Click Here -> Please Consider Making a PayPal Contribution to the FordSix Forum!
2018 Contributors:
StarDiero75, curts56, DannyG, B RON CO, wsa111, Captainslow42, falconcritter
Econoline, THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER, 95FordFleetside, turbo6, Max_Effort, WorldChampGramp
cr_bobcat, C.S.Designs, pmuller9, gus91326, rwbrooks50, rocklord, drag-200stang, Big64my79Effie, CNC-Dude, gb500

2019 Contributors:
NJwpod, 1strodeo, mightynorseman, maxtrux, 6d7coupe, broncr, Phase3, 68Flareside240, bmbm40,
mustang6, WorldChampGramp, justintendo, BigBlue94, ags290, motorsickle1130, Rooster, ousooner919, ethanperry

Unknown->> M.Ketterer, T.Smith, J.Myers, P.McIntire - Please PM me (1966Mustang) and lemme know who you are!

HD 300 from f600

Moderator: Mod Squad

deere114
Registered User
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:57 pm

HD 300 from f600

Post #1 by deere114 » Sun Dec 29, 2013 7:18 pm

After seeing an add on Craig's list and driving nearly 400 miles, blowing a clutch, not getting to the parts store in time and lots of other bad luck I finally bought the engine out of a 1968 f600 for my turbo project. To my understanding this should have a forged steel crank. It does have the HD exhaust manifold and new process tranny with pto and drum brake. So my questions are: the head, anything different about it compared to my 85 head? I know it's different then my 93 efi head. The crank: if it is forged anything I should have done for the abuse it will receive? The rods, up to par on a 400 or so hp turbo engine that's driven hard? Is the flywheel different then a f150 flywheel? How bought the clutch? Ill post pics tomorrow if i can from my phone. Thanks in advance guys

CNC-Dude
Registered User
Posts: 1469
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:06 pm
Location: N. Ga.
Contact:

Re: HD 300 from f600

Post #2 by CNC-Dude » Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:26 pm

The flywheel and clutch stuff probably isn't going to swap into any bellhousing for a car or light duty truck. In other brand heavy duty trucks of that size, they were usually 12" diameter for the heavier loads they were expected to haul. If the rods have the "spit hole" in them, they will not be desirable for your intended use. Not sure I would even chance the non "spit hole" rods for 400 HP either.
Image

deere114
Registered User
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: HD 300 from f600

Post #3 by deere114 » Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:44 pm

Okay, I'm not opposed to having custom rods made if these aren't up to the task. But if the stock rods don't have the oiling holes they should be good for 400hp reliably?

CNC-Dude
Registered User
Posts: 1469
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:06 pm
Location: N. Ga.
Contact:

Re: HD 300 from f600

Post #4 by CNC-Dude » Sun Dec 29, 2013 9:49 pm

There probably hasn't been many 300's that have ever made 400 HP before. So with such little feedback in that area I don't think i'd want to be the Lone Ranger and find out. Its going to take some pretty big bucks to make 400 HP to begin with, so i'd want to protect my investment more wisely, especially since you said your going to lean on it pretty hard.
Image

deere114
Registered User
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: HD 300 from f600

Post #5 by deere114 » Mon Dec 30, 2013 7:38 am

I'll probably look into custom rods then. Do you think it's beneficial to have them made longer to alter the rod/stroke ratio? I'm going to buy custom pistons anyway.

User avatar
worken2much
Registered User
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 9:01 pm

Re: HD 300 from f600

Post #6 by worken2much » Mon Dec 30, 2013 10:57 am

deere114,

With your intended Hp & anticipated hard use I'd suggest turning your rod journals down to Chevy dimensions. That way you can get a larger radius on the rod journal where it meets the crank cheek. The 300's journals have a very small, (nearly none) radius in that location which makes for a high stress concentration. This will be especially important on #6 throw as it has to transfer the force from all the preceeding cylinders, plus itself.

Once you turn the crank down to chevy rod journal diameter, get a custom rod made to Ford big end width but Chevy diameters on both ends. This will leave you with many piston choices available off the shelf so as to avoid custom units. Look at the forged, (or hyper) units for a Chevy 383. Diameters are the same as the 300's and with the correct small end diameter they will fit right in. Control compression with piston, (dish) selection. Keep quench distance .040 - .050 max. to help with detonation. Any more is bad news.

I'd use a longish rod & short piston primarily to reduce the rod angle as the piston rises from bdc. It will reduce piston side load, frictional loss & wear at the bottom of the bore, all good things. Forget about the Hp & torque bs you hear from long rod / short rod babble. It won't amount to a hill of beans, (5-10 hp) in the real world.

I'd use the 68 head. Look at the openings the pushrods go through. In the 68 they should be slots. These work as pushrod guides, no need to build guide plates. The pushrod guides help to keep the long push rods from flexing & bowing rather than lifting the rocker arm as intended. With the Hp target you have, upgrading to 3/8" diameter pushrods from the stock 5/16" shoud be considered as your valve springs will no doubt be fairly heavy. Opening up the slot in the head to accomodate bigger pushrods will be required to do so. The 85 head, I think, will have a round hole about 1/2" in diameter for the pushrods. With custom rods, chevy pistons and block decking, you have plenty of opportunities to adjust compression ratio. No need to worry about which head originally has / had more or less chamber volume. If they are both 300 heads & both carbed they should be the same anyway.

Didn't intend to write a book.

Good luck,
Worken2much
Rule #1. Six Cylinder Racers Have Longer Cranks.
Rule #2. Unless your given name is Richard...don't be a dick.

motzingg
Registered User
Posts: 815
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:16 am

Re: HD 300 from f600

Post #7 by motzingg » Mon Dec 30, 2013 12:17 pm

worken2much... that's a book i'd love to read! some really good ideas there.

this is strictly bench racing here, but that mike guy who has that turbo'd 10-second maverick says (and when has a drag racer ever been known to lie about his internals :wink: ) that he's pushing that maverick to 10.9 quarter with an all stock early 80's 300. He claims the only mod is stiffer valve springs. That would mean stock pistons, rods and a cast crank. It looks like that car has a pretty well developed drivetrain, and hooks up really well, but you're still hard pressed to get into that territory without at least 350-400 hp.

While I certainly have nothing against the "overbuild everything" school of thought, you can probably get what you want out of a much more conservative build by targeting it to your needs. If you are building a turbocharged motor you have a bit more control over where you make power, so you don't necessarily have to build for super high rpm. The higher torque might be more likely to crack that crank, but its certainly not unheard of for folks to be putting (guesstimated) high 300-hp numbers through a stock crank at 5-6000 rpm. From what i've read on building straight sixes (supra and BMW guys), folks tend to attribute crank failures to harmonics at higher rpms more so than pure torque, but then again, you don't see a lot of people building crank-snapping 300's.

It really comes down to what do you want from your engine. And how much do you want to spend? Building a balls-out bottom end is a nice starting point for tweaking and experimenting with the top end, but you might be better served spending that money on porting, or bigger valves to support top end breathing and reduce your EGT's so you can make your desired power at lower boost. Or spend that money on fuel management and tuning. It seems pretty silly to me to build this bombproof bottom end then fry the thing because you were running a carb or non-controlled ignition. In my school of thought you break it first, then fix whats broken.

Also, re-sizing the journals is probably going to cut through most of the forged hard outer skin of the crank, its hard to say whether doing that would yield structural strength improvements greater than the loss in material strength. If you were going that route you might be better served just getting a cast crank, cutting it down, then having it shot peened or precipitation hardened, and grinding it.



tl;dr - you're going to have bigger fish to fry on the way to 400 hp than snapping a crankshaft or breaking a rod. put the block together with good 'standard' components (forged crank, shot peened & arp'd rods, off the shelf forged pistons) and spend your money on the top end needed to flow 400 hp through a lump of a tractor motor.

if it were easy, you'd see more people breaking cranks and we wouldn't be talking theories.

deere114
Registered User
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: HD 300 from f600

Post #8 by deere114 » Mon Dec 30, 2013 7:30 pm

Well I have multiple engines to experiment with, then when I get the whole set up performing how I want (tune, turbo, ect) I'll build this HD engine to be bullet proof and drop it in. So turning down the crank journals for the radius adds strength even though your removing metal? Is nitriding worth it? Knife edging? I'm also thinking about making a main stud girdle.

User avatar
THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER
VIP Member
Posts: 6019
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 9:25 pm
Location: FRENCHTOWN

Re: HD 300 from f600

Post #9 by THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER » Tue Dec 31, 2013 7:59 am

Both CNC-dude and worken2much are exactly correct in their assessment of how to build a reliable 400 hp package. The only thing I would like to add is to elongate the keyway on the front of the crankshaft to use the longer Chevy keyway so the damper will be positively located on the crank.

And, yes, do undercut the crank for Chevy (or Honda) rod bearings AND Nitride harden the crank for a long-lasting engine.

"A chain is only as strong as its weakest link."

If that weak link breaks and destroys the entire engine (and possibly produces bodily harm to you or others) what have you saved by scrimping on the engine build? Do it right.
FORD 300 INLINE SIX - THE BEST KEPT SECRET IN DRAG RACING

deere114
Registered User
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: HD 300 from f600

Post #10 by deere114 » Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:47 am

Thank you guys this is all helpful information. Today I'm going to see if I indeed do have a forged crank. I'm pretty positive I should but there's only one way to find out

User avatar
worken2much
Registered User
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 9:01 pm

Re: HD 300 from f600

Post #11 by worken2much » Wed Jan 01, 2014 7:56 am

motzingg,

The original post suggested 400, not 300 hp. That's a vast, (and expensive) difference. The bottom end I suggested won't be "overbuilt" for 400.

I have a motor with stock rods, pistons, cast crank, reground cam, heavier valve springs and open headers that I turn 5-6000. I'd estimate Hp at 250, maybe 275 at very best, No way is it ever going to be in the 350-400 Hp range...nope, not ever. That's real results, not hearsay, or theory.

Motor heads have been cutting Ford cranks down for years to get a better radius on the crank journals. I first heard about it in high school, back in the 70's. It was old news then. Check with any machinist or engineer, the larger radius spreads the load out instead of focusing it on a hair line wide area, thusly yeilding a much stronger component with the same material.

The original poster also intends to use a turbo. That will greatly aid flow as will be required to get to 400 Hp. Some very trick work would be required to get flow numbers to 400 Hp levels without one.

You are correct, if getting 400 hp from a 300 six were easy, we would see many more broken cranks.

Worken2much
Rule #1. Six Cylinder Racers Have Longer Cranks.
Rule #2. Unless your given name is Richard...don't be a dick.

deere114
Registered User
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: HD 300 from f600

Post #12 by deere114 » Wed Jan 01, 2014 8:59 am

I know there's not many 400 hp 300 sixers out there. There will definately be some experimenting, that's why I have more then one engine. Workin2much what is yor cr on your 250ish hp engine? I honestly believe 400 hp is doable. There is one 300hp NA engine on this forum. He uses a 10-1 cr. so wouldnt dropping it to 9-1 adding 10 psi of boost get to 400 hp land? Just bench racing here, we won't know til somebody tries it. My 400 hp plan (to start with in the end I will build a stronger bottom end with my HD engine) stock cast crank, stock shot preened rods, forged pistons. 85 head with some porting and polishing, bigger valves, roller rockers. Drill and tap for 1/2" head studs if possible. If not then 7/16" head studs. The best felpro gasket available. Custom fabbed turbo header, hx40 turbo, big intercooler, custom fabbed intake manifold. Either holley or megasquirt efi. 93 pump gas plus water methanol injection. I think the weakest link here will be the head gasket, as long as I can keep detonation away I think everything else will hold up for a little while anyway. I'm unsure of cam choice right now I may start with the stock one.

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3230
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: HD 300 from f600

Post #13 by pmuller9 » Wed Jan 01, 2014 5:14 pm

The static compression ratio is determined more by camshaft selection.
The 300+ hp build I'm doing uses a cam with 288* advertised duration and 232* .050" lobe lift duration.
The intake valve closes later than with a stock cam allowing static compression ratios closer to 10:1 while maintaining a Dynamic compression ratio low enough for pump gas

If you want the turbo to respond well from low rpm, the cam duration should be limited to around 212* .050" duration.
A 114* LSA will help the turbo work against the back pressure and also close the intake valve later for a lower DCR.
You may need less than 9:1 compression with the smaller cam.

Choose the cam first and then use the cam specs to figure your compression ratio.

Consider using the "No hole" 240 rod (C5AE) which is 6.8" long for less piston side loading.

Also consider a Spherical Dish piston where the down force is centered over the piston pin.
Rotational force on the piston is reduced for less friction and piston wear.
This is important when using the longer rod with pistons that have a shorter skirt as a result.

motzingg
Registered User
Posts: 815
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:16 am

Re: HD 300 from f600

Post #14 by motzingg » Thu Jan 02, 2014 10:12 am

good stuff guys, especially worken'... thanks for addressing my comments. I don't doubt that radiusing the journals goes a long way to improving fatigue strength, just seems silly to start with a forged crank, then cut the 'forging' outer skin off of it, when you could just start with a cast crank.. which it sounds like from the last post is the plan.

I guess what i was getting at is the torque vs. speed as a failure condition. The guys I know who run BMW and Toyota sixes at high rpm tend to think that the vibratory/harmonic stress is the main failure mode. Building a 400 hp Ford that is naturally aspirated might take 8000 rpm and some extreme cam, but building a motor that makes 400 hp at 5000 rpm with a turbocharger (if that's even possible, just by displacement you would think it could be) might have more torque loading but less harmonic flexing, making crank survival a possibility.

so yeah, i guess its a dumb argument, but thats kinda the point of bench racing.


sold an engine to a guy yesterday who has a 2012 F150 EcoBoost, 475 hp/570 ft-lbs; all stock with an exhaust and chip. Damn, what's the point of even trying?!

User avatar
worken2much
Registered User
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 9:01 pm

Re: HD 300 from f600

Post #15 by worken2much » Thu Jan 02, 2014 12:29 pm

Motzingg,

Cutting the crank journals down to get a larger radius is not the stuff of benchracing, or silly. The parent forging has higher strength than the cast regardless of what is done to the outer surface. Adding a radius spreads the load which greatly aids in snapping the crank @ #6 from twisting / torque. I've not heard of anyone struggling with crank failures due to harmonics in a 300. If 400 Hp is truly the endpoint of the game, don't use a cast crank. 300 Hp is an entirely different story. Remeber, Chevrolet has been doing the 1hp/cu in thing since 1957. It is much, much more easily acheived than 400 hp from 300 cu in.

Deere114,

Compression for the motor I referenced earlier is stock. 8.5 or 8.7 whatever it was in 1996. It has the very late stock hyper pistons...runs fine on whatever fuel is available at the local convenience store. You'll have to ask someone else about turbo's, that's not my bag. I prefer to keep my comments based on first hand results.

Good luck to all.

Worken2much
Rule #1. Six Cylinder Racers Have Longer Cranks.
Rule #2. Unless your given name is Richard...don't be a dick.

CNC-Dude
Registered User
Posts: 1469
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:06 pm
Location: N. Ga.
Contact:

Re: HD 300 from f600

Post #16 by CNC-Dude » Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:24 pm

There are several things that accelerate harmonics in inline engines, and its difficult to compare the results between dissimilar engines and not have a skewed view of the differences. The import car engines don't even use harmonic balancers on their engines, just a solid hub. Mainly because those cranks are designed for operation at higher RPM's and the bearing journal overlap makes them much stronger and more rigid, thus less susceptable to bending and flexing than a long stroke US style crank. Also, the import cranks are much shorter, again making them less susceptable to the bending and flexing that causes harmonic shake to begin with.
Harmonic shake in crankshafts is directly related to several things;

1)HP increase. The more you make, the more the crank flex's.
2)Stroke. The more stroke, the sooner the shake can occur, and often has several waves that can take place in low RPM ranges as well as higher ones.(It doesn't always happen in race RPM)
3)Journal overlap.(See #2) The longer the stroke, the less the journal overlap becomes and makes the crank flex and bend more.
4)Crank length, The longer the crank becomes, the more like a piece of spaghetti it becomes.
5)RPM. Crank design being critical, even a short stroke crank that has poor journal overlap design can have low RPM harmonic problems than a longer stroke crank that is better designed. So you can't compare one crank to another until you evaluate some critical design criteria.
6)Crank radii. Very important.

Even at a low RPM with your long stroke 300 crank at 400 HP, can and will have more damaging harmonics than a short stroke, better designed Bimmer crank at 8000 RPM.
Image

User avatar
80broncoman
Global Moderator
Posts: 3315
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2003 10:49 pm
Location: The Great state of Ohio!!

Re: HD 300 from f600

Post #17 by 80broncoman » Thu Jan 02, 2014 2:30 pm

motzingg wrote:good stuff guys, especially worken'... thanks for addressing my comments. I don't doubt that radiusing the journals goes a long way to improving fatigue strength, just seems silly to start with a forged crank, then cut the 'forging' outer skin off of it, when you could just start with a cast crank.. which it sounds like from the last post is the plan.
.......


I used to think the same thing. when i got my first job at special metals I was running a "Bar peeler". This machine peeled about .900 off the outside of a Raw bar forging 11.5 inches in diameter. First thing i asked one of our engineers was just how deep the "Forged" part went on these bars. He told me it went all the way to the center and that the peeler just made sure there was no slag or other contaminants on the product we sold.
OAPSE Union Member

Real men don't wear Bowties
When it come to engines If its .001 loose nobody knows, But if its .001 too tight EVERYBODY KNOWS!!
80 bronco FUV (farm utility vehicle)300 T-18 3.50s EFI head, offy C dual plenum, 500 edel carb, 1.7 roller rockers, Crane 260 cam EFI Exh

motzingg
Registered User
Posts: 815
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:16 am

Re: HD 300 from f600

Post #18 by motzingg » Thu Jan 02, 2014 5:38 pm

ahh nevermind...

deere114
Registered User
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: HD 300 from f600

Post #19 by deere114 » Thu Jan 02, 2014 10:19 pm

Thanks for the responses guys there's lots of good info here. My test engine that will be used to get my set up working (the 85) won't have anything special done to the bottom end. Just a stock rebuild with good bolts and off the shelf hyper pistons. The HD motor however will get the full treatment. Ford only made so many of these forged cranks and they seem to be tough to find now days so I don't wanna be responsible for breaking one. That being said I will be very surprised to see a crank failure in either engine. That infamous turbo maverick I've seen run down Lebanon valley dragway in 10.9 second multiple times with my own two eyes that has to be in the 400 hp range. A guy on fte put down 300hp and 575tq to the tires on a very inefficient set up (no intercooler, stock cam, ect) with no bottom end failure. There is a few turbo 292 Chevys on the net making good power without crank failure, I would amagine these cranks are close in stroke, length, ect to our 300 cranks. IN THEORY if one can achieve 200 hp n/a then 400 hp should be achievable on that motor in the 15-20 psi providing it stays in one peice and doesn't detonate.

motzingg
Registered User
Posts: 815
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:16 am

Re: HD 300 from f600

Post #20 by motzingg » Fri Jan 03, 2014 12:05 pm

Ok... i winged off a stupid response just as i was leaving work so i deleted it.


Since it sounds like i'm being misunderstood, all i'm trying to say here, is that in a long six-cylinder crank, the harmonics (torsional vibration/oscillation) are TYPICALLY (drawing from experience with import engines, for which there are more data) the main failure mode. If harmonics break a 3jz crank, ya damn sure they are going to be a lot worse in the longer and less stout 300 crank. Basically exactly what CNC-dude posted. Sure without some elaborate testing or FEA you'll never know the resonance points, but its safe to assume that they are there.

Therefore building an engine that produces max power at a lower RPM (and therefore higher gross torque) is less likely to break a crank, than an engine making power at a higher rpm with less torque. Which may be why there are anecdotal accounts of ~400 hp turbo'd 6's that are running stock or lightly modified cranks without snapping the crank.

That's all i'm saying, its a theory that in my estimation would explain why there are some turbo'd cars out there running stock cranks making the kind of power that NA cars (at a higher rpm) would break a crank.

If it is in fact pure torque failure, you'd think you would see it more often in turbo cars with a lower-rpm power band.



and on the forged vs cast crank thing, yeah, i was thinking for some reason these had 'rolled' journals, but i suppose being 40 years old they are probably just die forged and twisted. either way they are probably a better alloy so you're right.

deere114
Registered User
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: HD 300 from f600

Post #21 by deere114 » Fri Jan 03, 2014 12:26 pm

I understand your point. there's really no way to deny these harmonics exist and I'm not trying to. This will definately be a lower rpm and extremely high torque scenario so I guess If I reach my hp goal I'll find out if its enough for crank failure.

BIG 6 farmer
Registered User
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:46 am
Location: On a dirt road near Washington Nebr.

Re: HD 300 from f600

Post #22 by BIG 6 farmer » Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:50 pm

Since we are mostly talking about our inline 6 crankshafts holding up to a high output Turbocharger. :hmmm: From what ive read on the subject. Any Turbocharged engine, has far less loads on the Connecting Rods & Crankshaft. The way I understand it... The Pistons always have a downward pressure on them. Lessening the loads on Con. Rods & less Crankshaft twist/flex... And that's why a Turbo Engine can get away with high outputs with stock Rods & Crank?? :thumbup: Compaired to a high out put N.A. Engine. Or a belt drive Supercharged Engine... :hmmm: Read this from Corky Bells slightly dated book on Turbocharging :thumbup: Makes sense to me, and explains a lot...
83 F 150 SB 4x4 300 six NP 4speed - - 1950 IHC L162 (1&1/2 ton?) - 87 & 88 T-Bird Turbo Coupes - 2000 Triumph Tiger , 76 Honda GL 1000 , & other toys and parts (& junk) -

deere114
Registered User
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: HD 300 from f600

Post #23 by deere114 » Sun Jan 05, 2014 8:24 pm

I have heared that before, about the force on pistons and rods on a turbo vs n/a engine. Makes sense to me

deere114
Registered User
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: HD 300 from f600

Post #24 by deere114 » Mon Jan 06, 2014 10:55 pm

I tore down the HD engine the other day. It does have the forged crank (score!) and looks perfect inside. I pulled a main cap and the bearings look like new, same goes for the rod bearings.i think the previous owner wasnt lieing about only having 40k miles on it. i saved everything on this engine even the things I won't use so if anybody wants parts let me know.

arse_sidewards
Registered User
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:18 am

Re: HD 300 from f600

Post #25 by arse_sidewards » Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:36 pm

If you aren't doing anything with the HD bell, flywheel, clutch, transmission, PTO etc, etc let me know. I've got a Clark 280 taking up space and those parts might save me from having to adapt the bell from an FMX and use an internal slave.
1994 F150 4x4 8ft, engine is basically stock.

66" leafs, extended radius arms, lockers in both ends, nothing special.

deere114
Registered User
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: HD 300 from f600

Post #26 by deere114 » Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:00 pm

sorry for the lack of response ive been sick. the HD clutch and bell are two items im keeping sorry. your project with that clark sure sounds interesting

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests