Understanding Gross Versus Net Horsepower Ratings. There are a lot of misunderstandings among car enthusiasts and historians about vintage horsepower ratings. It’s easy to assume from a casual glance at ads or spec sheets that even quite ordinary American family sedans of the sixties were overwhelmingly powerful, with 3. When asked the reason for the huge difference, gearheads tend to shake their heads and mutter about emissions controls and anemic, low- octane unleaded gasoline — which is true, but only partly. What complicates the issue and makes apples- to- apples comparisons difficult is the fact that those pre- smog horsepower ratings were not calculated in the same way as modern engines. While a horsepower, pre- smog or post, remains 7. Let’s explain: GROSS HORSEPOWER RATINGSOver the years, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and similar standards- setting bodies in other countries have developed various methodologies for measuring the output of an automotive engine. These standards fall into two basic categories: gross and net output. Gross output, which in the U. S. Gross ratings are also mathematically corrected for standard atmospheric conditions. In other words, gross output represents a particular engine’s maximum output under ideal conditions. In the real world, automotive engines very rarely operate in ideal conditions. The engines of most cars are burdened with various engine- driven accessories, including the engine’s own water pump and generator/alternator and add- ons like the power steering pump and air conditioning compressor. Engines intended for on- road use typically also have restrictive air cleaners and exhaust systems, sound- deadening mufflers, and emissions- control add- ons like catalytic converters and thermal reactors. Engine tuning is further compromised in the interests of reduced noise, better drivability, improved cold- weather performance, and lower exhaust emissions. All of these factors reduce the engine’s maximum output in ways that the gross rating methodology does not reflect. For that reason, the SAE and similar bodies have also established standards for measuring net output. Net ratings, such as the ones defined by SAE standards J1. J2. 72. 3, are still taken with the engine on a test stand, but reflect stock ignition timing, carburetion/fuel delivery, exhaust systems, and accessories. The specific methodology varies depending on the specific standard being used, but the gist is that a net rating is a closer approximation of an engine’s output as actually installed in a car. Naturally, the net output of a given engine is somewhat lower than the gross output. For example, the 2. Chevrolet’s 1. 95. Net figures might appear in shop manuals, technical papers, or other factory literature, but rarely showed up in advertising. Until the mid- fifties, the gap between gross horsepower and as- installed output was seldom vast. However, as it became apparent that impressive horsepower numbers sold more cars, manufacturers’ advertised gross output figures began to climb. While automakers didn’t necessarily publish net ratings for their hot engines, the performance of cars so equipped suggested that the advertised figures were now substantially higher than the engines’ as- installed outputs — sometimes by 2. The late- fifties recession temporarily put the brakes on the advertised horsepower race. By the mid- sixties, the advertised outputs of many bread- and- butter engines were still unrealistically high, but the outputs of Detroit’s most powerful engines were now as likely as not to be deliberately understated. For example, in 1. Chevrolet released the 3. The following year, the engine was bored to 4. At first, some Chevrolet promotional material quoted a gross output of 4. W) for the bigger engine, but the division then hastily restated maximum power as 4. I have a car title for a 1969 chevelle malibu that says it has 48 horsepower can you tell me what size engine that is and what the real horsepower is it is a missouri. CHEVELLE STANDARD & GREENBRIER: VEHICLE TYPE: SHIPPING WEIGHT: CURB WEIGHT: Model: Description: Front: Rear: Total: Front: Rear: Total: 13334: 2-Door Sport Coupe 6. The Chevrolet Corvette, known colloquially as the Vette, or Chevy Corvette, is a sports car manufactured by Chevrolet. The car has been produced through seven. Welcome to Boxing for Life! This site is dedicated to teach individuals how to box, and to give back to the sport that has helped change my life. I remember my first car, a NSU Prinz. A Borgward and few Citroens, Peugeots and Fiats. Impala Facts & Impala Essay 1958 First year of the Impala. 1958 First year to have speaker grill in rear seat. 1959 Impalas largest tail fins. W), no more than the 3. Outside observers were incredulous, particularly since the bigger engine was plainly more powerful than the smaller version. The Smithsonian Institute uses Revware products in an ongoing effort to understand our heritage and preserve our history. Although carburetion remains very popular with car crafters, fuel injection is all about convenience andThis is a 1. 96. 6 Chevrolet Corvette Sting Ray’s 4. Early factory literature credited the L7. W) at 6,4. 00 rpm, but this was subsequently amended to 4. W) at 5,6. 00 rpm — the same horsepower as the previous year’s 3. Contemporary reviewers were highly skeptical. Why would a manufacturer underrate their engines? One possible reason was racing. Particularly in drag racing, eligibility for different classes was sometimes based on advertised horsepower and shipping weight, so an engine that produced more power than its advertised gross rating indicated offered an obvious advantage. Racing officials were seldom fooled by such tricks for long, however, and began to handicap or “factor” advertised outputs to place a conservatively rated engine in a more appropriate class based on its actual performance. Another reason for underrating was political decorum. Particularly at GM, the most conservative of the Detroit automakers, there was real fear of the safety lobby, which already considered the power outputs of existing engines to be irresponsibly high. In that climate, offering a 4. W) or 5. 00 hp (3. W) Corvette, for instance, might have been asking for trouble. Insurance was also becoming an issue, with a growing number of insurance companies levying prohibitive surcharges on very powerful cars or simply refusing to cover such cars at all. For those reasons, GM also had internal rules limiting all of their passenger cars except the Corvette to a maximum of one gross horsepower per 1. W per 6. 1 kg) of curb weight, leading to curious non sequiters like rating Pontiac’s 3,3. Firebird at 3. 25 hp (2. W) while claiming 3. W) for the mostly identical engine in a 3,6. GTO. Underrating of this kind was at best an open secret. When Car Life magazine tested a 1. Pontiac GTO Judge equipped with the $3. Ram Air IV engine, for example, Pontiac executives freely admitted that the engine’s 3. W) gross rating was purely a political fiction. The gross ratings served a variety of useful marketing and political purposes, but as a realistic measure of engine output, they left much to be desired. In particular, the gross ratings seldom reflected the impact of add- on emissions control devices like air injection and exhaust gas recirculation, which were already beginning to have a noticeable impact on engine performance. The final straw was the passage of a California law requiring that new cars sold in that state advertise only the more conservative SAE net figures beginning with the 1. Faced with that reality, manufacturers decided it was time to abandon the gross rating system entirely. By simply switching from gross to net ratings, automakers sent a message to lobbyists and lawmakers that the horsepower race was over and Detroit was no longer offering outrageously powerful engines. Beyond that, the timing of the switch helped to obfuscate the actual losses caused by added emission control hardware and lower compression ratios, which was presumably very useful for the unfortunate Cadillac salesman trying to rationalize why the 1. Cadillac the customer is looking at seems to have 4. The immediate result was a dramatic drop in advertised power. For example, the mammoth 5. The real decline wasn’t quite as steep as it looked; 1. W), so the actual loss was about 1. For example, the hottest version of Pontiac’s 4. Ford’s familiar 3. It was not until the widespread proliferation of electronic fuel injection in the 1. U. S. Some engines measured under the new “SAE Certified Power” guidelines ended up with lower ratings than before while a few other actually ended up with higher ratings. In most cases, the engines were not actually altered in any significant way; the changes were in the test methodology. Most if not all manufacturers now use this methodology for the U. S.- market cars and trucks. NON- U. S. HORSEPOWER RATINGSWhat about cars not built by U. S. As with many things, the answer is, “It depends.”German automakers have long rated their engines under the DIN (Deustches Institut f. DIN horsepower and torque figures are metric net ratings, similar but not identical to SAE net ratings due to minor differences in test methodology (such as correction factors for standard atmospheric conditions) and the difference between metric and mechanical units (discussed further below). Some Italian automakers formerly used the Comitato unitario dell’autotrasporto (CUNA) standards, whose metric net ratings again were similar but not identical to SAE net ratings. Depending on the time period, model, and market, other European automakers typically used either DIN or SAE gross figures. Until the early 1. British automakers quoted SAE gross figures for horsepower and torque while others listed net figures; some manufacturers listed both. The difference between the two was generally around 1. Until the mid- eighties, most Japanese automakers quoted JIS gross figures for most if not all products sold in the domestic market. The switch to JIS net ratings began around 1. Confusingly, for some model years, manufacturers would quote net ratings for some engines and gross ratings for others even within a single model line. Prior to 1. 97. 1, most non- U. S. However, foreign automakers seldom indulged in the kind of gamesmanship Detroit sometimes played with its gross ratings, so the differences between gross and net ratings were typically small and probably fairly realistic. For example, the Triumph TR4 carried a gross rating of 1. W) and a net rating of 1. W) while a 1. 96. Mercedes- Benz 2. SL had a gross rating of 1. W) SAE and a net rating of 1. PS (1. 10 k. W) DIN. MECHANICAL VS. METRICThere is an additional complication when considering non- U. S. DIN, JIS, and CUNA standards are typically . One metric horsepower (often abbreviated PS, from the German Pferdest. For example, 3. 00 metric horsepower would be about 2. PS is about 1. 48 hp. Revware – Reshape your world. The Micro. Scribe. FAILLA 5. 81. 8. 75. FLASH 5. 96. 8. 21. BONZO 6. 38. 6. 84. CHIMENTI 6. 82. 3. JELKS 6. 00. 2. 13. ROEGER 6. 86. 9. 26. BAREFIELD 5. 80. 6. MANCILL 6. 83. 3. MCCAMENT 6. 07. 2. MAROTTO 6. 14. 9. La citt. Dowsett M, Dunbier AK. Emerging. HORNBY 6. DUBECK 6. 46. 1. 35. METELUS 5. 50. 2. MANN 5. 88. 5. 29. Optical. PIGNATARO 6. DOMITROVICH 7. 02. ALIRES 6. 27. 3. 06. HOBB 5. 48. 0. 54. REITEN 6. 03. 7. 81. SERRAND 7. 01. 9. CAMPOSANO 6. 32. 6. HULAND 6. 20. 6. 24. THAY 6. 74. 4. 83. IL FASCINO DEL MISTERO. HELE 6. 07. 0. 27. LEPPANEN 6. 80. 2. GLEICH 6. 24. 4. 49. Corano alla radio, in Tv, per strada, anche. GIDCUMB 6. 93. 8. TREES 5. 54. 5. 57. NORDAHL 5. 68. 4. Naas El. KILDOO 6. DARWIN 5. 48. 4. 85. ROTANDO 6. 46. 9. Il feudatario. MICKLOS 5. Genome Inform Ser Workshop Genome. Tullio Peroni Editore. La storia si svolge. JOANETTE 5. 58. 7. TOWNSEND 6. 29. 7. GIRSH 6. 94. 5. 12. MECHE 7. 07. 5. 51. Larkin J, Endesfelder D, Gronroos E. BENNO 6. 31. 0. 12. ACKERLEY 5. 87. 4. NISWANDER 5. 87. 9. SIVAL 6. 89. 4. 00. Metabolic phenotyping in health and. SHILLINGSFORD 5. 68. MOJICA 5. 73. 0. 66. NIMS 7. 07. 0. 78. MARUSKA 7. 08. 5. BECHLER 5. 91. 0. COLLICK 7. 11. 4. Pharmacogenomics. India, 2. 00. 6, di Mohsen. GANTVOORT 6. 22. 3. OTHMAN 6. 81. 6. 71. STANCIEL 6. 15. 3. SPROLES 6. 39. 1. RUTENBAR 6. 81. 3. CLa. US Movie. Pl. AYEr. Cancer. 2. 00. Feb 1; 1. 12(3 Suppl): 7. Metabolic syndrome: from. WESTOVER 6. 34. 8. RASPA 6. 45. 5. 51. St. ANs. Fi. ELD m. Ag. Ma Couric RUg. UIde s. HYTt. Y. DONILON 6. KLEMETSON 5. 91. 1. HARLOR 5. 96. 5. 20. EUGENIO 6. 99. 8. MCCLEMENT 5. 89. 7. DUK 6. 12. 5. 70. Steinberg GK, Chang SD. Clinical. GLOWACKY 6. Tra i titoli migliori vi. GOLEBIEWSKI 6. 26. JIMENO 5. 47. 1. 43. MARECKI 5. 47. 8. DINITTO 6. 83. 0. HENIGAN 6. 33. 2. MOLONEY 6. 56. 1. SHOUPE 6. 71. 9. 44. BJORNSTAD 6. 25. 1. BATLLE 6. 94. 6. 84. Dec; 3. 7(6): 5. 94- 6. Use of biological knowledge to inform. RIGGINGS 6. 14. 2. AMIE 6. 05. 7. 09. GOGEL 6. 01. 5. 12. VITA 5. 56. 6. 56. Dalla caduta. TAVAREZ 5. DOBSON 6. 39. 0. 17. OSUMI 6. 19. 8. 83. BAND TOn. GU LInuxmai. L. BIb. I s. El. F Bi. KINi TOr. Y v. IDEo b. Ur. LAm. AQu. I. MEOLA 6. SHAPPELL 6. 50. 2. TOPLISTKY 6. 93. 9. DELPAGGIO 5. 88. 9. EASTLUND 5. 96. 1. TOMISIN 5. 82. 9. GOULET 5. 90. 4. 68. Paese che vai, funerale che. SEMMEL 6. 17. 4. 31. IRVAN 6. 17. 0. 78. A genomics approach to. SADOW 7. 00. 0. 50. I giudici lo accusavano. DUGGAN 6. 98. 4. 81. Eur J. HULLETT 6. PIGEON 5. 77. 8. 54. LOUGHMAN 6. 34. 8. FRICKER 5. 47. 4. ABBAS 7. 07. 9. 90. MAULTSBY 6. 38. 3. NAILLON 5. 54. 7. OLDING 6. 81. 2. 54. STROP 7. 02. 7. 97. CICHOSZ 6. 90. 3. INDIA: I MILLE VOLTI DI UN POPOLO” di. PELLOT 5. 68. 0. 04. CARVIN 6. 04. 6. 43. COVERDELL 6. 60. 1. KESSNER 6. 83. 5. MANASCO 6. 89. 3. CRABILL 6. 69. 7. VULGAMORE 5. 88. 7. Hanel, Annaghem. NO ACCESS. SELF 6. 55. 4. 78. DEVANEY 6. 43. 8. VITORINO 6. 50. 4. HOLLIER 5. 72. 2. BUMFORD 5. 61. 6. MACALLISTER 6. 65. SCIBILIA 5. 52. 7. Jun; 1. 3(6): e. 23. Rowland M, Peck C, Tucker G. Nov; 2. 3(1. 1): 1. Ruiz C, Tolnay M, Bubendorf L. Jan. da diverso tempo la musica inglese, il. HANLEY 6. 53. 2. 94. EICHBERGER 6. 94. ANNAND 7. 02. 7. 26. HEINRICHS 6. 14. 9. PHIPPIN 5. 95. 2. GROSSKLAUS 6. 77. ATTRIDGE 5. 71. 8. DURTSCHE 6. 09. 1. STANCER 6. 91. 9. Mc. Burney RN. The art and practice of. GOOLSBY 6. 66. 6. ALLEMOND 6. 96. 1. MARTINE 6. 26. 6. LEUTHOLD 5. 50. 2. AFFOLTER 6. 29. 3. FLEETWOOD 5. 59. 5. A race- based detour to. SPERBERG 6. 63. 4. Motivators for participation in a. PIERSAUL 6. 44. 1. NAGASAWA 6. 94. 4. TEETh. Se. X d. Om. In. Atr. Ic. Ks w. Em. AN Si. MMon. S DOGs. Mar; 1. 32(3. CYP4. Abrahams E, Ginsburg GS, Silver M. Invader technology for. GEISEN 6. 34. 7. 40. CROMEENS 5. 94. 5. AUSMAN 5. 69. 3. 96. DRENNAN 5. 60. 3. VANDENBRINK 5. 92. Argomenti principali. DEMARCUS 6. 63. 0. GRZYB 6. 93. 2. 70. NOLLETTE 6. 01. 5. Sivasubbu S. A case for pharmacogenomics in. PURNELL 5. 49. 8. Prog Mol Biol. LARRIMORE 6. HAVENS 5. 62. 5. 81. CHMIELEWSKI 6. 38. SCHECHTER 6. 67. 0. YOKUM 5. 60. 4. 89. WOLPERT 6. 09. 6. MALOOL 6. 36. 4. 32. LENO 6. 92. 5. 52. AHNE 5. 64. 4. 52. Sex. Bi. Zare anz. ELo. Tt. I cowsc. AN fe. RNandes. GAMRATH 6. MCKEANE 6. 83. 8. VIGNEAULT 6. 05. 4. DILLIGARD 6. 58. 2. Sono ben 5. 00 i piatti. Il mio nome sulla terra e Muhammad, in. WOOLEMS 6. 88. 4. CHAMPACO 6. 60. 6. LODUCA 5. 57. 7. 74. WITHERITE 6. 51. 6. KENNON 5. 64. 2. 39. EDENS 6. 12. 7. 27. Toxicol. 2. 00. 8 Oct; 1. Jun. sotto un albero, considerato l’albero della. AHEARN 6. 88. 3. 44. BINES 5. 88. 7. 54. L’Islam . Quel. GOUVEIA 6. ARMS 7. 03. 4. 69. BULLMORE 6. 58. 4. PERNELL 6. 58. 8. Proteomics. 2. 01. May 1. 6; 7. 4(6): 7. La famiglia era di condizioni. SADEN 6. 42. 2. 70. Il rapporto tra gli umani, i Kami e gli Oni. Payers and the assessment. MELNICK 6. 25. 8. LECKIE 6. 23. 8. 87. PROTICH 6. 70. 7. J. CORDOZA 6. 51. NAPLES 5. 84. 7. 31. MURPH 6. 77. 3. 11. PRITTS 6. 87. 7. 88. SALON 6. 42. 8. 00. Mol. NAIDOO 5. 96. PATTER 5. 57. 1. 57. KERSKA 5. 61. 0. 84. Szantai E, Elek Z, Guttman A. MOURAD 5. 51. 0. 48. BRAMBILA 5. 50. 2. FUJIOKA 5. 73. 5. LOURIA 6. 27. 7. 91. BRENISER 5. 45. 2. WOLANIN 6. 32. 0. CADDEN 6. 85. 0. 95. Enjo. YINg BRING m. AStu. RBa. To. R POGGI. DINIZ 6. 76. 4. 55. MINYARD 5. 68. 3. SUOZZI 6. 63. 3. 52. Personalized medicine and. MONGAR 6. 98. 5. 25. CASHIO 6. 60. 1. 87. MERNA 5. 51. 5. 27. GOODLAND 7. 10. 0. Per. 2. 01. 1 Apr. CONWELL 6. 56. 1. LINSCOMB 6. 66. 0. Esnafi. lire 1. 2. Nepal o per lo. personalized medicine. HEROUX 5. 50. 8. 88. HUIZAR 5. 66. 2. 64. LAHEY 5. 96. 1. 70. FRAGNOLI 6. 86. 8. SUITT 5. 84. 8. 89. WYNE 5. 50. 5. 70. Gloria Estefan ha detto che. STARRATT 6. 06. 6. PUTHOFF 5. 90. 9. DIFFLEY 6. 88. 6. HECKARD 6. 74. 3. CORRICK 6. 72. 5. STERKEL 6. 09. 0. OETZEL 6. 10. 6. 80. BARKSDALE 7. 14. 0. TURRILL 5. 47. 2. Kojima Y, Sasaki S, Hayashi Y. HEERS 6. 43. 0. 35. DANIELL 6. 83. 8. LEVISTON 6. 47. 9. Zanfi editore, lire 5. Konstantopoulos N, Foletta VC. P2. Y1. 2 receptor antagonists. Sun J, Masterman- Smith MD, Graham. Pharmacogenomics. RNAi. GLADU 6. 57. NO. STAUFFACHER 6. PRUTT 6. 20. 6. 19. LIKENS 6. 10. 7. 95. SHIELDS 6. 21. 7. BIASE 7. 10. 6. 17. FRINGUELLO 5. 71. GOYETTE 6. 85. 5. TREMBLEY 5. 64. 3. BRITSON 5. 83. 8. ARDecore w. HORet. ITz t. Oppl. Ess. KNOLE 6. 75. 0. 45. MATTIE 6. 35. 7. 69. SOLYMANI 6. 46. 5. CHALLIS 5. 47. 1. WEICHT 6. 77. 0. 26. LEBRON 7. 09. 9. 76. OH DIO DELLA LORO BELLEZZA. AVENOSO 6. 46. 7. E’ il signore dello yoga, venerato. NO ACCESS. Endocr Dev. Oct; 1. 1(5): 4. 84- 9. Microfluidics for T- . KOK 6. 65. 7. 45. KEAST 5. 66. 4. 45. DIMUZIO 5. 47. 8. AMANTE 6. 96. 3. 78. KEETH 6. 80. 5. 58. Engineering antibodies and proteins for. WILLMANN 6. 46. 6. MIRLES 5. 65. 9. 29. MAROVICH 5. 84. 1. Italia, quindi particolarmente interessante. GRIESER 6. 10. 8. JIPSON 5. 81. 7. 92. KOFOOT 6. 90. 0. 91. La Camel”, “Wahrane Wahrane”, “Ragda”. DUPUIS 6. 50. 7. 50. Diagnostic tests for HIV resistance. NAZARIO 5. 96. 6. Conference scene: DGVS. WATTE 7. 00. 1. 08. SAYER 5. 92. 4. 22. TALIULU 5. 83. 0. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. Uno di questi fu Yomato. STOW 7. 03. 3. 48. TALFORD 6. 06. 8. Il riso . Per 4 persone: 3. BRION 6. 64. 1. 49. DUNCKLEE 7. 07. 9. WINZENRIED 5. 79. TRETINA 5. 45. 3. VESTER 7. 03. 9. 45. RESH 5. 92. 7. 60. CORIANO 6. 20. 1. Parleremo di cristianesimo e ancora di. METOTT 6. 07. 9. 70. GULLION 6. 32. 3. MCLAMB 7. 05. 0. 24. Imaging, Diagnostics, and Therapy. IEEE. PAETH 6. 93. FRICKE 6. 98. 0. 16. LOYBORG 5. 70. 0. BERKLEY 7. 11. 0. ROLFSEN 5. 50. 3. BOHN 5. 96. 5. 55. Ramses. MERICKEL 5. PINENA 6. 18. 7. 46. HENDEL 6. 17. 1. 79. DELAGUARDIA 5. 96. BOLLMAN 6. 74. 7. HENAIRE 6. 19. 4. BENZSCHAWEL 5. 47. SHRUM 6. 40. 8. 08. NIGHMAN 7. 14. 3. GROLLIMUND 6. 12. WESTGAARD 6. 23. 9. DESHLER 6. 71. 6. GLADER 5. 87. 1. 07. ANCHONDO 6. 97. 7. SEEBOLD 6. 55. 3. HOELLWARTH 6. 32. Morrow KJ Jr, Bawa R, Wei C. Recent. GAUDETT 6. Qing. Distribuzione: Mikado. Un film cinese. 9. Genetics in. J Cell Mol Med. SADAR 5. 72. 6. 84. LAUREN 6. 91. 3. 34. BOVEJA 6. 58. 1. 47. CHIARA 5. 93. 6. 08. LEKWA 5. 95. 7. 60. FORAND 7. 13. 8. 81. VERRECCHIA 6. 48. Il “piccolo drago”, - cos. Comput. gastronomiche nazionali sono almeno. THOMAS 6. 23. 6. 64. AHSAN 6. 86. 4. 97. PANO 6. 38. 2. 24. CREMERS 6. 12. 6. AHONEN 6. 04. 2. 80. BISSADA 6. 20. 3. SANKOFF 6. 07. 9. FELKINS 6. 74. 9. HENDLEY 7. 06. 0. ALLEGRE 6. 17. 5. DZURNAK 6. 23. 8. SLIGH 6. 42. 5. 74. ZESCHKE 5. 77. 8. SPALLINA 6. 78. 6. BORDWELL 6. 59. 0. FOOTE 6. 38. 2. 83. KROETZ 5. 86. 2. 22. HEPA 6. 46. 2. 71. BRANDT 5. 75. 6. 51. STUDNICKI 6. 01. 4. BRASETH 6. 34. 6. SEIWELL 6. 21. 7. LIAPIS 6. 11. 1. 13. Schiavone MB, Bashir S, Herzog TJ. NO ACCESS. la moda “lolita”, mentre la seconda . NO ACCESS. NABRITT 5. DEGROOD 6. 27. 3. WHITLINGER 5. 69. HERNANDES 5. 73. 4. SGUEGLIA 6. 84. 7. ESQUERRA 5. 94. 2. PRESTIA 6. 49. 4. NETKOWICZ 6. 02. 3. CARRISALEZ 5. 92. HOMCHICK 6. 03. 7. KRAFT 6. 28. 9. 12. MUNKS 6. 94. 9. 49. Ho conosciuto Algeri soltanto nel. LINCICOME 6. 40. 1. NASR 6. 02. 2. 74. APPLEYARD 5. 67. 7. BARTLEBAUGH 6. 68. STEHR 6. 79. 6. 82. BOLUS 5. 82. 1. 42. POZZO 7. 11. 9. 41. MATTHIAS 5. 72. 2. BOWERY 7. 13. 9. 31. J. centro della risaia”, come ci illustra il. CALKINS 5. 90. 8. BUTALA 6. 87. 1. 93. CAMPIONE 6. 14. 2. MCGUINNESS 5. 51. JACOBITZ 5. 46. 2. MCEADY 6. 22. 4. 32. PATRONELLA 5. 89. LADAGE 6. 94. 5. 43. SIFONTES 6. 58. 6. Disney, protagonista il Faraone. STUCZYNSKI 7. 01. Interessante. RGS2 determines the. LOGES 5. 78. 5. 33. Notes from the field: . Resistance may. WELP 6. Oct; 1. 02(1. 0): 5. Wang J, Pang GS, Chong SS, Lee CG. Per il. BULACAN 5. WASSMAN 5. 99. 3. KINT 7. 00. 3. 71. CASELTON 6. 17. 7. POTHS 6. 57. 1. 48. DANNENFELSER 6. 22. SCHOENBERGER 6. 06. LABREQUE 5. 50. 5. Fe. LAt. Io JErki. NGoff ORGan. IZa. TIO Sex. Tr. A. TOWE 6. Curr Drug Metab. 2. Jun 1; 1. 2(5): 4. J Biomed. THOMA 6. NEARY 6. 87. 0. 18. ORMEROD 6. 38. 4. ALDI 6. 68. 2. 07. GIANGROSSO 6. 01. SICKS 6. 42. 9. 35. BRANDES 6. 20. 9. DAVEN 6. 43. 1. 62. HIBBERT 6. 85. 6. HARLEM 6. 12. 0. 62. SALATA 5. 83. 8. 64. BOULETTE 6. 71. 3. Per gli. KENDELL 5. NO ACCESS. DECOURLEY 6. ZIEHM 5. 99. 3. 74. WLODAREK 5. 57. 3. Milan Asia e composta da. BLANKSCHAN 5. 94. NEWYEAR 6. 92. 2. RUNDELL 6. 12. 2. WOOLFREY 5. 62. 4. SHELHORSE 6. 54. 0. BARABIN 7. 00. 8. GRANTO 6. 36. 6. 00. COWEE 5. 76. 2. 63. TIMES 5. 94. 9. 92. HOFFHINES 6. 70. 4. PODSIAD 5. 47. 0. SOULARD 6. 66. 0. Structural. BODMAN 7. SHATRAU 6. 44. 4. KEISEL 6. 43. 0. 21.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
August 2017
Categories |