Jump to content

Premium Gas for Prewar Cars?


TexRiv_63

Recommended Posts

Guest Jim_Edwards
Alright then, what gas should I use for a stock 361 Mopar wedge V8 in a '58 Desoto?

Bruce

Experiment! Today's octane rating method is not the same as the leaded gas days. Depending upon the current compression rating of your engine (will probably be less than original specs unless having a recent rebuild) you may be able to get away with using 87-89 octane unleaded pump gas without any additives. I have a '62 Olds Starfire with an Ultra High Compression 394 in it that at this time is running just fine on 87 octane pump gas. There is a bit over 95K miles on the engine (supposedly). When I rebuild the engine I'll probably have to move up in octane rating. However, I recently rebuilt the 430 c.i. 10:1 compression engine in my '58 Mercury and I have yet to hear a ping out of it on 87-89 octane unleaded regular. However, I also installed a Pertronix II electronic ignition in the distributor which would certainly have an effect on things.

Someone asked or commented about using 2 cycle oil in the gas to aid in upper engine lubrication. For those too young to remember 4 oz. cans of upper engine lube was commonly sold/used as a fuel additive well into the 1960s though not typically recommended by car manufacturers of the time. Did it actually help with anything? Who knows? Personally I never used it in any car I owned back in those days.

The biggest issue with today's fuels in vintage automobiles may be the injector cleaners which it appears may actually leach metal from the internals of pre-unleaded gas era carburetors eventually making them useless and impossible to rebuild. The cleaners are formulated to clean stainless steel injectors not aluminum alloy carburetors. I have personally found the leaching problem to be the case with late 60's through early 70's Motorcraft 4350 and 4350D carburetors Ford used on most 429/460 engines. Those carburetors were apparently cast with a very poor aluminum alloy. School is still out on older Holley, Carter, and Rochester carburetors on my other 50s and 60s automobiles.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 58 DeSoto has 10:1 compression stock! All models have this high compression but only for that one year.

For this engine you should use the best hi test gas you can buy, which is probably 92 or 93 octane. This should do, although there is a chance you may have to back off the timing or add octane booster.

This is if the car is stock. If it has been rebuilt the compression may have been lowered then. Since the real go juice has not been available since 1970.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TWIN FINS

Ahh I knew we'd eventually get there. Thanks. Don't plan the floor it. And she will be babied. The engine is stock with 10:1 compression. Nephew did the major tune-up a few days ago and ran a compression test . 145 being the highest and 110 on one cylinder the lowest. Will run the highest octane I could find.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest kaycee

:) My earlier Buicks and '63-'65 Rivieras had 10.25 compression ratios and I always used the highest octane (usually mid to high 90s octane ), and if I had them today I'd have to run the 92-93 octane and maybe still have to retard the timing a bit. It's interesting ( but logical) that Buick back then lowered the compression ratio ( and resulting horsepower/ torque ratings) on some of the same 364/ 401 nailheads that they used (usually in the LeSabre) to 8.5 or 9 comp. ratio with just the use of thicker headgaskets. The variance in torque and horsepower were also influenced by different carburetors, camshaft grinds, and distributor weights and springs, too, but the difference in compression was'nt due to 'shaved' blocks or heads or domed pistons.

:) kaycee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Paterson Chris

Holy cow, this has been an eye-opening thread and I'm going to pass it on to our AMCA (motorcycle) chapter members to get their responses.

If I'm correct in reading this then I take it it would be to my car's advantage -- '23 Paterson with a 4.5:1 compression ratio -- to dilute the regular pump gas with diesel or kerosene in proportion to its compression ratio? It has seemed to run hotter than it should.

Also, if I go ahead and start blending (or maybe adulterating would be a better word) my fuel, how will this affect my driving at higher elevations? I live at 3000ft and regularly take my car on old dirt mining roads up to 7000ft. Any personal experience here?

At 45, I've been wrenching on old cars and pre-War motorcycles since my late teens and I'm almost embarrassed to write that this is the first time I've ever come across a thread about mixing fuel with kerosene/ diesel in this way. But then I've also gone on innumerable rides with the majority riding pre-War stuff -- of very low compression -- and never saw anyone "mix-it-up" when we stopped to refuel either.

Thanks for posting this.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should be able to use up to 25% kerosene or more. At high altitudes the air is thin and cars have less compression and develop less horsepower. Some manufacturers used to make special high compression heads to compensate. Ford "Denver" heads were a popular prewar hop up.

The guy who was using 25% kerosene in his 4.5:1 Buick was around 500 or 600 feet above sea level.

If you want to be conservative try 10% and see what happens. If your engine does not knock or ping you can try a little more. If you go too far and notice signs of distress you can always add a gallon of gas to the tank and try again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Paterson Chris

Thanks Rusty --

Will this also make for more than normal carbon/ soot build-up in the combustion chamber? Or if the carb mixture is set right is it then no more of an issue than if one were to use just regular pump gas only?

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, am I correct in saying, that if I add a gallon of diesel to every 10 of 87 octane gas, the fuel starvation on my twin -h hudson will be reduced or stopped when Az temps hit 100? 7.5-1 compression. And what about carbon buildup? A couple of years ago I tried a quart of diesel and noticed no differance. I presume I need more. Up to 88 degrees the car runs perfectly, then look out. The first stop light,and I head for the right lane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7.5 compression is pretty high. We were talking about prewar cars with 4.5 to 6.

I would use plain 87 octane regular if I were you.

I don't know anything about fuel starvation at temps over 100 as I live in Canada lol.

Used to know a guy who drove a VW bus in Arizona in the summer. One of the old ones from the fifties. When he had trouble with vapor lock he would pull over a buy a sack of grapefruits, cut one in half with his jack knife and mush 1/2 onto the fuel pump. Then eat the other half.

When one dried out and it vapor locked he would throw it away and put on another.

You could try it, I don't see what it could hurt. Maybe your Hudson just needs some Vitamin C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some good tips Charles but a couple of myths snuck in there.

There is NO difference in the temperature of gas. The tanks are under ground. At a depth of 4 feet the temperature never changes year round. All gas tanks are buried so the gas is at least that deep under ground.

The only thing premium gas gives you is more knock resistance for high compression engines. If your engine requires it, buy it. The higher compression engine is more efficient so the increase in mileage will pay for the extra few cents at the pump. You engine may run on regular but the engine control system will back off the timing which reduces power and mileage so you save nothing.

If you do not have a high compression engine, buy regular. Your engine will run better on it and deliver the best mileage.

Don't go crazy. A little gas money is really a small figure in the cost of running a car. My old man was crazy about saving money on gas. Once I was with him when he went miles out of his way to buy gas from a certain station. It had the cheapest gas around. Seven cents a gallon cheaper than on the main hiway. When he filled the tank I calculated that he saved $1.20. When I told him this he looked shocked and said "Is that all?"

The biggest expense for most drivers is depreciation followed by insurance. You will save more money in an hour by pricing insurance than by chiselling on your gas for the rest of the year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever since they switched to ethanol here in Florida, all of my '39 Buick's vapor lock. I had to install a backup electric fuel pump on every one of them, and it's a real pain to reach for the switch every so often in hotter weather to give it some gas and overcome a stall at 55 mph. What a pain. I have found one station here that still sells regular unleaded and I'm using that for now. Some guys are dropping into the local private airports to get AV gas. The '39s will run okay, usually, so long as the outside temp isn't much above 80 degrees. I'm goint to try wrapping the gas lines for this comming summer to see what that does. Everybody knows from the old days of alcohol anti-freeze that alchohol boils before water will, and this alchohol gas is boiling in the fuel pump and gas lines. I can turn off the engine and watch it boil in the sediment bowl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 8Straight

Rather than look it up myself, I'll ask here.

The initial question was about using premium in prewar cars. Do the premium grades have alcohol?

If not, could diesel or kerosene be used to adjust the octane of premium to a level that would work well at lower compressions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8straight, I started this thread, surprised at how big it has gotten! No one has responded to support the use of premium since the prewar cars have no need of the antiknock qualities it offers. In my area all gas contains ethanol and I will be surprised if that will not be tha case everywhere soon. The thread moved to the issue of blending diesel or kerosene with regular gas to help offset the effects of the alcohol. We have heard from a few people who have done this successfully and I will be experimenting with it with my cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Here in California we are using depending on brand of fuel 5-10% and one brand at 15% ethanol . Mile per gallon averages between when it was 0 and now 5% were hardly noticable, but if I am using 15% ethanol my high mile per gallon cars will suffer a 3-4 mpg loss in fuel economy. My high horsepower cars also suffer because the highest octane we can get is 91. That means with the two high horsepower- high compression cars I must have a alternative. Those two cars are only driven once a month so what I do is go to the nearest race track and buy 25 gallons of 117 octane unleaded racing fuel. The ratio I use is 5gal of 117 racing fuel to 15 gallons of 91octane premium. The racing fuel has the same stuff that stay bill has so it can keep over 6 months. My compression ratios in those cars is 10 to one and that ratio of racing fuel seems to keep everything happy. I must warn everyone though that alot of detonation goes on without you even hearing it so take heed on that.

One final thought, Why can civil and military aviation go flying around and over us with their piston planes using 100 low lead and 145/115 super high test lead if it's supposed to be so bad for us.

Please don't chime in that they have high compression engines and super charged and turbo charged engines because we've got cars like that too.

Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The lead was taken out of the fuel in 1970 at the request of General Motors because it kills the catalytic converters.

It was not taken out for any other reason despite what you hear today.

Other car makers managed to comply with the pollution control laws without cats but as they tightened the rules, it looked like there would be no other choice going forward.The new laws were just too strict.

GM said you will have to change the law or change the gas, there is no other way to meet the upcoming regulations. So the oil companies agreed to furnish unleaded fuel if GM made enough cars to make it worth their while. So GM changed to all cat converter equipped cars.

I don't know why nobody remembers this.

Here is another amusing question. When your green friends yammer about pollution, ask them how much pollution today's cars put out.

5% ? 10%? 50%? What?

The answer is today's cars are 97% pollution free and have been since the early 80s.

This surprises a lot of people. They do not realise that between 1963 and 1980 anti pollution laws got stricter every year until new cars were 97% pollution free. In some cases on smoggy LA freeways what was coming out the tailpipe was cleaner than what was going into the engine.

You can also point out that electric cars and hybrids are 98% pollution free and ask what they would pay to go from 97% to 98%.

If anyone doubts this it is easy enough to look up the pollutants allowed by the latest laws, compared to an uncontrolled car from before 1963.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rusty, problem is the EPA has now determined that carbon dioxide is now considered air pollution. The bigger the cars engine, no matter how clean it was before is now a large polluter, as are large animals such as cows, pigs, humans, whales ect.

All of this has less to do with pollution and more to do with changing how we live. Wonder what it will look like in 100 years? Think there will be a place for the cars we have all restored and protected?

Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CO2=global warming scam has already been debunked.

For one thing the temps have been going DOWN for the last 10 years while CO2 went UP.

For another the so called scientists behind the global warming scare, at the University of East Anglia and University of Pennsylvania, have been exposed as faking their so called research. The same people were on the UN's climate committee and are still being supported by Al Gore.

Other scientists not connected with this gang, have been sceptical of the whole thing from the start. Turns out they were right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rusty, problem is the government and world opinion is still going head long forward despite this. Didn't you hear the presidents state of the union speach?

Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rusty, I have a double Master's degree in the subject. I've written more on this subject than you've read, and read more first-person research on this than you've seen or know about. You are 100% factually wrong on every single thing you just posted.

Until you can accept that, there's no reason to contradict any of what you've posted with referenced, authoritative facts. Many can never accept something like that, and I've wasted hours of keystrokes trying.

However, if the whole world is not making sense and you think you are, the answer should be clear.

Edited by Dave@Moon
added "keystrokes" phrase (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave, at the risk of being rude, it is my observation that if all of the academics demonstrated 25% as much tact, diplomacy, and politeness, and only 75% as much intelligence, they would have a much easier time convincing people.

The arrogant tone does not help your argument. A basic polite explanation with a link to more detailed data for those who wish to read the material would be a much more effective manner of conveying your position.

Adult learners do not wish to be ridiculed. They do not listen to teachers who speak down to them as if they were children in kindergarten. Teaching is a skill. It is part salesmanship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jim_Edwards

Looks like it is time for this thread to be locked.

For those thinking they have issues with gasoline grade in their vintage car there has been reams of valid and invalid info written on the subject. To get the straight scoop start with digging out info easily found on the WEB concerning Octane ratings and the effects of Lead Additives and their purpose when added to fuel bought at the pump.

Beyond that a little common sense should apply here. No one with a car built before 1973 is likely to be putting enough miles on it for unleaded gasoline to damage the engine. The whole issue with valves is in the cracking of valve seats in engines not rebuilt with hardened valve seats (applies only to most pre 1973 engines). Most old engines have more than sufficient lead build up to keep the valve seats from cracking with minimal driving. If an old engine has been rebuilt over the course of the last 15 or so years chances are the re-builder put hardened valve seats in it, no more problem!

If the issue is pre-detonation with exception of the high compression engines of the muscle car era (1957-1972) there is a grade of gasoline at today's pumps that will not pre-detonate if the engine is timed correctly and the carburetor adjusted for the proper fuel/air mixture required by the engine. In most cases these things do not get passed the problem, conversion to an electronic ignition if possible will likely end it. The latter is particularly true for muscle car era engines. Lastly, there is no way to eliminate pre-detonation in an engine with carbon build up on valves, meaning it's time for a full or at minimum a partial rebuild of the engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave Moon have you read the 1000 emails that were released by a whistle blower, or hacker, from the U of East Anglia?

Have you tried to verify Michael Mann's hockey stick graph? Or any other research from that crowd?

I'm not doubting your word. But I'm not so green as to accept your "I'm an expert and you have to believe every word I say without proof".

It reminds me of Al Gore's "the science is settled" mantra.

Well Einstein is still open to criticism. Darwin is still open to criticism. Even Newton is still open to criticism.

If you and Al Gore say global warming is not open to criticism, then that isn't science. That's religion and Al Gore is your Pope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did a quick Google search for David Moon Global Warming and David Moon Climate Change and found exactly nothing.

If you have written and published so much can you tell me where it is? I'm not asking you to waste your time answering my questions. Just tell me where to look it up.

I do spend a lot of time reading up on this subject and if you have written something good I will read it.

I have noticed the warmers are long on brag, tear jerking "save the puppy" stories, personal attacks and character assassination but short on actual facts.

Edited by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really want to believe in global warming. I live in Canada and have been looking forward to it for years.

But I'm getting tired of empty promises that never come true.

Rusty, You live in SOUTHERN Canada where you have to call out the army when you get a little snow storm. Now where I live (still only in northern portion of southern Canada)we haven't had an honest -40 without windchill factored in for several years. Personally I love a very cold winter as it keep the riff raff down south and I love to ski and snowshoe. I left Canada's banana belt 47 years ago for Baffin Island so I could enjoy a real winter and now it is being ruined by all this pollution. Me and the polar bears aren't happy about it. :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Clipper old boy you should move down south. Winter before last set records for snow and cold in Quebec and equaled records across the country. New record for Quebec, 558 cm that's Eighteen Feet of snow, beating the old record set in the winter of 1965-66

If you don't believe me check out the pictures.http://community.webshots.com/album/562702388loQvnk

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2008/03/08/storm-montreal.html

Or perhaps you should try Washington DC where they are enjoying their second blizzard of the season.

I know we had a series of warm winters 10 or 15 years ago but the last 10 years have been "old fashioned".

I've been thinking of buying a beach house on Baffin Island. If you can believe the bullshit it's a lot warmer there than it is here, 1000 miles to the south.

Why am I the only person who notices these things? It's not like they are secret.

Edited by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Clipper old boy you should move down south. Winter before last set records for snow and cold in Quebec and equaled records across the country. New record for Quebec, 558 cm that's Eighteen Feet of snow, beating the old record set in the winter of 1965-66

If you don't believe me check out the pictures.NEW SNOWFALL RECORD (18 feet-558cm) 2008 THE NEVER ENDING WINTER OF QUEBEC CITY pictures from news photos on webshots

CBC News - Montreal - As major snowfall hits, records set to be buried

Or perhaps you should try Washington DC where they are enjoying their second blizzard of the season.

I know we had a series of warm winters 10 or 15 years ago but the last 10 years have been "old fashioned".

I've been thinking of buying a beach house on Baffin Island. If you can believe the bullshit it's a lot warmer there than it is here, 1000 miles to the south.

Why am I the only person who notices these things? It's not like they are secret.

Rusty, I sense that you realize I was partial kidding. Everyone in Canada loves to bash Toronto and the GTA. Personally southern Ontario for the most part has become so crowded and congested I could not even imagine myself living down there.

I think the term global warming is a misnomer and we should be referring to climate change as that is what we are experiencing. I have worked outside in the north for almost 50 years and I can tell you things are changing. We have deer, raccoons and other southern species (riff raff) living up here that were not here 20 years ago in or if they did not in such abundant numbers and indigenous species like caribou and moose are disappearing at an alarming rate. The sun is definitely stronger that it was only a few years ago. In the past the sun rays in January were barely felt but now January feels like March and the rays have much greater warmth. I am not saying this climate change is man made but something is happening to weather patterns. Whether or not man made or earth entering a warming cycle or the sun getting hotter or closer etc. we cannot deny that we are seeing significant changes can we?

Edited by Clipper47 (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There may very well be global warming. The earth has gone through many warming and cooling periods in the past. Why should it be any different now?

There is evidence that this is due to a change in electromagnetic radiation from space and is affecting all planets in our solar system.

This is quite a different story from what you will see in the mainstream media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave, at the risk of being rude.....The arrogant tone does not help your argument. A basic polite explanation with a link to more detailed data for those who wish to read the material would be a much more effective manner of conveying your position..

Do you have any idea how long I and the tens of thousands of real experts have been doing that. My post count would be at least 500 or more less than it is on just this forum if people believed real experts instead of the comfortable lies so often reproduced here, and all of those posts are links to the real data, the real analyses, and the real expert investigations. If that's what you're looking for go back through my old posts. It's all there.

The polite phase of this is over. Doing somethng about it is just something decent people do now. Defending one's right to cloud and disregard this issue with phony controversy and invented contradictions is like defending one's right to use your hometown's back alleys as public restrooms. It's just not acceptable in decent company any more.

If you were an expert dentist for 30 years, and Sarah Palin went on a pretend news channel to tell people that dental floss caused cavities and that Gummi Bears prevented them, you'd be offended too. When 15-20% of the country bought that line of doo-doo because it fit what they wanted to believe about themselves without really looking at the authoritative information you studied for your advanced degrees, you'd be alarmed. When you found out that a denture company was paying for the whole thing, you'd be disgusted. When you noticed your kids' teeth getting loose and discolored, you'd get upset.

And people wonder why "rudeness" or "arrogance" is a problem here?

I care about this hobby. When we all look like rubes in threads like this it reflects on me, and I'm going to be rude and arrogant.:mad:

Edited by Dave@Moon
typo (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you were an expert dentist for 30 years, and Sarah Palin went on a pretend news channel to tell people that dental floss caused cavities and that Gummi Bears prevented them, you'd be offended too. When 15-20% of the country bought that line of doo-doo because it fit what they wanted to believe about themselves without really looking at the authoritative information you studied for your advanced degrees, you'd be alarmed. When you found out that a denture company was paying for the whole thing, you'd be disgusted. When you noticed your kids' teeth getting loose and discolored, you'd get upset.

I guess I don't watch enough TV... but I am assuming this hasn't happened or I trust I would have read it in the paper. What does this have to do with the issue? This is what I perceive as the rudeness that I was trying to say does not serve your cause.

I speak for myself and I don't think that what you write reflects on me, and I don't think that you should feel that what I write or what others write, reflects on you. We are each responsible for ourself.

This has certainly been a wide ranging discussion. I know that I don't need premium gas in my prewar car. How we got to this point in the discussion is absolutely amazing. I wish we could just politely talk about antique cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest zantafio

Y am in France ,your advices are so interrestings.

Here we have not possibility to buy Kerosene for the cars.It is reserved to Aeroplanes!!

If not y would like try it in my Stutz 1929.

Someone know what is the compression for this 6 Cylinder Blackhawk 4 L. ??....

For the olds cars we have the practice to change the seats exhaust valves and valves for resisting at unleaded fuel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The usual propaganda.

I LIKE Global Warming. I WANT to believe in Global Warming. Unfortunately when I go looking for evidence of Global Warming all I find is insults, propaganda, hand waving and ad hominem arguments.

OK I believe you. The evidence is all in and you are 100% right.

Now could you link me to the evidence? Just one place where I can find the actual incontrovertible science?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not understand, if global warming is a fact, that only SOME glaciers are melting at an increased rate. Shouldn't they ALL be melting if it is GLOBAL warming? Where can I go to see a table of ALL global temperature measurements for the last, say, 100 years? I mean a table showing measurements from ALL official worldwide temp measuring stations, not a selected and "interpreted" list. Why is the evidence so secret if it in fact exists? Either the numbers back up the hysteria or they don't, simple as that. Did temps rise during the Industrial Revolution of the 1800's. If not, why not? Did they fall during the Great Depression (less industrial output)? If not, why not? Shouldn't sea level be rising at the same rate WORLDWIDE? Is it? If not, why not? Why, if the globe is warming does my local weather man always cite the record temp for the day as being many, many years ago rather than within the last few years? If the globe is warming shouldn't ground water temps be rising also? Are they? If not, why not?

I was involved with higher education at the Masters and PhD level long enough to know that research grant proposals are always tailored to the biases of the funding source. Seems that now if you can't somehow tie your application to curing cancer the next best approach is to tie it in to global warming.

There is way too much money being made on the global warming controversy for the science not to be biased. Shouldn't be that way but it most certainly is.

Back in the 1960's the evidence for a coming new ice age was also "incontrovertible" and there was a "consensus" then as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote=Dave@Moon;

If you were an expert dentist for 30 years, and Sarah Palin went on a pretend news channel to tell people that dental floss caused cavities and that Gummi Bears prevented them, you'd be offended too. When 15-20% of the country bought that line of doo-doo because it fit what they wanted to believe about themselves without really looking at the authoritative information you studied for your advanced degrees, you'd be alarmed. When you found out that a denture company was paying for the whole thing, you'd be disgusted. When you noticed your kids' teeth getting loose and discolored, you'd get upset.

Your bitter partisan snipes and character assassinations continue to amaze me. Such ridiculous, baseless comparisons enforce my opinion that your blind faith in the climate movement is based more in your political biases than your superior intellect & 30 years in the EPA. A more realistic analogy would be to ask you how you would feel if a political hack, not schooled in the sciences or a disciplined documenter, not clever enough to reverse-engineer a re-count - can create an info-mercial riddled with outdated, and misrepresented data, anecdotal stories, and baseless opinion from "environmental justice" groups - and all of holiwood and the rest of the "intelictual class" bought into that doo doo.

I believe you confuse well deserved skepticism for ignorance. There is a lot of money involved in the climate movement; study grants, books, lecture circuit, docu-dramas, green products and redistribution taxes. Big money corrupts. with all the revelations in recent months, you are niave if you believe that scientists and others involved in the movement are less corruptable than politicians, bankers, Wall St. brokers, and for that matter; Toyota mgmt. The more that has been exposed in the media, not just your "pretend media," the mor we understand that the so-called "convincing evidence" is not so convincing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...