[xj-s] 17 inch wheels for the XJS -- photo album

XJ-S
1

Gentlemen:
Yesterday, I woke up my cat from winter hibernation and
finally got the chance to put the new (to me) XK8 ‘revolver’
wheels – I collected all the parts over the winter months
while the car was off the road.

This topic (wheels, tire sizes) comes very often. Many have
done it and some pictures of the final result can be found
on the Internet, however, the details are hard to come by. I
figured I should cover it in a photo album:

http://www.jag-lovers.org/v.htm?1428199053

First, let me acknowledge Bernard Embden for writing a very
nice story on his rim upgrade decision:

http://bernardembden.com/xjs/rimtire/index.htm

This is a must read for anyone considering the change. Most
of the information applies to the later cars too. Kirby also
has some good info at the end of this page:

http://www.jag-lovers.org/books/xj-s/21-Suspmods.html

Brief comments from my own, 10 miles experience:

  1. There are many Chevy/Corvette wheels that could fit, but
    the center bore will be different. If you are using a non-
    Jag wheel, hub-centricity must be preserved. In this case,
    an adaptor to the wheel will be needed (custom-made most
    likely, almost nothing can be found for CB 73.9 mm). Or the
    wheel will have to be custom-machined. Longer nuts for
    anything thicker than 8-10 mm.

  2. The Jag hub is 73.9 mm, not 74.1 mm as incorrectly listed
    in many wheel catalogs. Bolt pattern is 5x4.75’’ and this is
    not the same as the BMW 5x120mm. 4.75’’ is 120.7mm and while
    a fraction of a millimeter could be neglected, safety should
    not.

  3. I had no problems with rubbing anywhere. With or without
    spacers. The use of spacers was dictated by my desire not to
    alter the grease cap in order to fit the wheel center cap.
    The Jaguar MNA6116AA wheel (also 17x8 and 33mm ET) from the
    supercharged XJ6-R might fit the fro hub without a spacer –
    a few listers here have them and should confirm.

  4. Going from aspect ratio 60 to 50 makes a noticeable
    difference in the ride. I would imagine that if one were to
    go for the XJR wheel, which also fits the XJS hub but will
    require 45 or 40 aspect ratio, there will be less and less
    ‘‘red-carpet’’ ride.

  5. The car drives and feels different. I am not sure if it
    is the tire (225 Michelin in the 16’’ vs 245 Pirelli in the
    17’’) but more miles will tell. Tramlining? Or incorrect
    alignment settings exacerbated?

  6. I think that, perhaps, the best ride quality/performance
    combination will be in the 16’’ or 17’’ sizes using staggered
    configuration – 50-55 in the front and 45-50 in the back.

Overall, very happy with the ‘‘upgrade’’ and with the car
finally back on the road for the summer.

Best regards,
Steve

PS Happy Easter (to all that celebrate today)!–
'95 XJS convertible - V12 6.0L
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–

// please trim quoted text to context only

2

In reply to a message from sbobev sent Sun 5 Apr 2015:

Enjoyed the detailed write up. The car looks great!–
John. '95 XJS 6.0L convertible. Southlake, TX
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –

// please trim quoted text to context only

3

In reply to a message from sbobev sent Sun 5 Apr 2015:

Steve,
Wonderful pictorial presentation. Your car looks great.
What have you done with the 16’’ 20 slot wheel? Would be
interested in at least one to use as spare. Wish I had your
computer skill to post pictures to share my collection of
work done to my car.–
The original message included these comments:

  1. The car drives and feels different. I am not sure if it
    is the tire (225 Michelin in the 16’’ vs 245 Pirelli in the
    17’') but more miles will tell. Tramlining? Or incorrect
    alignment settings exacerbated?
    Steve

–
1987 XJS Coupe
Weston Lakes/Texas, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –

// please trim quoted text to context only

4

In reply to a message from sbobev sent Sun 5 Apr 2015:

Nice work. Having run these revolver wheels for a number
of years, I can offer a few pointers as well.

First, wheel size alone does not dictate whether you will
have clearance problems or not. If you run the revolvers,
and your tire guy happens to mount rim weights when he
mounts and balances your tires, and IF that/those
particular rim/tire combos get mounted to the front, you
will very likely have a situation where the tie rods will
contact the rim weights. Ask me how I know this.

Second: I have two sets of revolvers, and these actually
fit differently on my car, especially with regard to how
they fit on the front hubs. One set is so snug onto the
nose of the hub that I have great difficulty pulling the
wheel off, once it is mounted and has been snugged up with
the nuts (e.g., then, removing the nuts and trying to take
the wheel off, it is snug on the hub). I don’t know why
this should be, but there it is.

Third: any discussion of tire interference with this wheel
(or any other wheel) MUST necessarily also involve a
discussion of the tire SIZE. It is certainly possible to
fit tires to the revolver that will not give troubles
(here, I am referring to front fender well clearance issues
at full lock, and rear fender lip issues during large wheel
travel; I have experienced both in my quest to fit these
wheels).

Fourth: when you fit tires, especially to the rear, you
must pay attention to the OD for that tire in comparison to
the OEM tires. This is because your speedo calibration
will no longer apply under circumstances where you have
chosen a tire that gives a very different OD from stock.

Fifth: especially on the convertibles: running lower
profile tires effectively increases the suspension
stiffness, and the convertibles in particular are sensitive
to this because of their relatively flexible body shell.
As Bywater notes, you can ruin a convertible by changing to
stiffer springs; remember that lower profile tires also
impact this.

I have set my suspension, including tires and rims, to
mimic the XJS-R setup (albeit that car ran 16’’ rims). The
spec sheet for a 1990 XJS-R shows 225/50-16’s on the front
(OD about 24.9’’) and 245-55/16 on the rear (about 26.6’’).
At one time I knew the wheel offset, but I don’t recall
now. I want to recall that the offset may be different
between the front and the rear, but I am not sure my memory
serves, here.

What I run, using the Jag Revolver 17’’ wheels is: 245/50-17
on the rear (OD 26.6), and 235/45-17 on the front (OD
25.3). To run this combo, I had to slightly roll the rear
fend lips, and fit front spacers. The rear lip issue seems
a problem only with the convertibles, based on my own
analysis of posts and inquiries with owners who mounted the
Revolvers with 245/50 size.

Putting 245/50’s on the front will cause fender lip
interference when you are turning and going over bumps. It
will also potentially cause interference with the inner
fender well, again, at full wheel lock.

More next post—
Mike, '90 5.3 XJS Conv., 5-spd+3.54, SE-ECU+TT F/R bars
Lakewood, OH, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –

// please trim quoted text to context only

5

In reply to a message from sbobev sent Sun 5 Apr 2015:

(Here’s the finish to my first missive)

The bottom line, from my experience: be very careful when
fitting non-XJS wheels to this car, taking due note of the
bolt pattern and dimensions (as Steve points out), but also
rim width and offset. Then, choose carefully, based on the
tire size you wish to run, both in back and in front.
These cars are really a bit of an exercise to deal with
when you venture into this area.

As for my results: fitting the 245/50 to the rear and
235/45 to the front has been a really good change. Yes,
the front suspension is a bit harsh at times relative to
the OEM 16’’ tires and wheels, but the lowering effect
together with the shorter profile has made the car handle
noticeable better, just by the profile change alone (I am
speaking of A/B comparison with 245/50 vs 235/45). The car
has that slightly nose down attitude of the XJS-R.

I have also fitted Addco front and rear bars, but I use
standard shock valving. The result is a ride that is
certainly a bit firmer than OEM, but the car handles really
really nicely now. The rear bar makes the rear twitchy in
the rain, and during spirited driving, you can feel that
you are getting close to breaking loose in the rear sooner,
even on dry pavement, and is why I can see why road racers
do not use rear bars, altering spring stiffness instead.
But for 95% of street driving, this rear bar makes a
noticeable improvement.

Point being, you may really want to consider all of what
you want to do, suspension-wise, when you are looking at
tires and wheels.

My two cents.

-M–
Mike, '90 5.3 XJS Conv., 5-spd+3.54, SE-ECU+TT F/R bars
Lakewood, OH, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –

// please trim quoted text to context only

6

In reply to a message from mike90 sent Mon 6 Apr 2015:

Hi Mike:
Thanks for ‘‘beefing’’ up my post.

I implied, although I did not explicitly stated that I am
not changing tire OD - preserved it with within 3-4%.
Everything I wrote is for the changeover 225x60xR16 (7.5
inch wide rim, OEM XJS) to 235x50xR17 (8 inch wide rim, OEM
XK8).
Offsets in both cases are 33 mm.

The reason I posted here, with the pictures, is because I
read about rubbing issues, the need to modify the fenders,
etc.
For the set-up in question, there are absolutely NO issues.
There is plenty of room around the tie rods – is this a
difference between the pre- and facelift design?

Can you post your pictures (or PM me). I am curious.

Steve
PS Is one set of your wheels refurbished? Or chromed/plated?–
The original message included these comments:

Nice work. Having run these revolver wheels for a number
of years, I can offer a few pointers as well.
First, wheel size alone does not dictate whether you will
have clearance problems or not. If you run the revolvers,
and your tire guy happens to mount rim weights when he
mounts and balances your tires, and IF that/those
particular rim/tire combos get mounted to the front, you
will very likely have a situation where the tie rods will
contact the rim weights. Ask me how I know this.

–
'95 XJS convertible - V12 6.0L
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –

// please trim quoted text to context only

7

There is plenty of room around the tie rods – is this a
difference between the pre- and facelift design?

On my '83, running 15x7 wheels from a Vanden Plas, I had clip-on
balance weights contact at full lock – but the front anti-roll bar,
not the tie rods. I think the tie rods and anti-roll bar
configuration remain the same throughout the production history, so
even on later cars I’d expect the contact problem would be anti-roll
bar rather than tie rods.

My solution: Run stick-on weights instead of clip-on. Worked fine.
The wheel might contact the anti-roll bar at full lock, but I didn’t
care. That’s the inside of the wheel, it doesn’t show, and it didn’t
make noise or anything. And you don’t go to full lock often.

– Kirbert

// please trim quoted text to context onlyOn 6 Apr 2015 at 6:51, sbobev wrote:

8

In reply to a message from Kirbert sent Mon 6 Apr 2015:

Kirby, I did not check full lock with the wheels rolling.

Seeing is believing – I will take some pictures on the
inside. However, I will note that same size tire and wheel
combo is reported to cause some slight rubbing by others –
both front and rear.
Is it the offset or something else, I don’t know. Bernard
went to ET 20 mm to clear the huge front hub of his '78. My
offset is only ca. 25-26 mm. Those extra 5-6 mm make the
difference?

Bernard also states that tires larger that 245x45x17 will
not fit under the rear fender wells (for his '78). On the
'95 V12 convertible, the 17x8 revolver wheel with 235x50x17
tire fits perfectly with or without the spacer – offset
range 25 to 33 mm. I am sure I could have gone for
255x45x17 (the XJ6-R size) without any rubbing or
modification of the inner well.

I am glad this topic generated some interest, would be great
for archiving purposes.

Steve–
The original message included these comments:

There is plenty of room around the tie rods – is this a
difference between the pre- and facelift design?
On my '83, running 15x7 wheels from a Vanden Plas, I had clip-on
balance weights contact at full lock – but the front anti-roll bar,
not the tie rods. I think the tie rods and anti-roll bar
configuration remain the same throughout the production history, so
even on later cars I’d expect the contact problem would be anti-roll
bar rather than tie rods.
My solution: Run stick-on weights instead of clip-on. Worked fine.
The wheel might contact the anti-roll bar at full lock, but I didn’t
care. That’s the inside of the wheel, it doesn’t show, and it didn’t

–
'95 XJS convertible - V12 6.0L
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –

// please trim quoted text to context only

9

Bernard also states that tires larger that 245x45x17 will
not fit under the rear fender wells (for his '78). On the
'95 V12 convertible…

The body panels are different. And tolerances on body panels
tightened up considerably over the years.

Back in the day – around 1976 – a friend of mine bought a brand new
Dodge. We were following him down the road, and that car was clearly
a bit crooked. When we stopped, we checked the clearance between the
top of the rear tires and the inside of the wheel wells. He had
about a inch clearance on one side of the car and 3 or 4 inches of
clearance on the other side. He said he was gonna take that car back
to the dealer, that was just too messed up for a brand new car.

– Kirbert

// please trim quoted text to context onlyOn 6 Apr 2015 at 8:55, sbobev wrote:

10

In reply to a message from Kirbert sent Mon 6 Apr 2015:

That’s funny.
I worked one year at my friends Dad’s Ford dealership for about a
year. There’s a little statement in the fine-print on your new
bill of sale that alludes to the fact that your new car could have
been damaged during shipping and may have been repaired. I saw
some of the Ford Tempo’s coming off the car carrier, and trust me
you wouldn’t want to own one if you saw the before and after
pictures. If you saw the pimply faced kid that unloaded them you
would give your head a shake also.
I never knew a Ford Tempo could go 90 MPH in reverse???–
The original message included these comments:

about a inch clearance on one side of the car and 3 or 4 inches of
clearance on the other side. He said he was gonna take that car back
to the dealer, that was just too messed up for a brand new car.

–
Gary, Jagrr88 5.3L XJ-S 1988
Edmonton/Alberta, Canada
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –

// please trim quoted text to context only

11

In reply to a message from sbobev sent Sun 5 Apr 2015:

Sorry Steve, I shouldn’t hijack your thread on wheels. Your car
looks great. I actually don’t mind the wheels your car came
with, and was contemplated putting a set on my XJ-S, they look
very classy.
But eventually I did go to the 17 inch rims with a wider lower
profile tire and the car handles way better. I’m not always
sold on the more aggressive look as I think the XJ-S was
designed to have gentleman’s class in mind, but I do notice the
younger generation always comments on the bigger boots and the
more aggressive ride. I keep my Starfish for the days when I’m
older and want to go back to the more civilized look.
Great write up all the same. I always worried about rubbing
issues but never had a problem.–
The original message included these comments:

finally got the chance to put the new (to me) XK8 ‘revolver’
This topic (wheels, tire sizes) comes very often. Many have

–
Gary, Jagrr88 5.3L XJ-S 1988
Edmonton/Alberta, Canada
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –

// please trim quoted text to context only

12

In reply to a message from sbobev sent Sun 5 Apr 2015:

Steve,
I tried to fit the XK8 Lamina wheels to my XJS. Even with a
1/4’’ spacer, could not mount the center cap. I did not have
a custom spacer, so I used a more universal fit. Where did
you get the spacers? I’m guessing you had a machine shop do
them up for you.
I’ve decided to go another route with mine… anyone want a
new set of Laminas cheap? ;>))–
Bill Cooper, 1994 XJS 4.0 manual, 2012 XKR
Charlotte, NC, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –

// please trim quoted text to context only

13

In reply to a message from Kirbert sent Mon 6 Apr 2015:

Guys:

Some clarifications on my part:

The clearance issue I speak of is with the revolvers fitted
without spacers.

I don’t recall if the interference was with the anti roll
bar, now, or if it was with the tie rods, come to think of
it. But it was the rim clipped balance weights that did me
in, either way, and I wouldn’t have the problem all the
time- only as I moved toward a full lock position.

Regarding the use of 235’s: I don’t see why you can’t get
away cleanly with this size. It’s the next bump up that
causes the heartburn: 245’s, in the 50 series aspect ratio
will almost surely give troubles; not impossible, but you
will likely have to finesse thing (like fender lip rolls in
rear). You will find posts from guys who’ve gone larger
(255, maybe), but these guys are using wheels with
different offsets to pull it off.

Yes, 4-5 mm can be the difference here.

As to the centering of the body on the rear suspension:
yes, I wondered about that one, too, thinking that somehow
the convertibles may have a different build tolerance on
those back fenders. I don’t have an answer, really; I know
I had to roll both sides (not much, but you do have to
clear). I also know some seem to run this wheel with
245/50’s on the back, and do it without any problem. Part
of that may have to do with what their ride height is- I’ve
seen some XJS rear ends that are pretty high off the ground
(looking now at the top of tire to fender lip clearance and
not necessarily tie plate to ground clearance). This will
undoubtedly help, as you are not as likely to encounter a
clearance problem under most driving conditions.

-M

-M–
Mike, '90 5.3 XJS Conv., 5-spd+3.54, SE-ECU+TT F/R bars
Lakewood, OH, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –

// please trim quoted text to context only

14

In reply to a message from Jagrr88 sent Mon 6 Apr 2015:

Thank Gary. I had seen your final product:

http://www.jag-lovers.org/v.htm?id=1404914349

Question 1 – did you need spacers in the front to clear the
hub with those XJ6-R wheels?
Question 2 – are you running the 255/45/17 tires front and
rear?

I was not after aggressiveness with the change; I also like
my turbine wheels, but they are due for refinish.
Also, my car sits unused over the winter and the old
Michelins have developed flat spots. For the price of the
new ones, I’ve got a second set of rims/tires, which btw fit
the car very well.

Steve–
The original message included these comments:

Sorry Steve, I shouldn’t hijack your thread on wheels. Your car
looks great. I actually don’t mind the wheels your car came
with, and was contemplated putting a set on my XJ-S, they look
very classy.
But eventually I did go to the 17 inch rims with a wider lower
profile tire and the car handles way better. I’m not always
sold on the more aggressive look as I think the XJ-S was
designed to have gentleman’s class in mind, but I do notice the
younger generation always comments on the bigger boots and the
more aggressive ride. I keep my Starfish for the days when I’m
older and want to go back to the more civilized look.

–
'95 XJS convertible - V12 6.0L
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –

// please trim quoted text to context only

15

In reply to a message from sbobev sent Mon 6 Apr 2015:

Hello Steve,
I was fortunate that I was able to run 17’’ rims 245/45,
Dunlop tires with no issues. I believe the wheels are off
a 1995 XJR with 28 mm offsets. I was looking for a direct
fit and did not have any problems. The car has a new lease
on life.
In a nutshell to answer your question, no spacers , no
rubbing issues just a great ride. Anyone who wants to
upgrade it’s great but there are people who want to keep
traditional. I was convinced one day last summer when the
car took a strange hop going down the road and also making
a last minute turn of an on ramp she took a sideways swipe
that did not feel very good.–
The original message included these comments:

Question 1 – did you need spacers in the front to clear the
hub with those XJ6-R wheels?
Question 2 – are you running the 255/45/17 tires front and

–
Gary, Jagrr88 5.3L XJ-S 1988
Edmonton/Alberta, Canada
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –

// please trim quoted text to context only

16

In reply to a message from Jagrr88 sent Mon 6 Apr 2015:

JagR88:

Not surprised these are a non-event on your car. Under 50-
series aspect ratio tends to buy you out of clearance
troubles, a lot.

I tried to stay at 50 because I did not want the ride to
get too sharp, and the move to the 17’’ wheels and 50 series
tires already firmed things up.

When I put on the 45’s on the front, I could really feel
the additional side wall stiffness due to that lower aspect
ratio. I know there are guys out there who like
the ‘banana peel’ look, too, and go even more aggressively
than 45, but it’s not my cup of tea, moreover, I really did
not want to push this chassis toward any more wheel
stiffness; 45 was at the top for me. And, you really have
to be careful with very low profiles as you can damage your
wheels much more easily with curbing and other nonsense.

But remember, I am speaking of a pre-facelift convertible,
and these cars are flexible flyers, and suspension
stiffness whether by spring rate or by tire size really
gets felt on these models. Too much and you will utterly
lose that lovely flying carpet ride.

-M–
Mike, '90 5.3 XJS Conv., 5-spd+3.54, SE-ECU+TT F/R bars
Lakewood, OH, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –

// please trim quoted text to context only

17

In reply to a message from Jagrr88 sent Mon 6 Apr 2015:

Gary:
Thank you for answering. I am afraid will have to make a
correction to your post:

The 5 Spoke wheels you have are from '95-'97 supercharged
XJR (XJ6-R) with part no. MNA6116AA.
Universal. Interchange Number: 59686

They are 17x8 inch, 5x4.75 bolt pattern.
Offset is 33 mm, just like the XK8 revolver wheels.
Ebay 291193739219. He has got high resolution pictures of
the inside and you can see the ET33 embossed.

The difference is the raised/longer hub, obviously, which
clears the hub and thus, no need for spacer. This is it.

The fact that you have them in the front and there is no
interference with control arm, sway bar or tie rod confirms
my original post – the 17x8 inch wheel (XK8 or XJR) is a
direct bolt on.

The '95 6.0L V12 has OEM tire size 225x60xR16. The nearly
perfect equivalent in 17 inch is 245x50xR17. The
The reason for the spacer with the XK8 revolver wheels is
the XJ6-R comes standard with 255x45xR17.

If I could get the XJ6-R wheel, I’d go for 255x45xR17 in the
rear and 235x50xR17 in the front with no spacers.

Thank you again for chiming in.–
The original message included these comments:

I was fortunate that I was able to run 17’’ rims 245/45,
Dunlop tires with no issues. I believe the wheels are off
a 1995 XJR with 28 mm offsets. I was looking for a direct
fit and did not have any problems. The car has a new lease
on life.
In a nutshell to answer your question, no spacers , no
rubbing issues just a great ride. Anyone who wants to
upgrade it’s great but there are people who want to keep
traditional. I was convinced one day last summer when the
car took a strange hop going down the road and also making
a last minute turn of an on ramp she took a sideways swipe

–
'95 XJS convertible - V12 6.0L
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –

// please trim quoted text to context only

18

In reply to a message from sbobev sent Tue 7 Apr 2015:

Yes you are correct, just had a look at the stagings on
the spare inside the rim. I’d post them in this thread if
I knew how. But basically it said
MNB6116AA D/Turned T446
Painted
T500
8Jx17CHx33MM
DAY 16
C 10
97 AWI/K1 98–
The original message included these comments:

XJR (XJ6-R) with part no. MNA6116AA.
They are 17x8 inch, 5x4.75 bolt pattern.
Offset is 33 mm, just like the XK8 revolver wheels.

–
Gary, Jagrr88 5.3L XJ-S 1988
Edmonton/Alberta, Canada
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –

// please trim quoted text to context only

19

In reply to a message from Jagrr88 sent Tue 7 Apr 2015:

Sorry meant stampings not stagings
As a footnote I this this tire wheel size calculator.
http://goo.gl/pbmCxG--
The original message included these comments:

Yes you are correct, just had a look at the stagings on

–
Gary, Jagrr88 5.3L XJ-S 1988
Edmonton/Alberta, Canada
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –

// please trim quoted text to context only