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!
l31 with a lT4 hot cam and Edelbrock pro flo XT. Running a WBo2 and the EBL P4. New build. I have it currently targeting 13.5 AFR and which has worked well whilst ironing out various new build issues and the VE learns are starting to normalise around the +/- 2/3 mark. Car runs better than it ever has with this new setup
Question for thoughts is how do I determine what is the optimum AFR for (this) setup? - idle, cruise and WOT. Given that the Hotcam is not a radical cam (I have idling around 650rpm and the AFR (at y-pipe merge) seems quite stable), I'm thinking something nearer stoich might make sense for cruise and idle and perhaps around high 12s for WOT.
I'm certainly not a seasoned tuner that can sense by ear things such as optimal timing and AFR over and above misses, vibrations and uneven idle. Do have a vacuum gauge; can this be used for fine tuning, or more of a 'way' out' tool
Whatever the engine wants, is "optimal". You find that by dyno runs, ET, mph, etc. etc. etc. Nobody out here is going to know what your engine wants better than your engine does. That goes for both the AFR and the ignition timing. Trying to "assign" some random "number" you found on the Internet to any of those parameters is the DIRECT OPPOSITE of "tuning".
"If it RUNS good, it IS good". Nothing else matters. Make the engine run the absolute best you can, and then by definition, whatever the AFR and timing happen to end up at, is "optimal".
That said, most engines will want around 14.7:1 at cruise, a little richer at idle like maybe 13.8 - 14.0:1, and about 12.7 - 13:1 or a bit richer at full power. You may not be able to get it that lean at cruise depending on the tuning skills of both yourself and the system. A bigger cam generally makes an engine want richer idle but that's just a generalization not an absolute.
Yes a vac gauge is a very useful tool for tuning. Generally you'll be looking for the highest vacuum you can get under whatever circumstance you're tuning for, as that indicates that the engine is running at the highest possible RPM (pumping the most efficiently and making the best possible use of the air it's ingesting) at that time.
thanks Sofa - yes looking for learned thoughts on indicators for best AFR, as opposed to asking for views on what it should be for my setup (though, happy to hear from people with similar setups)
absent accessible track/ dyno time (which I think would be focused to WOT tuning), sounds like a vac input into datalogging is potentially one way to explore; possibly the MAP values might be a good proxy?
Yes. MAP is "manifold absolute pressure"; "vacuum" is the difference between MAP and ambient pressure. As long as the ambient pressure remains constant, then MAP is essentially the same thing as vacuum. However, ambient pressure varies somewhat, particularly when large weather systems pass through, which is why "barometric pressure" is often given in the weather reports. Altitude also changes it - ALOT. But as long as you can do your tuning at the same place and in more or less constant weather, MAP and vacuum are mostly interchangeable. Or, if you can log ambient pressure along with MAP, then you can calculate "vacuum" exactly.
Depending on the dyno you can get access to, you can tune for almost any conditions you want to. An electrical one like a Mustang is good for this, whereas an inertial one like a DynoJet is not. Inertial ones are programmed to adjust the load on the drive train such that the engine accelerates at a constant rate, usually 200 - 250 RPM per second or so for street cars, which is why a run always last the same length of time on them regardless of engine power. They also take into account the amount of energy required to accelerate everything else that does so during the run (drive shaft, tires/wheels, etc.), and thus give a much more accurate picture of a vehicle's "performance" while accelerating. As such, you can change other things besides engine output, such as the wheels on a car, and get different "horsepower" readings from this type, without actual engine or wheel horsepower changing. But an electrical one just measures how much power the engine is sending to the wheels, in a static way. You can use its load settings to set the engine RPM to a constant value, for example, with the throttle at any desired position, from idle to WOT. That makes them a better tool for overall tuning than an inertial one even though they won't capture as good a picture of the final "performance" of the car since they don't include all those other variables in their measurement. Different tools for different purposes, each with its own benefits and limitations.
Yes of course datalogging is worthwhile; although, it's a tool for measuring what the engine is doing NOW, as opposed to a tool that predicts what changes need to be made. But, if you get a log of current behavior, then make a change and repeat the identical logged activity, you can see what effect the change made.
If you break it down to the three areas mentioned, idle, cruise and WOT my approach, albeit carbureted, is more or less as follows:
Make certain the timing is where it needs to be. Inevitably there'll be some back and forth with that and the AFR.
WOT is a track thing where the greatest MPH is achieved over a measured distance. It doesn't necessarily have to BE a track. There are tools available, such as Dragy that can get you there. Caveat: Unless you own your personal stretch of highway or can get to the Autobahn, you'll likely to be breaking a law or two. Start rich for safety with timing reduced and gradually work those two until a best is achieved.
Cruise. I use my AFR gauge and in-cabin vacuum gauge to continually work the fuel mixture leaner to the point of surging. Ignition timing is advanced to the point of pinging under variable conditions. This is where the toggling back and forth with timing and AFR comes into play. FTR: I developed a lean cruise of about 16:1 with timing in the high 40's.
Idle is the lowest tolerable RPM and highest vacuum that can be achieved. As with all things tuning, this is a combination of the two components discussed. My last bigger cammed 355 wanted 30° at idle at about 850 RPM.
Further to the record, the car literally drove like it had EFI. I'll qualify that by saying not exactly like EFI as compensating for large temperature swings (such a freezing point starts as opposed to the oppressive summer heat) wasn't entirely seamless. But in general relatively broad based driving conditions, it worked very well,.
By the way, it did take my 3600 lb heap to 109 MPH in 1/4 mile testing (definitely not a drag racing orientated car) and knocked down better than 20 MPG (US) in highway cruise conditions.
didnt think about atmospheric variables which is fair. For a non professional working best efforts, I suppose that translates to same day, broadly similar weather and same route (elevation etc.)
Skinny Z: the mentioned approach to lean cruise. Is that highway mode?
by cruise AFR, I was thinking non idle VE cells. I would think you wouldn’t want these leaner than stoich but happy to hear more about your approach
Given the hotcam isn’t particularly aggressive, I think I’m going to do a map/ vacuum compo of 13.5 vs 14 afr for non WOT driving to see if I’m heading in the right direction
Skinny Z: the mentioned approach to lean cruise. Is that highway mode?
by cruise AFR, I was thinking non idle VE cells. I would think you wouldn’t want these leaner than stoich but happy to hear more about your approach
Have no fear regarding leaner than stoich.
It's a common approach. As is advancing the timing. Leaner mixtures require greater spark lead for best performance. Performance being economy in this case.
The threat is too much advance causing detonation.
My tests were at highway speeds ( ~75 MPH) with the converter locked. RPMs in or around 2500.
On 10% ethanol pump gas. This gets you really close to where you want to be. I have tuned probably 50 engines close to these numbers and they all respond well regardless of what engine it is. SBC, LS, my 8100 big blocks, Nissan VQ and VK engines and even the 4.7L and 5.7L Dodges I had.
12.5:1 at peak HP at WOT
12.0:1 at peak TQ at WOT
14.1:1 at idle
13-13.5:1 at moderate throttle acceleration
15.5-17.5:1 at steady light throttle cruise at ~2,000 rpm
On 10% ethanol pump gas. This gets you really close to where you want to be. I have tuned probably 50 engines close to these numbers and they all reapond well regardless of what engine it is. SBC, LS, my 8100 big blocks, Nissan VQ and VK engines and even the 4.7L and 5.7L Dodges I had.
12.5:1 at peak HP at WOT
12.0:1 at peak TQ at WOT
14.1:1 at idle
13-13.5:1 at moderate throttle acceleration
15.5-17.5:1 at steady light throttle cruise at ~2,000 rpm
I'll be looking for values similar to those once I'm back up and running. (New engine is in and it sounds GREAT: Transmission out!)
The very lean cruise throws some people off but I had great results within that target range. If I'd an easier method other than my mechanical distributor, I might have improved fuel economy even further by dialing out the slight detonation that was evident under a very specific set of conditions. Circumstances prevented further development.
WOT was a different animal altogether. Track time was limited and being flat out at 110 MPH isn't a place for the highway....But targeting sub 13:1 AFR is what I'd work towards. Then test and tune to a best trap speed.
The very lean cruise throws some people off but I had great results within that target range.
Yep, I also run a lean cruise during Highway Mode, targeting 16 to 16.5:1. Also running about 45° of timing. Gets phenomenal gas mileage for a 383 at 28-29 mpg, when the converter locks and the double OD kicks in and I"m doing ~1900 rpm at 85 mph.
Yep, I also run a lean cruise during Highway Mode, targeting 16 to 16.5:1. Also running about 45° of timing. Gets phenomenal gas mileage for a 383 at 28-29 mpg, when the converter locks and the double OD kicks in and I"m doing ~1900 rpm at 85 mph.
I have gotten 20.6 mpg on a ~600 mile roadtrip with my 383. It has a 4L85E and 3.73 gears with 30.5" tall tires. It is spinning 2,300-2,500 rpm when I am cruising and pulling over 7,000 lbs of fullsize van. Big van will cruise 90 like it is nothing.
I have gotten 20.6 mpg on a ~600 mile roadtrip with my 383. It has a 4L85E and 3.73 gears with 30.5" tall tires. It is spinning 2,300-2,500 rpm when I am cruising and pulling over 7,000 lbs of fullsize van. Big van will cruise 90 like it is nothing.
hard to understand how thats possible when lighter late model 5.3 trucks with displacement on demand not towing will only do 20 mpg with those gears lol
If I have a V8 in a light throttle cruise, and I switch 4 cylinders off... Don't the remaining 4 active cylinders essentially have to work twice as hard to generate the same power as 8 cylinders, in order to maintain constant speed of the vehicle (in addition to the power needed to overcome the friction generated by the inactive cylinders)?
In which case, how much benefit is there really with this displacement on demand really generate vs just leaving all 8 cylinders firing?
If I have a V8 in a light throttle cruise, and I switch 4 cylinders off... Don't the remaining 4 active cylinders essentially have to work twice as hard to generate the same power as 8 cylinders, in order to maintain constant speed of the vehicle (in addition to the power needed to overcome the friction generated by the inactive cylinders)?
In which case, how much benefit is there really with this displacement on demand really generate vs just leaving all 8 cylinders firing?
it makes sense, but not sure what the exact fuel demands are for each scenario. It doesnt take much load to kick out of 4 cyl mode tho.
but it must not be a huge gain. This direct inj 5.3 with so much less power than my port efi 6.2 which had 3.73 gears vs 3.42 in the 5.3, only gets about 3-4 mpg more on identical trips. Guess there’s diminishing returns at some point
either way its very hard to understand how a old sbc can do much better. You would think the oems and emission laws would be changed to allow lean cruise to get several mpg more, if it was simply lean cruise that gave the gains
Isn't there a component in exhaust emissions that is compounded under a lean condition? Seems to me hydrocarbons might be increased as even though it's lean, there's incomplete combustion and that goes out the tailpipe. Not sure.
Something like that could be preventing the OEMs from going to 16.5:1 and getting that last bit of MPG.
Has anyone cracked into a late model ECU and checked the tables under light throttle, light load conditions? Might be a story there.
Isn't there a component in exhaust emissions that is compounded under a lean condition? Seems to me hydrocarbons might be increased as even though it's lean, there's incomplete combustion and that goes out the tailpipe. Not sure.
Something like that could be preventing the OEMs from going to 16.5:1 and getting that last bit of MPG.
Has anyone cracked into a late model ECU and checked the tables under light throttle, light load conditions? Might be a story there.
I think the leaner the burn, the more NOx emssions you give off.
I do know that highway mode isn't activated in factory 8D calibrations (at least from what I can tell). I think GM put the minimum temperature at something like 150C.
I think the leaner the burn, the more NOx emssions you give off.
I do know that highway mode isn't activated in factory 8D calibrations (at least from what I can tell). I think GM put the minimum temperature at something like 150C.
Stoich produces the highest NOx.
On the newer GM stuff, Holdens have lean cruise and a couple models were even factory MAF deleted.
hard to understand how thats possible when lighter late model 5.3 trucks with displacement on demand not towing will only do 20 mpg with those gears lol
My L31 consistently got 18-19 mpg on stock tuning with the 4L60E and 3.42s. I put a mild cam in it, thorley tri-ys, swapped the 60E for an 85E and swapped from the 8.6 10-bolt to a 9.5 14 bolt with 3.73s and still had the same mileage. When the 4L60E started going out, I was running everywhere in 3rd to keep from getting a P1870 slippage code and was still getting 18 mpg taching along at 3,000 rpm. With 3.42 gears the overdrive was pointless. The 383 is 11:1 and makes a ton more torque, which keeps the thing cruising along in OD and lockup even up some steep grades. With the stock 350 and 3.42 gear the 4L60Es overdrive was about useless. It really needed a 4.10 gear from the factory.
I would also not call the 5.3L a pinnacle of efficiency. Every 5.6L Nissan engine I have owned had far more power and managed better mileage. My mom also has a 2019 Titan and I have managed to get 23+ mpg in it taking her on a roadtrip to the beach. The Titan gets better fuel mileage than the Pathfinder with the 4.0L does. The M56S I had consistently pulled down 26-28 mpg cruising as fast as 95 mph which was better than the 2007 G35 sedan I had with the VQ35HR. The old L31 was also better on fuel than the 5.3L in 100% of the vehicles I have owned with one. I had a 2003 Sonora (Mexican GMT800 Tahoe) with the 5.7L and a 5spd. It was much more responsive and managed 20-21 mpg highway and it was a 4x4. It is easier to get fuel mileage when you have low-speed torque. My old 83 G20 van with well over 100K on it was getting over 17 mpg highway loaded down with 5 or 6 passengers, luggage and running the old A6 compressor even with the Q-Jet and I know by that point it was in dire need of mechanical work.
I will also add my uncle has a Sierra Denali 4x4 crew cab. It has the 6.2L in it and max tow gears. That truck consistently gets better fuel mileage than the 5.3L in my aunts 2wd Tahoe. Running empty or towing the 6.2L is better on fuel than the 5.3L. I feel alot of that is because DOD or AFM or whatever GM calls it this week is a waste of time on the 5.3L. The 5.3L is already gutless on all 8. Those are apples to apples in that comparison, both are DI Gen V V8s, they have the same transmission and same gearing. The weight is very similar as well given the Tahoe is 2wd and the truck is 4wd. The fullsize vans and 2500+ trucks do not even come with the dumb cylinder deactivation garbage. The deactivation system kills the engines far sooner than they would have lasted running on all 8 all the time.
I am also not the only one getting good mileage from the old SBC engines. A guy on the GMT400 pages I also follow just bought a raised roof 99 Express. His got 19 mpg driving it home mostly at 70 mph with 280K on it and it needs a bit of work as well. He went WOT and it started breaking up and misfiring. It is not even running at 100% and still getting good mileage. Having owned a dozen of them or so now, fuel mileage was not the reason the old L31 went away nor was it emissions. GM just spent millions tooling up for the Gen3 and they could build the garbage 5.3L cheaper.
I put the TPI on the car back in 1996. But before that it was a Performer RPM and Holley 4 barrel 600 CFM carb. I had swapped out the TH350 to the TH700R4 before starting to commute back and forth to college. Still had the 350 at that point, but with a Performer level cam. Also was running older stock-ish iron heads at about 8.5:1 compression.
With that setup (same 3.42 axle, same tire size, etc), I was knocking down 20-21 mpg cruising along at 70mph. That's about as old-tech as you can get with a SBC.
So the EFI, the lean cruise, and now the double overdrive, more efficient combustion chambers, etc, etc, have gotten me up to ~28 mpg, despite the engine size increasing to 383.
I put the TPI on the car back in 1996. But before that it was a Performer RPM and Holley 4 barrel 600 CFM carb. I had swapped out the TH350 to the TH700R4 before starting to commute back and forth to college. Still had the 350 at that point, but with a Performer level cam. Also was running older stock-ish iron heads at about 8.5:1 compression.
With that setup (same 3.42 axle, same tire size, etc), I was knocking down 20-21 mpg cruising along at 70mph. That's about as old-tech as you can get with a SBC.
So the EFI, the lean cruise, and now the double overdrive, more efficient combustion chambers, etc, etc, have gotten me up to ~28 mpg, despite the engine size increasing to 383.
What is the final gearing on your combination? I do not feel like a larger engine necessarily hurts anything given the right combination. More low-speed torque means you can pull a taller gear and run the engine at a lower rpm more effectively.
I had an 88 Fleetwood Brougham that had a 307 swirl port head Olds, CCC Q-Jet, 200-4R and a 2.53 ring and pinon. 70 mph it reached 26-27 mpg numerous times and that high mileage dog of a 307 had the hotter Vin 9 cam that was probably a worse choice for it given the Vin Y cam offered more low-speed torque. I pulled that tired 200K mile 307 for a lower mileage 403 that re-ringed then put a set of then inexpensive W31 350 heads and a W31 intake manifold on with a mild Mondello cam that was custom specd to keep the CCC system functional. I talked with Joe (may he RIP) and what he came up with ran great. The 403 still managed 25-26 mpg while having double the power. That car was an unaerodynamic land yacht but the 403 had loads of low-speed torque and it was just above idle at 70 mph. ~1,400 rpm @ 70 mph with the factory size P225/75R15s on it. The 403 could pull the car around in overdrive a lot better than the 307 could which meant even though it was larger, it was drawing in less air/fuel because it would cruise along at lower rpm more of the time. Where the transmission was in and out of lockup and downshifting to 3rd constantly with the 307 the 403 would just coast along at low rpm.
The 383 has so much torque it can actually modestly accelerate in double OD. Its certainly not neck snapping, but its also certainly not lugging the engine either.
My bolt on tpi was in the 20-21 range highway. My ls1 car was 25
I will also add my uncle has a Sierra Denali 4x4 crew cab. It has the 6.2L in it and max tow gears. That truck consistently gets better fuel mileage than the 5.3L in my aunts 2wd Tahoe. Running empty or towing the 6.2L is better on fuel than the 5.3L. I feel alot of that is because DOD or AFM or whatever GM calls it this week is a waste of time on the 5.3L. The 5.3L is already gutless on all 8. Those are apples to apples in that comparison, both are DI Gen V V8s, they have the same transmission and same gearing.
i had a 10 sierra crew cab 6.2. 6 spd auto 3.73. Ive had 31” and 33” tires, didnt seem to make much difference . I had the truck tuned as well. Powerhouse but 20-21 was about all you could get out of it avg over last 50 miles on various trips. In pa we have some hills but once you get over the mountains east it flattens out. I can see it getting 22-24 being very careful on flat and downhills. My 17 sierra double cab 3.42 with the 5.3 has gotten 24-25 on the same trip as a best but normally 22. On a downhill ride off the mountain, best avg over 50 mile i got was 27.8. Bone stock truck. So a good apples to apples. My neighbor with the DI 6.2 14 sierra crew cab says he low 20’s as well but hes on 35’s lol
My buddies have all sorts of different brands and they are all about the same it seems.
86 Camaro Sport Coupe. Worn out 355 shortblock (50% leakdown on a couple of cylinders). 10.2:1. 288/294 hydraulic roller. Cranking compression ~160 (!). 750 Barry Grant VS. 45°(+/-) advance @ 2500 RPM. 75 MPH cruise. 16:1 AFR. 700R4 w/Lockup converter. Slight rattle. 24 MPG Imp. 20 MPG US. Tested on an open 600 kms/360 miles (return trip). I was quite happy with that. (And a story repeated ad nauseum!)
2006 Tahoe. 5.3. Steady highway at 75 MPH. ~ 2000 RPM. 500,000 KMS/300,000 miles on the clock. 12L/100 kms or 20 MPG US. Not bad for an old truck. A headwind will kill that mileage though.
The 383 has so much torque it can actually modestly accelerate in double OD. Its certainly not neck snapping, but its also certainly not lugging the engine either.
You are close. The old Fleetwood was 1.70. The worn out 307 in that car barely had enough steam to hold 70 mph on flat land and the car would actually lose 5 mph when the old R4 cycled on.
If I have a V8 in a light throttle cruise, and I switch 4 cylinders off... Don't the remaining 4 active cylinders essentially have to work twice as hard to generate the same power as 8 cylinders, in order to maintain constant speed of the vehicle (in addition to the power needed to overcome the friction generated by the inactive cylinders)?
Cylinder deactivation reduces engine pumping losses, reduces valve train losses, and increases combustion efficiency by making the remaining cylinders work at a higher dynamic compression ratio.
Cylinder deactivation reduces engine pumping losses, reduces valve train losses, and increases combustion efficiency by making the remaining cylinders work at a higher dynamic compression ratio.
I understand the theory behind it, but GM also unlocks the torque converter clutch or allows it to slip a lot more in 4 cylinder mode. I have found those 5.3Ls get the same fuel mileage with it disabled and the torque converter set to fully lockup. The 6L80Es last alot longer as well since the TCC clutch is no longer slipped to death. Spend a buck or two extra a tank to have a V8 all the time or spend $5K to rebuild the 6L80E every 120K. Our 75-85 mph speed limits have the 5.3L under too much load to use the 4 cylinder mode except going downhill. My Hemi Ram was the same way when it had the OE 3.55s and 32" tall 20s on it. That system only helped when I had 4.56 gears, a mild MDS compatible torque cam and long tube headers on that truck. I mostly ran that truck with the MDS disabled, but occasionally I re-enabled it when I was going to travel on a long trip. The moded truck would get 21 mpg with MDS enabled and 19 mpg with it disabled, but in normal around town driving it was annoying. It took like 90 seconds to change the tuning and I had both flashes already burned into my SCT tuning device. IIRC on the Dodge either the torque converter unlocked or the PCM disabled 5th gear in MDS mode as well. The RPM jumped up 200-300 rpm in 4 cylinder mode. Once that truck was moded it actually had enough torque that it would drop into 4 cylinder mode on light throttle acceleration, hence why I found it annoying around town. The Dodge system only used a maximum MAP value and minimum RPM value to enable.
Cylinder deactivation reduces engine pumping losses, reduces valve train losses, and increases combustion efficiency by making the remaining cylinders work at a higher dynamic compression ratio.
When they "switch off" a cylinder, are they actually holding the valves open too or simply turning off the injector and ignition coil?
Interesting... I mean you wouldn't want the piston to pull against closed valves (i.e., pulling vacuum takes force). But you also wouldn't want both valves open either simultaneously indefinitely. They must have something going with the valve timing too so that off cylinder's piston has near zero forces on it moving up and down through the cylinder.
Interesting... I mean you wouldn't want the piston to pull against closed valves (i.e., pulling vacuum takes force). But you also wouldn't want both valves open either simultaneously indefinitely. They must have something going with the valve timing too so that off cylinder's piston has near zero forces on it moving up and down through the cylinder.
The valves are 100% closed. The inert air in the cylinder acts as a spring as the piston moves. The compression built acts on the crank as the piston descends. If the piston was having to pump anything there would be additional pumping losses. Some older air compressors were actually V8 engines modified to run on 1 bank or the center 4 cylinders and used a specially designed head with reed valves to allow the second set of 4 pistons to move and compress air with each stroke. Simply compressing air in those 4 cylinders 2 times as often as normal required almost the full power of the remaining 4 cylinders. I have seen this done on Ford Flatheads, Ford Y-blocks, and older SBC engines for use as mobile industrial air compressors for stuff like jackhammers.
Cylinder deactivation reduces engine pumping losses, reduces valve train losses, and increases combustion efficiency by making the remaining cylinders work at a higher dynamic compression ratio.
Unfortunately though, the 4 cylinders that are being used at high loading in the older AFM wear much more quickly and take a beating. Something I believe GM has somewhat corrected with VFM and altering the shut down cylinders every time the engine shuts down cylinders. It helps even out the wear, but the cylinders, rings and bearings still wear more quickly than a completely under-stressed full time V8. There is a reason the low compression, low hp, EFI smog engines like the L03 and L05 lasted forever. They are so understressed, especially in normal cruising and driving they really cannot hurt themself.
I have a few family members living in the Texas Panhandle that farm. Their irrigation pumps are big block chevy powered on LPG. Those irrigation engines run at a steady ~1,800-2,000 rpm, but they never run them with less than 5-7 in/hg vacuum. The bottom ends will last through 3-4 sets of heads and 2 roller cam sets IF the engine is run with the manifold in a vacuum. If the engine is at full load it will knock the rings/bearings out of it in 1/4 of the hours. One of the 8.1L bottom ends had over 30K hours on it last I knew. If you figure a car moving 70 mph at 2,000 rpm, that 8100 has 2,100,000 miles on the bottom end. That engine had run the equivalent of 3.42 years continuously. Obviously it gets shut down for oil and filter changes and the like, but it runs almost continuously for months at a time moving water. Tractor pulling exhaust headers glowing orange the whole time. Can hear that 8.1L nearly 2 miles away in town.
12-31-2023, 05:46 AM
