Jump to content
IGNORED

Milage Modifications


Pat Buzzard

Recommended Posts

Well with the return of ultra-high gas prices I figure it might be interesting to discuss any tricks\ modifications that have been proven to increase gas mileage and efficiency. I am too new to BMW's to really contribute to the discussion but I relish the chance to learn ANYTHING new!

Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday

Dual spark plugs is a modification that increases engine efficiency. This was an aftermarket change that used to be available for 1100's from San Jose BMW, and may still be. You sent them your existing cylinder heads along with a check (~$500?), and they sent you a different pair of heads that had been drilled/tapped for a second spark plug, along with a second ignition coil. The 1150's and 1200's of course already have dual plugs, so that's not an option for them.

 

Within reason, gasoline engines are generally more efficient if you select a higher gear to get the RPM's down and use more throttle to maintain speed. The engine doesn't have to work so hard to move air past the strangulation of the throttle plate, improving overall efficiency (this is not an issue for diesel engines, the efficiency of which is much less sensitive to load).

 

Engines that operate well lean of stoichiometric can be considerably more efficient; lower peak combustion temps mean lower heat loss to the cylinder head and walls, and more energy available for conversion to mechanical work during the expansion stroke. The bad news is that this will be very difficult to implement on an engine with computer-controlled fuel/spark: in addition to adjusting the fuel, you would also need to advance the spark timing considerably to compensate for slower combustion speeds. You would need exhaust temperature measurements to accomplish this, so you could verify that you weren't frying your exhaust valves. When all is said and done, your bike would be in violation of emissions rules because it would be spitting out lots of NOx.

 

Other than that, the usual rules apply: choose lower speeds, avoid jackrabbit acceleration during city riding, keep your tire pressures up.

Link to comment

Technically, there were a few 2005 model 1150s as well, obviously dual spark as well. My friend Don had a 2005 R1150RT. Rare, but out there.

 

-MKL

Link to comment

How about some tricks from the hypermiling folks? Drafting big-rigs, push or bump starting from stop lights, lots of clutch-in coasting, engine off riding. Motorcycles seem to be the ideal platform for this technique. Sure beats hopping into a car after giving it a shove. The trick is gentle accel and slowing, low rpm upshifts. Can we safely ride a motorcycle with 60 psi in the tires?

http://www.hypermiling.com/

Link to comment

The easiest way to reduce fuel consumption on virtually every motor vehicle is to reduce cruising speed on the highway, as painful as that may be. :)

 

In urban driving, one technique for significantly reducing fuel consumption on an automobiles is to turn the engine off at stop lights. (I've NEVER done this on a motorcycle. And, I know, I know, there are mechanical cost implications regarding wearing out starter motors, but this is a fuel economy thread.)

 

This is a technique we saw Hungarians doing twenty years ago. For a lark, I recently tried that last summer for one tank of fuel on a V8 sedan. Although not a scientific test, this technique reduced fuel consumption by 18-percent. This is one way many hybrid automobiles are able to achieve lower fuel consumption.

 

Cheers.

 

Tim

Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday
How about some tricks from the hypermiling folks? Drafting big-rigs, push or bump starting from stop lights, lots of clutch-in coasting, engine off riding. Motorcycles seem to be the ideal platform for this technique. Sure beats hopping into a car after giving it a shove. The trick is gentle accel and slowing, low rpm upshifts. Can we safely ride a motorcycle with 60 psi in the tires?

http://www.hypermiling.com/

 

I'm not comfortable with clutch-in coasting for extended periods at high speeds - or more specifically, high clutch slip rates. If you're cruising with the engine at 4000 RPM and clutch-in, and the revs drop to 1000 RPM, now your clutch has a 3000-RPM slip rate, compared to a 1000-RPM slip rate when you're idling at a traffic light. That's dumping quite a bit of extra heat into the clutch (even when the clutch is disengaged, it's not zero-friction).

 

If you can get the gearbox into neutral and let the clutch out, that's great - zero wear on the clutch, and zero engine braking - but that's difficult on a bike except at relatively low city riding speeds.

 

Drafting big-rigs at very short range can result in incredible MPG, but it's also berry dangerous, especially on a bike.

Link to comment
Only thing I know of is to drop your panniers and top case whenever possible to reduce drag and everything else has to do with your throttle hand.

 

...ditch your gargantuan Cee Bailey windshield and give up french fries.

Link to comment
Dual spark plugs is a modification that increases engine efficiency. This was an aftermarket change that used to be available for 1100's from San Jose BMW, and may still be. You sent them your existing cylinder heads along with a check (~$500?), and they sent you a different pair of heads that had been drilled/tapped for a second spark plug, along with a second ignition coil.

Sooo...how much gas do you have to save to pay for the mod?

The 1150's and 1200's of course already have dual plugs, so that's not an option for them.

Not ALL of the 1150s.

Sigh...

 

Not that I miss them. I'm glad I don't have to pay $$$ for four plugs every time I change them.

Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday
Sooo...how much gas do you have to save to pay for the mod?

 

:grin:

 

By my math, you have to go about 70K miles to recover the cost. IIRC there were other benefits that made the mod worthwhile for some folks. In addition to improved MPG, you also got:

 

-a slight increase in peak power

-smoother torque curve

-elimination of the infamous surging

 

If a rider is interested in improving fuel economy for the sake of saving money, yeah, this mod is probably not worthwhile. If a rider is environmentally conscious and willing to put his money where his mouth is, then this one really does deliver.

Link to comment

Bikes over a litre seem to hit a ceiling of about 45 mpg. That hasn't really changed in the past 15 years or so.

 

However the gas mileage star in the BMW lineup seems to be F800ST, which does ten or so mpg better than 45.

Link to comment

Lower top speed will improve gas mileage considerably. You will get far better mileage at 55 mph rather than 80. If you want.

Smaller engines generally get better mileage. Who needs a 1600 cc engine? I don't.

I never shut off the car or the bike at stop lights. But I do while waiting for a train.

The price of gas has never bothered me.

dc

Link to comment

Looky here guys.....we ride BMW's fer kryssakes. Is paying $5 more for a fillup REALLY going to hurt (most of) our financial situations?

Unless you're driving / riding 100 miles plus per day, the effort and $$ you expend trying to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse will most likely end in futile failure.

Now, if you're just having a good time trying to see what you can squeeze out of the beemer, then more power to you, otherwise ride it, enjoy it, and shut up!

Just my 2 cents worth

<:))

Link to comment
Bikes over a litre seem to hit a ceiling of about 45 mpg. That hasn't really changed in the past 15 years or so.

 

However the gas mileage star in the BMW lineup seems to be F800ST, which does ten or so mpg better than 45.

Don't try to tell this to my R1200-RT!

My R1200-RT will exceed 50MPG at any cruising speed below 75MPH.

At 55MPH (Painful!) I have achieved over 60MPG over an entire tank (400 miles).

 

 

 

Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday
Don't try to tell this to my R1200-RT!

My R1200-RT will exceed 50MPG at any cruising speed below 75MPH.

At 55MPH (Painful!) I have achieved over 60MPG over an entire tank (400 miles).

 

Come down here and say that! You live at ~5000 feet elevation, which is another big fuel economy helper. You'll see a big drop in MPG if you spend time riding around at just 500 feet elevation.

Link to comment

...or sea-level (gasp!). But the 1200's do get better gas mileage than the 1100's.

 

Now if you really want to save money on gas, the Royal Enfield Bullet (500cc) now coming from India, gets a reported 80 mpg.

Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday
...or sea-level (gasp!). But the 1200's do get better gas mileage than the 1100's.

 

Now if you really want to save money on gas, the Royal Enfield Bullet (500cc) now coming from India, gets a reported 80 mpg.

 

That's pretty good; I think the Ninja250 only gets about 70.

Link to comment

There is a drop in mileage going down to sea level from 4700 ft., but not major. 1 or 2 MPG max.

My R1200-RT has always had better gas mileage than my R1100-RT by at least 5 MPG. and I have the extended mileage at both current altitude as well as near sea level from my prior location in SoCal on the 1100 as reference.

Link to comment
Don't try to tell this to my R1200-RT!

My R1200-RT will exceed 50MPG at any cruising speed below 75MPH.

At 55MPH (Painful!) I have achieved over 60MPG over an entire tank (400 miles).

 

Come down here and say that! You live at ~5000 feet elevation, which is another big fuel economy helper. You'll see a big drop in MPG if you spend time riding around at just 500 feet elevation.

 

500 feet?

Man, I get a nosebleed at that altitude...

 

I think it's a matter of backing off the cruise speed... My GS will get 45 with the jesses and top box if I keep it under 70. I get a little better without the box at that speed and can even get the same going between 70-75. I've never run it long going slower and without the boxes, I may have to give that a go in the name of science.

Link to comment
Nice n Easy Rider
My GS will get 45 with the jesses and top box if I keep it under 70. I get a little better without the box at that speed and can even get the same going between 70-75. I've never run it long going slower and without the boxes, I may have to give that a go in the name of science.

Yeah, right Matt. Maybe in the name of avoiding a performance citation, but in the name of science? :rofl:

Link to comment
However the gas mileage star in the BMW lineup seems to be F800ST, which does ten or so mpg better than 45.

 

Nope: That honor would fall to the F650GS (now the G650GS). Mine averages 65 mpg, gets 72-73 mpg in light cruising, and has done 82 mpg with my wife on the back poking along country roads in eastern Oregon. The absolute worst it ever got was 58 mpg riding WOT out in the desert roads of Arizona (closed course conditions :/ ).

Link to comment

I have a single spark R1150RT, and I have ridden with folks with the later dual spark for several tankfuls. I have never used more gas than they did. Maybe the hand on the throttle, and the tuner, has more effect than this modification is given credit for.

Link to comment
Looky here guys.....we ride BMW's fer kryssakes. Is paying $5 more for a fillup REALLY going to hurt (most of) our financial situations?

Unless you're driving / riding 100 miles plus per day, the effort and $$ you expend trying to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse will most likely end in futile failure.

Now, if you're just having a good time trying to see what you can squeeze out of the beemer, then more power to you, otherwise ride it, enjoy it, and shut up!

Just my 2 cents worth

<:))

Sure it's only an extra $5 to fill up our bikes, no big deal.

It's only an extra $20 to fill up a car.

It's only an extra $30 to fill up a pickup truck

It's only an extra $100 to fill up a truck/tractor

It's only $150 more to fill up a farm implement

It's only $500 more to fill a locomotive

It's only $5,000 more to fill up a B737.

..and on and on.

 

That $5 extra gets mighty expensive when it trickles back to consumer in the form of higher prices that were raised to offset higher fuel costs. So yes, that extra five bux to fill my BMW is a major concern for me.

Anxiously awaiting to see how the CPI is doing.

Link to comment
Looky here guys.....we ride BMW's fer kryssakes. Is paying $5 more for a fillup REALLY going to hurt (most of) our financial situations?

<:))

 

Absolutely! That could be $25-$30 per day on some of my rides!

:grin:

Link to comment

I have a bit of a problem with the situation that if gas prices go up 30% ($3 to $4) feeding already fat pockets we complain a lot but live with it, but if there is talk of raising the gas tax a few cents to reduce the debt of our country this would look like Egypt.

Link to comment

I don't know, Paul. Take a look at SUV and heavy truck sales - tanked after the last gas crunch, and slowly crept up again. Now, the cycle of freaking out begins again. Take a look at some of the comments on the "hybrid hatred" thread. Let's see if my fellow forum posters hold to those opinions this summer. The American memory is woefully short.

 

We've reached a point where some of us - myself included - have cars which get better MPG than our bikes. And that's with the capacity to carry 4-5 people plus cargo. A bike **solely** as efficient transportation is a loser, unless one has an inefficient car.

 

I ride the bike because it's fun, not because it's efficient. It's simply not. Factor in service costs and its cost to run per mile is even worse - no comparison, actually.

 

-MKL

Link to comment
I have a bit of a problem with the situation that if gas prices go up 30% ($3 to $4) feeding already fat pockets we complain a lot but live with it, but if there is talk of raising the gas tax a few cents to reduce the debt of our country this would look like Egypt.

 

I could respond to this, but I am certain it will violate the anti-political rules of this forum.

Link to comment

Sh*t, don't get me going on what and how much fuel ( diesel and jet fuel) goes up in smoke on our tax payer dime. Just think helis, jets and armored vehicles... thousands of it! .. idling and patrolling sand "over there"!

 

"OFF soap BOX"

 

Even if your bike gets higher gas mileage than your car it is not an efficient way to commute.

Figure your rear tire cost $100+ and you replace it 5-6K miles if you commute in the stop and go traffic. Your car tire get about 40-50K and in my case cost about $70-80 a tire. So 4 tires is $320 were as 9-10 tire changes on the bike = $900- $1000. We did not even mention the front motorcycle tire yet.

 

That is a loose math calculation but somewhat close, unless you have 22" rims on your car.

 

So bikes are for fun for me , not mileage champs. I do appreciate the 50+mpg my Rt yields and makes it fun at the same time.

 

 

Link to comment

650 GS I've seen many over 60+mpg and some over 70 mpg.

 

New ST I've seen over 70 mpg.

 

R 1100 I've seen over 55 mpg.

R1150 over 55 mpg.

New r1200 over 55 mpg

K 1200 S over 51 mpg

Boxer ST over 58 mpg

 

My GT from 28 - 44 mpg.

My R 50 I got over 70 mpg.

 

Depends on load and wrist.

Tire inflation, state of tune, gas quality.

 

To improve mpg, lose weight, reduce load, keep bike in tune, let up on the wrist, try to maintain even cruise speed.

 

Elevation can make a 10-15% difference in my mpg.

 

Commuting "cost"?

Depends on which vehicle, depreciation cost, and then cost to use.

Not always cut and dried.

 

My favorite way to save money on gas would be to borrow David's Aprilla and then return it with an empty tank.

 

Apologies to you know who...

:grin:

Link to comment

buy bikes with smaller engines and drive slower...now as for your own bike about the only cost effective change would be to drive slower and accelerate more gently. I am somewhat baffled that bikes do not do better on mileage considering the weight advantage over cars vs engine power...is it poor aerodynamics? the mileage issue with some of todays small cars doing better than bikes while hauling 4 people is one reason folks dont flock to bikes when gas prices rise (along with maintenance costs which also seem inflated on bikes).

Paul, my only comment on higher gas taxes to pay debt is when was the last time ANY tax increase was EVER used to pay debt or anything else? It is always used in the slush fund and debt and spending goes up anyway. That is why folks hate to hear such a proposal.

Link to comment
I am somewhat baffled that bikes do not do better on mileage considering the weight advantage over cars vs engine power...is it poor aerodynamics?
Yes, exactly, this has been what puzzles me too. I think aerodynamics does have a lot to do with it. The average import sedan gets better gas mileage and ways 1.5 to 2 tons.

 

Manufacturers are still locked in HP and displacement wars. Now we 1.6 litre 6's getting 45mpg. I would happily trade a 150HP getting 45mpg for 100HP getting 70mpg. But apparently, it doesn't work that way.

 

I still think that manufacturers could do a lot more if they focused on mileage and capped HP and displacement. And make it something more appealing than a maxi-scooter.

Link to comment

I've been getting around 40-42 with my RT. It's still breaking in (only 716 miles) and it's winter gas, but it sure beats the 28 I get with my Jetta or 15 with my Suburban.

Link to comment

Not withstanding what Bob said about the cascading downstream effect, the raw cost on bike isn't going to break the bank...

 

If you ride 12,000 bike miles per year at 45mpg = 266 Gallons

 

$3.00/gal = $798/annually

 

Or simply stated every dollar added = an additonal $266 per year for those who manage a full 12K miles per year...

 

Since my bike is now 5 years old with 30K or an average of $6k/miles per year if gas goes from $3-$5 the effect on my motorcyle gas bill is an average of $266/yr or #22/month. My wife spent that much on margaritas last night.

 

My airplane on the other hand....ugh.... 14 gallons per hour, 150 hours per year, $4200...

Link to comment
Looky here guys.....we ride BMW's fer kryssakes. Is paying $5 more for a fillup REALLY going to hurt (most of) our financial situations?

Unless you're driving / riding 100 miles plus per day, the effort and $$ you expend trying to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse will most likely end in futile failure.

Now, if you're just having a good time trying to see what you can squeeze out of the beemer, then more power to you, otherwise ride it, enjoy it, and shut up!

Just my 2 cents worth

<:))

Sure it's only an extra $5 to fill up our bikes, no big deal.

It's only an extra $20 to fill up a car.

It's only an extra $30 to fill up a pickup truck

It's only an extra $100 to fill up a truck/tractor

It's only $150 more to fill up a farm implement

It's only $500 more to fill a locomotive

It's only $5,000 more to fill up a B737.

..and on and on.

 

That $5 extra gets mighty expensive when it trickles back to consumer in the form of higher prices that were raised to offset higher fuel costs. So yes, that extra five bux to fill my BMW is a major concern for me.

Anxiously awaiting to see how the CPI is doing.

 

Your figures are absolutely correct, however, I was merely addressing the OP's original query pertaining to BMW's, which I assumed to be only the bikes. I drive a 4WD Expedition and my wife has a 450HP TransAm, so I am very aware of the fill-up costs associated with those.

Regards

Bernd

Link to comment
Looky here guys.....we ride BMW's fer kryssakes. Is paying $5 more for a fillup REALLY going to hurt (most of) our financial situations?

<:))

 

Absolutely! That could be $25-$30 per day on some of my rides!

:grin:

 

True, but let's face reality here. MOST of us who ride the Beemers do so because we WANT to, not because we need to. I would venture a guess that only a small percentage of bike riders use the bikes as their only means of transportation (over here anyway).

I suppose my thinking is...You Play, You Pay...simple as that. Nobody is forcing most of us to ride.

It sucks big time to get constantly screwed by the oil companies, but until the RT comes out in an electric or Hybrid version, I supposed were all stuck with it.

Regards

Bernd

 

Link to comment
Looky here guys.....we ride BMW's fer kryssakes. Is paying $5 more for a fillup REALLY going to hurt (most of) our financial situations?

<:))

 

Absolutely! That could be $25-$30 per day on some of my rides!

:grin:

 

True, but let's face reality here. MOST of us who ride the Beemers do so because we WANT to, not because we need to. I would venture a guess that only a small percentage of bike riders use the bikes as their only means of transportation (over here anyway).

I suppose my thinking is...You Play, You Pay...simple as that. Nobody is forcing most of us to ride.

It sucks big time to get constantly screwed by the oil companies, but until the RT comes out in an electric or Hybrid version, I supposed were all stuck with it.

Regards

Bernd

 

Rubbish. Oil companies aren't screwing us and if they are, it's not more than the government who collect more in taxes on a gallon of gas than the net profit gained per gallon of gas by the producer. The government does nothing to earn their keep, but takes their cut with the barrel of a gun as it were. If you want gas prices to go down, drill more in this country and build more refineries. More restrictions just make the situation worse.

Link to comment
Looky here guys.....we ride BMW's fer kryssakes. Is paying $5 more for a fillup REALLY going to hurt (most of) our financial situations?

<:))

 

Absolutely! That could be $25-$30 per day on some of my rides!

:grin:

 

True, but let's face reality here. MOST of us who ride the Beemers do so because we WANT to, not because we need to. I would venture a guess that only a small percentage of bike riders use the bikes as their only means of transportation (over here anyway).

I suppose my thinking is...You Play, You Pay...simple as that. Nobody is forcing most of us to ride.

It sucks big time to get constantly screwed by the oil companies, but until the RT comes out in an electric or Hybrid version, I supposed were all stuck with it.

Regards

Bernd

Well, gas prices HAVE affected my riding. In 2008, As the price of gas approached $4, my gas budget for the bike alone was $300 per month and I don't commute.

 

However, I am one (of the few?) who doesn't blame the oil companies.

Link to comment
Looky here guys.....we ride BMW's fer kryssakes. Is paying $5 more for a fillup REALLY going to hurt (most of) our financial situations?

<:))

r

 

Absolutely! That could be $25-$30 per day on some of my rides!

:grin:

 

True, but let's face reality here. MOST of us who ride the Beemers do so because we WANT to, not because we need to. I would venture a guess that only a small percentage of bike riders use the bikes as their only means of transportation (over here anyway).

I suppose my thinking is...You Play, You Pay...simple as that. Nobody is forcing most of us to ride.

It sucks big time to get constantly screwed by the oil companies, but until the RT comes out in an electric or Hybrid version, I supposed were all stuck with it.

Regards

Bernd

 

Rubbish. Oil companies aren't screwing us and if they are, it's not more than the government who collect more in taxes on a gallon of gas than the net profit gained per gallon of gas by the producer. The government does nothing to earn their keep, but takes their cut with the barrel of a gun as it were. If you want gas prices to go down, drill more in this country and build more refineries. More restrictions just make the situation worse.

:thumbsup:
Link to comment
Rubbish. Oil companies aren't screwing us and if they are, it's not more than the government who collect more in taxes on a gallon of gas than the net profit gained per gallon of gas by the producer. If you want gas prices to go down, drill more in this country and build more refineries. More restrictions just make the situation worse.

 

We're veering off topic. But, like anything else objective, I ask you to show me the facts re net oil company profits vs taxation in this country. That's going to take a good deal of financial tapdancing on your part to prove. Drill more here? Please show me data that displays a cost / benefit of what we've got available here (hint: not much) vs. our insatiable demand - not to mention the incalculable risks (did we forget BP already?) Besides, why do we need more refineries? Aren't many of the current ones shut down by the "non gouging" oil companies during the summer - peak demand season - for "maintenance," thereby creating artificial supply-side shortages? Surely you've read that in the paper - it's a yearly story that never changes.

 

This is a topic where grown, rational people suddenly become woefully incapable of grasping the basic concept of supply and demand. Either they think the problem can be solved wholly by supply (e.g., "drill baby drill," without any solid evidence that this will make a dent in demand, and worse, with a myopic, naive dismissal of the environmental hazards which **should** be fresh in your mind) or they think it can be solved wholly with demand (e.g., we'll all drive mopeds and eat granola).

 

What has happened to our collective intellect that we cannot accept the painfully obvious fact that a solution can encompass both supply AND demand?

 

-MKL

Link to comment
Rubbish. Oil companies aren't screwing us and if they are, it's not more than the government who collect more in taxes on a gallon of gas than the net profit gained per gallon of gas by the producer. If you want gas prices to go down, drill more in this country and build more refineries. More restrictions just make the situation worse.

 

We're veering off topic. But, like anything else objective, I ask you to show me the facts re net oil company profits vs taxation in this country. That's going to take a good deal of financial tapdancing on your part to prove. Drill more here? Please show me data that displays a cost / benefit of what we've got available here (hint: not much) vs. our insatiable demand - not to mention the incalculable risks (did we forget BP already?) Besides, why do we need more refineries? Aren't many of the current ones shut down by the "non gouging" oil companies during the summer - peak demand season - for "maintenance," thereby creating artificial supply-side shortages? Surely you've read that in the paper - it's a yearly story that never changes.

 

This is a topic where grown, rational people suddenly become woefully incapable of grasping the basic concept of supply and demand. Either they think the problem can be solved wholly by supply (e.g., "drill baby drill," without any solid evidence that this will make a dent in demand, and worse, with a myopic, naive dismissal of the environmental hazards which **should** be fresh in your mind) or they think it can be solved wholly with demand (e.g., we'll all drive mopeds and eat granola).

 

What has happened to our collective intellect that we cannot accept the painfully obvious fact that a solution can encompass both supply AND demand?

 

-MKL

 

If the supply is increased, price should go down. We've been drilling for years, decades really and we know the risks. With regards to demand, of course the eco-terrorists would love us to cut back to eating granola and driving mopeds, but probably wouldn't be happy until we're back on horseback, but that wouldn't be acceptable because we'd be enslaving animals so it's back to hoofing it on foot. I find it humorous that progressives like to dictate how we live and what we do cradle to grave. As far as the oil companies shutting down for maintenance, sure, it's fishy, but I haven't seen it change with Obama or under bush. I guess neither want the price of oil to go down for their own reasons and before you quote the oil disaster in the gulf, lets look at why that rig was in deep water to begin with. It wasn't because the oil companies like to drill that far offshore. If it was in shallower water, it would have been capped much sooner. Yeah, drill baby drill, but the oil companies would have to come to an understanding as well...Yes it will make a difference...Of course there's always hope with this, unless of course the eco-weenies don't find something objectionable with it: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20110227/D9LL6R1G0.html

 

"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live

in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden

 

 

 

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...