When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Tech / General EngineIs your car making a strange sound or won't start? Thinking of adding power with a new combination? Need other technical information or engine specific advice? Don't see another board for your problem? Post it here!
What's the consensus on a 195 intake port for a mild 355?
Relative details...
Car is a 1992 Firebird. Full street car, just a strong driver.
Strong short block has been together for a few miles. 355, KB icon pistons +6.4cc valve reliefs
08-501-8 Comp cam. 212-218 duration, .488 .495 lift (cam can be changed but I'm shooting for a calm-ish idle)
Ported/slightly siamesed edelbrock TPI. (Possibly changing to a FIRST if the build goes that way)
SLP 1 3/4 headers
Manual trans.
3.08 axle.
-Looking at 195 Trickflow Super 23's 62cc chambers and fair cfm. Only issue is if 195 is too big and will hurt velocity on a mild combo like this.
Other options....
Trickflow 175, probably right up my alley except the 56cc chambers push compression up to 11:1.
Vortec's, by the time I get them, set them up and get a base, I may as well have bought aluminum and saved weight.
Brodix 180's, seem good but there aren't coolant ports tapped for sensors.
AFR 180's, Great head but $500 over the Trickflows for cfm I might not utilize, and strong possibility of spark plug interference with the SLP's.
Noting I don't feel like dealing with Chinese castings. I've dealt with enough junk parts over the years.
So would that combo be fine with a 195 port or will it pour like molasses? Better options? Thanks!
The AFR 195s move more air per cc (should mean higher velocity) than the TFS 195s, so you would better off spending $450 more for the AFR 195s. The AFR 195s also move more air per cc than the stock heads. You might notice a little less response right off idle compared to the stock heads with the standard, but from there up nothing but additional response and power.
As much as I like the FIRST, if you were to swap intakes later, the StealthRam would probably be a better choice with the manual transmission.
Those would be fine for your combo and will make great power, but AFR is selling their as-cast 195's for less (comparable to the TFS - they are also as-cast):
You have a similar build to mine, but with a slightly smaller cam. You can read all the details in my thread. I'm switching to AFR 195's (the CNC version, not the as-cast, but they are $1800 for the pair) from modified iron Vortec's and should pickup about 40 HP:
Thanks guys, much appreciated. My only concern with AFR's is the reputation of spark pug interference on SLP headers. I tried finding a clear answer on if "straight, angled, or L98 angled" worked best and got every answer. No one seems to agree, they all work and don't work. Guessing it's due to the .100 raised exhaust port.
I think 180cc is perfect for a cam that size. 195 may cost you some port velocity at the low to mid rpm ranges.
But trust me, the 180s do extremely well high rpm. I'm running AFR 180 with a 212 cam and am amazed at how hard it pulls up to 6000 rpm. Mind you I'm runnkng a miniram so the short runners probably help. But I still get the ridiculous amount of torque at low to mid range as well that you'd expect with a smaller cam.
Youll like that cam too... idles very smooth. I get about 13.5 to 14 inHg vacuum in gear at 650 rpm. I do have a 2500 rpm converter too so it doesn't excessively load the engine at idle.
What I would also recommend highly is to change your axle ratio out to 3.42. Thatll probably the biggest bang for the buck out of any thing.
Thanks guys, much appreciated. My only concern with AFR's is the reputation of spark pug interference on SLP headers. I tried finding a clear answer on if "straight, angled, or L98 angled" worked best and got every answer. No one seems to agree, they all work and don't work. Guessing it's due to the .100 raised exhaust port.
Call AFR and ask them. They are extremely helpful.
Seems a lot of talk regarding port volume vs flow.
Here's a chart I quickly put together.
Based on the above comment, which would you pick?
Note that AFR tests with a 4.06" fixture bore vs Trick Flow's 4.03". That might amount to a 2% difference (based on some back to back bench tests by Chad Speier). And AFR doesn't publish below .200".
The flow between the TFS as-cast and the AFR as-cast is close enough that it's going to come down to price and fitment with the headers. $477 vs. $635......
The AFR's can be machined for center-bolt and you can have straight or angled plugs.
195’s are the head for most 355’s. Cant go wrong with 180’s either although the last hot cam 218/228 tpi afr 180 combo i did didnt make as much power as i hoped. But it pulled hard to 5000 like most tpi setups. The tpi is the restriction so if you ever plan on updating that the 195 will give you more bang for buck
Last edited by Orr89RocZ; Sep 7, 2020 at 10:15 AM.
195’s are the head for most 355’s. Cant go wrong with 180’s either although the last hot cam 218/228 tpi afr 180 combo i did didnt make as much power as i hoped. But it pulled hard to 5000 like most tpi setups. The tpi is the restriction so if you ever plan on updating that the 195 will give you more bang for buck
How much HP did you expect and what did it achieve? Was there any spark plug clearance issues or do you know what headers were on the car? Once this build is done, I don't plan on going for more power. Dumping the gm style tpi is possible during this build, leaving me with a FIRST. I'd like the HSR for it's tunnel ram goodness but it doesn't fit under the hood without cutting something.
Not that I need the most power output but the afr 180's claim the most flow per CC. The exhaust shows significantly better than the TFS 195s or budget afr 195's.
My searching seems to have stumbled on the budget 195's to be off shore or china castings. The valve train and hardware are the big plus since AFR has quality stuff but who's to say the casting is any good. Does AFR put them through any checks? I'd rather keep my dollars on this continent and avoid junk nonsense.
Not that I need the most power output but the afr 180's claim the most flow per CC. The exhaust shows significantly better than the TFS 195s or budget afr 195's.
My searching seems to have stumbled on the budget 195's to be off shore or china castings. The valve train and hardware are the big plus since AFR has quality stuff but who's to say the casting is any good. Does AFR put them through any checks? I'd rather keep my dollars on this continent and avoid junk nonsense.
I can confirm the offshore casting based on what I've read.
I think you'll find Trick Flow is also an offshore casting but info is slim.
Two things are happening with imports. There are more of them and their quality has improved. That said, for you or I to take the same bare casting that AFR gets, and make them into something is probably beyond what a sensible budget would allow. Getting them straight from AFR has an economy of scale and they do all the heavy lifting. Their guides, seats, valves and whoever springs they run. Plus they put their name on it which says something right there.
Back to the CFM per CC thing, if you're not going for big numbers, then it would seem the 180's will produce possibly the best results. This is to say, they may have the edge over the larger and slower 195's but only up to a point. Then it's airflow all the way. The books say 8000 RPM capable with a 310-320 degree cam in a 350.
I've been running AFR since the mid-90's. Had their earlier 190 street heads on the car from about 1995 to about 2000 when I changed over to the ZZ4. After about a year with the ZZ4, I got the 180cc street heads and have been running those ever since. Phenomenal heads in both performance and quality.
All the AFR castings are the same - buying the as-cast version is just the same as buying the expensive CNC version. Just without the post-cast processing. So the quality is the same either way and AFR has an excellent reputation in that regard.
Again - all of the castings are off-shore from essentially every supplier, and I don't think you will find any in the price range you are considering that will be domestic.
GD
Last edited by GeneralDisorder; Sep 7, 2020 at 01:25 PM.
That said GD, who are the domestic guys that pour their own? I'm thinking Brodix and Edelbrock? Both of those companies were more or less built around a foundry business I believe.
As for all AFR castings being of the same origin, that's something I wouldn't have guessed. I was under the impression that their Enforcer brand was the first foray into the offshore market. Their website propaganda says "proudly Made in the USA". It also says "Here at AFR you won’t find cheap parts made overseas" but we can see how that has changed. Or so says the internet...
All the AFR castings are the same - buying the as-cast version is just the same as buying the expensive CNC version. Just without the post-cast processing. So the quality is the same either way and AFR has an excellent reputation in that regard.
Again - all of the castings are off-shore from essentially every supplier, and I don't think you will find any in the price range you are considering that will be domestic.
GD
That may be the case with the as cast AFR's. Though the casting itself doesn't appear to be the same casting as the cnc'd heads, noting the inclusion of the vortec and standard sbc bolt patterns. I'm not sure if all of AFR's castings are made offshore or not. If they are then the cnc'ing costs $500 a head? Or is there more to it that I'm clearly not understanding yet. More to learn. The fun of the hobby.
Trickflow, by the accounts that I've found are cast in Ohio. I haven't verified that but that is the info I've found. I may ask them directly.
I'm no severely worried about it, but it is something I consider when buying parts. Not like I haven't bought junk that was made here too....
Afr enforcer are certainly different castings than their 180-195 heads. The 210-220’s are different castings than the 180-195’s from what i read in the past. As far as i know AFR eliminator/race heads are all usa made. Bbc heads were cast by Edelbrock foundry then switched to brodix i believe. Not sure on the sbc but it’s probably similar. Thats why they cost so much.
How much HP did you expect and what did it achieve? Was there any spark plug clearance issues or do you know what headers were on the car? Once this build is done, I don't plan on going for more power. Dumping the gm style tpi is possible during this build, leaving me with a FIRST. I'd like the HSR for it's tunnel ram goodness but it doesn't fit under the hood without cutting something.
Not that I need the most power output but the afr 180's claim the most flow per CC. The exhaust shows significantly better than the TFS 195s or budget afr 195's.
My searching seems to have stumbled on the budget 195's to be off shore or china castings. The valve train and hardware are the big plus since AFR has quality stuff but who's to say the casting is any good. Does AFR put them through any checks? I'd rather keep my dollars on this continent and avoid junk nonsense.
combo I expected over 300 whp. It did 272 but had blowby which makes me wonder how well the ring seal was. It was a stock bottom L98 with 60k miles.
comparing cnc 180 vs as cast 195 may prove to be a wash. Hard to say. Cnc ports usually flow better per the area than cast and the chambers usually become more efficient and make more power. Cnc 195 is no contest over the 180 once you get some cam in it and get up in the rpms some. Hsr will take advantage here or maybe a first tpi.
ran the 190 cc old school afr heads that used to flow 250-260 cfm advertised with a 280 xfi cam on a stealth ram and car almost went into the 11’s. Suffered bad valve float cuz they had the wrong springs in it. Making 330 whp by 5600 rpm before it went off the rails. If it was stable it would have done 360 whp by 6300-6400
...comparing cnc 180 vs as cast 195 may prove to be a wash. Hard to say. Cnc ports usually flow better per the area than cast and the chambers usually become more efficient and make more power. Cnc 195 is no contest over the 180 once you get some cam in it and get up in the rpms some. Hsr will take advantage here or maybe a first tpi.
But, taking the first part of this statement and looking at the numbers...
...it seems a no-brainer in favour of the 180's when combined with a 218@.050" cam. The comment regarding the more efficient CNC'd chambers notwithstanding.
The latter part of that statement, regarding the RPMs, says CNC 195 all the way. Maybe posted earlier but one cam program I futz with suggests with the 270 CFM available with the 195 Eliminator, peak HP RPM could drop in at 7000 RPM when paired with a 290/290 (adv) cam. Wouldn't that be sweet.
Yeah the weaker average flow across the board, to get similar cyl fill you probably would want more lift and more duration with the 195 as cast head. Maybe bit more overlap. The cnc ports are good designs but yeah alot more money
Back to the CFM per CC thing, if you're not going for big numbers, then it would seem the 180's will produce possibly the best results. This is to say, they may have the edge over the larger and slower 195's but only up to a point. Then it's airflow all the way. The books say 8000 RPM capable with a 310-320 degree cam in a 350.
I'd pick the AFR 180s over the as-cast 195AFR and TFS no question. However, if you compare the 180 and 195 AFR Eliminators, you can see the CFM/MCSA is about the same. It's also really close comparing CFM/Volume. I also added the target RPM for the MCSA for the 180s and 195s.
Not saying that you can't cam up and go higher, just based on formulas from Vizard that I've been using for years, the target RPMs based on the MCSA seems to have proven fairly accurate based on my experiences. The estimated HP numbers are a combination of my own experiences combined with another formula from Vizard based on airflow. Again, there are a ton of variables that can mean you'll make more or less - if you don't like them, use your own - lol
I see no real advantage that the 180 Eliminators have over the 195 Eliminators. They're nice heads and will make good power, but there's no question they'll have less RPM capability and less HP capability based on MCSA and airflow on both the intake and exhaust side compared to the 195s.
The afr 195’s i thought were closer to 1.95-1.96 csa but they peaked at 6250 on my 383 with the stealth ram runner length and a 230 deg lobe. With some cam duration you can get them to hold out past 6500 a good ways
The afr 195’s i thought were closer to 1.95-1.96 csa but they peaked at 6250 on my 383 with the stealth ram runner length and a 230 deg lobe. With some cam duration you can get them to hold out past 6500 a good ways
I got the MCSA for the 180s and 195s off AFR's sight - they may actually measure higher though.
No question the heads can easily peak higher than what I have in the chart. The formula is what I use when I'm trying to figure an optimal MCSA based on cubic inch and a target RPM. I've never been disappointed or made any less power than expected when using it. I backed into it to get the "target" RPM in the chart. Meaning if I were building a 383 and planning on making peak power higher than 5750/5800 RPM, I'd look at a head with a larger minimal cross-sectional area, along with a proportional increase in flow compared to the AFR 195s (not easily found).
Your example as well as a number of 383s with 195 AFR heads have shown proven dyno results making good power at a higher peak RPM than what I have in the chart with moderately sized cams and single plane intakes. So, it's not a limiting or maximum figure in the least.
Edit: Plus the numbers are based on the figures published by AFR. Based on the dyno results it's possible, or likely, the MCSA may be larger and certainly I'd go with proven dyno results over a formula any day of the week and twice on Sunday,
The AFR 195s move more air per CFM (should mean higher velocity) than the TFS 195s, so you would better off spending $450 more for the AFR 195s...
Can you explain that one in more detail? A cubic foot (at STP) is a cubic foot. A minute is a minute, regardless of where on the planet you measure it. Did you mean "CC" instead of "CFM" in that statement?
I think he means cfm per cc as listed in his chart table
fwiw programs like pipemax can help with rough sizing of port areas.
355 can really start using 1.90” sq mcsa around 5600-5800. This is higher than most tpi setups, possibly in range of a first tpi with enough cam, it can help make more top end 5500 to 6000 shift If you cam it right and can run faster if you gear it and converter it right lol
below 5600, afr 180 is recommended for a 355. Since thats not a lot of rpm. Might be ideal if you dont plan on more cam than that or higher rpm intake. If you have siamesed runners i would siamese them as much as possible to gain rpm as thats free hp. First may give you capability to 5800 with that cam. I’d like more cam with first or heavily siamesed tpi. They all will be torquey with tpi though
I’ve seen those numbers referenced as far back as 2006 and I don’t think the Eliminators were available until mid-late 2006, early 2007??? Pretty sure the Track 1s have had a revision since then also. So, I’m not so sure those numbers reflect current offerings. Just that the MCSA of the AFR 180 is so much off compared to what AFR has advertised on their site makes me believe those measurements are probably from the older AFR heads.
I wouldn't doubt the chart is outdated. Just something I found while poking around and trying to establish the correlation between MCSA and port flow. While the two are linked, the relationship isn't exactly linear.
If I understand what you’re trying to get at they’re not going to be linear. Some porters and head designs are better than others and will be able to get more flow from a given MCSA than the other. Differences in the valve curtain area comes into play as well.
If I understand what you’re trying to get at...
While this thread is on the subject of cylinder heads, I'm working through what my next possible move is. What I have are heads (no usable shortblock or cam) and although they were bench flowed, I've no idea what the MCSA might be. Only a guess at this point. Although, in a couple months time, I hope to be back into the engine project and will have the opportunity to measure. That said, when the discussion comes around to the cross section, it's difficult to relate and draw comparisons. Your process is interesting and I can see making use of it going forward.
FWIW, without the time or opportunity to actually build an engine, simulation and hypothesis is all I've got! That and these forums.
I’m stepping back about 28 years using formulas and spreadsheets. These are things that I did before investing in a decent engine simulation software application. I still use the formulas to give me an idea on the target MCSA and CFM (at cam lift) needed to put me in the ballpark for the desired outcome. Then I look around to see if there is an off the shelf product that can save me or the person I’m working with some money. If I see some that are close, I’ll model them and see what happens compared to what I’d consider optimal for the combination. If one delivers the results or close to the desired results, all is good to go.
Saying that, these formulas worked wonders for me along with the trial and error experiences I had back before buying the software. Just a general statement here, I typically go a little larger on heads than what I and most people would consider optimal, especially if it’s a milder build and go with a smaller cam than considered optimal for the optimal (smaller) head. I’ve found through personal experiences and by computer modeling, going with a little larger head and a little smaller cam (compared to an optimal/smaller sized head and optimal/larger sized cam) can give VERY similar results (typically with better vacuum to boot) without limiting yourself on future expansions.
Most real hot rodders are never satisfied for long with the power generated from an initial build (or any build as far as that goes). If you initially go with a little larger head and smaller cam, you can generate near identical initial results (within reason) yet have the luxury of going bigger on the cam and swapping different intakes later without having to get a different set of heads to be competitive. If the logic doesn’t make sense to you then you certainly don’t have to follow the “advice” – lol
Totally different approach when like you someone already has a set of heads they want to use. Knowing the minimal cross-sectional area would be a key factor for me although some simulation software takes a guess at it based on flow and the volume of a given head. They can be fairly accurate and will provide trend information based on changes you make to it.
But, taking the first part of this statement and looking at the numbers...
...it seems a no-brainer in favour of the 180's when combined with a 218@.050" cam. The comment regarding the more efficient CNC'd chambers notwithstanding.
The latter part of that statement, regarding the RPMs, says CNC 195 all the way. Maybe posted earlier but one cam program I futz with suggests with the 270 CFM available with the 195 Eliminator, peak HP RPM could drop in at 7000 RPM when paired with a 290/290 (adv) cam. Wouldn't that be sweet.
you basically described my LT1. Gross duration is 282/290, .50" is 231/239 in a 5.7. It does rev to 7k, it revs fast enough in 1st and 2nd gear that you can easily bounce off the 7200rpm limiter. But power plateaus around 6500, and starts falling by 6800rpm.
The AFR 195s really are good enough that I'd skip over the 180's in a 350ci application every day of the week.
That chart is out of date and doesn't match up with the current gen AFR 195s.
With a sane street came like what the OP posted the AFR195's would provide good power everywhere with great top-end.
you basically described my LT1. Gross duration is 282/290, .50" is 231/239 in a 5.7. It does rev to 7k, it revs fast enough in 1st and 2nd gear that you can easily bounce off the 7200rpm limiter. But power plateaus around 6500, and starts falling by 6800rpm.
That chart is out of date and doesn't match up with the current gen AFR 195s.
7000 is a sweet sound that's for sure. Even smallish heads at about 180cc with only 255-260 CFM at peak lift, combined with a 288/294, and the 355 would zing to 7k. Not that it was making any power up there, but still, it prompted me to put the limiter at 6500.
As for the chart being out of date. Which chart? The one with two AFR heads on it? Keep in mind those 195s are the new as cast version. Numbers there are right off the website. The other chart a few posts up is something I lifted off the web while looking for MCSA and CFM. It could well be over 10.years old.
7000 is a sweet sound that's for sure. Even smallish heads at about 180cc with only 255-260 CFM at peak lift, combined with a 288/294, and the 355 would zing to 7k. Not that it was making any power up there, but still, it prompted me to put the limiter at 6500.
As for the chart being out of date. Which chart? The one with two AFR heads on it? Keep in mind those 195s are the new as cast version. Numbers there are right off the website. The other chart a few posts up is something I lifted off the web while looking for MCSA and CFM. It could well be over 10.years old.
Oh, I see.
AFR came out with a new head called the Enforcer, much cheaper option. But still good, definitely better than Vortecs.
The AFR 195s really are good enough that I'd skip over the 180's in a 350ci
With a sane street came like what the OP posted the AFR195's would provide good power everywhere with great top-end.
At what point, if any are the 180's more appropriate for a build over the 195's? Smaller displacement like 327? Different applications, like towing? Never?
If I was looking at it right, the 2 are the same price. Asking based on actual curiosity, not to be snarky
I would say smaller displacement. Or a factory type tpi setup that is under 4500 rpm lol the hot cammed aftermarket tpi L98 i built and tuned was plenty fun with afr 180’s. I dont think the 195’s would have hurt much if at all since the intake is restricting the head flow anyway. Can only use what the total system can flow. The intake can make or break a combo too regardless of head. The 195’s really are a great head out the box for a variety of combos. I’ve had a set on my 383 and 400” turbo combo. I’ve tuned them on other cars and seen alot of combos done with them from others. They really do work well for alot of builds. But they have gotten quite expensive. In 08 they were 1360$ shipped or so lol.
i’ve tuned the 195 trick flows on two lt1 combos. One a 355 and one a 383. Also worked well but the lt1’s are 6000+ rpm setups with moderate cams. Thats where you get the full value of the 195 head. 5800-6500.
Call me biased but I would go with the AFR 180's for a mild 355. I have the angled heads and only have an issue with one plug being too close to the headers. I just run shorty plugs and use a Trick Flow spark plug socket that is designed for headers.
OP thought of some fast burns? I have a set on my 358 and an quite happy. I do plan on steppin to 195s though over winter when I sta,it forcing air in. I bought my fastburns cheep in the off season from circle track racer. Maybe something to look at
OP thought of some fast burns? I have a set on my 358 and an quite happy. I do plan on steppin to 195s though over winter when I sta,it forcing air in. I bought my fastburns cheep in the off season from circle track racer. Maybe something to look at
I did look into them originally. 210cc intake ports and $1000 per head had me scratch them off the list. Unless I'm looking at the wrong ones or there's info I don't know about them.
I did look into them originally. 210cc intake ports and $1000 per head had me scratch them off the list. Unless I'm looking at the wrong ones or there's info I don't know about them.
you are corrrect. It’s just that with them being used in GM 604 crate engines, second hand units are plentiful. The ports are bigger, but they work well on smaller/tamer engines still. Check the GM 604 crate engine spec Or a ZZ5 crate engine.
AFR is overhyped IMO especially the as cast ones. Also small ports are also overhyped. Even 200cc ports are not too large for a 350. Cam is going to dictate RPM range more than having a port that is slightly too large for the CID and RPM. Lloyd Elliot and I had a discussion that a larger, higher flowing port will offer similar WOT performance as a smaller, lower flowing port and a bigger cam but have better idle and part-throttle manners. I ran a pair of 200cc Assault Racing castings on my L31 with a 218/228 @ 0.050 roller cam for about 10K. Pulled better everywhere than a set of 906s with 2.02/1.60s and a 215/223 @ 0.050 cam.
Those same 200cc castings ported by Lloyd ended up in the 210-215cc range and just under 300cfm. Work extremely well on an 11:1 383. With the 218/228 @ 0.050 roller on a 110 LSA and 106 ICL with Rhoads V-Max lifters hot lashed at 0.020" it is super responsive. With 24° of idle timing it makes 19 in/hg @ 700 rpm and 24 in/hg @ 2,500 rpm. A throttle snap on the primaries alone of a 600cfm edelbrock instantly spins it up to the 5,500-6,000 rpm range while maintaining 10 in/hg vacuum. Almost scary how fast it revs. 383 short block has about 15K on it now and it is at about 5% leakdown across the board. With the spark plugs out of it and the carb off, cranking compression is 210 psi.
I've always liked your builds Fast but I have to ask, why take a 210cc , 300 CFM head and kill it with a 218 cam? It seems, just as the OP was inquiring, that , while not necessarily killing your WOT performance (as per your discussion with Elliot), you'll give up something at the other end.
I'd say your tune, the generous initial timing in particular, the 11:1 CR and 210 PSI cranking pressure (nice!) are really what's responsible for the snappy throttle response. I noticed similar characteristics with one of the 350's when the timing was bumped to 20+ degrees and cranking compression was 200 or better (10.4:1, 218@.050"). Problem with that build is that it was very sensitive to spark knock and my analog controls not sophisticated enough.
In a forum conversation with Vizard, he admitted that a small runner head, a Vortec in this instance, would outperform the 195 Eliminator at the low end of the scale with respect to torque production/VE. WOT of course would swing over to the AFR's. So that's something to consider.
So just as the OP has asked, where do you draw the line?
Now, all of that said, your comment about the cam having a real relevance here is an important one and something the OP has to consider as much as the heads. His induction system too. I can only comment on the runner lengths and the impact that has on engine behaviour and I don't suppose there's a huge difference in how the fuel is deleivered. EFI or carb. Just the manifold style. (Yes, I'm aware of charge cooling but let's not split hairs.)
So it's a package deal as it always is. The direction of the build, and it was mentioned here that one is seldom satisfied with the initial result, will or should ultimately determine which head to choose.
Last edited by skinny z; Sep 10, 2020 at 10:06 AM.
