|
literally a fish posted:Pretty much every production car with a turbo for the last few decades has had a water-cooled turbo as if they arrange the cooling system correctly then water will siphon through the turbos even with the water pump off thanks to convection, cooling the turbos down even after you shut the car off, thereby negating the need for a turbo timer. Some cars just keep running the water pump for a few minutes after shutting off.
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:05 |
|
|
I remember seeing a diagram of an engine that ran the coolant through in reverse for that, and through some clever system of flaps and valves the reverse path skipped most of the block. I assume it must have been German.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:Some cars just keep running the water pump for a few minutes after shutting off. Some cars with electric water pumps, yes. My favorite example being the BMW N63 V8, which eats an optima deep cycle battery every service interval thanks to the EPA and overly-litiguous nature of the US, and has been posted about here a few times.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
How is that the fault of the EPA and "overly litigious americans?" BMW are the ones that decided to design the charging system that way and make the fuel economy claims they did.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
Yeah, that seems more like BMWs fault rather than the EPA.... That's like blaming the EPA for VW cheating.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Ace944 posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1AGNa8-4ss I had this happen with a CF6-80 one night, except when I removed the suction line to the gearbox scavenge pump, six gallons of Skydrol came out. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
jamal posted:How is that the fault of the EPA and "overly litigious americans?" Or for that matter, going with an active electric water pump for the turbo coolers instead of some passive method. Can you do both by chance? IE, have the lines run to passive cool as mentioned before, but also have a water pump tapped in that can actively move the flow faster during actual spirited driving? As soon as this was posted: Cojawfee posted:Some cars just keep running the water pump for a few minutes after shutting off. My first reaction was "wait, is there a large capacitor to run this or is this draining the battery without a method to actively charge back what is used??" And here we see the answer is the later now with more hilarity because the battery isn't constantly charged while it is in motion either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
The EPA helped the NHTSA kill all of the good cars in the early 2000's, and turned the Impreza-Outback into an SUV instead of a mini-sportwagon, I have a grudge... Although I think the EU has more stringent emissions standards than the US
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
jamal posted:How is that the fault of the EPA and "overly litigious americans?" It is the fault of the EPA and overly litigious americans as in literally every other market on the planet they've just modified the charging software to keep the battery at a higher state of charge and thus lopped 1-2mpg off the fuel economy rating. They can't do this in the US as the EPA and customers would sue them into oblivion over that 1-2mpg drop. CommieGIR posted:Yeah, that seems more like BMWs fault rather than the EPA.... I don't blame the EPA for VW cheating, but I don't think their unrealistic emissions targets with no basis in what's actually technically achievable are helping. In VW's case it was their own stupid fault for trying to build a car without an SCR system when it was obviously not technically possible to achieve current emissions targets without SCR on a diesel. The Door Frame posted:Although I think the EU has more stringent emissions standards than the US Euro 6 is more stringent at CO/CO2 emissions and less stringent over NOx and particulates (when it comes to diesels anyway) than US emission standards - link with nice graph literally a fish fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Aug 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
The Door Frame posted:The EPA helped the NHTSA kill all of the good cars in the early 2000's, and turned the Impreza-Outback into an SUV instead of a mini-sportwagon, I have a grudge... What are you referring to?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
JuffoWup posted:Or for that matter, going with an active electric water pump for the turbo coolers instead of some passive method. Cooling the turbo during while driving isn't really an issue, it's when you stop and turn off the car. The BMW in question is keeping the water pump and fans running when you stop the car and the coolant temp is too high for it to just sit. Every turbo car now will either do that or have a way to keep coolant circulating after you turn off the car. All the Japanese turbo cars I've ever worked on manage to do it without running a water pump after the car shuts off. I suppose to stop from killing batteries BMW could just have the cars keep idling after they turn off? Even though it's consuming fuel would it technically count against economy ratings?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
They have to keep running the pump because the turbos are inside the V of the engine on the N63 which prevents a convection-style cooling system from working (as the turbos are effectively at the highest point in the cooling system) As I said, in every other market they've fixed the issue by raising the minimum battery state of charge (and it's less of an issue in other markets anyway as, for example, driving in Australia often features much less steady-state cruising on a day to day basis than US driving) - which comes at a very tiny hit to fuel economy, not enough to even change the official number in AU for example. jamal posted:All the Japanese turbo cars I've ever worked on manage to do it without running a water pump after the car shuts off. I suppose to stop from killing batteries BMW could just have the cars keep idling after they turn off? Even though it's consuming fuel would it technically count against economy ratings? A factory turbo timer would work, yes
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
literally a fish posted:They can't do this in the US as the EPA and customers would sue them into oblivion over that 1-2mpg drop. Nah more like Cafe fees, which already bmw pays into for most every year of not meeting standards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
OR, and this is a thought: you run an after run pump like Audi did on the 3B and AAN turbocharged 5 cylinders. Normal mechanical water pump for normal operation, and a small bypass pump that cycles coolant post shutdown until the turbo is cooled. literally a fish posted:I don't blame the EPA for VW cheating, but I don't think their unrealistic emissions targets with no basis in what's actually technically achievable are helping. The emissions targets were not unrealistic. In fact, Mercedes and BMW met them. VW didn't want to re-engineer the car to meet a deadline. I find it hard to blame EPA for setting targets that multiple other companies then met, only for VW to just handwave the emissions limits to meet accounting quotas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
The stock electric coolant pump is variable speed. It does not run at full speed while post-cooling. A secondary smaller pump would be fairly pointless when you already have a variable speed electric water pump. Mercedes and BMW meet the emissions targets under the very specific conditions of the test. And they do it with an SCR system. VW were at fault for trying to meet the targets without SCR, I'm not questioning that, that was loving stupid of them. This does not make the targets any more realistic or representative of reality. Hell, find me a single goddamn vehicle that actually meets emissions targets while on the road in anything other than steady-state cruise; the EPA really needs to get over their NOx hard-on. And hey, in defense of the EPA (and even VW) their engines actually CAN hit the targets without an SCR system! At the expense of 20% of their power output... E: To get back to the original BMW point; It is entirely possible to completely fix this issue by raising the minimum state of charge in the battery control software. This requires a tiny software update changing a single integer value which, as I mentioned, has already been developed internally by BMW and deployed in every other market they sell this engine in. They would rather pay the cost of replacing the battery in every N63-equipped vehicle in the U.S. every 10,000 miles for the life of the warranty than take the risk of being fined by the EPA/sued into oblivion by the inevitable pointless cashgrab class-action lawsuit over losing 1mpg from the official highway figure. That's how hosed up your emissions regulations and populace are. literally a fish fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Aug 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
literally a fish posted:It is the fault of the EPA and overly litigious americans as in literally every other market on the planet they've just modified the charging software to keep the battery at a higher state of charge and thus lopped 1-2mpg off the fuel economy rating. Whut? I don't know how emissions standards could be more relaxed, given the whole "climate change" thing, but the problems are the American standards for car size and the obnoxious safety standards to save morons from themselves making cars weigh so god drat much. When was the last time a car that could fit more than two people was released and weighed less than a ton? We have light weight materials, extremely efficient engines, and amazing technologies, but making a $17,000 car that can hold 5 adults, can support its own weight on its roof, goes fast, releases low levels of pollutants, and gets good gas mileage is where things get hard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
E: [snip] If you didn't see my edit, this is the point: literally a fish posted:E: To get back to the original BMW point; It's not the actual emissions regulations, it's the fact that a 1mpg change in official economy figure due to a cooling problem they could not have easily foreseen (it worked fine on the non-turbo, and isn't really an issue outside the US due to different driving loads) is more easily solved by throwing replacement batteries at the problem rather than fixing the issue and risking legal action. literally a fish fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Aug 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
BraveUlysses posted:What are you referring to? The same CAFE standards that made the reskinned Neon PT Cruiser a Light Truck mixed with new rollover standards made a lot of the cool cars of the 80's and 90's disappear or completely change http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/rulings/roll_resistance/ E: literally a fish posted:It may be worth considering the other 84% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (light-duty vehicles are responsible for 15.86% of US greenhouse gas emissions according to the EPA) and maybe lowering the CO/CO2 limits to match the EU given that the total volume of released NOx is nothing in comparison. I did not see the edit.. The Door Frame fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Aug 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
E: [snip] Two separate issues. EPA standards don't make a lot of sense, and BMW are stuck between a rock and a hard place on an unforeseen issue due to the overly litigious nature of the US populace and the fact that EPA fuel economy numbers are considered gospel even though everyone knows that you will never see the EPA number in reality. Implementing this software upgrade has not caused any measurable change in real world fuel economy on any N63 afaik (I only have a sample size of two) but if the official EPA MPG number drops by 1mpg you won't be able to blink before there's a class action over "lost value" due to "false advertising" literally a fish fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Aug 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
literally a fish posted:It is the fault of the EPA and overly litigious americans as in literally every other market on the planet they've just modified the charging software to keep the battery at a higher state of charge and thus lopped 1-2mpg off the fuel economy rating. Would anyone even know? Who actually gets the listed gas mileage? BMW could have just quietly coded it out and then when people complain they are getting 1 less mpg, just say "you're probably not driving as efficiently as you think you are." Unless you drive your car downhill in a vacuum like they do for the fuel rating tests, you're never going to get what they claim. jamal posted:Cooling the turbo during while driving isn't really an issue, it's when you stop and turn off the car. The BMW in question is keeping the water pump and fans running when you stop the car and the coolant temp is too high for it to just sit. Every turbo car now will either do that or have a way to keep coolant circulating after you turn off the car. HOW COME WHEN I TURN CAR OFF IT KEEPS RUNNING THIS PIECE OF poo poo IS TOTAL GARBAGE DON'T BUY A loving FORD THEY DON'T EVEN loving TURN OFF GOD drat SHITBOXES Also, there's the issue of if someone parks in a garage. They turn their car off, close the garage door and the car is still pumping carbon monoxide into the garage and possible also into the house.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
The Door Frame posted:Whut? I don't know how emissions standards could be more relaxed, given the whole "climate change" thing That has nothing to do with humans
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:Would anyone even know? Who actually gets the listed gas mileage? BMW could have just quietly coded it out and then when people complain they are getting 1 less mpg, just say "you're probably not driving as efficiently as you think you are." Unless you drive your car downhill in a vacuum like they do for the fuel rating tests, you're never going to get what they claim. Because lying to the EPA worked SO WELL FOR VOLKSWAGEN. PCOS Bill posted:That has nothing to do with humans Go away, global scientific consensus is that humanity is having a measurable effect on climate change.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
As someone who works on a product integral to a vehicle's emissions system (and fuel economy), it's kind of funny to hear someone suggest that fuel economy numbers basically don't matter and neither do emissions. Sure, it would be great if in some legitimate situations car companies could be afforded more leeway in fixing their vehicles after the fact - and, in fact, they can and do make changes like that - but the reason BMW elected not to do so is not clear. It COULD be purely to avoid lawsuits but there could be other reasons (for example, EPA/CARB may require the vehicles be re-certified with such a change) that you are not privy to. Also someone who is, apparently, comparing CO2 emissions and NOx emissions like they're the same thing. It shows a gross misunderstanding/ignorance or worst intentional misleading statement about the effects of different types of emissions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
PCOS Bill posted:That has nothing to do with humans  Of course it doesn't, go back to your Conservative fantasy land where Noah's ark actually happened and science is just a liberal conspiracy.literally a fish posted:It's not the actual emissions regulations, it's the fact that a 1mpg change in official economy figure due to a cooling problem they could not have easily foreseen (it worked fine on the non-turbo, and isn't really an issue outside the US due to different driving loads) is more easily solved by throwing replacement batteries at the problem rather than fixing the issue and risking legal action. How could they not have foreseen it? This is quite literally the reason we have road tests and QA. Plus, no Automotive Engineer is going to assume that something that works fine on a non-turbo car is going to hold up just fine on a turbo car that has completely different cooling characteristics and requirements.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
If I buy a car with x mpg and due to a defect, they have to modify it to get x-1 mpg why shouldn't I be compensated for the extra fuel cost? If they do it properly, like hyundai (refering to the compensation, not the mpg fraud they committed), the actual cost is pretty minimal. Basically send a check worth a few gal of fuel every month. I'm sorry their lovely design has consequences, and it isn't like they won't get sued over the battery thing anyhow. In 1998, VW could do water pumps that ran after stop and didn't kill the battery. And they couldn't keep coolant out of taillights. What's BMW's, a brand that has marketed the gently caress out of german engineering, excuse?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:As someone who works on a product integral to a vehicle's emissions system (and fuel economy), it's kind of funny to hear someone suggest that fuel economy numbers basically don't matter and neither do emissions. Sure, it would be great if in some legitimate situations car companies could be afforded more leeway in fixing their vehicles after the fact - and, in fact, they can and do make changes like that - but the reason BMW elected not to do so is not clear. It COULD be purely to avoid lawsuits but there could be other reasons (for example, EPA/CARB may require the vehicles be re-certified with such a change) that you are not privy to. Yeah, NOx emissions are much more harmful than CO and CO2. To hear someone prattle on about this subject that doesn't know enough high school chemistry to understand the difference is painful. The EU is far too lax on NOx emissions, guess they like acid rain. My friend owns one of the emissions-cheat Jettas and is less enraged at VW for cheating than he is at American emission standards and engages in the typical euroworship of VW fanboys, which is frustrating to no end.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Alright gently caress this, nope, probate me, I'm done The only point I ever wanted to make here is that BMW can't reprogram their car to no longer eat batteries because there would be an immediate class action lawsuit despite the revised EPA figure having no actual bearing on fuel economy in reality The evidence for this is that they have applied this fix everywhere outside the US and it has had no significant impact on anyone's fuel economy anywhere else. Thankyou all for completely ignoring my original point and deciding to focus on completely unrelated issues around how the EPA sets their emissions standards because apparently goons are incapable of doing anything other than being pedantic fuckwads picking on every tiny little thing they don't like YES I RECOGNIZE THE IRONY THERE. literally a fish fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Aug 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Can you tilt at this windmill in the chat thread so we don't all have to scroll past it maybe? Jesus. Also, you're arguing with totalnewbie, a guy who only like, does this professionally, while armed with google and forums knowledge. PS: someone linked a video from some Bosch engineer (I forget who) who basically stated that EU emissions laws are much more political in nature and EPA ones are far more based in science. No one loving said anything about NOx's GWP, the problem is that it produces nitric acid when combined with water, and that NOx, SOx, and HCs cause smog. I don't know if the EU has smog issues anywhere, but American emissions laws are strongly based on the fact that you couldn't loving breathe in LA in the 70s because of it. This is pretty lame as a mechanical failure, but at least it's a mechanical failure. My exhaust suddenly got a lot louder last week.  
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Do you work in the auto industry...? Because it sounds like you have no idea how much every single component is examined for things like power usage. What is, to you, "almost immeasurably small" is, as you said, almost. It is, in fact, measurable and in this case, not small. Would you notice the difference in your excel spreadsheet of fuel consumption? Probably not without controlling a lot of variables and a lot of data (n=2 is not enough). But shockingly, this is the type of work that goes on at an automotive manufacturer. And, despite the fact EightBit specifically mentioned acid rain as a concern, you have chosen to focus on GWP when comparing CO2 and NOx. Choosing emissions requirements and the reasons that they are set the way they are at the level they are is actually important and has lots of implications that you (if you're not in the industry) are not aware of. It matters. Also, no one is more aware of the drive cycles not being realistic than the OEMs and you are welcome to propose a specific drive cycle that is applicable across the board for all passenger cars, realistic to all conditions/lifestyle/driving style/etc., and un-gameable. I'm sure CARB, the EPA, the EU, and all sorts of regulatory agencies would be happy to pay you however much money you wanted for it if you've got one. kastein posted:Also, you're arguing with totalnewbie, a guy who only like, does this professionally, while armed with google and forums knowledge. Thanks for the vote of confidence but before it gets to my head, I really only have a secondary knowledge of all this stuff (emissions, fuel economy, calibration, etc.) and most of my knowledge deals directly with my component. Plus, I'm a bad engineer. Case in point, I just spent 10 seconds wondering why I only had 3 parts back when there should have been 4. There is 4. I just can't count. totalnewbie fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Aug 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Actually he's more focused on lol America lawsuits than any actual, you know, facts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
kastein posted:Can you tilt at this windmill in the chat thread so we don't all have to scroll past it maybe? Jesus. Also, you're arguing with totalnewbie, a guy who only like, does this professionally, while armed with google and forums knowledge. Backseat mod much? lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Ozmiander posted:Backseat mod much? lol I don't give a poo poo if he catches a probation for it, hell I haven't used my report button in weeks. I just get tired of reading it/giving up and scrolling. e: here, have the rod bearings out of my 98 XJ. I was daily driving this 140 miles a day until I redneck-swapped these on a weekend because it was rattling at cold startup. It ate the new ones after a few weeks too (apparently it helps if you polish the crank instead of just slamming new ones in, half assedly plastigaging them, and calling it a day?  ) and went back to rattling and I stopped giving a crap. I've seen worse, also, Jeep 4.0Ls are indestructible.
kastein fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Aug 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
literally a fish posted:
First, if the EPA MPG rating drops by 1mpg, then by definition, there's a measurable effect on fuel consumption. The numbers are set by analyzing tailpipe emissions during EPA certifications, so if the MPG drops, it means more tailpipe emissions were emitted, and thus more fuel was used. Anecdotal small-sample examples aside, you can't argue that there's no measurable change, because there was, and it's measured in miles per gallon. Second, you can't put "lost value" in quotes when there is actual lost value, nor can you put "false advertising" in quotes. If I (was stupid enough to have) bought an N64-powered BMW, and I read Xmpg on the chart, and I made a purchasing decision based on that figure, altering that figure after the sale will absolutely change not only my perception of the value of the car, but also the actual value itself. It's not hard to argue that a car which gets better mileage is worth more money. If BMW advertised that their cars got 30mpg, but they only actually got 15mpg, that's false advertising. The size of the discrepancy is irrelevant - if they introduce a software change and it causes the mileage to drop, then the owners of those cars have every right to be compensated. As an aside, nobody with a brain concerns themselves with real-world emissions numbers. In the real world with a headwind or poor road surface conditions or driving at higher/lower altitude or driving at higher/lower barometric pressures, the actual real-world emissions will vary wildly from car to car and from trip to trip. You see this all the time in people who magically get vastly better than EPA figures and people who get vastly lower. The EPA figures are derived from a laboratory drive cycle test which every car is put through, and that's why they are relevant. It's an imperfect system, but it's the only reasonable way to eliminate as many variables from that sort of testing as possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
kastein posted:I don't give a poo poo if he catches a probation for it, hell I haven't used my report button in weeks. I just get tired of reading it/giving up and scrolling. I'd pay to see what percentage of AI reports are from you, lol. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
iwentdoodie posted:Actually he's more focused on lol America lawsuits than any actual, you know, facts. BMW have a software fix that would save them, at minimum, tens of thousands of dollars in replacement batteries for N63 motors in the US. Probably a lot more, I don't know N63 sales figures but it's at least 3-5 $200+ batteries per car. This fix has been deployed in all other N63 markets. This fix has not been deployed in the US as it would require emissions recertification, which would lower the official highway mileage figure despite causing no net change in actual real world economy due to the massive disconnect between EPA mileage figures and real world performance on highly turbocharged vehicles, where economy mostly depends on how eager you are to put your right foot down. If it caused a change in real world economy, somebody somewhere that the fix has been deployed would be complaining about it by now. Nobody is. The additional load on the engine of keeping the battery at a 10-15% higher minimum state of charge is loving negligible over a tank of fuel. The mere act of running the coolant pumps and thereby running the battery partially down after shutdown consumes more fuel. This problem was not foreseen as it only happens in the US due to the large amount of steady-state cruising followed immediately by a shutdown and cooldown which is not a common load cycle outside the US. The lowering of the official mileage figure would inevitably bring a lawsuit either for false advertising or loss in value due to the false number, like this one against GM and Ford's pre-emptive settling of a similar issue Ergo, BMW cannot update the software in the N63 to prevent it eating batteries in the US, because they'd get sued, which is loving absurd, but that's how it is. Literally the only point I was trying to make.  jesus loving christ why do I speak to any of you 
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Seat Safety Switch posted:Not really a horrible mechanical failure, but the power-regulator cap (C14 below) blew on my Honda ECU, as 25 year old Honda ECUs are wont to do. I had this happen to a P28 in my Z6 swapped EF; only I left the passenger window down and it got moisture inside. I could get the car to start without it throwing any codes, but it would die under load. Main relay was good, I could smell fuel, but had recently replaced the distributor so I swapped that out to no avail. Four parking lot hours later and I decided to crack the ECU and it looked like it had been at the bottom of the ocean in any spot where the water had run. I still have that ECU somewhere, I'll try to get a couple pictures because after seeing the state it was in I'm surprised it was capable of doing anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
I wish the EPA would ban Australians from posting on car forums.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
literally a fish posted:BMW have a software fix that would save them, at minimum, tens of thousands of dollars in replacement batteries for N63 motors in the US. Probably a lot more, I don't know N63 sales figures but it's at least 3-5 $200+ batteries per car. Without adding to the fire, would a battery tender be able to resolve this issue?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Gay Weed Dad posted:Without adding to the fire, would a battery tender be able to resolve this issue? No, you'd need to ban all the bad posters like totalnewbie, iwentdoodie, throatwarbler, etc and actually crack down on the AI cliqish cult bullshit behavior that is rampant here. Even the joke forums like GBS are better moderated than this shithole.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:05 |
|
|
Jesus do I have to post the loving broken linkage on my umbrella to get this thread back on track? Textbook fatigue failure, that's one of 2 that cracked and 2 more are broken already. Anyone know where I can get a steel-hinged one?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:58
|
|
