E10 Fuel - Good or Bad?

snugglepuff on 09/04/2024 - 09:32
Last edited 09/04/2024 - 09:35

Lots of conflicting information out there.

https://www.nsw.gov.au/driving-boating-and-transport/e10-fue… states 'compatible' with most modern petrol cars and no reason not to use if manufacturer allows

Local mechanic- DON'T use it!!! BAD for your engine. I checked my car model and it is compatible.

https://www.drive.com.au/caradvice/is-e10-better-than-91-ben… less efficient, more economical, less CO2 emissions

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/everyday… - only more economical if e10 cheaper by more than 4 cents.

Some expert opinion and reliable sources of info appreciated too. Thanks in advance.

Poll Options

  • 13
    Yes I use E10- good for environment
  • 117
    Yes I use E10- cheaper
  • 33
    Sometimes use E10
  • 221
    Don't use E10- bad for engine
  • 89
    Don't use E10- not cheaper
Automotive Fuel

Comments

  • AdamFury on 09/04/2024 - 09:38
    +16

    I just use 91. For me, it's not cheap enough to be worth the risk of being worse for the engine and worse economy. Where I am it's only a few cents cheaper to get E10 over 91.

    • HeWhoKnows on 10/04/2024 - 13:32
      +2

      Correct any mechanic will warn you not to use E10
      It causes so many problems with engines.
      My brothers engine blew up at 100,000km because he was using E10.
      I had to spend $400 fixing my fuel system due to significant carbon build up from using E10.

      And as you say around 5% more fuel used for less than 1% saving.(2c/L) these days.

      Quote from an article explaining comparative fuel consumption test results:
      "The Camry running on premium unleaded consumed 9.06 litres/100km, compared with 9.41L/100km for the regular unleaded car and 9.81 litres for the E10 vehicle"

      And this doesnt take into account the extra cost of repairs and maintenance arising from using E10.

      E10 is simply not economically nor practically viable.

      • Calvin27 on 23/04/2024 - 14:08

        Slight carbon build up? You know E10 burns cleaner than straight petrol right?

        • HeWhoKnows on 23/04/2024 - 17:52

          Its better for the environment but not better for your car.
          Therein lies the difference.
          Pls dont confuse the two.
          Chalk and cheese

          As I said, ask any mechanic.
          They see these problems every day.

    • Dsiee on 11/04/2024 - 09:11
      +16

      This is ozbargin, everyone must, as per our religious doctrine, be driving a Camry. A Camry engine does not give a shit about e10 (assuming it is new enough to be rated for it). I've done 250 000km with at least half being e10 and never had even the slightest issue because of it. Any decent car will be the same.

  • CurlCurl on 09/04/2024 - 09:44
    +7

    When you open the fuel flap, if the sticker has 91 on it, use 91. If it says E10, use that.

    • kaleidoscope on 10/04/2024 - 15:12
      -1

      When you open the fuel flap, if the sticker has 91 on it, use 91. If it says E10, use that.

      Terrible advice.
      Mine says E10, E5, but being a VW this does not meet the minimum RON95 requirement for the engine as Aussie Ethanol based petrol is RON94

      • nomadspartan on 11/04/2024 - 10:13
        +3

        Then the manufacturer is liable for any damages then for incorrect advice.

      • lint on 12/04/2024 - 09:38

        I take the label on Euro cars to be read in combination. So you can use E10 if it's RON95 or greater. In Europe, E10 fuel is RON95 so it's fine.

        Here, E10 is RON94. You could maybe use it safely in a Euro car that's got E10/RON95 on its fuel flap anyway, but I wouldn't.

  • afoveht on 09/04/2024 - 09:53
    +2

    only more economical if e10 cheaper by more than 4 cents.

    Yep, generally no point even with extra potential risks ignored.

    • HeWhoKnows on 10/04/2024 - 13:43

      Incorrect as this doesnt take into account the extra costs of repairs arising from using E10.
      In some cases engines blow up and require replacing

      • BlinkyBill on 11/04/2024 - 10:18
        +4

        LUL. I put 100,000 KM on a euro that had 95 RON requirement, using E10 exclusively. E10 has higher knock resistance than 91 almost as much as 95. PS: my other car runs on E85, oh nooooo, engine rebuild in 3, 2, 1.

        The truth is any modern car will have a fuel system in place to cope with E10.

        • HeWhoKnows on 11/04/2024 - 15:31

          Fuel system copes with E10 - yes

          But engine suffers from "additional issues"

          Besides many modern cars today do NOT advise using E10.

          So pls check your facts

          Also - Talk to your mechanic - they know well!

        • Save Medicare on 12/04/2024 - 07:02

          How can you afford e85 these days?

          • HeWhoKnows on 12/04/2024 - 12:10

            @Save Medicare: E85 long gone as far as I know.
            Only a couple of cars where made to run o E85

        • TEER3X on 15/04/2024 - 18:31

          This has been discussed already, but sulphur content could be important especially for euro cars. I wouldn't run anything less than 95 on a euro if I had one.

    • Calvin27 on 23/04/2024 - 14:08

      Good for cars that say you need 95. The savings are much higher in that case.

  • Murkymerv on 09/04/2024 - 10:02
    +9

    Save a few cents per litre now , spend thousands on engine repairs later ?
    That makes perfect sense 👌

  • Aldonis on 09/04/2024 - 10:06
    +31

    I only put 98 in my completely stock base model family sedan

    • netjock on 09/04/2024 - 11:28
      +15

      Now that is a high yield investment thinking!

    • sumyungguy on 09/04/2024 - 11:58
      +4

      A complete waste of money… and I don't expect to sway your opinion but others may be viewing

      • vodamerc on 09/04/2024 - 13:28
        +7

        The quality of lower grade fuels is awful in Australia. For example, 91 Unleaded has 15x more sulphur content than the European market. 98 at least is some sort of comprise as the quality is significantly better.

        • Kangal on 10/04/2024 - 16:42
          +1

          Do you have information/sources ?

        • rfarlz on 10/04/2024 - 19:10
          +3

          95 has the same sulphur content standards as 98.

          • vodamerc on 10/04/2024 - 19:45

            @rfarlz: legislation standard yes but the refinery's typically produce 98 with 10 ppm sulphur content

      • pizzip on 09/04/2024 - 13:47
        +9

        whoosh

  • geek001 on 09/04/2024 - 10:07
    +6

    From my own experience, my Honda was suffering from acceleration hesitation intermittently and I brought it in to Honda a few times when the stuttering happened and each time they came back to say they can't find anything wrong with the car and noted that there were traces of e10 in the fuel tank(We did fill up with e10 once or twice, but not all the time). The Honda mechanic put the blame on the e10 fuel and advised us to use 98 for the next few fill-ups to clean it out. I can't be sure if what the mechanic said was true, but I have avoided e10 ever since. The stuttering did improve over time, but not immediately after doing the 98 over the next few fill-ups.

    • HeWhoKnows on 10/04/2024 - 13:44
      +5

      Thats because of carbon deposits resutling from e10 take time to clean/remove after using 98

    • Richardc on 10/04/2024 - 18:12

      The computer need to take some time to adjust profile to suit the new fuel.

    • NMC on 12/04/2024 - 09:25

      Do you live in a capital city? Lots of low speed commuting will cause a carbon build up.

      An Italian tune might be in order. Take a road trip, go and hit highway speeds for a while, put a bit of load on the engine (avoid using cruise control) and give it a good clean out.

  • ginormousgiraffe on 09/04/2024 - 10:07
    +7

    E10 is fine for the engine provided if the manufacturer allows it, but test it yourself and you'll probably come to the conclusion that 91 is better $/km anyway

  • prodrome on 09/04/2024 - 10:18
    +14

    Pros:
    * E10 is cheaper per litre

    Cons:
    * E10 is bad for the environment
    * E10 is less efficient that 91

    I believe E10 exists only to refuel rental cars.

    • JDMcarfan on 09/04/2024 - 10:26
      +4

      and clueless drivers who want the cheapest fuel (without considering what's cheaper overall)

    • TheOtherLeft on 10/04/2024 - 13:06
      +6

      E10 only exists in NSW because Manildra pressured the govt to change the laws

    • HeWhoKnows on 10/04/2024 - 13:46
      +4

      E10 is worse for the environment because of the higher fuel consumption.
      Its bad for your car due to higher repair and maintenance costs

      E10 is not even cheaper per litre given the discount is only 2c (<1%) whilst fuel consumption increases by around 5%.
      So if you are using more litres to drive the same distance, cost per kilometre is higher!

      FALSE ECONOMY ALL ROUND

      • TEER3X on 15/04/2024 - 18:34

        I swear I remember when ethanol was being suggested to be used in fuel (by John Howard?), it was touted as good for the environment, as it was effectively from cane sugar.

        Of course, my memory could be way off.

        • HeWhoKnows on 16/04/2024 - 19:54

          Correct.
          But that was early days before all the issues with using E10 surfaced.

          And back then, Unleaded was around 67c/L and E10 was around 5c less.
          So around 7.5% cheaper.
          So it appeared to work out as an economcal fuel solution as well.
          Until we found out fuel consumption increases by almost the same amount.
          Let alone all the extra costs of maintenance and repairs that were discovered.

          But that price difference is now down to 2c per litre when unleaded is around $2.30/L.
          So the economics of using E10 is no longer viable.

      • Euphemistic on 16/04/2024 - 20:00
        -2

        Wasn't false economy when i had a petrol car. E10 was basically same measured economy as 91. The driving conditions mads more difference than the fuel.

        You.should do your own measured fuel consumption to determine if its falss economy.

        Yes, its true I saw an A Curent Affair 'test' where they showed e10 used more fuel, but ive never seen it in repeated scientific testing and I've not experienced it in a couple of years of driving amd recording fuel consumption.

        • HeWhoKnows on 16/04/2024 - 20:02
          +1

          Plenty of comparison tests around to prove the point if you are talking about fuel comsumption.
          And "the science" supports this as well!
          Plenty of mechanics around to share their experience regarding extra repairs resulting from using E10.
          I havent met one mechanic that supports the use of E10.

          But anyway see here:
          https://www.carsguide.com.au/urban/hacks/unleaded-vs-e10-the…).

          • Euphemistic on 16/04/2024 - 20:59
            -1

            @HeWhoKnows: The science says there will be a 5% increase in consumption. That wasnt my experience. You can easily get 5% variation in consumption tank to tank with the same fuel. Ie there's not enough difference

            • HeWhoKnows on 17/04/2024 - 07:49

              @Euphemistic: Yes, yes thats fine.

              But the science says there is less energy in ethanol, hence engine must work harder, therefore use more fuel.
              In your case the higher octance level of 94 vs 91 might have worked in your favour.

              But you cant argue the point of higher service and maintence costs due to carbon build up arising from the use of E10.
              Any mechanic will tell you this.
              And therein disappears any savings you made from E10.

              I have certainly experienced that and turned right off E10.

              And now only a 2c/L saving when petrol is $2.30 makes no sence vs 5s saving when petrol was 67c.
              But the choice is yours. Ive made and changed my choice.

              • Euphemistic on 17/04/2024 - 09:00
                -1

                @HeWhoKnows:

                But you cant argue the point of higher service and maintence costs due to carbon build up arising from the use of E10.

                Got any hard science on that? Or is it just mechnic's bias? No, your one mate whose car had carbon build up at 100k km doesnt count, thats anecdotal at best, and disingenuous at worst. Driving conditions make far more difference to car on buildup than the fuel.

                Theres thousands of cars running around that have never had anything but E10 in them still going fine at 200k+ km. If a mechanic finds carbon buildup in an engine and asks the
                customer if theyve used E10, thier confirmation bias will say its caused by E10 wether the customer meant they used it once, or exclusively.

                In this social media age im sceptical of claims made until they are backed by reliable scientific sources. Not marketing pamphlets, not advertising and definitly not 'mechanics say' without knowing what mechanic and what stuff they have been sold vs taught.

                • HeWhoKnows on 18/04/2024 - 08:03

                  @Euphemistic: Pull another one mate.

                  The science is there
                  The mathematics is there.
                  The evidence is there
                  The weight of opinion is there
                  The polls are against you as well

                  You are alone on this one.
                  Time to give up.

                  Bye bye

                  • Euphemistic on 18/04/2024 - 11:18

                    @HeWhoKnows: Where is the science on carbon buildups?

                    Opinion is not worth much in the social media age. The poll may reflect that misinformation has one.

  • pegaxs on 09/04/2024 - 10:19
    +55

    Oh god, this shit again?? Hasn't this horse been flogged to death already?

    *sigh*… Here I go again… Just need a post about RON and how 98 goes futher than use 91 because "mOaR PoWaH!1!"

    Lots of conflicting information out there.

    Not really… more like "confirmation bias"… but anyway…

    states 'compatible' with most modern petrol cars and no reason not to use if manufacturer allows

    Correct. If your car can run E10, it can run E10. (I would not use it in boats, though.)

    Local mechanic- DON'T use it!!! BAD for your engine.

    Then your local mechanic is a (fropanity) idiot. (Most of them saying E10 is bad are knuckle draggers/filter monkeys/Boomers)

    less efficient, more economical, less CO2 emissions

    This is correct. E10 is about 2~5% less economical owing to the lower energy density of ethanol.

    only more economical if e10 cheaper by more than 4 cents.

    Meh… it's closer to about 10~14c cheaper and that the fact that E10 is more a replacement for 94/95RON than it is for 91RON. If you car only requires 91RON, use 91RON, not E10.

    Some expert opinion and reliable sources of info appreciated too.

    You wont get that here… This is an anti-E10 forum. But if you come seeking confirmation bias and some guy who heard something from someone who heard it from their best mates' uncle Ian in their back yard garage… You've come to the right place.

    • DingoBilly on 09/04/2024 - 10:31
      +3

      Yeah I was curious and did some research and came to similar conclusions.

      It's old wives' tales and perhaps people using the wrong fuel for their cars that causes issues. E10 by itself seems completely fine.

      • pegaxs on 09/04/2024 - 10:39
        +14

        It was an issue 20 years ago when there were 20yo cars on the roads then and the fuel lines were not designed to handle E10 fuel.

        There was also a HUGE marketing campaign by state and federal governments to get people to stop using it because there was no excise on ethanol at the time. Fuel stations were using it to bulk out their supplies without having to pay the tax on it. And it was cheaper than petrol to buy because it was a byproduct of sugarcane farming and processing.

        So, to stop people from buying it, the government put out a huge "scare" campaign about E10 destroying cars… when the fact was, it wasn't and it only affected about 1% of the cars on the road at the time…

        And now, 20~30 years later, we have all these people who still remember this bullshit and regurgitate it like it's still 1998 and we are all still driving 1988 model Camiras.

        • mskeggs on 09/04/2024 - 11:21
          +14

          1988 model Camiras

          Wheels car of the year in 1982 and don't you forget it!

          • Roddi on 09/04/2024 - 14:38

            @mskeggs: Gold! :)

            • mskeggs on 09/04/2024 - 14:39

              @Roddi: Up there with the Nimbus for calls I reckon they'd like to have again.

        • prodrome on 09/04/2024 - 13:03
          -4

          Biofuels like E10 and bad alternatives like EVs are destined to be replaced with something better in the next 20 years … maybe

          • Euphemistic on 09/04/2024 - 19:18
            +2

            @prodrome: EV are not a bad alternative except for if you regulalry tow heavy loads or regularly travel in excess of 400km in a day- and by regularly id say at least monthly. For commuters with either off street parking or charging where you park at work yhey are a pretty good option

            • prodrome on 10/04/2024 - 13:16

              @Euphemistic: EVs are the kind of thing that won't survive in their current form. I'm sure a better battery, a swappable battery or a hydrogen breakthrough will put an end to them.

              • Euphemistic on 10/04/2024 - 17:56
                +1

                @prodrome: Fair enough. I think the thing likely to change in private transport will be battery tech. Batteries are a good way to store electricity, swappable might be viable, but faster charging is where its at, theres less to go wrong - but then the bulk of veholces rarely actually need super fast charging.

                Hydrogen is unlikely to be more than a bit player as its quite energy intensive to get and store hydrogen. Itll be good for long haul vehiclles, but not necessary for most people.

    • scooba on 09/04/2024 - 11:44
      -6

      If someone doesn’t have the intelligence to put 91 in their older car it’s not your fault.

      No need to write a blog about it pal, let them throw an injector and learn the hard way.

      Also, if they wanted to fool people into thinking ethanol was a viable replacement, they’d have to farm much more land with corn to do so.

      Wonderful day, isn’t it?

  • ihbh on 09/04/2024 - 10:27
    +3

    E10 Fuel- Good or Bad?

    Bad value (relative to U91).

  • pao2x on 09/04/2024 - 10:28
    +6

    E10 around 3% has less energy density than 91 https://www.nsw.gov.au/driving-boating-and-transport/e10-fue….

    Price of E10 is not worth it since it is only 2-4cents cheaper than 91 meaning energy/$ it should be 4-8cents cheaper

  • crentist on 09/04/2024 - 10:36
    +42

    I avoid E10 because I believe it would perform poorly in my car, and cause engine damage and expensive repairs. So I stick with diesel

    • pegaxs on 09/04/2024 - 10:43
      +7

      Not gonna lie, you had me in the first half… But please tell me you only use "Ultra Advanced Premium Vortex Super Amplify Ultimate 98" diesel in your vehicle…

      • crentist on 09/04/2024 - 11:02
        +1

        I have conflicted feelings about most servos only having "premium" as their only diesel option.
        One the one hand, it's nice not to think about fuel grades at all and just fill up, with the slight promise that I'm getting the good stuff.
        On the other, how do I really know it's the good stuff if I'm not paying extra for it?

    • SnoozeAndLose on 09/04/2024 - 11:52

      How can E10 perform in a diesel engine?

      • altomic on 09/04/2024 - 14:36
        +1

        Terribly

      • Murkymerv on 09/04/2024 - 20:59

        A solar eclipse ✨️

    • MrThing on 12/04/2024 - 15:26

      buy a car made this century and you'll be right chief

      the ford model T you drive was never designed for E10

      • crentist on 12/04/2024 - 16:46

        You're saying a modern diesel car takes E10? 🤔

  • Benoffie on 09/04/2024 - 10:37
    +3

    In SA it's just not worth it. Number of stations that stock it are relatively low (mainly Liberty and United) and the price difference is consistently 4c. Atm, it's 189c (91) vs 185 (E10).

    Factoring the stuffing around to get to those stations, Toyota 10c discounts at Ampol etc, why even bother?

  • CheapandUsed on 09/04/2024 - 11:07
    -3

    I usually go for 95… apparently that is the sweet spot for no ethanol and less "additives", and gets me better L/km than 91.

    "Apparently" in NSW as long as it is less than 10% you can water ethanol down 91. 98 is usually for performance and turbo engines and typically has additives helpful for that, 95 is mostly petrol with some additives, also best for for Briggs & Stratton mowers - "apparently".

    • pegaxs on 09/04/2024 - 12:21
      +8

      and gets me better L/km than 91.

      Holy shit, this nugget doin' the rounds again…

      Is your car "tuned/engineered/required" to have 95RON fuel in it? If not, you are not getting "MoAr MiLeZ!" from 95 if you car only requires 91. in fact, you are probably costing yourself money as any "perceived" gain you are getting is easily eaten up by the cost difference in the price of 95 compared to 91.

      InB4: "BuT iT aLsO fEeLz mOaR PoWaHfuL"…

      long as it is less than 10% you can water ethanol down 91.

      Adding ethanol to 91 actually waters it UP to 94, not down. FFS. An added to that, you can get ethanol in an E85 blend… You wanna guess how much of E85 is "WaTeReD DoWn" with ethanol?

      Tell me you know nothing about fuel without telling me you know nothing about fuel…

      • Chandler on 09/04/2024 - 14:10

        I was going to say something about E10 being labelled as 94 RON; now I know why it is!

  • Euphemistic on 09/04/2024 - 11:09
    +7

    If your vehicle is OK with E10 according to the manufactuer then make up your own mind.

    When i had a petrol car, E10 compatible, i tracked fuel consumption from every tank. I could not determine if there was any benefit in using e10 or 91 for fuel economy. The variance between tanks of the same fuel was the same as between fuel types and depended more on driving conditions. I filled with whatever was cheapest or most convenient at the time. That meant 91 most of the time becasue that's what the local servo had.

    Yes, E10 is less energy dense and apparently will consume more per km than 91 but i couldnt pick it from the numbers.

  • Keplaffintech on 09/04/2024 - 11:15
    +5

    E10 has a higher octane than 91, comparable to 95+. Great for tuned vehicles. I ran my tuned XR6 turbo on it (it was tuned for it) no issues at all. Cars are designed to handle ethanol fuel now.

    Why would they state compatibility and warrant it if there was any risk? Kia warrant their cars for 7 years, why would they take a gamble if they knew E10 could potentially cause issues?

    • jv on 09/04/2024 - 11:28
      -1

      Great for tuned vehicles.

      Like this one?

    • jv on 09/04/2024 - 11:29

      Cars are designed to handle ethanol fuel now.

      Not all…

      • pegaxs on 09/04/2024 - 12:25
        +7

        Not all…

        No, for once, you are right, JV… EV's and diesel powered vehicles are not designed to run on E10 or ethanol based fuels, as are many of the vehicles that require a minimum of 98RON…

        • jv on 09/04/2024 - 12:29
          +1

          EV's and diesel powered vehicles are not designed to run on E10

          Neither are hydrogen cars.

        • zathras on 11/04/2024 - 12:12

          But can I use E10 in my 40 year old 2-stroke Victa lawnmower?

          • Boostland on 12/04/2024 - 06:43

            @zathras: Mixture would be lean and plastic parts in contact with it my harden and crack

      • Keplaffintech on 09/04/2024 - 13:24

        Let me rephrase so it's easier for you to understand:

        Cars that specify that they accept ethanol fuel are designed to handle ethanol fuel

        • jv on 09/04/2024 - 13:25

          Cars that specify that they accept ethanol fuel are designed to handle ethanol fuel

          Thanks captain…

          • Keplaffintech on 09/04/2024 - 13:33

            @jv: unfortunately the obvious often gets challenged without evidence, like in this post and your comments on it.

    • Boostland on 12/04/2024 - 06:40

      I ran my turbocharged 1968 HK GTS monaro on it in the 1990s 186 25psi boost with methanol and water injected when under boost. E10 worked great for it 91 worked but power was down a bit not a problem for commuting as boost not required for that

      • Euphemistic on 12/04/2024 - 07:55
        +1

        186 turbo would have been pretty unusual in the 90s.

        • Boostland on 12/04/2024 - 17:34

          My Father actually fitted it in 1979
          I did the same to my 1964 EH Holden in 1989 but it was stolen in 1990.
          My father gave me the GTS to replace it

  • DarkOz on 09/04/2024 - 11:23

    E10 is suppose to save you money but for only a few cents less per litre it's actually defeating its purpose. We always use 91 but maybe once a year we fill up a full tank of 95/98 when they are cheapest.

  • jv on 09/04/2024 - 11:26

    Good or Bad?

    Bad

  • Drpepper666 on 09/04/2024 - 11:36

    E10 is bad if you don't drive your car often . Only negative I could find cheers

  • brownsound on 09/04/2024 - 13:35
    +1

    E10 burns 3% faster than E91, so its only worth buying when its 3% cheaper than E91

    • mrvaluepack on 10/04/2024 - 12:57

      I thought the kJ energy density rating was around 5% which meant E10 was only worth it if it was more than 5% cheaper than 91 RON.

  • TimmyTims on 09/04/2024 - 13:57
    +10

    I confidently use e10 100% of the time.
    There are a few reasons for this:
    1. I track all my fuel and kms and noticed a negligible difference between L/km for e10 and 91 (regular)
    2. My car is harder to start when I put 91 in it. It actually runs worse
    3. I drive a shitbox and I have no intention of spending $1000s to fix anything, including the engine

  • Roddi on 09/04/2024 - 14:21

    Used E10 with my 2005 honda accord euro for many years with no issues, or complaints from mechanic.
    Otherwise honda recommend premium 95 petrol, which is much more expensive.

    With my 2015 honda accord I'm just using 91. Slightly more expensive than E10, but I've also heard it has slightly more energy, so probably evens out.

  • datscheap on 09/04/2024 - 14:30

    I used to run E85 on my mx5 without issue(yes at 85% it needs a tune).
    10% eth is not going to cause any issues. "normal" fuel has additives like Toluene which you should be more concerned about.

    Curious, does any one know if the eth used in fuel is grown in Australia?
    90% of our fuel is imported from Asia or the middle east so would be cool if some of it was made here.

    • Save Medicare on 12/04/2024 - 07:07

      E85 is too expensive these days. Back in the day it was 60% of the price of e10

  • merriweather on 09/04/2024 - 14:32
    +1

    I'm on the fence so I usually just fill it half with E10 then top it up with 98.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join