PDA

View Full Version : Was a 2 by 4 ever a true 2 by 4?


ombre3
12-18-2005, 03:22 PM
A 2 by 4 today is just a nominal size-------meaning noticeably, although quite predictably -------smaller.

Was there ever a time when a 2 by 4 really meant 2 inches by 4 inches?

If so, why the change?-------kind of like nickel candy bars getting smaller to keep the same price sort of illusion?

Finagle
12-18-2005, 03:26 PM
A 2 by 4 today is just a nominal size-------meaning noticeably, although quite predictably -------smaller.

Was there ever a time when a 2 by 4 really meant 2 inches by 4 inches?

If so, why the change?-------kind of like nickel candy bars getting smaller to keep the same price sort of illusion?

Well, the party line is that they are 2x4 before they go into the planer and get dimensioned.

I have an older house and some of the interior framing is actually 2xX. However, the house is old enough so that that the boards are only sided on front and back, so the widths are not uniform. Often they didn't even completely remove the bark.

On the whole, I prefer a kiln-dried "2x4".

Q.E.D.
12-18-2005, 03:28 PM
Two inches by four inches is the rough-sawn dimension, that is, its size when it is first cut from a tree. After surface finishing and drying, the dimension shrinks to roughly 1 1/2 x 3 1/2, give or take, depending on the characteristics of the wood.

boytyperanma
12-18-2005, 03:39 PM
When dealing with lumber for woodworking and such it is refered to in 1/4's and board feet(volume). A 1" board is 4/4, 2" is 8/4 and so on. those are rough cut dimensions so the board in that state is not smooth on any side. So if you had an unfinished peice of board 2" x 4" x 96" after surfacing it it would be 1.5" x 3.5" x 96"

I don't know why construction went to using surfaced lumber. If you open up a 100 year old house the construction uses true dimensions, the 2x4's are actualy 2" by 4".

Mr. Blue Sky
12-18-2005, 03:41 PM
I don't know why construction went to using surfaced lumber. If you open up a 100 year old house the construction uses true dimensions, the 2x4's are actualy 2" by 4".

I've seen this on This Old House.

John Mace
12-18-2005, 03:47 PM
I don't know why construction went to using surfaced lumber. If you open up a 100 year old house the construction uses true dimensions, the 2x4's are actualy 2" by 4".
My house is over 100 years old, and during a recent remodel the contractor took time to point out the "real 2x4s" in the framing. I measured them, and they are 2x4.

Q.E.D.
12-18-2005, 03:49 PM
I don't know why construction went to using surfaced lumber. If you open up a 100 year old house the construction uses true dimensions, the 2x4's are actualy 2" by 4".
For consistency. As noted previously, rough-cut lumber will not necessarily retain its dimensions after drying along its entire length. Naturally-occurring differences in wood density, quality, moisture content and other factors will cause different parts of the wood to shrink more or less than other parts as the lumber dries. Kiln drying followed by surface planing guarantees dimensional consistency over the entire piece.

boytyperanma
12-18-2005, 03:56 PM
The ballon style houses using 20 ft 2x4's are still standing fine today why was it decided the consistancy was needed? They just dried the lumber and went with it why is surfacing needed?

Mr. Blue Sky
12-18-2005, 03:56 PM
Naturally-occurring differences in wood density, quality, moisture content and other factors will cause different parts of the wood to shrink more or less than other parts as the lumber dries.


I guess this would explain why a lot of old houses sag?

boytyperanma
12-18-2005, 04:03 PM
I guess this would explain why a lot of old houses sag?

Boards don't shrink or expand in their length. Sagging is usualy do to the foundation. Also joists where often undersized by todays standards.

tremorviolet
12-18-2005, 04:10 PM
I guess this would explain why a lot of old houses sag?

No, that's probably creep:

Creep is a rate dependent material nonlinearity in which the material continues to deform under a constant load. source (http://uic.edu/depts/accc/software/ansys/html/guide_55/g-str/GSTR8.htm#S8.3.1.10)

Simply, it's creep that causes your cheap bookshelves to look great initially and then sag over time under a fully loaded shelf.

I don't have my wood texts handy but nowdays we have factors to account for creep in wood design but I imagine it wasn't a factor in older houses.

BoringDad
12-18-2005, 06:08 PM
The ballon style houses using 20 ft 2x4's are still standing fine today why was it decided the consistancy was needed? They just dried the lumber and went with it why is surfacing needed?
Different surface treatments. When you were covering the walls with 3/8" thick wooden lath, 1/2" of brown mud, and 1/8" surface plaster, all applied by hand, there was plenty of room for error in the framing. All framing irregularities were corrected by the plasterer.

Now we are covering the walls with fixed thickness drywall, and any bends and sways in the wall are not easily corrected during the drywall taping.

kanicbird
12-18-2005, 06:29 PM
IIRC true 2x4's are called 'dimentional lumber' and used in mainly in old houses since they were built with the real stuff.

Q.E.D.
12-18-2005, 06:34 PM
IIRC true 2x4's are called 'dimentional lumber' and used in mainly in old houses since they were built with the real stuff.
No, dimensional lumber simply refers to any wood used for structual members cut to specific sizes, like 2x4s, 2x7s, 4x4s, etc.

12-18-2005, 06:50 PM
Two inches by four inches is the rough-sawn dimension, that is, its size when it is first cut from a tree. After surface finishing and drying, the dimension shrinks to roughly 1 1/2 x 3 1/2, give or take, depending on the characteristics of the wood.I've heard this explanation before, but I don't believe it.

Decades ago, in my high school shop class, they said this -- but then the finished boards were said to be 1-3/4 x 3-3/4 -- only 1/4 inch lost.
Now they claim a finished size of 1-1/2 x 3-1/2 -- 1/2 inch is lost in finishing.

So modern planers are worse than older ones, and waste more wood? And it happened all at once; all the wood companies switched to these more wasteful planers at the same time? Hah!

I find it easier to believe that the wood companies simply decided they could make more money by reducing the actual size of a '2 x 4' to something smaller, and got away with it.

I have a retired woodworking friend who makes beautiful hand-made pieces from raw lumber (actual tree limbs) and he says he seldom planes more than 1/16th to 1/8th of an inch away. Yet the big lumber companies let their machines run 4-8 times more waste than this? Again, hah!

Rhubarb
12-18-2005, 07:00 PM
... Yet the big lumber companies let their machines run 4-8 times more waste than this? Again, hah!
Well, it's not exactly waste to the big lumber companies. the sawdust is used to make particle board. I would be interested to know if the dimensions of finished lumber actually changed after particle board and similar engineered wood products became common.

asterion
12-18-2005, 07:05 PM
Why not make the rough cut 2.5x4.5 and make them true 2x4s?

12-18-2005, 07:40 PM
Why not make the rough cut 2.5x4.5 and make them true 2x4s? Because they've been able to reduce them to 1-1/2 x 3-1/2 finished size, and still sell them for the same price.

That's only 65% of the lumber a true 2 x 4 would need. 35% increase in profits!

ftg
12-18-2005, 08:05 PM
I recall there was a change to federal regs about 20 years ago regarding the sizing of dimensional lumber. The wood products people claimed that their new methods of drying resulted in less shrinkage, therefore they should be allowed to cut their boards a little smaller so that the final product was the same size as their older boards. The Feds of course agreed, and the result is that boards (magically!) became smaller still.

I've tried Googling for more on this, but no luck so far. Anyone else remember this?

David Simmons
12-18-2005, 08:38 PM
I was told about lumber sizes a long time ago by an old carpenter who remembered the changeover from unfinished lumber.

His story was that the lumber mills went to finished lumber for appearance and easier handling in the field. Things like fewer splinters.

The mills' justification for the smaller size at the same price was that a) you didn't have to use any more studs and joists of the smaller size and b) more pieces of lumber could be shipped for the same cost. As a result your cost as a consumer wasn't any higher and you got a nicer looking product that could be handled manually without getting splinters.

Take that for what it's worth. I guess maybe it computes, sorta, kinda.

boytyperanma
12-19-2005, 12:13 AM
I've heard this explanation before, but I don't believe it.

Decades ago, in my high school shop class, they said this -- but then the finished boards were said to be 1-3/4 x 3-3/4 -- only 1/4 inch lost.
Now they claim a finished size of 1-1/2 x 3-1/2 -- 1/2 inch is lost in finishing.

So modern planers are worse than older ones, and waste more wood? And it happened all at once; all the wood companies switched to these more wasteful planers at the same time? Hah!

I find it easier to believe that the wood companies simply decided they could make more money by reducing the actual size of a '2 x 4' to something smaller, and got away with it.

I have a retired woodworking friend who makes beautiful hand-made pieces from raw lumber (actual tree limbs) and he says he seldom planes more than 1/16th to 1/8th of an inch away. Yet the big lumber companies let their machines run 4-8 times more waste than this? Again, hah!

Yes on most your hardwood you don't have to take very much off to get a clean surface.

Your dimensional lumber is mostly fast grown pine. After cutting it down can warp alot in the drying process. Its simple easier for them to take more off after drying it to keep the sizes consistant. The material removed is used for other purposes so it is not waste to them.

I'll bet making more money is a part of it as well though.

boytyperanma
12-19-2005, 12:15 AM
Different surface treatments. When you were covering the walls with 3/8" thick wooden lath, 1/2" of brown mud, and 1/8" surface plaster, all applied by hand, there was plenty of room for error in the framing. All framing irregularities were corrected by the plasterer.

Now we are covering the walls with fixed thickness drywall, and any bends and sways in the wall are not easily corrected during the drywall taping.


That makes sense.

BoringDad
12-19-2005, 08:14 PM
Because they've been able to reduce them to 1-1/2 x 3-1/2 finished size, and still sell them for the same price.

That's only 65% of the lumber a true 2 x 4 would need. 35% increase in profits!
Or, to look at another way, to get smooth surfaced true 2x4's they would have had to jack their prices up due to the extra wood used. That would never have sold, especially since it turns out that for almost all home construction in the US 1.5 x3.5 inches is plenty strong, so the extra wood really would have been wasted. The product is smaller, but it is not any less useful.

R. P. McMurphy
12-19-2005, 09:02 PM
I recall there was a change to federal regs about 20 years ago regarding the sizing of dimensional lumber. The wood products people claimed that their new methods of drying resulted in less shrinkage, therefore they should be allowed to cut their boards a little smaller so that the final product was the same size as their older boards. The Feds of course agreed, and the result is that boards (magically!) became smaller still.

I've tried Googling for more on this, but no luck so far. Anyone else remember this?

I recall that this was just about exactly what happened. However, I think it was far more than 20 years ago.

spingears
12-19-2005, 09:12 PM
So if you had an unfinished peice of board 2" x 4" x 96" after surfacing it it would be 1.5" x 3.5" x 96"
I don't know why construction went to using surfaced lumber. If you open up a 100 year old house the construction uses true dimensions, the 2x4's are actualy 2" by 4".2 x 4, 1-5/8 x 3-5/8, 1-1/2 x 3-1/2 = Progress"

BoringDad
12-19-2005, 10:18 PM
2 x 4, 1-5/8 x 3-5/8, 1-1/2 x 3-1/2 = Progress"
Well, yes. It is progress. Uses less natural resources to do exactly the same job. In fact, construction technology has progressed such that the house built 100 years ago with true 2x4's on 16" centers could now be built with 1.2x3.5's on 24" centers. Same end product, less material used. Progress!

David Simmons
12-19-2005, 11:01 PM
I recall that this was just about exactly what happened. However, I think it was far more than 20 years ago.We're not dealing in factual answere on this, but I believe it was much longer than 20 years; more like 45 or 50 that the dimensions were changed from 1-5/8 x 3-5/8 to 1-12 x 3-1/2.

boytyperanma
12-20-2005, 12:28 AM
Well, yes. It is progress. Uses less natural resources to do exactly the same job. In fact, construction technology has progressed such that the house built 100 years ago with true 2x4's on 16" centers could now be built with 1.2x3.5's on 24" centers. Same end product, less material used. Progress!

I'm not sure where your building houses with studs 24 inches on center. None of the building codes around me would let that fly. I suppose you 'could' do it

Progress would mean the houses built today would last a hundred years. Seems like everything put up today has an expected lifespan before its going to be torn down and replaced.

handsomeharry
12-20-2005, 06:37 PM
We're not dealing in factual answere on this, but I believe it was much longer than 20 years; more like 45 or 50 that the dimensions were changed from 1-5/8 x 3-5/8 to 1-12 x 3-1/2.

I think that 20 years sounds much closer. IIRC, it was around that time that i measured some and had the same question. Could be wrong, tho.
I also believe that the lumber companies are shorting themselves by naming them by the pre-finished measurements. e.g., just think of a delivered piece of redwood measuring 1.5" x 3.5". Why not call it a 20' by 300', it's pristine measurement?

hh

Sal Ammoniac
12-20-2005, 07:32 PM
We're into pet peeve territory here. Go to Home Depot and measure their lumber, and you'll find that most of it is just a hair shy of the expected dimension. So the 2 x 4 isn't actually 1 1/2 by 3 1/2, it's maybe a 32nd shy all around. Measure a 1 x 10, and it's not anything like 9 1/4 wide. By my lights, the lumber companies are cheating, and part of the problem, as I understand it, is that standard sizes are not a matter of government mandate, but of self-policing on the part of the industry.

What's worse is that makers of other building products have gotten into the act too. Look at cement block, for instance, and the difference between the nominal and the actual size. What's their excuse?

12-20-2005, 11:53 PM
What's worse is that makers of other building products have gotten into the act too. Look at cement block, for instance, and the difference between the nominal and the actual size. What's their excuse?Or even PC makers.

I'm looking at a CRT labeled as "19 inches", but by actual measurement is only 17-3/4 inches of screen showing. And the picture doesn't quite reach to the edge of that.

Balthisar
12-21-2005, 06:03 AM
Or even PC makers.
And rental car companies! A Ford Taurus is not a full-size car.

David Simmons
12-21-2005, 08:55 AM
Or even PC makers.

I'm looking at a CRT labeled as "19 inches", but by actual measurement is only 17-3/4 inches of screen showing. And the picture doesn't quite reach to the edge of that.I don't think this is a new development. CRT display sizes for consumer products have always used the diagonal measure.

R. P. McMurphy
12-21-2005, 10:57 AM
I'm not sure where your building houses with studs 24 inches on center. None of the building codes around me would let that fly. I suppose you 'could' do it

Progress would mean the houses built today would last a hundred years. Seems like everything put up today has an expected lifespan before its going to be torn down and replaced.

If you are building a "real" house you are going to use 2x6 (1 1/2 x 5 1/2) studs on the outside walls anyway. That way you get sufficient strength and enough space for adaquate insulation. The [less than] 2x4 studs on the interior non-load bearing walls are perfectly adaquate.

David Simmons
12-21-2005, 12:25 PM
If you are building a "real" house you are going to use 2x6 (1 1/2 x 5 1/2) studs on the outside walls anyway. Not where I live. 2 x 4 studs on 16" centers are the norm.

boytyperanma
12-21-2005, 12:53 PM
Not where I live. 2 x 4 studs on 16" centers are the norm.

It varies. Most codes require 2x4 16 on center. Most houses in colder climates use 2x6 not because its required but because it's a better warmer house.

R. P. McMurphy
12-21-2005, 11:01 PM
Not where I live. 2 x 4 studs on 16" centers are the norm.

As I said, "if you are building a 'real' house", not just throwing up a structure that complies with the minimum standards. The 2x6 studs in the load bearing walls offer a lot of advantages. But hey, do whatever you want as long as it's legal. The codes let you do a lot of things that I would never do if I was building my own home from the start.

12-22-2005, 03:30 AM
I don't think this is a new development. CRT display sizes for consumer products have always used the diagonal measure.Sure. But what I'm talking about is the exaggerated diagonal measurement. One that says their CRT is a 19-inch, when the actual (diagonal) measurement is only 17-3/4 inches.

BoringDad
12-22-2005, 05:18 PM
As I said, "if you are building a 'real' house", not just throwing up a structure that complies with the minimum standards. The 2x6 studs in the load bearing walls offer a lot of advantages. But hey, do whatever you want as long as it's legal. The codes let you do a lot of things that I would never do if I was building my own home from the start.
Oh come on. People have been building walls with 2x4's on 16 inch centers for over 100 years. It is hardly a substandard building method that will lead to the house falling down in 50 years. In fact, as I posted earlier, structural analysis shows that 2x4 on 24 inch center is structurally sufficient if done properly. I have no idea which areas of the country this is allowed by code because local code is by nature conservative. But here is a link to a recommendation for it (pdf)http://energystar.gov/ia/partners/bldrs_lenders_raters/downloads/BuilderGuide3D.pdf, and there have been articles about it in Fine HomeBuilding. There are cases where "just complying with minimum standards" is perfectly acceptable and will produce a fine long lasting structure.

In cold climates the choice is 2x6 stuffed with insulation of 2x4 stuffed with insulation and covered in a 1-1/2 layer of styrofoam insulating board. Neither is inherently "better" than the other. Although 2x6 does give you more room to run wires in external walls.

R. P. McMurphy
12-22-2005, 08:40 PM
Oh come on. People have been building walls with 2x4's on 16 inch centers for over 100 years. It is hardly a substandard building method that will lead to the house falling down in 50 years. In fact, as I posted earlier, structural analysis shows that 2x4 on 24 inch center is structurally sufficient if done properly. I have no idea which areas of the country this is allowed by code because local code is by nature conservative. But here is a link to a recommendation for it (pdf)http://energystar.gov/ia/partners/bldrs_lenders_raters/downloads/BuilderGuide3D.pdf, and there have been articles about it in Fine HomeBuilding. There are cases where "just complying with minimum standards" is perfectly acceptable and will produce a fine long lasting structure.

In cold climates the choice is 2x6 stuffed with insulation of 2x4 stuffed with insulation and covered in a 1-1/2 layer of styrofoam insulating board. Neither is inherently "better" than the other. Although 2x6 does give you more room to run wires in external walls.

A lot of things are perfectly acceptable but not desirable. If given the opportunity always build with 2x6 on structural walls. First of all, always over-insulate. It provides sound proofing and climate control. We either need heat retention or ability to air condition efficiently. Houses built before the '70 were horribly under insulated because energy was cheap. It is much more efficient to install insulation at the time of construction than to retrofit. Do you KNOW what energy will cost in 20 years? Why not plan for the worst case, just in case. Also the sound proofing is a bonus.

The 2x6 studs provide for a much more rigid stucture that will stay on square. There is hardly anyplace that is not subject to some kind of extreme weather. Why not spend a few dollars at the outset to prevent future problems with flexing and cracking in the structure.

With the 2x6 studs you will prevent potential problems with windows and doors developing fit problems. A sliding door that doesn't slide properly because of a sag or a flex is a PITA.

As I said before, go ahead and do what you want. There are a lot of MacMansions out there that have been built according to code that are pieces of crap that will cause their owner endless aggavation in the coming years. Go buy them, mortgage your future, try to impress your neighbors and live with the endless problems.

Personally, I will spend a few extra dollars and get it done right. Having done numerous renovations, I have found that meeting the minimum standards is a losing proposition in the long run. Overbuild now and rest easy later.

BoringDad
12-22-2005, 09:23 PM
A lot of things are perfectly acceptable but not desirable. If given the opportunity always build with 2x6 on structural walls. First of all, always over-insulate. It provides sound proofing and climate control. We either need heat retention or ability to air condition efficiently. Houses built before the '70 were horribly under insulated because energy was cheap. It is much more efficient to install insulation at the time of construction than to retrofit.

The 2x6 studs provide for a much more rigid stucture that will stay on square. There is hardly anyplace that is not subject to some kind of extreme weather. Why not spend a few dollars at the outset to prevent future problems with flexing and cracking in the structure.

As stated in the site I linked to, if you are going for insulation, then studs on 2 ft centers are BETTER than stud on 16" centers due to the poor insulating qualities of the wood. And it is very easy and cost neutral to put foam on the outside of the sheathing. 2x4 vs 2x6 is usually determined based on local costs of material, as insulation wise, they don't differ much.

And using 2x6's does NOT make a structure that will stay square any more than 2x4's. For sure, 2x6's in the wall provide additional vertical load resistance (which is not needed unless you are building more than 2 stories or you are building an upstairs weightroom). But to keep things square, the keys are the sheathing, the joists, and the foundation. 2x6's add no more resistance to racking than 2x4's do.

I will grant you that 2x6's have some benefits. Mainly they are more tolerant of screw-ups in the construction. If your electrician cuts a 2" deep notch out of your 2x6 you still havea full 2x4 left which is all you need, but if he gouges that out of yor 2x4, your wall is compromised.

Translucent Daydream
12-23-2005, 08:01 AM
And using 2x6's does NOT make a structure that will stay square any more than 2x4's. For sure, 2x6's in the wall provide additional vertical load resistance (which is not needed unless you are building more than 2 stories or you are building an upstairs weightroom). But to keep things square, the keys are the sheathing, the joists, and the foundation. 2x6's add no more resistance to racking than 2x4's do.

This is exactly right. The ability for a board to stay perpendicular to the ground has nothing to do with how wide it is, it depends on what it is attached to (the foundation, the roof) is moving or not.

It might be easier to imagine a sideways capital letter H. Where the crossing portion is the stud on the wall, and the two side parts are the roof and the foundation. It doesn't make any difference how thick or wide the middle part is, if the two sides are moving around, the stud will stay off of square. If they never move, it doesn't either.

I read somewhere that you don't get much by overinsulating much past the recommended R value, but I can't find a site for that. Does anyone here have a better Googling ability?

12-27-2005, 12:39 AM
I read somewhere that you don't get much by overinsulating much past the recommended R valueWhich recommended R value?

What is recommended has certainly changed in the 25 years I've been in my house. And it changed many times in the 75 years before that since it was built.

About 20 years ago, I had insulation added to my attic. I over-did it, even the contractor tried to tell me I was wasting money by insulating so much -- I the decreased fuel cost would never amount to enough to pay back the increased cost. Ha! -- Given current energy prices, I expect I save that much every single heating season!

ombre3
12-27-2005, 03:28 PM
Amazing how much I am learning from a very simple question.

A lot of very knowledgable people on this forum.

ntcrawler
12-29-2005, 03:21 PM
My family's house in the Chicago suburds was built in 1927. It too has 2 x 4's which are really more like 1.75 by 3.5's, so this scam has been going back at least until then

Eastcreek
01-30-2016, 05:53 PM
I found an old "2x4" at a yard sale today. It is 2.125" x 4.125" I suspect that it is one of the early "2x4s" that allowed for an extra 1/8th inch for finishing! I am not sure yet how I will use it. But i hope I will incorporate it into one of my Steam Punk buildings.

bob++
01-30-2016, 06:09 PM
When we went metric, timber could no longer be sold as 'nominal' 2 by 4 or whatever. Metric timber is actually the size it is described as, so 50mm by 100mm would be just that.

HoneyBadgerDC
01-30-2016, 06:30 PM
Doug fir is not dried prior to using for construction grade, it is dripping wet. When you pound a nail water comes out.

TriPolar
01-30-2016, 06:46 PM
Doug fir is not dried prior to using for construction grade, it is dripping wet. When you pound a nail water comes out.

You can expect a lot of lumber to be dried to some minimum standard to save money. And you can expect to see it continue to shrink as it dries over time.

Chronos
01-30-2016, 07:21 PM
As an aside: You sometimes see people saying how back in the day, they built things to last, but nowadays, things fall apart quickly. But this is an illusion. In every age, there have been some things built to high quality, and some shoddy things, and the proportion that's quality has actually been increasing. But as time goes on, the shoddy ones fall apart and get torn down or thrown away, so that all that's left is the high-quality ones. It's not true that all of the houses built 200 years ago lasted 200 years, but it is true that all 200-year-old houses have lasted 200 years.

Fir na tine
01-30-2016, 08:00 PM
I found an old "2x4" at a yard sale today. It is 2.125" x 4.125" I suspect that it is one of the early "2x4s" that allowed for an extra 1/8th inch for finishing! I am not sure yet how I will use it. But i hope I will incorporate it into one of my Steam Punk buildings.

Studs of this size are commonly used to build enclosures for zombie threads!

bump
01-30-2016, 09:20 PM
Or, to look at another way, to get smooth surfaced true 2x4's they would have had to jack their prices up due to the extra wood used. That would never have sold, especially since it turns out that for almost all home construction in the US 1.5 x3.5 inches is plenty strong, so the extra wood really would have been wasted. The product is smaller, but it is not any less useful.

That was what I was going to ask / point out. Other than grumpy types bitching because they're getting 1.5x3.5 instead of 2x4, there's no real need for an exact 2x4 board- 1.5x3.5 is plenty strong.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: [email protected]

Send comments about this website to:

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

Best Topics: microwave crackling noise rolex reconditioning freezing the cervix rubbing alcohol acetone thin swords teeth capped matrix vs vibe mairsey doats wriggle room gay ear pierce bleach hardwood floor cough syrups with codeine over the counter why don't chickens fly automotive battery memory saver can you take too much benadryl is dope based on a true story 6 foot tall 200 pounds in 1900, which was the city with a larger population, san francisco or los angeles? species with more than two sexes american frozen foods review iomega zip drive usb adapter how to join flds church how much do herbalife distributors make my foot itches like crazy