Go Back   Corvette Forum > C4 Corvettes, 1984 - 1996 > C4 Tech/Performance
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?
Register Albums Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ
Search
C4 Tech/Performance
L98 Corvette and LT1 Corvette Technical Info, Internal Engine, External Engine Sponsored by
J&D Corvette

Welcome to Corvetteforum.com!
Welcome to Corvetteforum.com.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, join Corvetteforum.com today!


Corvette Store
 
 
C6 Parts & Accessories
C5 Parts & Accessories
Wheels & Tires
Sponsored Ads
 
 
Vendor Directory
  
Reply
 
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-19-2007, 11:50 PM   #21
383_Proof
CF Senior Member
 
383_Proof's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2006
Location: NYC....In the Place to be!
Default

my brain hurts
383_Proof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2007, 12:46 AM   #22
65Z01
CF Senior Member
Cruise-In II Veteran

 
65Z01's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2000
Location: SE NY
Send a message via AIM to 65Z01
Default

Quote:
607 cfm for the WHOLE motor means 76cfm for each cylinder!!!
Ummm, can you tell me how many cylinders are "pulling" at any given point in time, i.e. how many cylinders are on the intake stroke at any given instant??

To see what effects various mods had on a L98 check out the article data on my site.
__________________
My 1988 Z01 #65 Site

------------------

Last edited by 65Z01; 09-20-2007 at 12:58 AM.
65Z01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2007, 03:03 PM   #23
CFI-EFI
CF Senior Member
 
CFI-EFI's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2000
Location: The Top of Utah
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GREGGPENN
Well I certainly understood, in some of my reading, how VE decreases as RPMs increase.
VE DOESN'T always decrease with rpms. It INCREASES until maximum torque is reached. Do you know what VE is?



Quote:
Originally Posted by GREGGPENN
This might explain if a bigger TB than 48mm is useful, but I'm skeptical that it will explain how a 200cfm runner isn't sufficient to supply a 76cfm cylinder. (My "pressure" theory below might though).
What is a "76cfm cylinder"? CFM is a measure of flow, cubic feet (volume) PER minute (time). Like miles PER hour. A 350 cid engine has cylinders that are (350 8 =) 43.75 cubic inches in volume. WHAT is it you are describing as "a 76cfm cylinder"? A cylinder has no flow with no outside influence, it only has volume.



Quote:
Originally Posted by GREGGPENN
The books sounds interesting but I'm not sure I'm looking for more than the short answer so I can figure out my next move.
It would appear that the books, at least the first two mentioned are exactly what you need to get the thought process on the right track.



Quote:
Originally Posted by GREGGPENN
I understand that feeding a cylinder (thru a valve) is like opening the door to a room and letting air flow in. I look at the air routing in the manifold as a hallway leading up to the door.
That is fine, but don't include the plenum as part of the hallway. The plenum is the rotunda that the 8 hallways branch off of. Porting the plenum merely rounds the corners making it easier to enter the hall. The hall entrance is where the tuning begins. The plenum is just a supply point for the ports (runners). The runner length is "tuned" as explained above, for a specific rpm range. That intake tuning (hopefully coupled with exhaust tuning) changes the point of greatest VE and therefore influences at what rpm the torque peak occurs.



Quote:
Originally Posted by GREGGPENN
I'm getting discouraged. But, I also don't want to end up P.O.'d that money spent didn't seem worth it.

gp
You are flying blind. Pick up some books, as suggested, and learn. Your results, with the "I'm not sure I'm looking for more than the short answer" attitude, and half-assed approach, could get you a total failure and a horrendous waste of money, or at best, half-assed results.

RACE ON!!!

Last edited by CFI-EFI; 09-20-2007 at 04:39 PM.
CFI-EFI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2007, 04:10 PM   #24
65Z01
CF Senior Member
Cruise-In II Veteran

 
65Z01's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2000
Location: SE NY
Send a message via AIM to 65Z01
Default

Two good books for L98 are:
-"Insider Hints", by TPIS
-"Chevy TPI Fuel Injection Swapper's Guide, by John Baechtel

TPIS can supply the 1st book and Summit has the 2nd one. Here look on pp 39 for equations relating hp to injector size and air flow to injector size, hence hp to air flow.

BTW, I strongly recommend Dave Vizard's books for an in depth treatment of the SBC...

Quote:
It does seem like the more pressure potential behind the door (bigger intake) should help get the air in, but the whole aspect is poorly documented here.
Yes this is true but there are several "dynamic" factors involved with cylinder filling too.
-exhaust gas scavenging, i.e during overlap exhaust gas exiting pressure wave actually tends to lower air pressure withing the cylinder at the start of the intake stoke
-since the intake runners are a finint length there is setup standing waves of air during engine operation; the wave length of said waves varies with RPM. The L98 "tuned" intake takes advantage of this "ram filling" effect to create its well know low end torque.

So, yea, an engine is an "air pump" but there are some rather complicated dynamics going on inside. For the L98 there has been so much work done that getting very good power is now basically a cook book deal.
__________________
My 1988 Z01 #65 Site

------------------

Last edited by 65Z01; 09-20-2007 at 04:27 PM.
65Z01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2007, 04:23 PM   #25
GREGGPENN
CF Senior Member

 
GREGGPENN's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2003
Location: Overland Park Kansas
greggpennington
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 65Z01 View Post
Ummm, can you tell me how many cylinders are "pulling" at any given point in time, i.e. how many cylinders are on the intake stroke at any given instant??

To see what effects various mods had on a L98 check out the article data on my site.
Thanks for the link! The L98 mods page is definitely worth it!!!! (I understood everything except the TPis Cam lines... Why 2 lines, why ATCD vs BTDC??? Also these mods probably weren't done in one day, how do we know how wind/weather affected times/speeds?)

Regarding my math.... 607 was my direct replacement of a formula used to show the 48mm was big enough for a 502. I replaced the CID with 350 to get 607 cfm @ 6K RPM. There are 8 distinct pathways thru the intake to the heads. The cfm values for a single port are provided in links I've viewed. They avg 200cfm and up. 607 divided by 8 is about 76. 76cfm will be drawn thru each of the 8 individual pathways to feed the cylinders. The only airspace they have in common is the TB/plenum and I'm talking about the runners/intake manifold combo.

gp
GREGGPENN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2007, 04:42 PM   #26
GREGGPENN
CF Senior Member

 
GREGGPENN's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2003
Location: Overland Park Kansas
greggpennington
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CFI-EFI View Post
VE DOESN'T always decrease with rpms. It INCREASES until maximum torque is reached. Do you know what VE is?
Volumetric Efficiency: Without looking it up -- in my own words -- is the ability of the motor to expell and intake the necessary (volume) of air to supply the cylinders. From what I read, VE is near 100% at lower rpms but decreases due to air friction (etc) as rpms raise. It's the reason we mod exhaust/intakes!

Quote:
Originally Posted by CFI-EFI View Post
What is a "76cfm cylinder"? CFM is a measure of flow, cubic feet (volume) PER minute (time). Like miles PER hour. A 350 cid engine has cylinders that are (350 8 =) 43.75 cubic inches in volume. WHAT is it you are describing as "a 76cfm cylinder"? A cylinder has no flow with no outside influence, it only has volume. 76 cfm isn't enough air flow to fully fill one cylinder, of a 350 cid engine, twice (in one minute).
Explained in my post above. It's the amount of air that has to flow in/out of a 350CID motor at 6000 RPM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CFI-EFI View Post
It would appear that the books, at least the first two mentioned are exactly what you need to get the thought process on the right track.
But the reading here is soooo much more fun!

Quote:
Originally Posted by CFI-EFI View Post
That is fine, but don't include the plenum as part of the hallway. The plenum is the rotunda that the 8 hallways branch off of. Porting the plenum merely rounds the corners making it easier to enter the hall. The hall entrance is where the tuning begins. The plenum is just a supply point for the ports (runners). The runner length is "tuned" as explained above, for a specific rpm range. That intake tuning (hopefully coupled with exhaust tuning) changes the point of greatest VE and therefore influences at what rpm the torque peak occurs.
Well, the rotunda is a supply of air too. I don't include it in the flows I've read/posted. I assume it's big enough to supply the 8 runners since it's bigger than the 48mm TB that supplies it. I do think the turns the air makes to enter the runners create loss. I understand that plenum porting can help that. I don't understand how much porting can be beneficial. (I've found a couple of links on how to port plenums and the corvetteplenum.com website. That latter seems to go a LOT further in his work).

Gregg
GREGGPENN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2007, 04:49 PM   #27
GREGGPENN
CF Senior Member

 
GREGGPENN's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2003
Location: Overland Park Kansas
greggpennington
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 65Z01 View Post
Two good books for L98 are:
-"Insider Hints", by TPIS
-"Chevy TPI Fuel Injection Swapper's Guide, by John Baechtel

TPIS can supply the 1st book and Summit has the 2nd one. Here look on pp 39 for equations relating hp to injector size and air flow to injector size, hence hp to air flow.

BTW, I strongly recommend Dave Vizard's books for an in depth treatment of the SBC...
Thanks again! I did read Vizard's work on exhaust tuning last year. I what he said -- though it made my brain hurt.

Your "cookbook" conclusion is kinda what I'm getting at. I'm not opposed to learning more about this but I've got a car in the garage with failing injectors. (I'm pretty sure it's started cutting out on one cylinder after it gets hot ). Unless I want to leave it in the garage, it's time to ACT!!!!

gp
GREGGPENN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2007, 05:01 PM   #28
CFI-EFI
CF Senior Member
 
CFI-EFI's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2000
Location: The Top of Utah
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GREGGPENN
But the reading here is soooo much more fun!

Gregg
Quote:
Originally Posted by GREGGPENN
Your "cookbook" conclusion is kinda what I'm getting at. I'm not opposed to learning more about this but...

gp
The way this started out, and from your PM, It seemed as though you were interested in learning. My mistake.

RACE ON!!!
CFI-EFI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2007, 05:32 PM   #29
GREGGPENN
CF Senior Member

 
GREGGPENN's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2003
Location: Overland Park Kansas
greggpennington
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CFI-EFI View Post
The way this started out, and from your PM, It seemed as though you were interested in learning. My mistake.

RACE ON!!!
OUCH!!!!!!!
GREGGPENN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2007, 06:38 PM   #30
65Z01
CF Senior Member
Cruise-In II Veteran

 
65Z01's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2000
Location: SE NY
Send a message via AIM to 65Z01
Default

Quote:
I did read Vizard's work on exhaust tuning last year. I what he said -- though it made my brain hurt.
The key in his work on exhaust, IMO, is that 1chp requires 2.2cfm of exhaust flow to avoid power loss to back pressure. Combine that with the fact that a 2 1/2" pipe flows 560cfm and you can easily design a non-restrictive exhaust system.
__________________
My 1988 Z01 #65 Site

------------------
65Z01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2007, 07:26 PM   #31
GREGGPENN
CF Senior Member

 
GREGGPENN's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2003
Location: Overland Park Kansas
greggpennington
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 65Z01 View Post
The key in his work on exhaust, IMO, is that 1chp requires 2.2cfm of exhaust flow to avoid power loss to back pressure. Combine that with the fact that a 2 1/2" pipe flows 560cfm and you can easily design a non-restrictive exhaust system.
Each side has a 2 1/2" pipe flowing at 560, right? Doesn't sound bad to me???? Plus I already increased ALL piping. I may still add LTubes and go to duals. I will say the increase in front Y pipe, addition of performance cats, plus increase of catback section can be felt. The motor really couldn't pull in 6th below 70mph before the change. Now, it can. (6spd with 3.07 gears).

I want to thank you again for the link to your webpage! The intake upgrades really seem meaningless in the 1994 test shown (i.e., 8HP). I suppose that supports the view that the stock intake ain't that bad!

OTOH, I'm shocked, stunned, and flabbergasted to see cut lid, Stage II chip, and air foil gains -- especially so big! Everyone else says they're B.S.!!!!!

If I'm reading right, I can get some decent gains with the frisbee, plug grind, air foil, K/N + cut lid, chip, and MAF screens. Goes against the grain for sure!

I might still do the port/polish of the heads and maybe port existing plenum/runners.

The siamese work on manifold and runners worries me a little because it looks like it could interupt SMOOTHED air flow! I get why it work though. Looks like each port could pull air from the adjacent tube. If rear tubes get more air (personal guess), it might even out air flow/engine performance between cylinders. (This is a reference to the earlier post about uneven runner/port flow).

Note: The link to the first article on MANIFOLD "siamesing" (from your website) is no longer there.

Great help!!!!!!!!
GREGGPENN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2007, 01:26 AM   #32
GREGGPENN
CF Senior Member

 
GREGGPENN's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2003
Location: Overland Park Kansas
greggpennington
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickGlass View Post
The 650 CFM at the throttle body is enough, because all the cylinders are not drawing in air at once.
You can't just take the 607cfm / 8 and get 76 cfm each.
That would be true only if all the cylinders were drawing in air at once.
Since there are 8 independant air paths to the heads, why doesn't 607/8 work? No one has answered that....

I suppose this is one of my fundamental questions. Again, flow number for the (intake) manifolds and runners start at 200cfm (stock) and go up. In a similar fashion to the math used to show a 650cfm TB (48mm) is big enough, I'm curious to see what -- if anything in the manifold is undersized.

There are endless posts that start with "What's the biggest restriction in my TPI?" Well..... is there one?

The lack of porting and polishing are about the only things I see. (Note: this is in regard to realizing the EXISTING 350 longblock's potential -- without changing head/cam).

gp
GREGGPENN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2007, 02:07 AM   #33
95PoloVert
CF Senior Member
 
95PoloVert's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2004
Location: Warren Ohio
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GREGGPENN View Post
...but I'm skeptical that it will explain how a 200cfm runner isn't sufficient to supply a 76cfm cylinder.
For ~40 seconds of that minute, the intake valve is closed...which puts a real damper on flow. (Review the IVO/IVC event timing for your cam for accurate figures.)

Your 200cfm runner doesn't get a full m to do its work...like it did on the flowbench when it racked up that number.

Using the 20 "working" seconds assumption above, your runner would need a flow rate of 76 * (60/20) = 228 cfm to move 76cfm of gas in the amount of "working" time that it has available.

This is a *vast* oversimplication, of course...but directly or indirectly, it accounts for the bulk of the "missing flow" that you're seeing...and delving into more esoteric considerations (ie. fluid dynamics) is going to be counterproductive here.

Last edited by 95PoloVert; 09-21-2007 at 02:09 AM.
95PoloVert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2007, 05:26 AM   #34
65Z01
CF Senior Member
Cruise-In II Veteran

 
65Z01's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2000
Location: SE NY
Send a message via AIM to 65Z01
Default

Quote:
This is a *vast* oversimplication, of course...but directly or indirectly, it accounts for the bulk of the "missing flow" that you're seeing...
Good explanation. Looking at flow bench data is steady state or max flow while looking at engine dynamics one must consider the actual flow over the intake valve open/close cycle per cylinder which goes from zero to full head flow to zero.

Quote:
Each side has a 2 1/2" pipe flowing at 560, right?
Yes, so the total flow on a true dual system (assuming cats & mufflers also flow >560cfm) would be 1,120 cfm, enough to support 510chp.

Quote:
If I'm reading right, I can get some decent gains with the frisbee, plug grind, air foil, K/N + cut lid, chip, and MAF screens. Goes against the grain for sure!
Indeed the frisbee, cut-back plugs, K&N and 160deg T-stat gave nice cumulative gain, though 52mm TB w/ gutted MAF didn't bring any gains on current motor.

Quote:
I might still do the port/polish of the heads and maybe port existing plenum/runners.
From what I've read port & polish & work of the #113 heads can net up to 30chp gain. I think porting the stock base would also net some top end gains, especially if you siamese the base to remove the small stock runners from the "equation".

Quote:
The siamese work on manifold and runners worries me a little because it looks like it could interupt SMOOTHED air flow!
The idea of the siamese base is to increase the effective runner length while still maintaining runner length. Actually it creates two separate resonant chambers, one in the intake base the other in the two runners. Net result is a little low end loss but a real gain in top end power; the latter can be seen by my dyno pulls.
There is no longer siamese base data on my site but, if you drop me an email (w/ reference to siamese base) at jgkov@msn.com, I'll return some pics of my siamese base with matching work on the lower runner flanges.
__________________
My 1988 Z01 #65 Site

------------------
65Z01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2007, 11:01 AM   #35
GREGGPENN
CF Senior Member

 
GREGGPENN's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2003
Location: Overland Park Kansas
greggpennington
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 95PoloVert View Post
For ~40 seconds of that minute, the intake valve is closed...which puts a real damper on flow.
Damper? Damper? I'm having a personal crisis and you're making jokes? Pfffffatttt.... Seriously. Good one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 95PoloVert View Post
Your 200cfm runner doesn't get a full m to do its work...like it did on the flowbench when it racked up that number.

Using the 20 "working" seconds assumption above, your runner would need a flow rate of 76 * (60/20) = 228 cfm to move 76cfm of gas in the amount of "working" time that it has available.

This is a *vast* oversimplication, of course...but directly or indirectly, it accounts for the bulk of the "missing flow" that you're seeing...and delving into more esoteric considerations (ie. fluid dynamics) is going to be counterproductive here.
Dang... Believe it not, I get it. Good thing you chose the oversimplification route!!!!!!!!!!


Gregg
GREGGPENN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2007, 11:10 AM   #36
GREGGPENN
CF Senior Member

 
GREGGPENN's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2003
Location: Overland Park Kansas
greggpennington
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 65Z01 View Post
Indeed the frisbee, cut-back plugs, K&N and 160deg T-stat gave nice cumulative gain, though 52mm TB w/ gutted MAF didn't bring any gains on current motor.
What about the stageII chip? I've read they're marketing mumbo jumbo with actually values at stock with minor mods to insignificant things like fan control temps. FYI: Even if it had value, I'd still work toward a custom tune.

Also, I've heard a K&N flows the same as a new paper filter. From displays in the stores, they flow more. From the results, it seems more likely that they do help.

And, that 160 degree stat.... Well, I'm not going there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 65Z01 View Post
From what I've read port & polish & work of the #113 heads can net up to 30chp gain. I think porting the stock base would also net some top end gains, especially if you siamese the base to remove the small stock runners from the "equation".

The idea of the siamese base is to increase the effective runner length while still maintaining runner length. Actually it creates two separate resonant chambers, one in the intake base the other in the two runners. Net result is a little low end loss but a real gain in top end power; the latter can be seen by my dyno pulls.

There is no longer siamese base data on my site but, if you drop me an email (w/ reference to siamese base) at jgkov@msn.com, I'll return some pics of my siamese base with matching work on the lower runner flanges.
Thanks. I did see a pic in your links -- so I at least understand what the modification is. Seeing what's being done caused my concern about cross-flow and turbulence (creating a negative effect on the overall flow).

I'll send an email as directed, but others might want you to post data on the results -- if you have it!

Gregg

Last edited by GREGGPENN; 09-21-2007 at 11:13 AM.
GREGGPENN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2007, 01:10 PM   #37
htrdbmr
Junior Member
 
Member Since: Sep 2007
Default

Increased fuel pressure doesn't mean greater flow in lbs/hr, because as stated above, the computer will limit the pulse width in accordance with the O2 sensor. But-- this is only in closed loop operation.(???) Is it possible that the higher pressure gives a better spray pattern, or better atomization in all modes of operation. I'm as curious as you are, and I don't know the same things that you don't know.
htrdbmr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2007, 12:24 AM   #38
GREGGPENN
CF Senior Member

 
GREGGPENN's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2003
Location: Overland Park Kansas
greggpennington
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by htrdbmr View Post
Is it possible that the higher pressure gives a better spray pattern, or better atomization in all modes of operation. I'm as curious as you are, and I don't know the same things that you don't know.
That was certainly my first guess, but then I learned that the fuel rails fire in banks. In other words, each bank (of 4 cylinders) unloads fuel for it's cylinders at the same time. At higher RPMs, the fuel is probably sucked into the cylinder so fast, that benefit may not be lost. At lower RPMs, I wonder if it is.

Maybe better HP but not better mpg?

gp
GREGGPENN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2007, 12:26 AM   #39
GREGGPENN
CF Senior Member

 
GREGGPENN's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2003
Location: Overland Park Kansas
greggpennington
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CFI-EFI View Post
The way this started out, and from your PM, It seemed as though you were interested in learning. My mistake.

RACE ON!!!
I indicated in the OP that I was getting frustrated. Guess you didn't catch that either....

(In case you hadn't noticed, there's a lot of conflicting info running around as well).
GREGGPENN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2007, 01:57 PM   #40
CFI-EFI
CF Senior Member
 
CFI-EFI's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2000
Location: The Top of Utah
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GREGGPENN
I indicated in the OP that I was getting frustrated. Guess you didn't catch that either....

(In case you hadn't noticed, there's a lot of conflicting info running around as well).
I thought it best to ignore your first reference to this post of mine, but since you insist, it was long afterward that you posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GREGGPENN
But the reading here is soooo much more fun!
Quote:
Originally Posted by GREGGPENN
Your "cookbook" conclusion is kinda what I'm getting at. I'm not opposed to learning more about this but...
Of course you are getting frustrated. You are asking for pat answers to complicated questions. You want magic answers where no simple answer exists. There are people of differing amounts of knowledge on this forum. Most all are well meaning, but some are better informed and have more experience than others. You are not going get a firm grasp of all you wish to know without going to the effort of studying and learning. It is going to take a little independent effort and study. This is called paying your dues, doing your homework. It is going to take some effort if it is going to be worthwhile. You can't ride on the back if others indefinitely.

RACE ON!!!
CFI-EFI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2007, 01:57 PM
 
Go Back   Corvette Forum > C4 Corvettes, 1984 - 1996 > C4 Tech/Performance
Reload this Page Intake mods and simple math. Those calculators must not be so great!!!
 
 
 
Reply

Tags
c4, calculators, cfi, cylinder, head, injectors, intake, modification, mods, port, practice, psi, richer, theory, tuned


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Click for Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:16 AM.


Emails & Password Backup

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2