Petrol Consumption in Subaru XV

Sunshines bright on 17/01/2019 - 20:00
Last edited 17/01/2019 - 20:01

I am curious what others are getting for their fuel consumption? Mainly in a Subaru XV but any SUV would be interesting to hear.

The Subaru specs say to expect to get- extra urban 6 l/100km, urban 8.8 l/100km , combined 7 l/100km

but we are getting between 12.8 and 13.2 Liters

I am unsure what means extra urban and urban but even so our consumption is way off the specs.

We have had it to the dealer 3 times and every time they tell us it is within the company parameters. They seem to do about 10K for the test and reset the fuel meter before and it is always at about 8.3 but when you drive it another 15K plus it just goes up and up till is sits around 13 for us.

We try driving all different ways - fast starts, slow starts, driving over speed limit (heavy foot) and under with little to no change. We do seldom drive more than 5K at a pop.

So what say you?

Poll Options expired

  • 49
    less than 9 l/100km
  • 29
    greater than 9 but less then 11 l/100km
  • 8
    between 11 and 12 l/100kn
  • 5
    over 12 less than 13 l/100km
  • 19
    over 13 l/100km
Automotive Fuel Subaru

Related Stores

Subaru Australia
Subaru Australia

Comments

  • Baysew on 17/01/2019 - 20:13
    +23

    YMMV.

    • Sunshines bright on 17/01/2019 - 20:33
      +3

      I believe I am too old to know YMMV????

      • coxjon on 17/01/2019 - 20:52
        +3

        Your mileage may vary

      • John Kimble on 17/01/2019 - 21:02
        +7

        Too old to google too?

      • terrys on 18/01/2019 - 19:40
        +2

        More the other way around. It is particularly apt in this case. When compulsory fuel economy ratings were mandated in the 1960's in the U.S., the companies assessed them as one would expect -the car was tuned, brakes backed off until they just worked, accessories removed, bearings lubricated, then the car run with one gallon only of cold fuel on a dead level smooth surface with a very light driver, gentle acceleration and allowed to coast to a halt when the fuel ran out. The adverts were always printed with an asterisks by the economy figures, and the disclaimer at the bottom of the page stating "Your mileage may vary"
        It became a common trope on Usenet newsgroups - what the 'Net mainly was before HTPP [Eternal September] - to accompany any statement that others could/would/should disagree with, but has slipped out of usage over the past 20 or so years…

  • SnoozeAndLose on 17/01/2019 - 20:17
    -1

    It is normal, the digure from manufacture is tested in the lab. If they dont over state, how to attract you to buy.

    Have you try to use 95 or 98? Or dont run the engine with air con on waiting for extended period

    • oscargamer on 17/01/2019 - 20:19
      +12

      Don't use 95 or 98, unless your car requires it.

      Waste of money.

      • ronnknee on 17/01/2019 - 22:23
        +1

        When it's occasionally the same price as U91 at 7-Eleven, I think it's fine to use. Personally I get an extra 10% mileage on U98 vs U91.

        • [Deactivated] on 18/01/2019 - 02:38
          -3

          At 15% extra cost…

          • ronnknee on 18/01/2019 - 08:43
            +11

            @[Deactivated]: I think you missed this part.

            When it's occasionally the same price as U91 at 7-Eleven

            • [Deactivated] on 19/01/2019 - 17:44

              @ronnknee: Got me ;) Not the kind of thing we see over here in the West.. not many 7/11 petrol stations here ;)

        • Herbse on 18/01/2019 - 17:14

          There's no scientific reason for this. Other than your driving habits changes. Higher RON fuel does not = better or more efficient

          • ronnknee on 18/01/2019 - 18:32
            -3

            @Herbse: Less knocking, smoother acceleration, less wasted fuel.

            • Herbse on 18/01/2019 - 19:47
              +1

              @ronnknee: Don't think the OP is doing many track days to see that kind of high temperature knocking.

              • ronnknee on 18/01/2019 - 23:03

                @Herbse: My reply is directly to this in regards to my personal experience.

                There's no scientific reason for this.

                Nothing to do with OP.

            • brendanm on 18/01/2019 - 22:27
              +1

              @ronnknee: Most cars are tuned for 91. You won't get knocking running 91. Running 98 is pretty much just burning cash unless your car runs enough timing to actually make use of it.

              • ronnknee on 18/01/2019 - 23:09

                @brendanm: So if U98 is the same price as U91, then how would it be burning cash? Are you saying U98 can lead to lower fuel efficiency than U91?

                • brendanm on 19/01/2019 - 12:50
                  -4

                  @ronnknee: Just a quick look on 11-7 shows that 98 is approx 20c more expensive than 91 at he moment, so yes, yes it is a waste.

                  • ronnknee on 19/01/2019 - 13:41

                    @brendanm: Again, you seemed to miss this part:

                    When it's occasionally the same price as U91 at 7-Eleven

                    • brendanm on 19/01/2019 - 13:48

                      @ronnknee: You aren't gaining anything, so it's simply pointless. Do whatever makes you happy I guess.

                      • ronnknee on 19/01/2019 - 14:09

                        @brendanm:

                        You aren't gaining anything, so it's simply pointless

                        But I do gain something ie. 10% extra mileage, so it's not pointless.

                        • brendanm on 19/01/2019 - 14:34

                          @ronnknee: What car are you putting this in?

                        • pegaxs on 20/01/2019 - 08:58

                          @ronnknee:

                          But I do gain something ie. 10% extra mileage, so it's not pointless.

                          You’re not. There is no more energy density in 98 than there is in 91. A modern car that is designed to run on 91RON will derive no real benefit from running 98RON. If they are the same price, run what ever makes your heart happy…

                          But saying you get 10% extra on 98 is pure garbage and based on nothing other than confirmation bias. You have not tested it in a lab environment on a dyno under controlled conditions. And real world driving is too random to get realistic and reliable consumption reading based on 91 vs 98.

                          There is no more energy or bigger bangs in 98 over 91.

                          • ronnknee on 20/01/2019 - 11:12
                            -1

                            @pegaxs:

                            But saying you get 10% extra on 98 is pure garbage

                            I do get 10% extra on U98. This is a fact, not garbage. You or others may not. That's cool.

                            Look, I'm already done arguing. We can go in circles all day about my personal experience, and whether it may not be true for most people, but it is still my personal experience and no one knows it than I.

                            Bottom line of my initial comment is:
                            - I do benefit from the extra mileage.
                            - U98 cannot possibly be worse than U91.
                            - Occasionally at the same price, cost is not worse.
                            - YMMV.

                            Thread unsubscribed.

                            • pegaxs on 20/01/2019 - 11:53
                              +3

                              @ronnknee:

                              This is a fact

                              So, you have the controlled test results? Care to post them? Or were you just going off that in car consumption gauge thingy?

                              So, the bottom line is;

                              • No you don’t. Your confirmation bias does that, not real, scientific testing. You obviously don’t understand basic physics and chemistry.
                              • Agree. If they are the same price, then no harm adding whatever fuel. They are the same "energy density" anyway.
                              • 98 at the same price as 91. And you have never posted it as a deal? (All your fuel deals are from Coles, not 7/11)
                              • Ironically though, from 91 to 98, my mileage doesn't vary… cause, you know "physics" and all…

                              The marketing gurus at all the petrochemical companies would be pleased to see that their marking bullshit is actually working.

                              • JungliChilli on 20/01/2019 - 19:31

                                @pegaxs: I don't want to argue and all but is there scientific evidence that there is no difference between the two types?

                                Also please don't tell me to google it either provide a link(s) or just say you don't know.

                                Thanks in advance

                                • pegaxs on 20/01/2019 - 22:50

                                  @JungliChilli: There is lots of evidence, and you could have Googled it. It seems you just want me to Google it.

                                  I'll try and keep it as simple as I can.

                                  Petrol has a few ways of being rated, one is "Octane Rating" or "RON" and the other is its energy density (ie: Joules/kg).

                                  Basically, RON is a measure of the fuels ability to resist pre-ignition. That is all.

                                  The energy density of fuel does not change with the additives that are added to fuel to help resist knocking. Energy density is what determines how much energy (Joules) is contained within a set amount (kilogram) of fuel. It does not matter if the petrol is 85RON or 98RON, the density of the energy contained within 1kg of petrol remains reasonably constant. (Bio fuels, blended fuels, E10, E85, methanol, etc are excluded in this conversation, I'm only referring to straight petrol.)

                                  So, if a car is designed and tuned to run on 91RON, this fuel will have a energy density of about 47MJ/kg. The same car filled up on 98RON has an energy density of about 47MJ/kg. So, the vehicle will not go further, as there is no change in the amount of energy that can be used from that fuel. The only vehicles that can make more power from higher octane rated fuels are cars that have been designed and tuned to run on it. Running a car designed for 98 on 91 on the other hand, can actually cause engine damage.

                                  There is no more "extra power" in higher octane fuels, as the "octane rating" is NOT a measure of energy density. Just a measure of the fuels ability to resist pre-ignition. The more it resists, the more of it you can jam into the cylinder and the more you can compress it.

                                  I don't want to argue and all

                                  and then adding…

                                  or just say you don't know.

                                  …kinda sounds like you are. And I'm sorry you came here with the notion of trying to make me look like a fool, but unfortunately, I have spent a great deal of my working life studying and working with different fuels. Feel free to read back through my history where I have comments on E10 and other "octane givz moar power!!!" threads.

                                  There is a plethora of information out there for you to read and it's too hard and too mind numbingly boring for me to type out pages and pages of information. I've tried to keep it as simple as I can.

                                  If you don’t like to read, you can always watch Australia's favourite bogan…
                                  Or the ABC did a good job explaining it as well…

                    • Thenarrator on 20/01/2019 - 09:58

                      @ronnknee: When is it ever 98 costing less than 91 from 7-11 ?? you talking about 98 from some dodgy private ones ?

                      • ronnknee on 20/01/2019 - 11:00

                        @Thenarrator: Last 3 recent deals:
                        - Deal 1
                        - Deal 2
                        - Deal 3

                        Watch thread

                        • Thenarrator on 20/01/2019 - 12:32

                          @ronnknee: Oh right youre talking about 98 from 7-11. Yeah nah since that time the mechanic told my friend to ditch using cheap 7-11 fuel when my friend's car got messed up, i've only stuck with shell, caltex, bp.

                      • Duff5000 on 20/01/2019 - 11:13

                        @Thenarrator: Dont many modern petrol cars adjust timing to suit the fuel being used?

                        (My main car is neither petrol or modern.)

                        • brendanm on 20/01/2019 - 11:22
                          +1

                          @Duff5000: Only to the maximum amount of timing allowed, they don't just run infinite timing and then retard it based on knock, that would be stupid and isn't how you get maximum power/efficiency anyway.

                          Ronnknee refuses to say what type of car he has, so for all we know it's one that is tuned to run 95, even then, 10% economy improvement is impossible.

      • Click_It on 19/01/2019 - 16:21

        Not always the case.

        I have an older 1993 carbie car, runs happily on 91 but when 95 is cheap I use that. I've found out through Americans with the same car, they have an octane fuel that translates to around 93 in our RON. Anyway between them and I we discovered 93 is about the sweet spot - gets better mileage. Unless mixing fuels, that means using 95 in Australia which gets exactly the same benefit as their 93 does. Both beat 91. But going to 98 of course does nothing at all.

        Sometimes it's nice just to pay a bit more to get the extra 50 odd KM from the tank…

    • spackbace on 17/01/2019 - 23:49
      +2

      The figure is tested on set roads.

      Stop/start was designed purely to help these figures. It's a shitty 'feature' that everyone turns off
      /rant

      • daiwai on 18/01/2019 - 09:58
        +6

        Engineering explained have a video comparing stop/start with idling which ended up if idling for more than 7s then stop/start will be saving fuel.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFImHhNwbJo

        • brendanm on 18/01/2019 - 11:46

          Of course it saves fuel. It's also annoying, and gets hot sitting in your car in summer with no ac.

          • tight-ass on 18/01/2019 - 13:37

            @brendanm: Most cars won't turn off if the AC is on

            • brendanm on 18/01/2019 - 15:05

              @tight-ass: Not from my experience, I know I've driven at least a few with start stop that I had to keep starting as it was too hot without ac.

              • DangerNoodle on 18/01/2019 - 22:51

                @brendanm: I've driven a Mazda 3 with the stop start system. It doesn't turn off the AC, but it does kick it down to the lowest setting. Annoying on long stops on a 40 degree day so I release the brake enough to get the engine going again.

                • brendanm on 18/01/2019 - 23:02
                  +6

                  @DangerNoodle: If the engine is off, the AC is off, as it is driven from the engine itself.

                  • DangerNoodle on 18/01/2019 - 23:26

                    @brendanm: I think I phrased it funny. It technically is off as you've said, it just shows up as AC eco mode.

      • terrys on 18/01/2019 - 19:46

        Yep, those trendy lefties in the U.K. R.A.C. are on the bandwagon as well.

        https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/emissions/idling/

  • oscargamer on 17/01/2019 - 20:18
    +10

    If you mean you seldom drive more than 5km each trip, then what you are seeing is perfectly normal.

    PS - you'll be destroying the cat as well and are using the car in a 'severe' mode (see your manual for that)

    • Sunshines bright on 17/01/2019 - 20:33

      destroying the cat? lol sorta hope you meant car. but are you saying only driving 5k's per trip will destroy my car??? what is severe mode? read the manual do not recall any setting or words to the effect of severe.

      • John Kimble on 17/01/2019 - 20:49
        +12

        http://www.subaru.com.au/service/schedule

        When extra servicing is needed

        If you constantly undergo severe driving conditions or drive in harsh environments, then your vehicle will require additional maintenance.

        These conditions could include (but are not limited to) any or all of the following:

        Operating in extremely hot or cold weather
        Living in coastal areas
        Towing a trailer
        Repeated short trips
        Driving on dusty roads
        Driving on rough, muddy or snow-melted roads
        Mountainous area living
        Extensive idling and/or low speed driving for long distances
        Continuous high speed driving (at speeds greater than 140 km/h) for over 2 hours
        Under high performance conditions (e.g. track days)

        • Sunshines bright on 17/01/2019 - 21:20
          +1

          thanks!

          • trongy on 18/01/2019 - 00:46
            +3

            @Sunshines bright: For reference, I drive a Subara Impreza hatchback which is a similar vehicle

            It has the same motor as the XV, but the body is smaller and 50kg (4%) lighter.
            Subaru's specs for the Impreza are slightly lower than the XV: extra urban 5.6 l/100km, urban 8.4 l/100km, combined 6.6 l/100km

            I get 7-7.5l/100km. However, I'm mostly a weekend driver doing longer trips - the average would be around 30km I guess.

            Urban refers to city driving. Extra urban refers to driving outside the city e.g. highway driving with less stopping and starting.

            • Levathian on 18/01/2019 - 13:06

              @trongy: I have the 2i-S so mine uses a smigen more fuel (7.2/100). It runs very heavily on fuel in the first few mins after start up when it's just warming up, so if OP is only making 5km trips it doesn't surprise me if he has terrible fuel economy.

              My average since purchase is around 7.3/100 I think. It's getting lower as the car gets run in.

        • Worf on 17/01/2019 - 23:31

          Why would living in a coastal area require additional service? The only thing I can think of is salt mist, but that shouldn’t effect the service interval for oil changes, or coolant, transmission, etc. maybe the frame and any parts that may rust…

      • coxjon on 17/01/2019 - 20:54
        -1

        5km may not be enough to charge the battery after starting the car either… (not sure about modern cars)

        • brendanm on 17/01/2019 - 21:52
          +6

          It is far more than enough.

          • jhmtaylor on 18/01/2019 - 15:43
            -2

            @brendanm: I disagree. Modern cars with the latest technology consume far more electricity need to near full charge to function properly. I do lots of short journeys and periodically need to take the car on a 30 minute highway trip to charge it up fully.

            • brendanm on 18/01/2019 - 17:13
              +7

              @jhmtaylor: Lol you can disagree all you like, most modern alternators are 100amp plus and replenish a battery in no time. If you need to drive for 30 minutes to charge your battery, you have a charging system or battery problem.

            • John Kimble on 18/01/2019 - 17:20
              +1

              @jhmtaylor: How do you even know your battery isn't fully charged?

            • brendanm on 18/01/2019 - 22:35
              +5

              @jhmtaylor: I actually just did a quick calculation for you. A 1.5kw starter motor will pull 125 amps at 12v. Let's allow for some voltage drop, and a higher initial start current. Let's make it 175 amps, and has a really long crank time of 5 seconds. 175x5=875 coulombs.

              Let's be harsh to the alternator, and say it is only producing a spare 30 amps at an average of 2000rpm over your short drive (likely to be much higher). We then have 875/30=29.16, so let's call it 30 seconds.

              In summary, your 30 minute drive to "charge your battery" is extremely excessive.

      • oscargamer on 17/01/2019 - 22:23
        +6

        i meant cat

        catalytic converter

        if you run for only 5 k's, it'll not get up to temp and will likely rust out with condensation (as will the exhaust)

      • terrys on 18/01/2019 - 19:47

        No, the cat, or catalytic converter which isn't getting hot enough to burn off contaminants.

    • susmind on 18/01/2019 - 19:03
      +2

      i get 12.3 l/100km driving 7 kms to & from work in my hyundai i30.
      Under 6 l/100km freeway driving.

    • photonbuddy on 18/01/2019 - 21:57

      This.

      I have a Territory, and for the first 15 months of ownership, 95% of my trips were 5k's or less. I was getting ~22l/100K's. I had a change in situation, and now I do longer runs, with a better mix of city stop/start and longer periods of cruising speed. My consumption dropped to ~15l/100K's.

      As a side note, I had the starter motor replaced after it died, and dropped down to ~13.5l/100K's.

      Short trips, and stop/start trips will hammer your economy, as it takes a lot more fuel to get to speed. My display only goes to 99.9l/100K's, and it'll peg there for quite some seconds if I floor it from a standing start.

  • brendanm on 17/01/2019 - 20:25
    +21

    Short trips with lots of stop/go use more fuel. Driving "aggressively" uses more fuel. Coasting to red lights rather than accelerating up to them saves a lot of fuel. Not speeding up, then slowing down, then speeding up uses less fuel, maintain a constant speed. Don't continue to accelerate if there is a car ahead going slower. Many different ways to drive, some use lots more fuel than other.

    My 2.2 tonne 4wd with auto trans gets under 11, with hardly any highway usage.

    • Levathian on 18/01/2019 - 13:07
      +1

      Someone told me that the Golden rule of fuel efficiency is 'never accelerate into a breaking situation'.

      • CaptainNewspeak on 19/01/2019 - 09:30
        -4

        Yeah but then you risk getting stuck behind slow (profanity) at the traffic lights, which is probably worse on your fuel and definitely worse on your mental health

      • BargainMyMiddleName on 19/01/2019 - 20:04

        I agree with that. However please don't accelerate until the car breaks. You don't want to damage your car by breaking it. It's wiser to stop accelerating if you are meant to brake instead.

        • Levathian on 19/01/2019 - 20:31

          Haha I'm an idiot. Meant brake instead of break. I even double checked.

  • kahn on 17/01/2019 - 20:33
    +9

    Have you considered losing weight?

  • Lukeae93 on 17/01/2019 - 20:33
    +2

    I'd be checking tyre pressures

    • Sunshines bright on 17/01/2019 - 20:35
      -8

      brand new 2018 and tire pressure is fine, but thanks.

      • Nugs on 18/01/2019 - 06:11
        +3

        tyre pressures are a 'weekly' check, though very few would actually do that. you can;t see a drop of a few psi.

      • DangerNoodle on 18/01/2019 - 22:56
        +3

        Tyre pressures are something you should check regularly, they are not something that you check once and they'll magically remain consistent for the life of the tyre. Pressures drop over time regardless of how new your car and tyres are and can change depending on the ambient temperature as well. Drops in tyre pressure will increase rolling resistance which, in turn, will increase fuel consumption.

        Correct tyre pressure will reduce resistance and reduce fuel consumption.

        • inasero on 21/01/2019 - 10:23

          And also improve stopping distance due to optimising the size of the contact patch, significantly improving car safety

  • cookietime on 17/01/2019 - 20:41
    +1

    Our Liberty had very similar fuel consumption to yours. As an example, it would consume about 3/4 of the tank (35-40 litre?) when travelling ~300km on highway plus about 50km on urban road. We thought it was excessive but we didn't know what to do.

    We drove the car for 4 years with that terrible fuel consumption until we replaced the car battery by ourselves, not at the dealer. Suddenly the same trip consumed a little bit more than 1/3 of the tank. That is, we could go 600km on highway and 50km on urban road using about 3/4 of the tank.

    We thought that was strange but were very happy. However, after a service at the dealership, where they reset all the computer programming in the car, fuel consumption went back to being excessive again. We disconnected the battery briefly and the fuel consumption went down again.

    This sounds like a joke but it actually happened to our car. Maybe something you can try?

    • inasero on 18/01/2019 - 16:40
      +2

      That is very bizarre…

    • Xiaomi on 19/01/2019 - 00:16
      -1

      must have been a prius

  • coco1458 on 17/01/2019 - 20:44

    Based on the fuel readings, I usually average between 7-8.5L/100 combination of freeway and suburban driving, never use the auto stop start feature.

    • Lucky13s on 18/01/2019 - 09:07

      My 2016 Forester does an average of 9L/100km which is based on mixed driving urban and highway. It hasn't ever been reset from factory set. I tend to use the auto start-stop for urban as well as cruise control on highway a lot. I thought this was excessive, but it now sounds better when reading other posts'.

      • psy on 19/01/2019 - 17:12

        2016 XT Forster. I have tracked my fuel consumption in an app on my phone pretty much since purchase.

        The app is reporting an average of 9.62km/l.

        Most of my driving in the earlier days was highway. Now it's probably 70 city / 30 freeway. I commute in peak hour though.

  • JimmyF on 17/01/2019 - 21:52
    +22

    Great site of REAL world fuel usage…..

    http://www.fuelly.com/car/subaru/xv_crosstrek

    Click on units in the top left corner to get it in local figures, and see 800+ owners real fuel usage ;)

    • Worf on 17/01/2019 - 23:39
      +1

      I had no idea this website existed, this is amazing! Thanks (upvoted)

      • JimmyF on 17/01/2019 - 23:43

        Great site for tracking fuel usage (its main task and free), but also excellent to see fuel usage for certain cars as it allows you to browse.

        Highly recommend it, I use it to track my car, tracked 100k of fuel usage and counting

    • dust on 18/01/2019 - 09:27

      Nice! (Just have to convert miles/gallons to km/L!)

      • John Kimble on 18/01/2019 - 09:33
        +2

        There's a drop down menu, top left

        • dust on 18/01/2019 - 09:40

          Oh! Thanks!

      • JimmyF on 18/01/2019 - 10:08
        +2

        Just have to convert miles/gallons to km/L!

        As per my OP

        Click on units in the top left corner to get it in local figures,

        ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

        I tried……

    • Levathian on 18/01/2019 - 13:10
      +1

      I track my usage with fuelly too. Great app. Helps track fuel spending too.

  • JIMB0 on 17/01/2019 - 22:01

    I've never driven a Subaru XV but had a shot at the poll anyway.

  • djkelly69 on 17/01/2019 - 23:06

    Don't do the same sort of driving as you, but our petrol Forester gets between 8 and 9 on U91.

    • Worf on 17/01/2019 - 23:36

      What sort of driving is this on (e.g., mainly highway, mainly suburbs/city, or combination). What year forester do you have and have you had any issues with engine oil consumption?

      • djkelly69 on 17/01/2019 - 23:55
        +1

        Bit of both, maybe more highway as it is in Canberra. School drop off and then drive to work. About 25kms each way I think.

        Late 2015, no issues with oil (or anything else).

  • spackbace on 17/01/2019 - 23:52
    +5

    We do seldom drive more than 5K at a pop.

    How long have either of you been driving for, in your lifetimes?

    It's a fairly well known thing that short trips use more fuel than say driving down the highway at constant speed. All that accelerating you're doing over a short period of time will burn more fuel, as will starting it.

    5km runs are always pointless owning a car for

  • Cheeper on 18/01/2019 - 00:07
    +3

    Try this…
    Go to a freeway or a good stretch of open road, reset your consumption readout and drive for 30 min or more and post the result.
    Short city driving gives false figures.
    Our 2 200kw v6's (1suv,1sedan) both give sub 8's on open road. (Not Subaru's though) so yours should be similar if all is ok?

  • Euphemistic on 18/01/2019 - 05:55
    +1

    How are you measuring your consumption? With the trip computer or old school how much fuel went in the tank and how many kms traveled? The computer might be giving a funny result.

    It does sound high. I had a 2003 forester that would do around 10l/100km around town in all conditions and Bette Ron the highway.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join