Why It Failed: 2006-2011 Mercedes-Benz R-Class

  1. Welcome to GM Inside News Forum – General discussion forum for GM

    Welcome to GM Inside News Forum - a website dedicated to all things GM.

    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, Join GM Inside News Forum today!
     
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 37

Thread: Why It Failed: 2006-2011 Mercedes-Benz R-Class

  1. #1
    Firebird Concept (the turbine one) Amphibian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,998
    Thanks
    281
    Thanked 1,162 Times in 762 Posts

    Why It Failed: 2006-2011 Mercedes-Benz R-Class

    What Went Wrong: 2006-2011 Mercedes-Benz R-Class

    Billed as some kind of more imaginative crossover-type vehicle, the R-Class was one of two new three-row Benzes to arrive around that time. The other was the GL-Class, which is now in its second generation and a successful crossover for the brand. The R-Class, on the other hand, has floundered for the most part, especially in the US market. Its only real sort of competitor at all was sort of the Lincoln MKT, as both were proportionally long tall wagon-y luxury crossovers; the MKT too has failed to find success among US consumers. Mercedes initially offered the R-Class to American buyers with a V-6, a V-6, and even the they-actually-made-it R63 AMG. The diesel V-6 also was made available, and an update for the 2011 model year also failed to interest buyers. Of course by then it was probably already too late, at least for this generation.

    This edition of Why It Failed is also an easier one IMO, mostly an issue with styling. It didn't help that Mercedes essentially had the R-Class wind up competing with the brand's own GL-Class, which actually looked like an SUV. The rest of the package was quite nice, and that interior must make it one of the finest ways of transporting a family for long distances. With one of the V-8 options, it was quite the (luxury) minivan (without sliding doors). But there aren't too many people that wanted such a thing. They wanted SUVs, crossovers or not. This was too minivan-ish. Given the track record of this and the MKT, even the Flex, I see little point in Mercedes pursuing this segment in the future. Once this generation is done, I say put it to rest.

    What say you?

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Amphibian For This Useful Post:

    Butz (04-19-2014)

  3. Remove Advertisements
    GM Inside News
    Advertisements
     

  4. #2
    Banned Butz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Celestial North Korea
    Posts
    11,892
    Thanks
    2,802
    Thanked 1,596 Times in 965 Posts
    My Ride
    です

    Re: Why It Failed: 2006-2011 Mercedes-Benz R-Class

    It is a very good concept and it makes a lot of sense, especially in Europe. But it had a few major issues, one was the way it looked, and for Europe it is major market it was a tad too big, the B-class is doing much better. The rise of SUVs and crossovers didn't help and for Europe Mercedes already sells the Vito and Viano which are more practical and cheaper.

  5. #3
    GMI Staff Member Premium Member Envoy4Life's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    21,395
    Thanks
    3,646
    Thanked 6,541 Times in 3,772 Posts
    My Ride
    2019 Cadillac CTS 3.6

    Re: Why It Failed: 2006-2011 Mercedes-Benz R-Class

    1.) Looks.
    2.) Price.

    Current:

    2019 Cadillac CTS 3.6 Luxury AWD

    Hidden Content Originally Posted by Greg.Botts Hidden Content
    LOL at all the FORD fans in this thread thinking they got a one up. This is the Yukon Denali and trust me it's going to blow away the Navigator. Escalade is gunning for RR/Bentley level of interiors and beyond. I've talked to someone about this on another site that confirmed it Navigator isn't even being bench-marked at Cadillac too low for them.
    ^GOLD^

    Hidden Content

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Envoy4Life For This Useful Post:

    Michael_S (04-21-2014)

  7. Remove Advertisements
    GM Inside News
    Advertisements
     

  8. #4
    R2-D2 Astromech Droid mgescuro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    43,501
    Thanks
    3,927
    Thanked 2,053 Times in 2,108 Posts
    My Ride
    E350, 9-5 Aero

    Re: Why It Failed: 2006-2011 Mercedes-Benz R-Class

    Quote Originally Posted by Envoy4Life View Post
    1.) Looks.
    2.) Price.

    This was the improved version of it.

    Price was the kicker. It was $55,000.
    Also, the weird thing it was trying to do too much: Minivan, wagon, cuv. And wasn't really good at either of them.

    Last edited by mgescuro; 04-19-2014 at 01:52 AM.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to mgescuro For This Useful Post:

    Michael_S (04-21-2014)

  10. #5
    6.2 Liter LS9 Supercharged V8
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    7,625
    Thanks
    705
    Thanked 2,459 Times in 1,866 Posts
    My Ride
    VW Touareg 3.0 V6 TDI

    Re: Why It Failed: 2006-2011 Mercedes-Benz R-Class

    Quote Originally Posted by Butz View Post
    It is a very good concept and it makes a lot of sense, especially in Europe. But it had a few major issues, one was the way it looked, and for Europe it is major market it was a tad too big, the B-class is doing much better. The rise of SUVs and crossovers didn't help and for Europe Mercedes already sells the Vito and Viano which are more practical and cheaper.
    The R-class was far too big for Europe, which is why it failed here.

    I guess the reality is that despite good markets for premium cars and premium SUVs, there's no big market for premium crossovers - despite their popularity in the mainstream sector.

  11. #6
    GMI Staff Member Premium Member Envoy4Life's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    21,395
    Thanks
    3,646
    Thanked 6,541 Times in 3,772 Posts
    My Ride
    2019 Cadillac CTS 3.6

    Re: Why It Failed: 2006-2011 Mercedes-Benz R-Class

    I think MB would do well if they brought the V Class over:



    Current:

    2019 Cadillac CTS 3.6 Luxury AWD

    Hidden Content Originally Posted by Greg.Botts Hidden Content
    LOL at all the FORD fans in this thread thinking they got a one up. This is the Yukon Denali and trust me it's going to blow away the Navigator. Escalade is gunning for RR/Bentley level of interiors and beyond. I've talked to someone about this on another site that confirmed it Navigator isn't even being bench-marked at Cadillac too low for them.
    ^GOLD^

    Hidden Content

  12. #7
    Firebird Concept (the turbine one) F14CRAZY's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    11,898
    Thanks
    263
    Thanked 845 Times in 468 Posts

    Re: Why It Failed: 2006-2011 Mercedes-Benz R-Class

    I've always thought of the Pacifica as being a rebadged R class but one's on the minivan platform and the other isn't

    Quote Originally Posted by Envoy4Life View Post
    I think MB would do well if they brought the V Class over:



    They already have those here...called the Sprinter
    '07 Subaru Forester 2.5X 5MT. Bought new. 197k miles. '05 Dodge Durango Limited Hemi AWD. Mom bought new. 102k miles. '74 Buick LeSabre Luxus convertible. 455-4/7.5L. '89 Buick Reatta. 3800 SII L67/F40 six speed swap to be completed someday. Wife's: '07 Subaru Forester XT. World Rally Blue Mica.

    '87 BMW K75c. '87 Kawasaki 650SX. '85 Bayliner Capri 1952. '71 Chris Craft Coho 33'. '70? Amphicat 6x6 AATV.

  13. #8
    7.0 Liter LS7 V8
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Logged off
    Posts
    4,723
    Thanks
    1,348
    Thanked 1,143 Times in 635 Posts

    Re: Why It Failed: 2006-2011 Mercedes-Benz R-Class

    In size and price, it seemed aimed at markets like North America. But it really looks like a tall station wagon. It's not terribly distinctive, where as the SUVS had a bit more presence. And looking at it, the design doesn't telegraph what it's for. Is it fast? Does it tow? What's it's purpose?

  14. #9
    R2-D2 Astromech Droid mgescuro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    43,501
    Thanks
    3,927
    Thanked 2,053 Times in 2,108 Posts
    My Ride
    E350, 9-5 Aero

    Re: Why It Failed: 2006-2011 Mercedes-Benz R-Class

    Quote Originally Posted by F14CRAZY View Post
    They already have those here...called the Sprinter
    No. V-Class is not related to the Sprinter. It's related to the Vito.
    Vito may be coming to the US to complement the larger Sprinter.

  15. #10
    R2-D2 Astromech Droid sfbreh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    19,259
    Thanks
    7,625
    Thanked 8,771 Times in 5,646 Posts

    Re: Why It Failed: 2006-2011 Mercedes-Benz R-Class

    I say it failed becaaaause...

    1) Nobody understood what it was.
    2) It was kind of a minivan, but not really.
    3) It was kind of a minivan and, not only was it a BAD minivan, but it was also a Mercedes-Benz semi-minivan which is a market that makes absolutely no sense. When's the last time you saw someone wealthy driving a minivan? That market goes to crossovers, even then.

    I'll tell you who I see driving minivans. The mongoloids that go to "The Weave Shop" down the street from my apartment, or the large immigrant families that go to Our Lady of Guadalupe church around the corner. Then there are the people who drive hood minivans with literally RIMS on it.

    Then there's this:


    Point is, minivans are an entirely utilitarian choice. You usually make those kinds of purchases when you don't have a lot of disposable income. You usually make those necessary concessions and decisions when you're poor.

    So, if the wealthy or faux-wealthy buy Mercedes-Benzes (non-utilitarian by nature) and the utilitarians and poor buy minivans, who the hell is going to buy an expensive minivan that isn't even a very good minivan to start?

    Get your torches and pitchforks ready for me telling the truth!


  16. #11
    Firebird Concept (the turbine one) Amphibian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,998
    Thanks
    281
    Thanked 1,162 Times in 762 Posts

    Re: Why It Failed: 2006-2011 Mercedes-Benz R-Class

    Quote Originally Posted by sfbreh View Post
    Point is, minivans are an entirely utilitarian choice. You usually make those kinds of purchases when you don't have a lot of disposable income. You usually make those necessary concessions and decisions when you're poor.
    Well, I'd point out the market share leaders don't seem to have that problem. You can really price up a Sienna, the T&C has been moving upmarket in terms of base price and for its next generation will probably get pricey in the upper trims. The Odyssey Touring was such a grand success Honda decided to offer something above it, the Touring Elite. So I don't think a 40-45K minivan is out of the question; at least to me that's expensive, but that's me. The R-Class was way more expensive with a few options and the V-6 and wasn't really a minivan, or at least lacked some of the practicality.

    Had it been an actual minivan, I agree that it seems unlikely it would've been a good seller either. But expensive minivans are a "thing", at least trim level wise. *shrugs* I might've missed what you were trying to say.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Amphibian For This Useful Post:

    Michael_S (04-21-2014)

  18. #12
    7.0 Liter LS7 V8
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Logged off
    Posts
    4,723
    Thanks
    1,348
    Thanked 1,143 Times in 635 Posts

    Re: Why It Failed: 2006-2011 Mercedes-Benz R-Class

    Quote Originally Posted by sfbreh View Post
    I say it failed becaaaause...

    1) Nobody understood what it was.
    2) It was kind of a minivan, but not really.
    3) It was kind of a minivan and, not only was it a BAD minivan, but it was also a Mercedes-Benz semi-minivan which is a market that makes absolutely no sense. When's the last time you saw someone wealthy driving a minivan? That market goes to crossovers, even then.

    I'll tell you who I see driving minivans. The mongoloids that go to "The Weave Shop" down the street from my apartment, or the large immigrant families that go to Our Lady of Guadalupe church around the corner. Then there are the people who drive hood minivans with literally RIMS on it.

    Then there's this:


    Point is, minivans are an entirely utilitarian choice. You usually make those kinds of purchases when you don't have a lot of disposable income. You usually make those necessary concessions and decisions when you're poor.

    So, if the wealthy or faux-wealthy buy Mercedes-Benzes (non-utilitarian by nature) and the utilitarians and poor buy minivans, who the hell is going to buy an expensive minivan that isn't even a very good minivan to start?

    Get your torches and pitchforks ready for me telling the truth!

    I think the demographics of minivan purchases at the peak looked more promising. I remember reading articles of people whose kids grew up but kept buying minivans because they liked them. They tended towards loaded T&Cs and the like, which seemed to indicate they're might be a market for some kind of luxury minivan.

    That said, none of the vehicles that aimed at that market have been terribly successful. The Ford Flex and Lincoln equivalent, the Mercedes, etc didn't sell in numbers as big as expected. Either the trend didn't continue or people want real minivans and are happy with loaded versions of real minivans. Obviously of you are driving a loaded $40,000+ minivan, you are not looking to impress anybody -- you are buying what you like. Not sure if that kind of buyer cares or wishes to pay more for a luxury nameplate that also doesn't do the minivan stuff as well as an actual minivan.

    FWIW, I'm not exactly poor and I have a minivan. It does what I need it to do very well, but its a completely utilitarian choice. I respect its capabilities, but there is no love there. Its about as far from a aspirational purchase as I've ever made, automotively!

  19. #13
    2.4 Liter SIDI ECOTEC
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    371
    Thanks
    1,097
    Thanked 320 Times in 147 Posts
    My Ride
    2014 Cadillac CTS 2.0T

    Re: Why It Failed: 2006-2011 Mercedes-Benz R-Class

    @sfbreh, it sounds as if you are the one with the pitchforks and torches based on that colorful commentary. Aside from the racial undertones of your post, your "facts" couldn't be further from the truth: http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/20...-generation-x/

    While full-size SUVs, vans, and minivans are the preferred vehicle of groups of ppl committing crimes, they are also the vehicle of choice for ppl moving their families (go figure, ppl want a huge vehicle for cargo and comfort). That said, my 1995 GMC Vandura 2500 is my baby, and I use it as a tour bus. I'm far from poor, but I guess I take my fiancee to "The Weave Shop" enough to fit your stereotype.

    Please don't spread ignorance and bigotry as "facts." I'm on this site cuz I love my Cadillac and I'm a car geek, not to read someone attempting to insult me. (I'm sure you weren't aiming at me, but it was a dumb post).

    -------------------

    As to why the the R-Class failed, it was an ugly, Mercedes-priced minivan van in a world full of attractive crossovers/SUVs.

  20. #14
    7.0 Liter LS7 V8 cdp326's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    4,301
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 58 Times in 38 Posts

    Re: Why It Failed: 2006-2011 Mercedes-Benz R-Class

    Quote Originally Posted by sfbreh View Post
    I say it failed becaaaause...

    1) Nobody understood what it was.
    2) It was kind of a minivan, but not really.
    3) It was kind of a minivan and, not only was it a BAD minivan, but it was also a Mercedes-Benz semi-minivan which is a market that makes absolutely no sense. When's the last time you saw someone wealthy driving a minivan? That market goes to crossovers, even then.

    I'll tell you who I see driving minivans. The mongoloids that go to "The Weave Shop" down the street from my apartment, or the large immigrant families that go to Our Lady of Guadalupe church around the corner. Then there are the people who drive hood minivans with literally RIMS on it.

    Then there's this:


    Point is, minivans are an entirely utilitarian choice. You usually make those kinds of purchases when you don't have a lot of disposable income. You usually make those necessary concessions and decisions when you're poor.

    So, if the wealthy or faux-wealthy buy Mercedes-Benzes (non-utilitarian by nature) and the utilitarians and poor buy minivans, who the hell is going to buy an expensive minivan that isn't even a very good minivan to start?

    Get your torches and pitchforks ready for me telling the truth!



    That may be true where you are, and I recognize what you're describing, but those groups you describe aren't the entirety of minivan buyers. There's a large portion that buy minivans that go for $35-40-45 large, and it's big around this area.

    That said, that's not really the point, and I understand what you're trying to say and agree. To build on it, the luxury-brand minivan is one that hasn't really been tried, except maybe for the first Town & Country, but even that's no more since a T&C goes for the same money as an Odyssey or Sienna. It likely won't be tried because if there was a sufficient market, Honda/Nissan/Toyota could have long ago thrown their luxury brand badge on their minivan and tried to sell it. Some people refuse to be seen in a minivan, but even if you like and would buy a minivan it's for its purpose. With minivans the brand image only really matters in regards to traits like quality, not luxury. It's easier and more profitable to throw on $15k worth of features.

    OTOH I don't put the R-Class' lack of success on being like a minivan, since it wasn't really that much like a minivan in the American or European sense. It's more a crossover without the pretense. If it were more like a minivan it might have been easier to categorize and done better (probably not much so). The luxury automakers manage to move their station wagons here even if it isn't many, but even they seem more unique or exclusive than the R-Class.
    Last edited by cdp326; 04-19-2014 at 03:31 PM.
    "Here's to Mr. Iacocca and his failed experiment, the DeLorean!" - The Office

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to cdp326 For This Useful Post:

    sfbreh (04-19-2014)

  22. #15
    R2-D2 Astromech Droid sfbreh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    19,259
    Thanks
    7,625
    Thanked 8,771 Times in 5,646 Posts

    Re: Why It Failed: 2006-2011 Mercedes-Benz R-Class

    Quote Originally Posted by Amphibian View Post
    Well, I'd point out the market share leaders don't seem to have that problem. You can really price up a Sienna, the T&C has been moving upmarket in terms of base price and for its next generation will probably get pricey in the upper trims. The Odyssey Touring was such a grand success Honda decided to offer something above it, the Touring Elite. So I don't think a 40-45K minivan is out of the question; at least to me that's expensive, but that's me. The R-Class was way more expensive with a few options and the V-6 and wasn't really a minivan, or at least lacked some of the practicality.

    Had it been an actual minivan, I agree that it seems unlikely it would've been a good seller either. But expensive minivans are a "thing", at least trim level wise. *shrugs* I might've missed what you were trying to say.
    Without going too far off course...

    Yes, there are people who buy minivans for whatever reason.
    Yes, there is a market for heavily optioned minivans.
    I think there are plenty of people who need a minivan or even don't NEED a minivan who will buy them, sure.

    Minivans are bought for a utilitarian purpose; their entire purpose is to maximize efficiency. R-Class, in that regard, had several things going against it.
    1) It wasn't really a minivan; if it was, it was a terrible one (poor space efficiency=not maximum possible efficiency=not utilitarian)
    2) It was expensive (more expensive than it had to be=not utilitarian)

    Luxury cars inherently aren't utilitarian. Minivans are utilitarian. Do people with minivans maybe like luxury? Probably. T&C has a premium feel to it, so sure, why not? Is it out of the realm of possibilities that wealthy people will buy minivans? Of course not.

    Bigger families need more vehicle. Most vehicle for a family? A minivan.
    Vulnerability to poverty increases with family size.
    A decent number of people who buy minivans probably aren't laughing all the way to the bank every pay period.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tone View Post
    I think the demographics of minivan purchases at the peak looked more promising. I remember reading articles of people whose kids grew up but kept buying minivans because they liked them. They tended towards loaded T&Cs and the like, which seemed to indicate they're might be a market for some kind of luxury minivan.

    That said, none of the vehicles that aimed at that market have been terribly successful. The Ford Flex and Lincoln equivalent, the Mercedes, etc didn't sell in numbers as big as expected. Either the trend didn't continue or people want real minivans and are happy with loaded versions of real minivans. Obviously of you are driving a loaded $40,000+ minivan, you are not looking to impress anybody -- you are buying what you like. Not sure if that kind of buyer cares or wishes to pay more for a luxury nameplate that also doesn't do the minivan stuff as well as an actual minivan.

    FWIW, I'm not exactly poor and I have a minivan. It does what I need it to do very well, but its a completely utilitarian choice. I respect its capabilities, but there is no love there. Its about as far from a aspirational purchase as I've ever made, automotively!
    Some of what I said was meant as a joke and an over-stereotyping, for the record. People who have minivans aren't poor, but I just don't see the market for minivans will skew very well towards Mercedes. Chrysler and Buick are the kinds of brands that would really support them well.

    The nice-but-not-too-nice bunch.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNewStandard View Post
    @sfbreh, it sounds as if you are the one with the pitchforks and torches based on that colorful commentary. Aside from the racial undertones of your post, your "facts" couldn't be further from the truth: http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/20...-generation-x/

    While full-size SUVs, vans, and minivans are the preferred vehicle of groups of ppl committing crimes, they are also the vehicle of choice for ppl moving their families (go figure, ppl want a huge vehicle for cargo and comfort). That said, my 1995 GMC Vandura 2500 is my baby, and I use it as a tour bus. I'm far from poor, but I guess I take my fiancee to "The Weave Shop" enough to fit your stereotype.

    Please don't spread ignorance and bigotry as "facts." I'm on this site cuz I love my Cadillac and I'm a car geek, not to read someone attempting to insult me. (I'm sure you weren't aiming at me, but it was a dumb post).

    -------------------

    As to why the the R-Class failed, it was an ugly, Mercedes-priced minivan van in a world full of attractive crossovers/SUVs.


    Opinion was asked for, I gave mine. Stuff it if you don't like it.

    [email protected] I'm a racist

    You brought crime into the mix, I never mentioned it. Maybe you're a little bit too sensitive.

    It's almost a daily occurrence to leave my building and see a minivan rolling on dubs around the block. I was once nearly hit by an old beat up minivan on dubs. As it raced by, I heard a turbo whistle. Apparently Vin Diesel needed to pick up his kids from soccer practice.

    Do I assume the jigged up minivans are driven by petty criminals? No. I assume they're driven by idiots who somehow managed to find someone willing to breed with them. Do I assume all minivans are? No.

    Only ones like these


    which I see frequently.

    Where do I see them? Where the median family income is under $45k. (temporary residence) Where do I not? Where the median family income is over $150k. (primary)

    If you want to bring crime into it, I see them riiight where my friend's car was broken into (as well as a few others on the same block, same one as the Our Lady of Guadalupe church) and riiight off the street where you can pick up a hooker or two, some crack or heroin, aaand not too much further down the road, where one of my friends lived and had someone stabbed to death in front of her house (next right after my building, heading south).

    Then there's that time one of the kids I knew was literally beaten to death and thrown into someone's driveway around the corner from my then-girlfriend. I see them around there, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by cdp326 View Post


    That may be true where you are, and I recognize what you're describing, but those groups you describe aren't the entirety of minivan buyers. There's a large portion that buy minivans that go for $35-40-45 large, and it's big around this area.

    That said, that's not really the point, and I understand what you're trying to say and agree. To build on it, the luxury-brand minivan is one that hasn't really been tried, except maybe for the first Town & Country, but even that's no more since a T&C goes for the same money as an Odyssey or Sienna. It likely won't be tried because if there was a sufficient market, Honda/Nissan/Toyota could have long ago thrown their luxury brand badge on their minivan and tried to sell it. Some people refuse to be seen in a minivan, but even if you like and would buy a minivan it's for its purpose. With minivans the brand image only really matters in regards to traits like quality, not luxury. It's easier and more profitable to throw on $15k worth of features.

    OTOH I don't put the R-Class' lack of success on being like a minivan, since it wasn't really that much like a minivan in the American or European sense. It's more a crossover without the pretense. If it were more like a minivan it might have been easier to categorize and done better (probably not much so). The luxury automakers manage to move their station wagons here even if it isn't many, but even they seem more unique or exclusive than the R-Class.
    True. The other thing I'll say is that some parts of the country are probably behind the curve. Where I live, I see basically no minivans. The ones I do are driven by mostly and obviously POOR people. Nothing derogatory. It's an observation.

    By about 2006 around here, minivans started to go the way of the dinosaur.

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to sfbreh For This Useful Post:

    Tone (04-19-2014)

  24. Remove Advertisements
    GM Inside News
    Advertisements
     

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.1.2