Bore/stroke effects on HP - Page 2 - Turbo Dodge Forums : Turbo Dodge Forum for Turbo Mopars, Shelbys, Dodge Daytona, Dodge SRT-4, Chrysler PT Cruiser, Omni and more!
TurboDodge.com MarketPlace Shelby Registry Contact Us

Advertisement - Remove these ads today by clicking here.
Go Back   Turbo Dodge Forums : Turbo Dodge Forum for Turbo Mopars, Shelbys, Dodge Daytona, Dodge SRT-4, Chrysler PT Cruiser, Omni and more! > Turbo Dodge Technical Chat > Engine - General, Exhaust & Induction

Engine - General, Exhaust & Induction Topics about the general engine items, exhaust system discussed here & Improving the intake tract - air filter to intake valve.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 05-13-2005, 03:33 PM   #16
 
TD Hardcore User!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Nun-yah, Maine

1/4: 0.000

Posts: 2,703
Feedback: (1)
DirectConnection is ready to make a name for oneself
Quote:
Originally Posted by Putter
Low rod ratios can multiply an engines given torque at low speed, and significatly reduce its given torque at high speed, as the flame front can actually chase the piston down the bore.... :)
"chase the piston down the bore" is a good way to put it. I know the longer rods can increase dwell which as you know, how much time the piston is at TDC, or thereabouts. It takes better advantage of the pressure rise as I see it.

Also, the quick acceleration of a short rod also plays a role in VE. That piston with a greater acceleration will increase *velocity* in the gas exchange process. Something that should not be overlooked, but has been here so far.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Putter
If the given ratio is too high, the piston can be basically pushing straight down the crank, which isn't really going to help matters any.
Explain why this is bad (not saying you're wrong...). Straighter down the force, the more direct it would be, wouldn't it? Less friction due to transmitting the force through an angle and the result in the famous side loading of the piston and other friction inducing aspects. (I'd bet the rod takes a beating the larger the rod angle is)
A math question could be written on this. Picture a rotating assembly in your mind. The stroke is the same, and the pistons both have the same TDC. One has a really short rod length A, and the other a really long rod at length B. The piston has a 100lb force upon it. What are the resultant forces for both? I can't believe I don't remember how to do this type of equation anymore. It was only 8 years ago.....

Dan, chime in here as I know this is kindergarten material based on the shooling you've had.
__________________
Sometime's in life, it's better to let it go.

Last edited by DirectConnection; 05-13-2005 at 03:53 PM..
DirectConnection is offline  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 05-13-2005, 04:07 PM   #17
 
Boostaholic
 
Join Date: Feb 2003

1/4: 0.000

Posts: 584
Feedback: (0)
Dan Culkin is keeping our cars running
Didn't I do that math on the SDML a long time ago?

Kindergarten? No...
Dan Culkin is offline  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-13-2005, 04:20 PM   #18
 
TD Extreme User!
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle

My Ride: 92 Duster
Engine: 3.0
Induct: Turbo
1/4: 11.500

Posts: 9,262
Feedback: (0)
Ondonti is keeping our cars runningOndonti is keeping our cars running
I hate to throw some real facts into this debate of " know so and so who did this"
I will write some things from A. Graham Bells Book on 4 stroke performance tuning

F1 cars run rod ratio's well over 2.0......They also run 15,000 rpm's, and only get to use about 2 psi boost.

Anyways, in years past, people thought that a long rod would increase top end power, while a short rod would increase bottom end. The problem with Short rods is this increases cylinder wall loads, piston and cylinder wear. Bad stuff.

Apparently though, the power output of similar displacement engines with different rod ratio's is not changed when using flat top or domed pistons.

The only time that the low end and high end power increases are seen is when there is when high top pistons are installed to achieve high compression. High top pistons really screw up combustion.

Anything lower then 1.65 Rod ratio is pushing it if you want you race motor to last long for the $$$. Also, longer stroke causes the piston to rock in the cylinder more. Also, since shorter piston skirts and lower compression height has to be used, the piston has even less material keeping it from rocking. This causes ring seal to go out the door a lot faster then a proper rod ratio car.

That honda might make power for the first while, but it will need to be resleeved ALL THE TIME.


He documents absolutly no hp gains by using longer rods/strokes or anything like that.
No gains by boring the engine if it increases cylinder warpage/block flex. Also Boring the cylinder will give you more dead area for detonation to bite.

The place to look for high rpm power is the cam, valve size, and intake trumpet length. Diamter of the intake trumpet just rocks the power curve. Also your exhaust need sto be tuned for the RPM at which you want to make power.


It is important to realise for those who think that the piston staying at TDC longer is hurting inlet velocity when the intake valve opens, you seem to be forgetting part of the picture.
When the intake valve opens usually the intake charge is drawn in from the partial vacume created by the momentum of escaping exhaust gases, a small amount of intake charge goes right out the exhaust valve, and then the piston moves down..............Just remember that while staying at TDC and moving away takes longer, the piston will have to accellerate a LOT more then the short rod piston to get to the same place.

This greater accelleration creates greater momentum of the intake charge and will litereally ram more air into the cylinder.

Still, both ways seem to show about the same hp #'s over hundreds of different engines.

I have a nice equation for calculating what rpm that your heads/cams/valves will make max hp @. If anyone is interested in playing with real #'s.........and not fairy tales. Problem is figuring out what gas speed velocity your head gets, and your BMEP

I think a 3.0L has a BMEP somwhere around a pathetic 145......cars like an s2000 are over 180. I cant see the 2.2 or 2.5 being very good either. They probably have Crappy gas flow velocities with their cam/heads

Last edited by Ondonti; 05-13-2005 at 04:31 PM..
Ondonti is offline  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-13-2005, 07:41 PM   #19
 
Hybrid Booster
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Iowa

My Ride: '87 Omni
Engine: Dodge 2.2
Induct: Turbo
1/4: 13.112

Posts: 1,733
Feedback: (0)
Putter is keeping our cars running
IMO :)

There is a few reasons why I see it this way.

A long rod is going to push more downward on the crank, in a way which reduces what I see as an effective stroke. If you plot the force vectors for both a long rod and a short rod at lets say 20* ATDC, the sorter rod is going to have a higher angularity to the bore vertical, and not only pushing down on the crank, but actually push rearward on it also (which is where it is headed anyway). Now if you take the longer rod, its going to have less angle to bore vertical, and push more down only than rearward. A good example of trying this would be spare crank in a block. Take the crank and put it 10*ATD and push straight down on it, it will be very hard to turn the crank. Now if you push down on the crank lets say from an angle forward of the engine, you're pushing the crank away from you now, and will rotate much easier. This is where torque increases can be found in low RPM engines.

There's a few other things I see with it, A longer rod is going to create a longer powerstroke, combined with turbo engine's greater ATDC pressure increase, this lets full cylinder pressure be applyed the crank for a longer duration, which is important to me for a few reasons. When using higher octane fuels, 100+, we have issues with frame propagation. You see timing advanced many degrees over pump gas timing curves. The reason here is a higher octane fuel is a much more stable molecule and will have a signifcantly slower flame front. Now if we're lighting the fire 6 or more crank degrees earlier to get same peak cyl pressure ATC (to where the engine goes boe-ing as no other way of putting it) how much ATDC is it going to take to finish burn. So if we keep our piston ready at the top of the bore longer for our fuel to finish burning, we can then apply more force on the piston, hoping for greater work output. With our short rod motor, like I said before, slow burning fuels can chase the piston down the bore in extreme cases.

A sorter rod is going to create a shorter effective time of force on the crank, but in turn may create a harder force.

BUT: Here's what I dont' know. If we're creating a higher force for a shorter duration power maybe the same. So somewhere in here is where effective pressure rates come into play.

I think it mostly boils down with long/short rod motor to, length of combustion event and RPM at which the engine is intended.

This could all be BS, because this is what I've come up with in my head over the last year thinking about it off and on, I havn't taken any classes on chemistry or high level geometry. I'm just a mechanic.

But I do know, sort rods make for some very high dynamic forces inside an engine, and its probably to a power of something.
__________________
-Pat
Putter is offline  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-14-2005, 02:13 AM   #20
 
TD Extreme User!
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle

My Ride: 92 Duster
Engine: 3.0
Induct: Turbo
1/4: 11.500

Posts: 9,262
Feedback: (0)
Ondonti is keeping our cars runningOndonti is keeping our cars running
thos dynamic forces are very bad if you want a motor that is not going to wear out quickly.

If a F1 car tried a rod ratio of 1.5 instead of 2+ then they would not make it through a race.

a constant 15,000 rpm's for hundreds of miles....................
Ondonti is offline  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-14-2005, 11:27 AM   #21
 
TD Hardcore User!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Nun-yah, Maine

1/4: 0.000

Posts: 2,703
Feedback: (1)
DirectConnection is ready to make a name for oneself
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Culkin
Didn't I do that math on the SDML a long time ago?

Kindergarten? No...
And how come you don't anymore? ALOT of people could benefit from you and a few others that have that kind of a background. This forum is different than the SDML as there are more math geeks here than you think ;)

Come on Dan... I know you're itching to bust out a can of "whoop-math" on the unedjumacated masses.

Seriously, I was hoping you'd chime in help out with some input.
DirectConnection is offline  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-14-2005, 11:42 AM   #22
 
TD Hardcore User!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Nun-yah, Maine

1/4: 0.000

Posts: 2,703
Feedback: (1)
DirectConnection is ready to make a name for oneself
Quote:
Originally Posted by Putter
IMO :)

There is a few reasons why I see it this way.

A long rod is going to push more downward on the crank, in a way which reduces what I see as an effective stroke. If you plot the force vectors for both a long rod and a short rod at lets say 20* ATDC, the sorter rod is going to have a higher angularity to the bore vertical, and not only pushing down on the crank, but actually push rearward on it also (which is where it is headed anyway)
OK, that's makes sense to me ;) With everyone's input here, I am seeing the pros and cons of short vs long rod theory better. (or factual reality)

On another note, the subject says Bore/stroke effects on HP We all veered towards rod ratio which *is* related. But, I see alot of the big bore, small stroke engines really making incredible HP levels... and at high rpms. 5digits told me years ago that RPMs make HP. At the time, I was thinking how? My 8v motor at 8k isn't making hp. Over the years, the things I have read and pondered in my own time made it all come together. And, that has to do with bore/stroke ratios and also a great induction along with other things.... In a nutshell, as I am short on time here... large flow capabilities in the induction system usually are at the expense of low rpm power. Large volume runners typically have low low-lift port velocities/flow and contribute to slugish low rpm response (remember..in a nutshell here) and power. The head and manifolds need high port velocities to happen and that's where high RPMs come into play. (for better pumping efficiencies) They create the higher velocities... but now this is where bore and stroke come into play. Can't rev to 8k to support the head and manifolds if you have our 2.5 reciprocating geometries.
I hope I didn't write this out to quickly without thinking.... hehe
__________________
Sometime's in life, it's better to let it go.
DirectConnection is offline  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-14-2005, 12:04 PM   #23
 
Super Pope

 
The Pope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Spokane WA

Induct: Turbo
1/4: 0.000

Posts: 9,855
Feedback: (10)
Images: 5
The Pope has really helped outThe Pope has really helped out
speaking of rods, who has a good H beam for our cars?
The Pope is offline  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-14-2005, 01:28 PM   #24
 
TD Extreme User!
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle

My Ride: 92 Duster
Engine: 3.0
Induct: Turbo
1/4: 11.500

Posts: 9,262
Feedback: (0)
Ondonti is keeping our cars runningOndonti is keeping our cars running
Look at the dynochart of 500-600 hp honda's that rev up to 9k rpm's

They dont make 100 hp until almost 4k rpm's

The hp production has nothing to do with their bore/stroke. It is just their car is set up so that is maximizes power output above 6k rpm's.

Having a long stroke will, cause the piston to rock more in the cylinder, and this is bad for engine wear. Also having a longer stroke forces you to use short piston skirts, and shorter compresssion ring landings (because longer stroke is throwing the piston skirts into the crank, and throwing the top of the piston into the head). Taking away the piston skirts and making the piston shorter gives the piston even less ability to not "rock" in the cylinder.

Combining these 2 aspects is bad, but you must do it or you cannot achieve much of a stroke increase.


Big bore is not really something that is good, especially on a 2 valve head. The bigger your bore, the more dead space you have in your cylinder to find detonation. A 4 valve head with a centralised spark plug is much better at holding down detonation at comparable charge densities.
Ondonti is offline  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-14-2005, 04:20 PM   #25
 
TD Hardcore User!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Nun-yah, Maine

1/4: 0.000

Posts: 2,703
Feedback: (1)
DirectConnection is ready to make a name for oneself
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ondonti
The hp production has nothing to do with their bore/stroke. It is just their car is set up so that is maximizes power output above 6k rpm's.
I beg to differ. There are several 2.5 16v T-III motors and I know of one 16v 2.5 hybrid with a head that flows 280cfm. All of them make peak HP under 6k.
I had my stock T-III head flowed and it was 215cfm compared to the V-tec head they flowed on the same bench. The difference was 20cfm tops.
Convert the said engines to 2.2 stroke and HP increases along with the peak HP. This is nothing new.

This reminds me... if you were on the FMML R+D list a few years ago, you will remember a certain incredibly smart person with an *extensive* background, but who preferred his anonymity. Only a select few have had the opportunity to know him and that he is certainly a wealth of information. (same for 5digits) Here's a snipit that he wrote to me a couple years ago:

"> Hi Steve,
It's been a while. I think the motorcycle world is a really good way to show
the properties of the dynamics you refer to. The 2.5 is actually a good
engine to work with as long as it's limits are accounted for. I would not
put aluminum rods and a 4340 crank in it to turn 9500 rpm, when things are
going so fast that half that air can go in because of the piston speed! A
2.0 can make 900 hp and turn 9000+ like it is going out of style. Turbo's
can mask this pretty well though. But there is still 200 hp in going to a
smaller stroke. My uncle proved this in the '70's with the 2.3 ford. They
tried 4.25" stroke down to 2.75" and found that the bigger stroke hurt hp
but made allot of torque. But track times suffered allot due to traction and
a lot less top end power. Even though the cylinder head was ported to match
the combo. They ended up with 1.9 liters and 890 hp in 1976 .... "





Quote:
Big bore is not really something that is good, especially on a 2 valve head. The bigger your bore, the more dead space you have in your cylinder to find detonation. A 4 valve head with a centralised spark plug is much better at holding down detonation at comparable charge densities.
I hadn't heard of that being an issue before... and I'm not saying it isn't true. Can you explain the "dead space" and how it contributes to detonation in more detail?
I do know a hot setup on a budget is to abandon the 440 and go with a 440 crank into a 400 block with proper rods and pistons. The 400 block has a larger bore and am told it comes out to 451 CI and will make much more peak HP and rev quicker compared to a 440.
__________________
Sometime's in life, it's better to let it go.
DirectConnection is offline  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-14-2005, 06:32 PM   #26
 
Hybrid Booster
 
Join Date: May 2003

1/4: 0.000

Posts: 1,279
Feedback: (0)
cj011 is keeping the peace
Has anyone looked at the dyno plots of a 2.2 DOHC Dodge motor running long rods? Is the peak hp still under 6k? Are out motors limited in high rpm performance because of the short block or head?
cj011 is offline  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-14-2005, 09:09 PM   #27
 
TD Hardcore User!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Nun-yah, Maine

1/4: 0.000

Posts: 2,703
Feedback: (1)
DirectConnection is ready to make a name for oneself
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj011
Has anyone looked at the dyno plots of a 2.2 DOHC Dodge motor running long rods? Is the peak hp still under 6k? Are out motors limited in high rpm performance because of the short block or head?
It is my opinion that the 16v 2.2's are limited in high rpm performance due to the "shortblock" as you call it. The 2.2 rod ratio could be better according to what the reccomended ratio is, but it's not that far off to really hamper things badly. The 2.5 is.

I think it really comes down to the large stroke the 2.5 and 2.2's have compared to other 4 cylinders out there (high reving that is).

Think about all the inline 4's out there. Then, look at their stroke and bore combination, along with the HP/torque figures. You'll see a pattern that is not soley attributed to the increased VE they have.

I have used this analogy several times, so I'm sorry to re-hash it here again, but one perfect example of great engineering and bore to stroke ratios is evident in Yamaha's YZF450 dirtbike engines. 450cc's and 59 hp with the stock regulated exhaust (ka-ka) 11,000+ redline with a bore of 95mm and a stroke of only 63.4! (I own a YZF400) I rode one of these bad boys last year and it is just freaking incredible. I have owned 5 different Honda XR500R's in the past. They are radial 4 valve chambers (RFVC) motors so they are no slouches airflow-wise.... but the power is not even close. It's like a Harley(torquer) vs a CBR929RR (HP). The XR had a big stroke and could thump along through many tough places and make good HP, but the yamaha 450 never stops. It is an animal and I have ridden CR500's before. I have never seen/heard an engine rev so quick. It's like idling, and you twist the grip and instantly.... BLAP! it's at 10k.

But to your question on rod ratios on a 2.2 16v.... I am not speaking from experience, but going with a more optimum rod ratio on a 2.2 16v would probably net very small gains in HP. (as Dan Culkin plotted out mathematically years ago on the SDML) I would imagine doing the same in a 2.5 16v would be worth the investment... would probably give a bit more rev and peak HP, while at the expense of some torque. If I was to build a 16v 2.5, that is something I myself would most likely address.
__________________
Sometime's in life, it's better to let it go.
DirectConnection is offline  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-15-2005, 01:32 AM   #28
 
Super Pope

 
The Pope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Spokane WA

Induct: Turbo
1/4: 0.000

Posts: 9,855
Feedback: (10)
Images: 5
The Pope has really helped outThe Pope has really helped out
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirectConnection
I hadn't heard of that being an issue before... and I'm not saying it isn't true. Can you explain the "dead space" and how it contributes to detonation in more detail?
I do know a hot setup on a budget is to abandon the 440 and go with a 440 crank into a 400 block with proper rods and pistons. The 400 block has a larger bore and am told it comes out to 451 CI and will make much more peak HP and rev quicker compared to a 440.
You go to a 400 block for a lighter piston and a lighter block. The setup runs best with a 440 rod as it is longer and the piston ends up lighter.

Big bore is always going to make more HP, thats not even something to have to debate. Fact is the bigger the bore the bigger the valves can be, this is basic muscle car building 101 dating back to the 50's. Why do you think a 2 valve per cylinder engine with angled valves to increase the effective bore width, is still the most powerful engine on earth? Big bore, short stoke, big valves and only 2 per cylinder. No piston engine on earth but a Mopar makes over 15 HP per CID.

As for the old 444 engine, the first 440 crank and 400 block setup. There is very little difference between the bore sizes, 4.34 for a 400 and a 4.32 for a big block. Stroke on a 400 is only 3.38, now a 2.2 uses a 3.65 stroke. The 440 uses a 3.75 stroke. Even if you run the 4.15 crank used in the fuelers in a 400 block your still at standard bore having a larger piston than stroke. A big difference over a 2.2. 440 has a 1.8 and a 400 has a 1.89 rod ratio, so 440 crank and rods in a 400 block is still better rod ratio than stock. 20 years ago people were building race cars from junk yards with 440s, 454s, and 460s, I never had a problem with chevy or ford at the track.

now look at a slant 6, where most of the 2.2 really comes from. Bore is all 3.4", but they change the stroke, 4.12 for a 225 and 3.64 for a 198. Sounds allot like a 2.2 and a 2.5 doesn't it? A 198 though has a 7.006" rod length though, a 1.92 rod ratio. The 225 has a 1.62 rod ratio. Strange the rod ratio didn't carry over, I have a couple 225 turbos in the works 6.123 rod length 340 has a 1.84 rod ratio

Last but not least, you get rid of the 440 block and the manifold runners become shorter. So it is good to go to a stage 6 head that uses a 440 intake when doing a 444 setup.
The Pope is offline  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-15-2005, 04:42 AM   #29
 
Hybrid Booster
 
Join Date: May 2003

1/4: 0.000

Posts: 1,279
Feedback: (0)
cj011 is keeping the peace
Does anyone still have the math from Dan from the SDML?

There was a manx a few years back on Oahu and that guy never lost on the streets. He would look at big block supercharged camaro's and laugh like what the hell are the doing? He had an aircooled vw motor with a 64mm crank and I think 94mm pistons, possibly larger but I am not sure. This was all coupled to long rods and massive flowing heads. His opinion was all these v8 guys are clunking around all this extra weight for their big motors and it took to long for them to get going. By the time they make two revolutions, he felt he made 2 to 4 and by the time they get traction and their big over carbed and over-cammed combo's get going, his big heads and lightweight valve train take off. They would shift before him and he could get going faster.

What is your guys opinions on this approach? Without going to the tall deck block, how much could the 2.5 guys really improve thier rod ratio if custom rods and pistons are used? Is it the size of stroke rather than rod ratio in relation to our cylinder heads that are killing the top end? How much airflow the slant 6 produce in the heads in order to get hp?
cj011 is offline  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-15-2005, 03:50 PM   #30
 
TD Extreme User!
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle

My Ride: 92 Duster
Engine: 3.0
Induct: Turbo
1/4: 11.500

Posts: 9,262
Feedback: (0)
Ondonti is keeping our cars runningOndonti is keeping our cars running
General Rules of most engines states that bore/stroke has little effect on maximum horsepower.

I didnt say that you wont find a different power curve.

If you set the car up to take advantage of the dynamics of your engine, then the #'s will be about even for max hp. If you go using parts that are designed for a smaller/bigger motor, you are working against yourself.


As far as bigger bore, generally the larger bore you go, the more space has to be evacuated of exhaust gases. When you overbore an engine, your combustion chamber stays the same size, and you are simply creating more area on the piston that needs to be quenced. Quend is important to have, but boring for a little more displacement will just screw up combustion.

I will say that as far as power goes, you can certainly make more power on a smaller bore motor that will take gobs of advance, boost, compression.......compared to a motor that is overbored, requires high octane, low compression, or low boost, or ignition retard.
Ondonti is offline  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Turbo Dodge Forums : Turbo Dodge Forum for Turbo Mopars, Shelbys, Dodge Daytona, Dodge SRT-4, Chrysler PT Cruiser, Omni and more! forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

Member names may only be composed of alpha-numeric characters. (A-Z and 0-9)

!!ATTENTION ADVERTISERS!! If you intend on advertising anything on this forum, whatsoever, you are required to first contact us here . Additionaly, we do NOT allow BUSINESS NAMES unless you are an Authorized Vendor. If you own a business, and want to do sales on this site via posting or private message, you will need to follow the rules. Shops, Stores, Distributors, Group Buys without being authorized will see your account terminated.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may 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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.3.2

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:40 PM.