Who's 3.0l omni?

[bakes]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlIgUbXH7ak&feature=player_popout


Any more info on this?

[Vigo]

I always laugh when i see an engine painted like that. Half of that would fall off after a few heat cycles.

I dont know who it is, though.

[bakes]

Vht caliper paint sticks very good , Boostgeek did his whole exhaust and it sticks and is unburned right to the turbo. on it's second year now

[Vigo]

Oh cool, ive been looking for black paint that would stick to exhaust parts! Thanks!

[ATaylorRacing]

Why put in a 146 hp motor that weighs more than a turbo 4 with 142 hp stock and a lot more mods are available?

[RoadWarrior222]

'coz low end torque beats four aces.

[Kreel]

No replacement for displacement :P

[Vigo]

3.0 makes a lot of low-rpm power and is super reliable.Plus a 3.0 omni is more unique. If you want to be special with a 2.2 omni you've pretty much got to run 9s.

[Ondonti]

Why put in a 146 hp motor that weighs more than a turbo 4 with 142 hp stock and a lot more mods are available?

Because you don't actually know how much either motor weighs or what mods are available :nod: This ain't no bolt on world anymore.

For braggers, Kreel has the Big bad daddy of them all for T-M motorswaps in his possession and it ain't no 4. I heard one today in the parking lot and turned green with envy.

I don't think we will ever get more info about that omni. When someone says their carbed 2.2 beat a bunch of v8's at the drag strip heads up.....

[turbovanman²]

25-30 mpg, seems alot of work to get less MPG, :p

Either way, pretty cool, :nod:

[RoadWarrior222]

I don't think we will ever get more info about that omni. When someone says their carbed 2.2 beat a bunch of v8's at the drag strip heads up.....

I dunno, if it was back in the day and it was a bunch of Camaros with the mis-fire... maybe a smog choked dippy and a ford LTD thrown in...

[zin]

This thread makes me think maybe I should just shoe-horn in the whole 3.3/3.8 AWD set-up into the Omni instead of engineering it to work with the 2.2... Might be easier!

Mike

PS I guess I could still turbo it, or just slap some nitrous on it to get the HP up to snuff...

[RoadWarrior222]

Go bigger, 4.0 with the 6 speed + AWD :D ... actually the 3.5 might suit it better.

[zin]

Go bigger, 4.0 with the 6 speed + AWD :D ... actually the 3.5 might suit it better.

I always figured it just wouldn't fit without alot of mods... maybe not though...

Mike

[RoadWarrior222]

Chop off the Omni in front of the firewall, the Pacifica behind the firewall, drill and bolt, bondo the join, go from there... :D

[87turbodance]

I'd personally stay away from the ChryCo v6's. Matter of personal preference though. I'd rather bolt in a 3.0 with extensive head work, turbo exhaust manifolds and Megasquirt or similar - at least you can find a 5 speed that bolts up and you can easily adapt the AWD transfer case to.

[bakes]

I'd personally stay away from the ChryCo v6's. Matter of personal preference though. I'd rather bolt in a 3.0 with extensive head work, turbo exhaust manifolds and Megasquirt or similar - at least you can find a 5 speed that bolts up and you can easily adapt the AWD transfer case to.

A 88-94mini V6 SMEC harness will transplant in with minimal mods into a omni (same bulkhead connector swap 2 wires) Throw a turbo on it like Brent did on his V6's a liquid to air IC and hold ON!!

[Kreel]

A 88-94mini V6 SMEC harness will transplant in with minimal mods into a omni (same bulkhead connector swap 2 wires) Throw a turbo on it like Brent did on his V6's a liquid to air IC and hold ON!!

If it was that simple I think we'd see a lot more 3.3/3.8 swaps with turbos. The problem is nobody goes through with it and there is very little documentation for what has been done. Sure, there's bolt-ons by going to different era 3.3/3.8's...but that doesn't take you far. I'm sure power could be made...but at what cost? And what are the limits of the stock block? When does it become a necessity to build up the A-604 or start the grand venture to find the elusive stratus r/t 5-speed? There's a lot of unanswered questions out there still :confused2:

Don't get me wrong; I have owned many 3.3/3.8's and they are a decent engine that are quite reliable that have some good low-end torque. But when it comes to performance IMO the 3.0L leaves it in the dust.

[bakes]

If it was that simple I think we'd see a lot more 3.3/3.8 swaps with turbos. The problem is nobody goes through with it and there is very little documentation for what has been done. Sure, there's bolt-ons by going to different era 3.3/3.8's...but that doesn't take you far. I'm sure power could be made...but at what cost? And what are the limits of the stock block? When does it become a necessity to build up the A-604 or start the grand venture to find the elusive stratus r/t 5-speed? There's a lot of unanswered questions out there still :confused2:

Don't get me wrong; I have owned many 3.3/3.8's and they are a decent engine that are quite reliable that have some good low-end torque. But when it comes to performance IMO the 3.0L leaves it in the dust.

I never said 3.3/3.8 !!!! im still talking 3.0l !!!! they had 3.0l SMEC since 1988 and they did come 3sp autos .

[Vigo]

I am too lazy to type it all out right now but i dont agree about that last sentence. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

The reason more people havent swapped 3.3/3.8s into other bodies is that there was NO support in the community for it, and i dont just mean documentation or information support, i mean people were attacked for suggesting it. The 3.3/3.8 suffer from the same attitude problem the 3.0 has suffered from on the internet, except at a higher level because it never came with a 5spd in a light car.

Considered on it's own merits it's a wonderful motor, easier to work on than the 3.0, more reliable, making more power (by 60+ hp and lbft on the high end), being physically the same size or smaller while packing more displacement, getting the same gas mileage, etc.

I figured out the 2.7 t850 thing back in like 04. I was trying to buy a swap setup from someone who did the swap into a 2g caravan before most people knew it was even possible. All of this means nothing to most people if there is no documentation on the internet and noone to encourage anyone when im not around. Now we have a guy swapping a 3.3 into a daytona on this forum and another guy on TD who went from 2.5 to running 3.3 in a matter of like 2 weeks from idea to running car. It IS easy. The odler 3.8 can easily be bolt-on'd up to 200hp/250tq power levels, the newer 3.8s START there, and its literally the same price and difficulty of swap as a 3.3. The power limits of the stock 604s have been explored by neon and pt cruiser people and if you dont like the stock controller we have i think 3 different known options to control it, and Shelgame has offered to take a crack at the factory controller. Ive swapped autostick onto one of mine and really enjoyed that too. You can get factory diff ratios from 3.4 to 4.3:1 out of mixing stock parts in it, 2 converter diameters in a range of stalls from the factory, peloguin or obx can be modified into it, or you can swap to t850.

Theres even one member floating around TD who had a turbo'd 3.3 for years, and im betting the reason he never posted up explicit info is because he didnt want to listen to the childish crap people dish out about the 140cfm:yuck: 8v being CLEARLY the best motor for performance.:lol:

Really the only thing standing in anyone's way is a lack of faith engendered by the sour attitude towards the 3.3/3.8 thats presented on the forums.

[Ondonti]

I think when you start saying how something is more reliable blah blah based on your opinion then you start molding the attitude in a way that you end up not appreciating.

Is it really that interesting that a 3.0 that stayed the same for 14 years eventually made a lot less power then the motor that Dodge tried their best to improve? And when all the upgrades needed to go well beyond what dodge pulled off on their own v6 are readily available, its not a fair comparison to take the most modern of something against the most decrepit opponent.
Obviously there is no replacement for displacement, but a running 3.0 setup can always be upgraded to a 3.5 or 3.8 mitsu (which are direct replacements of the 3.0, just like the 3.8 replaces the 3.3), both of which outclass the 3.3/3.8 chryco by miles, even though mitsu never tried to make power out of them.
I find it silly for Adam to talk about how hard something is to work on when the actual level of difficulty he is talking about is very easy for him. People who can't change a timing belt really can't handle a 4 or 6 cylinder anything at high performance levels, and therefore the inability of those people to do something really has no value for an experienced person making a decision.

I still see no actual reason to upgrade the displacement for myself, all it means is less boost to make the same power, and neither way can I pass tech inspection.

I don't think an n/a 3.8L really stands a chance against a few of the n/a 3.0's being built right now though...or a few that have already been built.
What do these top model motors actually put down? We have seen over 220whp from Sunmind's mild cam 3.0, mild in that its similar to the really mild crower people are running.

Lets also note that the 3.0 was making 160hp in 1991 in the diamante platform with 2 valves heads. It took the 3.3L 10 years to jump ahead of that #, and 1998 for the 3.8L. Sad? Do I need to mention that the mitsu 3.5L was making 215hp in 1993 and the 3.8L waited until 2001. Then the 3.8L mitsu makes 265hp 260ft/lb and mitsubishi does NOT try to make power out of it because its in a FWD car, but with boltons can do over 300whp n/a and 4 figures turbo. You can get those heads to flow over 350 cfms. Megasquirt ain't that hard, that that automatically pumps up the power levels of any heavily hampered motor out there. I also like the idea of being able to run 2 intake cam profiles. :evil:
Or we could leave the topic alone and just congratulate the person on a fun project like I prefer to do until someone bashes.
If 16v people did this to 8 valve people every step of the way, it would get pretty annoying right? We know 16v's is superior but that doesn't mean its what the owner wants. Power would be easier to attain with the best motor ever, but we can't all have LS1's :yuck::yuck: wink. I would enjoy a 3.8L 12 valve motor, just to say I did it, but If I had a 3.8L motor, I would be a fool to not use it as is. I would consider doing it with a 3.5L because they are throwaways.

You step into the import world and you hear a little too much about 2jz this and RB26 that, when there are a lot of exciting platforms to play with out there. Same thing goes for domestics. SBC this, SBF that.

Any opinion I have about a what could happen is really just an opportunity for someone to prove the point one way or the other. I preferred to get it done rather then talk about it. Adam said over AIM that he needs motivation so I need to haze him a bit. Dude with the turbo 3.3 could have laid it on the line but I figure his 3.3 is a chump.

I don't know if this omni ever ran so he could be a chump car too.

[daytonablue]

blah blah blah 3.0 vs 2.2 blah blah. To each his own. I think its funny though stock 2.2 tbi beating up on v8's at the track... Yeah just like that hood stays closed while driving with no latch or hood pins... I wonder if this project was ever even finished? YaY SILVER!

[RoadWarrior222]

Personally, I just find the chrysler V6 very unexciting in underhead cam form. Sure there was a shelby prepped racing 3.3 but details are scant enough and the motors rare enough that it doesn't really bring much excitement to the table. I might be wrong but I feel like that motor is all middle and bottom, and going over 5000 RPM is straining it.... wouldn't want to put a lot of time into one with worrying about bending a pushrod if I got rev happy. Plus from what I've seen of them "in service" they get more oil leaks than the 3.0 and have seemingly insoluble emissions problems when higher mileage. Perhaps they get retired for relatively minor stuff though because people don't trust the trannies... Well we've finally gotten to a stage where one can "deal with" a 604, but having a tranny so persnickety that it regularly fails still on stock output motors is no recommendation for trusting one with motor mods... but yep, I broke a 670 too, kinda seemed worn out at 200,000 miles though.

The 3.5 and 4.0 forms have grown on me though, and should they get more widely available in the yards for cheap, I might consider a project.

[Kreel]

I never said 3.3/3.8 !!!! im still talking 3.0l !!!! they had 3.0l SMEC since 1988 and they did come 3sp autos .

Lol, sorry, insert foot in mouth. I totally read that wrong...shouldn't post when it's late:o

Didn't mean to spark such a debate late last night :p I for one would like to see people try and push the 3.3/3.8. Despite how the 3.3/3.8 section came to be on TD I think it's good for people to post up what they've done. Less talking, more doing! The 3.3 swap into the daytona over on TD is a great example of how it can be done quickly and cleaning while integrating the electronics.

Now we need to see some turbo builds. Dyno charts, 1/4 mile times, modifications to make it work, what breaks and what holds up, etc. Although I'm in the 3.0L camp and as much crap as I might give to the 3.3/3.8's I still want to see that kind of stuff done and posted. Maybe the debate will be over if it's found out the block blows up into a million pieces at 300hp, lol :yuck:

[Vigo]

the motor that Dodge tried their best to improve?

Dodge didnt try their best to improve anything after 98 (mb takeover). Iirc 98 was the first big power jump in the 3.3 (i call the first uprating just being honest and the first rating a lie) and after that it was just incremental. It was ONLY used in minivans so they certainly didnt try that hard on the 3.3/3.8 vs the 3.5 which made 255hp in US 7yrs before mitsu sent a 263hp 3.8 here.


And when all the upgrades needed to go well beyond what dodge pulled off on their own v6 are readily available, its not a fair comparison to take the most modern of something against the most decrepit opponent.


3.0 was making 160hp in 1991 in the diamante platform with 2 valves heads. It took the 3.3L 10 years to jump ahead of that #
The 3.3 passed that at its first uprating in 1994, and then lost 4hp to 158 iirc because the newer intake plenum had much longer runners. Those factory 158hp rated 3.3s upshift at 4800 rpm from the factory, 700 rpm lower than the 162 rated, but they'll run 5500 on the k-body engine electronics. IMO the very first 3.3s made 160+ hp because my 93 always calculated out to be making ~165 with a cone filter as the only mod.

I also had the benefit of being able to race two 604 dynastys against each other, one a 3.0 with a 52mm tb and a filter, one a 3.3 with a cone filter (52mm tb stock). Otherwise they weigh the same and had the same gearing and aero. The 3.3 was 2 tenths quicker and 1mph faster. I dont think there's any doubt that the 3.3 makes more power than the 3.0 in stock form.

Comparing the most modern 12 valve 3.3 against the most modern 12v 3.0 makes sense to me. Its just that mitsu stopped developing the 12v 3.0 earlier.



3.0 setup can always be upgraded to a 3.5 or 3.8 mitsu (which are direct replacements of the 3.0, just like the 3.8 replaces the 3.3)The 3.5 and 3.8 versions arent really a comparable swap to the 3.3/3.8 imo because all you get to keep is your trans and maybe your front mount from a factory car. Theres no $30 junkyard computer to run it 100% factory.. or downpipe, or PS lines, AC lines, radiator hoses, passenger mount, TPS, etc. Thats a different level of swap. If it werent for the deck height differences maybe it would be easy to upgrade a 3.0 12v to a 3.5 or 3.8 12v, but it isnt.


We have seen over 220whp from Sunmind's mild cam 3.0, mild in that its similar to the really mild crower people are running.
The can-am motors got 250 on an engine dyno in like 1990. Sounds comparable.


Do I need to mention that the mitsu 3.5L was making 215hp in 1993

apples to apples, the chryco sohc 24v 3.5 was making 214 in 93, and it's about as easy of a swap as the sohc 24v 3.5 if both are 604.


Sure there was a shelby prepped racing 3.3 but details are scant enough and the motors rare enough that it doesn't really bring much excitement to the table.

There's a full parts break down and pictorial on dodgeintrepid.net. There's nothing in there that Brent (for example, i.e. high-level enthusiast) couldnt build or buy in the present day.



This is exactly what i have been saying, people's reasoning against 3.3/3.8 swaps is based on fighting straw men, throwing out red herrings, and just generally not having the information.

I have nothing against the 3.0, i still have that 3.0 dynasty and im swapping my van to 3.0 as well, but it does annoy me when 3.0 people wanna say how pointless the 3.3 is, its like brown people being racist against black people and re-creating the same conditions that hold them down for the next guy. It's pretty much the exact opposite of 'rising above'.

[moparman76_69]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DXnTSNfr7g&feature=related

[RoadWarrior222]

Heheh the IAC sounds terminally confused.

[moparman76_69]

Heheh the IAC sounds terminally confused.

Yeah but that exhaust + supercharger noises = win

[daytonablue]

that guy seems to be able to fit his 3.0 in there just fine while leaving the core support in tact.

[RoadWarrior222]

There's a full parts break down and pictorial on dodgeintrepid.net. There's nothing in there that Brent (for example, i.e. high-level enthusiast) couldnt build or buy in the present day.
Hmmmm I went looking, all I can find is a few pics, not so much hard data, seems we're waiting on a couple of guys to build and tune... as for "buy" it was mentioned a set of pistons is $1600, don't see Brent spending that.

[Vigo]

Anybody who's paying $1600 for a set of 6 pistons just plain wants to, considering we get forged pistons for ~$100 each? Up it by 50%/piston and add 2 pistons and you're still not close to $1600.

The pic breakdown is out there if you look for it. Ive got a lot of it saved to my computer. But, i dont have a link to it.

[ATaylorRacing]

He could have just stuck a V8 in it....the guy that bought my 1st drag car...a 81 Plymouth Euro-Sedan that ran 13s on a carb 2.2) stuck a stock block 440 in the back!!! Behind the car was a 9" Ford rear end with 31" tires while zoomie headers stuck out where the rear tires USED to be! It still kept the 2.2 carb motor with the 4 speed transmission....he'd drive it to the track on that, then hook up a short drive shaft, stick the 4 bsnger into neutral, then drag race it with the 440/727! He built it to run at the bottom of the 12.0 Pro Class. He gave it back to me after he cut out the rear section and funny car style roll cage and used that to build a rail dragster that ran only 11.0s when the Pro class changed to that as the quickest it could run. ORRRRRRRRRRR...how about a turbo Buick swap or V* Chevy swap into a........G E O !!!!!!!!!!!!
30334 30335 30336 30337

[ATaylorRacing]

........When someone says their carbed 2.2 beat a bunch of v8's at the drag strip heads up.....

Matchbox ran 15.8s bone stock when brand new in 84 when Corvettes and Mustangs stock were slower! Eventially I also got it into the 13s with still just a carb 2.2....but got tired of breaking stuff and so in went the 84 hp motor with a automatic transmission. In 93 and 95 I entered the Corvette Nationals (open to any make) and both years I used the 85 Omni GLH Turbo with 125 hp shot of nitrous to get runner-up, then brought out old Matchbox on both Sunday portions to WIN the Corvette Nationals. Only Ligenfelter had a quicker Vette than my NOS fed GLH, but he blew out a differential on the first round of eliminations, so my street legal, muffled 4 banger was giving head starts to all of the escapees from tuperware parties!
30338 30339

[87CSX603]

I would love to have a 5 speed 3.0 in an omni 3.0s get beat and just keep asking for more. im building a 3.0 in my duster and i love the low end torque, its always there. Im also building a hybrid for my 87 csx i like them both. But i will never let go of my liking of the 3.0 it was my first engine and favorite to work on, and Brent is always leading the way for support for the 3.0 so there realy shouldnt be any complaints that there isnt ways out there to get power out of them n/a or turbo.

[Aries_Turbo]

id love to push a 3.3 or 3.8 till it popped with good tuning and datalogging. ie no hackjob rrr's and stock ecm's. id want to see what it could really do with no knock and good afr's and timing values.

the 604 would need aftermarket control though to keep the shifts firm.

Brian

[Vigo]

well when i pulled a VNT shortblock at the local yard for $94 i realized... i have no excuse not to buy a $94 3.8 shortblock.. I should just do it FINALLY.

[RoadWarrior222]

the 604 would need aftermarket control though to keep the shifts firm.

I have an idea about that. It uses an optical fluid condition sensor. I am not sure which way round it works ATM but something along the lines of changing the fluid color, or giving it an inline or parallel resistor, or giving it "sunglasses" might firm the shifts.

edit: restricting area of sensor exposed with a washer or something (giving it a smaller aperture) might work also...

editII: DAMMIT, may have been misled/misinformed somewhere, can't turn up a single reference to it.

[Ondonti]

btw vigo if you have followed the camshaft LSA thread, you will know the hp numbers for the 3.0 are all bogus. The early 3.0 had almost no cam compared to the 92-95 (which has almost no cam, much weaker cam then a 3.3) yet the whole time we see the same exact numbers. 162 doesn't mean anything to me vs 160hp Different manufacturers. Its well proven that the DOHC 3.0 n/a was overrated at 220hp and the 12v version was underrated.
BTW I actually forgot that the 160hp rating was for a 3000gt n/a, but the 1992 Diamante 12 valve is rated at 175hp. The 1992 has the VICS intake (dual runner with butterfly), higher compression, knock sensor, supposedly more cam duration. Still weaker cam then the 3.3. This is 1992.
In 2001 the 3.3 finally caught up but....oops, I had to pull this one out.......later...

Direct swap for me = bellhousing. Trying to do a motor swap on bad engine management is quite backwards. 3.0 has worthless OEM cal support and you can throw the 3.3/3.8 chryco into that pile. I have show pretty well that if you want to make power, OEM ecu hurts you in many ways at this point in development.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
The muther fupping 188hp 1996 3.0 12 valve.
Just a newer upgrade of the Diamante 12 valve setup. America dropped the 12 valve but Austrailia kept it. I couldnt prove it was a 12 valve until i looked up use cars in Austrailia.

http://photos.carsguide.news.com.au/drive_images/dealer/rammot/2974/8_600.jpg

http://www.autoweb.com.au/cms/usedcars/make_MITSUBISHI/src_research/model_MAGNA/sortBy_Year/start_45/results_TRUE/ID_D_17378297/vehicle.html

Here is the hint that made me look.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Magna

Winner and still champion 14 years after Dodge finally gave up they gave up. :thumb:

I could also mention that the 188hp 3.0 12v is the same one I have researched (down under) gaining 38whp on the dyno (putting down 192hp at the wheels) with just exhaust and large throttle body intake manifold. Completely OEM car still gained 30whp. I just didnt know the motor made that much power in the first place and I really questioned the hp numbers they were talking about at the time. Oops. :o
They did have manual transmission versions so I would guess the dyno numbers are from a manual.

Also, Adam, how did you get these E.T. and Trap numbers without going to the track and expect some sort of credibility. Car to car differences also mean lot. Its possible the 3.0 is very healthy, the 3.3 is very sick, or vice versa.

[RoadWarrior222]

Heh, I could never line up my benchracing calculations with my own rough timings against any of the official numbers, i.e. 136 crank HP pushing 3600lb shouldn't do much near a 10 second 0-60mph.

[Ondonti]

http://photos.carsguide.news.com.au/drive_images/dealer/rammot/2974/8_600.jpg
1996
http://www.autoweb.com.au/cms/usedcars/make_MITSUBISHI/src_research/model_MAGNA/sortBy_Year/start_45/results_TRUE/ID_D_17378297/vehicle.html

But it appears that this is a false listing or mitsubishi sold some 1995's in 1996.


Also appears that All magnas had the VICS intake.


That turned out to be no fun thanks to false listing :(

[Ondonti]

I will post this instead. 788awhp on 93 octane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s460hp7xl0c

If I can't win then I can be Bi-winning with Charley.

[RoadWarrior222]

But it appears that this is a false listing or mitsubishi sold some 1995's in 1996.
missed where you were going with that... but Aussie market probably didn't have OBD2 made mandatory in '96 with different emissions goals, so they could very well have carried over a setup we saw last for '95 in North America.

[Vigo]

I dont think they ever put a 12v in a 2g magna because it was a new, not-econo car and they sold them with 24v's everywhere else in every year. I dont think they would put a 12v in for one year and then replace it with a 24v that didnt make any more power (both 3.0). That would be kind of embarrassing and pointless.

175 hp with bigger tb, variable intake, bigger cams, and ~6000 rpm sounds pretty good. I dont have a hard time believing that. But i still dont see how that makes it significantly better than a 98 3.3 that makes 180hp at 4800 rpm. One wonders if you put a bigger tb, variable intake, cam to match, and rev it to 6000, what it would it do then?


I like the big whp on pump gas, that's a great motor, dodge never built anything comparable to that (although if you take off the MIVEC we can start comparing) and i'd definitely buy one if i could snag it for cheap.

There arent many people boosting the 3.3/3.8 and dynoing. One guy built a 2g van similar to splatmasters and posted similar dyno numbers ~250whp but no plot/pics. The new 3.8 jeeps are getting boosted some. Ripp mods gets ~85whp from 5psi on their non-intercooled centrifugal kits. The absolute numbers always suck because wranglers get dyno'd with wrangler drivetrain loss. Im pretty sure none of my cars would dyno well if i doubled the weight of the tranny, added a transfer case, and put 120lb wheel/tires on it.

[Rrider]

On the thread title... googggle Moparmadman66 and you will see who it is.

[turbovanman²]

Damn, he got in Mopar Muscle-

http://rides.moparmusclemagazine.com/ride/1197345/moparmadman66/1988/dodge/omni/photos/4.html

[Vigo]

He is also looking for a woman that is a car lover!

[Rrider]

lolz i saw that too, arent we all though?

[Vigo]

LOL thats what i was thinking.

[turbovanman²]

lolz i saw that too, arent we all though?

Nope, already have one, :nod:

[RoadWarrior222]

Yah, shame you have a van really :D