers and a baby)
spent most of the next year running around perth every day, with nearly every weekend "playing" off-road.
last school holidays, towed a 22ft full size van up there again with the missus and kids, lots of time spent on the beaches and in the sandy tracks.
the only problems i have had are the rear door seals which nissan replaced and a plug at the front of the motor that started to weep, again fixed by nissan.
for us as a family of five that gets out and about alot, the patrol has more than exceeded our expectations.
right now it has done somewhere around 53,000k, and done what we want,when we want and how we want.
in closing, if you want a vehicle that can do all this and more, without a huge price tag,,,,get the patrol.
p.s. the jayco tipped the scales at 1.5 ton and the 22 footer came in at 2.76 ton, both towed without a problem.

rick.
0
FollowupID: 22082

Reply By: Bob - Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 00:15

Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 00:15
Peter Just a few thoughts. The two vehicles seem to me to be chalk and cheese. The Patrol will be much more capable off road and the Subaru is definitely a road vehicle that is a bit better than a 2wd in snow, sand etc but not an off roader. They are also very different in performance - the Patrol in 3.0TD is slow as a wet week and has a history of problems and unreliability. The Subaru is a nippy highway performer with a long history of reliability. The Subaru is a leader in its class. The Patrol is well down the list in its class - usually bought because of its lower price ... but you know the saying - you get what you pay for!
AnswerID: 31046

Follow Up By: David N. - Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 09:14

Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 09:14
You don't necessarily get what you pay for...
My neighbour has a nearly new top of the line Mercedes and it's been nothing but trouble! He said to me the other day that if it ever catches fire, please please don't put it out.
Do you, Bob, by any chance own a Patrol- or have you ever? I think not, by the sound of your post.
I think Peter is looking for genuine reports and not third hand opinions.
And Peter, towing my van up the Newell from Melbourne a few weeks ago my wife and I passed a constant procession of "grey nomads" heading back to Melbourne. 3.0litre Patrols towing outnumbered ANYTHING else about 2 to 1. They outnumbered Landcruisers about 10 to 1. (We counted them!)
I spoke to many of these people in caravan parks and gas stations....
ALL were delighted with their vehicle- bar none.
As luck would have it, the last night we had in Goondiwindi, parked next to a nearly new Landcruiser, and opposite was an Outback.
The guy in the Landcruiser was bitching about shocking fuel economy and niggling warranty problems, whilst the guy in the Subaru was bitching about fuel economy. (Worse than mine in my Patrol 4.2 which was towing a bigger van!) He was happy with the car's reliability.

ME - I was very happy. Fantastically reliable vehicle with good fuel economy. And if you are EVER going to tow there are few better tow vehicles than the Patrol- none in their price range!
0
FollowupID: 22028

Follow Up By: Member -BJ (Sydney) - Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 16:44

Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 16:44
Bob i gather you don't have a 3.0ltd patrol i do & it's anything but slow.Regards Bob
Where to next
0
FollowupID: 22068

Follow Up By: Bob - Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 17:32

Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 17:32
I was giving Peter an unbiased view. People rarely admit to their vehicle's shortcomings as it reflects poorly on their ability to make a wise choice. Grey nomads I think says it all. They are on limited income and don't put many demands on their vehicle. Try checking out the 4wd destinations like the CSR or the Simpson or the high country and you'll find a different ratio! And as for a Subaru using more fuel than a 4.2 Patrol ... give me a break!!!!!
0
FollowupID: 22077

Follow Up By: Bob - Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003 at 00:17

Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003 at 00:17
BJ you say it's anything but slow. Do you think that it's fast? Or just not really slow perhaps? Try telling me what you think it is and not what it's not!! I guess it depends on what it's compared to ... and for my money it's slow! That's not a fault, just a fact.
0
FollowupID: 22138

Follow Up By: David N. - Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003 at 09:43

Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003 at 09:43
Sorry, Bob,
but those were the facts. The guy in the Subaru TOWING A VAN was getting worse fuel economy than my Patrol 4.2, he had the log book to prove it, as do I.
The Subaru is petrol, the Patrol is diesel- have you never noticed that a Petrol donk , of any ilk, starts way behind diesels in the fuel economy stakes.
Bit like your comment on the Patrol 3.oTD being slow. It has tons of performance for the average driver.
My friend who has both a Subaru and a Patrol, says he prefers the Subaru around town- obvious reasons like turning circle etc. On the open road, the Patrol wins hands down. They take it from Melbourne up to the snow most winter weekends and have taken the Sub once! The family (3 kids) hated the subaru for the same reason it's popular around the city (small). The Patrol, in my mates words, has room to move, performance and fuel economy to boot, and yes a large turning circle! bugger! And they're facts!
Don't worry, be happy- we know from your posts that you're not about to go out and buy a Patrol- it's a free world.
Cheers
0
FollowupID: 22159

Follow Up By: Member -BJ (Sydney) - Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003 at 17:41

Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003 at 17:41
Bob what are you comparing it to? For a 4wd diesel it's real quick.Regards Bob
Where to next
0
FollowupID: 22189

Reply By: bob - Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 00:22

Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 00:22
peter

I know there has been a lot on this forum in regards to reliability and the 3.0L patrol but have had our Jan 2000 model since new and the only problem has been a failed cd player. ( When remove found 40 cents stuffed in it. Asked 3 yo but she claims not guilty). All up I've found it fills all our needs, is good on fuel and at the time saved about $18000 on equivalent spec toyota.

Regards
bob
AnswerID: 31048

Follow Up By: Fred - Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 00:43

Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 00:43
But remember bob, you have the 4wd system which I had on a 1979 Landcruiser many long years ago and you also have an equivalent resale value as the old cruiser. I agree with the "get what you pay for" comment.
0
FollowupID: 22022

Follow Up By: David N. - Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 09:20

Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 09:20
Fred
Give me part time 4WD anyday. Have you ever priced a new CV joint for a Landcruiser.
And probably a reason for the better fuel economy in the Patrol is part time 4wd.
0
FollowupID: 22030

Follow Up By: Fred - Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003 at 00:02

Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003 at 00:02
David I understand where you're coming from. You're like a mate of mine who reckons his 1972 HQ Kingswood is the best car ever. I don't agree with him but I respect his opinion. I like the versality, convenience and handling of constant 4wd. No I haven't priced a CV joint. I'm not sure why you asked me that. Did you in fact want to tell me that they're expensive but couldn't find the right words so decided to beat around the bush? Anyhow I haven't priced one simply because I've never needed to buy one. Neither has anyone else that I know. Have you had to buy one? Have you ever priced an engine or gearbox rebuild on a Patrol or a taillight on a Range Rover?
0
FollowupID: 22133

Follow Up By: Jim bob - Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003 at 21:52

Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003 at 21:52
Fred, have you ever priced a taillight or engine or gearbox rebuild for a cruiser? and dont bother saying havent needed one, cause most rangie and patrol owners havent had to do it either.

Oh and on the CV issue, you dont know people who 4wd hard enough if you think they dont blow.

Finally why do you think theres a part time 4wd conversion for the cruiser? its not cause its "the stuff"...
0
FollowupID: 22309

Reply By: Member - Bill- Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 08:40

Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 08:40
Peter,

I own one of these Patrols, use it pretty much for what you look like doing. It's large, economical, reliable, tough, easy to get add on's for and great value for money. If you go back through the archives you can see the same names bagging this vehicle (you know who you are), none of whom own one. Some have already appeared in this thread.

Early teething problems were well documented so if you get an early one, make sure these things are covered off by repairs or warranty.

As for your diesel mechanics, obviously they don'e service any of the popular medium duty trucks in Australia up to 8500Kg GVM, most of which run 4Cyl Turbo Diesels.

If you want something between the Patrol and Subie, you should look at the Pathfinder.

AnswerID: 31060

Reply By: Dazmit - Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 10:33

Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 10:33
Have you thought about a Prado or Pajero turbo diesel. A bit smaller for the wife but still a real 4WD for you.

Darryl
AnswerID: 31068

Reply By: mick - Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 12:54

Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 12:54
Peter,

We purchased one in June 03, Auto and spent the extra for the safety pack.

Could not be happier, like you I did my research, and got opinions from different sources, and yes some where absolutely bagging the vehicle and some love it. I love it. We tow with it no probs, tows like a champion, around town great, fuel ecomony very good. All in all great vehicle for a great price, had their problems early but all sorted in the new models.

Go for it, you wont look back.

AnswerID: 31078

Reply By: Floyd - Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 13:06

Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 13:06
If you get a patrol get the 4.2 for towing. The 3 litre is an underpowered 4 cylinder enjine in a tank. Do some research on power/weight ratios. It is scientific fact that this is the determining thing when it comes to towing vans and fuel economy.

If you get the 3 litre it is basically going to be like getting a dual cab hilux turbo 3 litre (which I feel is underpowered and I own one), loading it up with a ton of fire wood, 5 adults, adding a van full of stoves, chairs, beds, water tanks, (and all of the other crap that vans have in them), and expecting to be able to hold 100 kms per hour while getting good fuel economy. It just aint gonna happen with the 3 litre in the Patrol.

Get a Turbo 6 cylinder it will be the bees knees. My old Landcruiser Turbo 4.2 would tow a big van, fibreglass ski boat or trailer loaded up to the max, have enough power spare to overtake to 130 and still get 800 kms to a 90 litre tank every time. Every time without fail. It may cost a couple of grand more up front but you will be more than happy with the result (still be a big saving on the cruiser). The 3 litre patrols have had a lot of problems (as viewed in this forum) and many owners have asked for help for a wide variety of things (just do a search of the forum and see).

If all else fails and you get a 3.litre you have been warned. A solution may be to add a few Hiclones to the induction system, put a few in the exaust, and one in the heating system too. They are good for making swirly ice creams for the kids at birthday parties. I hear they work a treat.
AnswerID: 31080

Follow Up By: Member - Lex - Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 15:42

Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 15:42
Floyd The indisputable scientific fact that it is the power weight ratio that indicates towing performance may need to be reconsidered in light of the fact that the 3.0 litre has a slightly better ratio than the 4.2. Also in automatic form the 3.0 is a great performer as you are always in the optimum torque region. I can't fault mine for towing or anything else for that matter but I must admit that I havn"t towed anything over two tonnes with it.
0
FollowupID: 22063

Reply By: floyd - Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 16:34

Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 16:34
You are saying that the 3 litre has better power than the 4.2 are you not. Or is the 3 litre vehicle a lot lighter than the 4.2 vehicle? From all appearances the vehicles are the same dimensions and carry the same ancilliaries. Granted the engine block in the 4.2 would be hevier than the 3 litre (naturally) but where is the other weight savings. Shurely the 4.2 would create a lot more power and counter the extra 2 cylinders. Where are these facts I would like to see them. Floyd..
AnswerID: 31098

Follow Up By: Spanky - Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 16:36

Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 16:36
You are saying that the 3 litre has better power than the 4.2 are you not. Or is the 3 litre vehicle a lot lighter than the 4.2 vehicle? From all appearances the vehicles are the same dimensions and carry the same ancilliaries. Granted the engine block in the 4.2 would be hevier than the 3 litre (naturally) but where is the other weight savings. Shurely the 4.2 would create a lot more power and counter the extra 2 cylinders. Where are these facts I would like to see them.

Sounds like another unhappy Nissan owner trying to justify his sub standard purchase.

Oh What A Feeeling !!!!!!!!
0
FollowupID: 22067

Follow Up By: joshinthecity - Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 23:41

Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 23:41
Been quiet since the specs went up online Floyd.....

Nothing like someone totally uneducated in the topic giving their opinions on something they are clueless about to help the forum along, and help a prospective buyer with a purchase.
Nice work.

Josh.

0
FollowupID: 22132

Reply By: wizzer - Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 16:48

Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 16:48
This is out of new car price list in 4wd monthly

patrol dx 3.0 td 116kw 354 nm
patrol dx 4.2 td 114kw 330nm
subaru outback 2.5 115kw 223nm
subaru outback 3.0 154 kw 282 nm

wizzer
AnswerID: 31102

Follow Up By: Mick - Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003 at 00:09

Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003 at 00:09
Obviously the outback isn't suitable for off road on those specs is it Wizzer? Fine for the highway though.
0
FollowupID: 22137

Follow Up By: floyd - Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003 at 14:09

Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003 at 14:09
If these figures are correct (and I have no interest in disputing them by the way) then why does Nissan make the 4.2 and persevere with it? I have heard that the 4.2 is more expensive. What are the benifits of owning it if it has less power, less torque and heavier weight? It does not make sense.
0
FollowupID: 22177

Follow Up By: Luke - Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003 at 22:48

Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003 at 22:48
Yes floyd, it's well documented that the 3.0TD GU has both more power and torque than the 4.2. So there goes your assumption :-)

As to why they still make the 4.2?

My theory is that they cater for a market segment that likes the technologically advanced 3.0 with more power and torque, and also cater for a market segment that likes the older, proven reliable old workhorse in the 4.2.

After that it's all personal preference, and the only real winner is the guy driving down the track with the big grin on his face (regardless of which one is under the hood :-) )!
0
FollowupID: 22235

Reply By: Member -BJ (Sydney) - Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 16:54

Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 16:54
We have a 2000 3.0 gu auto , 70000k's only probs sub tank fuel pump karked it, dust in rear doors. Nissan fixed pump, 3 series seals fixed doors . I tow a 1.5 tonne camper trailer & except for strong head winds would'nt know it was there so ssave your money & buy it. When warrenty is nilly up pay $750 for further 3 yr Nissan warrenty & if anything hapens they can fix itRegards Bob
Where to next
AnswerID: 31104

Reply By: Member - Peter - Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 19:49

Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 19:49
A fantastic response from everyone.

THANKYOU so very much.

I am not yet into the 'Grey' period of my life and I have been firmly told that 'WE' will not be towing a caravan in our twilight years. Silly girl. Does not know what she will be missing. Mother can stay home reading her books and I'll be out enjoying sunrises and sunsets and all the time in between (probably taking a camper trailer with the 3 of us [I, myself and me]).
I appreciate the responses (from both sides) and will take it on board.
If my other half would drive a manual I would go for the 4.2 but as she won't. I am stuck with the auto idea. A shame Nissan has not followed Toyota by putting an auto behind their 6 cylinder turbo diesel, a shame.

Any rumours in the wind about the auto/6-cylinder combo from Nissan?

Best regards all,

Pete Halden
Casula

AnswerID: 31147

Reply By: Luke - Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 21:12

Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 21:12
I have not/do not owned/own a 3.0lt Patrol, so I won't comment about it as a vehicle.

I will however make an observation......

Seems to me that the vast majority of 3.0lt Patrol owners love their cars and are very happy with them.......

Also seems to me that the people bagging them don't own them/have never driven one......

........just my observation :-)
AnswerID: 31168

Follow Up By: Member - Bill- Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 22:13

Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 22:13
Luke,

Well spotted old son, good to see someone is on the ball. Bob, and Spanky=andy will pop up every time a Patrol is mentioned, for sport maybe?

Most spectacular Tojo own goal this time around must go to Floyd with this gem:

"If you get a patrol get the 4.2 for towing. The 3 litre is an underpowered 4 cylinder enjine in a tank. Do some research on power/weight ratios. It is scientific fact that this is the determining thing when it comes to towing vans and fuel economy. "

At least a later poster educating him of the slightly superior figures of the 3.0Di

But it got better:

"If you get the 3 litre it is basically going to be like getting a dual cab hilux turbo 3 litre (which I feel is underpowered and I own one), loading it up with a ton of fire wood, 5 adults, adding a van full of stoves, chairs, beds, water tanks, (and all of the other crap that vans have in them), and expecting to be able to hold 100 kms per hour while getting good fuel economy. It just aint gonna happen with the 3 litre in the Patrol. "

Roughly translated = "I've got an old tech indirect injected 3.0 Tojo, thereore I assume your inferior Nissan will be worse". Ooops.

Next we hear "you get what you pay for". Clearly these people don't understand vehicle pricing which is basically you pay what the market will bear. What the market will bear is influenced by many factors, only one of which is the quality of the product.

Regds

Bill

Regds

Bill
0
FollowupID: 22125

Follow Up By: Spanky - Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003 at 15:32

Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003 at 15:32
Have not owned a current model. Owned a 89 model and it was great. Just commenting on the problems as observed in this forum. Seems there are a few recurring ones. Don't really give a toss about member Bill as he pulls his nob every time he logs on to this forum. Why does Nissan persist with the old clunker 4.2 if it has worse performance in torque and power than the 3.0 litre. It is probably heavier and more expensive too. If the 3 litre is so good why does Nissan bother with the 4.2? You would think that they would drop it if it was a worse performer as the stats above say.

0
FollowupID: 22180

Reply By: Member - Andrew (Bris) - Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 22:08

Monday, Sep 15, 2003 at 22:08
Bought 3.0TD Auto November 2002. Had 40000km service last Friday. Travelled on all sorts of country. Fuel economy great. 11-12l/100km. Never been used for towing. Carries a big load of tools for work throughout the week, and gets to play in the sand, mud or dirt nearly every weekend. Had a fluid leak from transfer case at 33000km. Fixed by Nissan under warranty - no questions asked. Currently waiting for new CD player - it just stopped working on the weekend - Nissan said 5-7 days to get replacement unit. Comfortable, very capable in any terrain, and every conceivable accessory is available for the Patrol.

My two cents worth.
AnswerID: 31174

Follow Up By: Bob - Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003 at 00:05

Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003 at 00:05
Transfer case leaking and failed CD player at 33000km. hmmmm..... just another of the many reports of failures ...
0
FollowupID: 22135

Reply By: Member - Russell - Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003 at 09:25

Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003 at 09:25
Good to see the jousting continuing..... I don't drive a GU 3.0, but it is on my list for my next truck. My two major concerns are still the size of the engine and its longevity. The 3.0 is a cross-platform unit that was put in the Patrol (at least in part) for economic reasons (direct from Nissan tech department). It is a nice motor, and people all seem to love their vehicles, but I want more from a truck - 150 kw and 500 Nm. Call me greedy if you want, but I don't care.... If I tweak an already optimised 3.0 with a Dtronic etc, I'll get more power/torque, but risk the longevity of the motor - as Roly discovered. As it is, the number of engine failures at the 85-100,000 km is a bit of a worry. We all know the 4.2 goes forever - it's proven it, but the 3.0 is yet to gain the same track record. I would very much like to see the usage/life profile of the 3.0 Patrol fleet i.e. a graph showing where they all are on the odometer. Wouldn't mind betting that a few are over 100,000, but most are between 0 and 65-75,000. Anyone got any details? Given that the engine failures seem to be happening up around 100,000 km, I wonder what we'll see, if anything, as the fleet gets up there. If engines are failing (apart from random failures), that makes me wonder if it's a bit light for the long haul in that platform. Nissan have been good with warranty, but if it's a fundamental flaw, it'll simply happen again with your replacement warranty.
The other point is regarding the price of the Patrol and its competitors (eg cruiser). Eric might be able to assist, but I would have thought that if you paid an extra $20k for a cruiser TD4.2, you would probably get an extra $20 k or so back after the same life - ?? Also, I reckon it's a bit like my shotguns - the purchase price is sometimes outweighed by the cost of additions, consumables, etc. In 100,000 km at 15 l/100 km, you'll burn $15 k in fuel, $5k in servicing, $7-10 k in rego and insurance(5yr guess), maybe $10-20 k in modifications/enhancements, coupla grand in tyres etc etc. So, besides the fact that the extra $20 k for the cruiser has to be found from somewhere, I think its relevance to the argument is often overstated. Price and IFS front aside, I sure as heck know which one I'd pick.....
AnswerID: 31207

Reply By: David N. - Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003 at 09:58

Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003 at 09:58
AND if price were irrelevant, we'd all be driving around in BMWs or Mercs or Range Rovers- does't mean we'd be driving reliable and economical vehicles though!
AnswerID: 31211

Reply By: floyd - Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003 at 17:16

Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003 at 17:16
Member Bill you must be psycic as you have interperated everything I have said perfectly. You should get a job with the CIA or FBI. I hear that people like you do really well in institutionalised government departments you absolute CRETIN.
AnswerID: 31239

Follow Up By: Flash - Friday, Sep 19, 2003 at 16:43

Friday, Sep 19, 2003 at 16:43
Floyd
Sorry to spoil your day mate,
But the "cretin" is you!
Uninformed, ignorant and rude as well. I could say more but it aint worth wasting any more time.
0
FollowupID: 22458

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (13)