Pelican Parts
Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help



Go Back   Pelican Parts Technical BBS > 1- Porsche Technical Forums > 911 Engine Rebuilding Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread    Reply
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Brisbane, Australia.
Posts: 375
Conrod Bolt "re-use" question

If you torqued your new bolts to 20nm + 90degrees.. and then UNDID them.. do you assume that they are already stretched and are a throw away item?

Or would it be safe to use them still?
Old 09-11-2017, 05:26 PM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #1 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 625
If they are factory bolts, they are trash after you torque them. One time use, my friend.

ARP and other such aftermarket bolts can generally be reused within the boundaries of the MFG's guidelines.
__________________
Current: 1963 356B T6, 1970 914-6 conversion 2.7, 1973 T, 1975 930 Turbo Targa, 1978 928 Race car, 6.57L, 1983 911SC, 2002 911 Targa, 2007 997TT, 2009 997TT, 2004 40th Anniversary Carrera

Only reproduction 3.6 cases on the planet, coming soon www.taorminaracingdesigns.com
Old 09-11-2017, 05:49 PM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #2 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 73
Does Porsche say they are 1 time stretch only? How are you supposed to rebuild the rods?

When we rebuild rods and use any bolt including the factory bolt (new)with new nuts, we measure the bolt length. Then we stretch the bolt and resize the BE. Then the nut is loosened and the bolt is remeasured to see that it returned to its relaxed length. I have never seen a factory bolt not return to its relaxed length if stretched or tighten using the torque + 90 method. Then on assembly the same bolt is re tighten (stretched to the same length) to fit the rods to the Crank.
Old 09-11-2017, 08:27 PM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #3 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Harvey View Post
Does Porsche say they are 1 time stretch only? How are you supposed to rebuild the rods?

When we rebuild rods and use any bolt including the factory bolt (new)with new nuts, we measure the bolt length. Then we stretch the bolt and resize the BE. Then the nut is loosened and the bolt is remeasured to see that it returned to its relaxed length. I have never seen a factory bolt not return to its relaxed length if stretched or tighten using the torque + 90 method. Then on assembly the same bolt is re tighten (stretched to the same length) to fit the rods to the Crank.
Yes, they do. Just about every WSM I have says that. Here is the excerpt from the 997 GT3 one:

Quote:
Refitting used connecting rods
Always replace used connecting rod bolts.
Information
1. Dispose of old connecting rod bolts.
__________________
Current: 1963 356B T6, 1970 914-6 conversion 2.7, 1973 T, 1975 930 Turbo Targa, 1978 928 Race car, 6.57L, 1983 911SC, 2002 911 Targa, 2007 997TT, 2009 997TT, 2004 40th Anniversary Carrera

Only reproduction 3.6 cases on the planet, coming soon www.taorminaracingdesigns.com
Old 09-11-2017, 08:51 PM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #4 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Harvey View Post
Does Porsche say they are 1 time stretch only? How are you supposed to rebuild the rods?
Also, my machine shop and most others I know of rebuild rods using the OLD bolts, stretched like you are saying. Then they ship with the old bolts hand tight just to hold the rods together. You, the end user, are supposed to replace the bolts when you actually build the motor.

The bigger question is what kind of false economy is it to try and save rod bolts that aren't ARP in an expensive Porsche motor.
__________________
Current: 1963 356B T6, 1970 914-6 conversion 2.7, 1973 T, 1975 930 Turbo Targa, 1978 928 Race car, 6.57L, 1983 911SC, 2002 911 Targa, 2007 997TT, 2009 997TT, 2004 40th Anniversary Carrera

Only reproduction 3.6 cases on the planet, coming soon www.taorminaracingdesigns.com
Old 09-11-2017, 09:10 PM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #5 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikedsilva View Post
If you torqued your new bolts to 20nm + 90degrees.. and then UNDID them.. do you assume that they are already stretched and are a throw away item?

Or would it be safe to use them still?

This debate keeps going around and there a simple answers to most of the issues raised.

The conservative approach is to simply throw the bolts and the nuts away and buy new parts and to assume that the bolts have become useless but I find this approach bit wasteful.

In the first Volume of the 911 Workshop Manual Porsche described the conrod bolt as 'malleable' and recommended replacement during a major overhaul.

This comment was not made in the 1970 revision when the rod bolt length was changed to 73mm.

It did, however, re-appear in 1984 when the tightening method was changed from 50Nm to 20 Nm + 90degrees.

In simple terms this new method of tightening would be similar to a stretch of around 12.5 thou which is greater than that recommended by ARP for their ARP 2000 bolts.

If the cross-sectional area of the ARP bolt is the same as the factory bolt this reduced stretch would result in a lower preload which is an interesting approach.

The job of a rod bolt is to ensure that the con-rod is correctly clamped but the preload use in rod bolts is always greater than any fatigue loading that occurs whilst the engine is running and providing this is the case there shouldn't be any real issues.

If the Porsche supplied bolts do yield slightly when they are first tightened they will still maintain the designed preload and the material will have work hardened slightly.

Providing the stress in the bolt is below the material's Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS) it will still support the required preload.

Once the bolt is undone there may be a small permanent offset but in itself this is not a very serious issue.

For example, many Aluminium Alloys are supplied in a mechanically yielded condition to improve their properties and specifically their fatigue lives.

Work hardening, which occurs during the yielding process, is a simple and well understood, the vast majority of metals exhibiting this type of behaviour.

It is most easily described using a parabolic relationship where the rate of work hardening with respect to strain is a material property.

If you load a typical steel beyond it's yield point its strength will increase even though its deformation behaviour becomes non-linear.

If you then unload the material it will not yield again until it has reached the new 'elastic' limit that was caused by the work hardening.

The material will also behave in a linear-elastic manner up to this new yield point.

Whilst the material is increasing in strength due to work hardening it is also reducing in cross-section and there comes a point when the rear reduces more rapidly than the material can strengthen. This is the point at which a bolt will no longer maintain a torque and we experience that dreadful experience of the load on the wrench falling and the bolt snapping.

So where does that take us?

I would generally agree with Neil Harvey and have re-used rod bolts for years without problems.

I have never seen a used Factory Rod Bolt that didn't return to its original length after tightening to either 50Nm or to 20Nm + 90 degrees.

To me this clearly indicates that the bolt is elastic and therefore fit for purpose.

The Metallurgy that supports this idea is very basic and fundamental. The elastic behaviour of materials is an invariant property and IMHO is impossible to mess with.

We can change strength with chemistry and heat treatment but Elastic Properties don't change.

There are clearly issues with re-using Torque To Yield (TTY) or 'Stretch Bolts as they are commonly known but this is more to do with lack of knowledge of their condition after tightening.

If we tighten a bolt to a simple 'torque' we know that it will generally hold load and that we have not exceeded the material's UTS even if it is has slightly exceeded its elastic limit.

If we tighten to torque + angle we have no idea about the condition of the fastener material after tightening.

If we measure stretch we have to assume that the fastener has been correctly heat treated or it may not generate the correct preload and we do hear stories of bad bolts.

It really is a dilemma as the scatter in preload is greatest with simple torque measurement but the other methods also have issues.

We always check rod bolts and ensure that after the second time they have been tightened they always return to their original length and we are then confident that we have no issues.

The 993 Workshop Manual suggests tightening rod bolts to 30Nm + 90 degrees and then a final check at 60Nm.

Does anyone have an ARP 204-6001 Rod Bolt and could they measure the cross-sectional area of the shank? as I would like to understand more about the pre-load when using these bolts.

Last edited by chris_seven; 09-12-2017 at 12:05 AM..
Old 09-12-2017, 12:03 AM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #6 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 73
There is so much fear and mythology connected to rebuilding these engines, it is always good when good sound engineering discussion puts a lot of it to rest.

Thanks Chris for your great explanation. I too learnt something.
Old 09-12-2017, 08:37 AM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #7 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 625
It's not fear and mythology in my opinion. I even acknowledged that the bolts would re-stretch to their original length. The science here is irrelevant.

What is relevant is the avaricious cheapness at work by the same crowd of people who want to reuse flywheel bolts, rod bolts, and axle nuts. So much time is spent testing around the fact that the factory generally states these are one time use parts, but there are still people who are too cheap to heed the warning.

It is not hard to make a 911 motor 60 grand or more, yet the same group of people will trip over a hundred bucks worth of rod bolts, making themselves feel better with their own empirical tests sprinkled with words like "should" and "possibly".

Reused rod bolts will likely not fail, even used multiple times.

But that's not the point.
__________________
Current: 1963 356B T6, 1970 914-6 conversion 2.7, 1973 T, 1975 930 Turbo Targa, 1978 928 Race car, 6.57L, 1983 911SC, 2002 911 Targa, 2007 997TT, 2009 997TT, 2004 40th Anniversary Carrera

Only reproduction 3.6 cases on the planet, coming soon www.taorminaracingdesigns.com
Old 09-12-2017, 08:46 AM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #8 (permalink)
Under the radar
 
Trackrash's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sebastopol, The Republic of California. Land of wine and redwoods.
Posts: 3,894
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris_seven View Post
This debate keeps going around and there a simple answers to most of the issues raised.
..............

I would generally agree with Neil Harvey and have re-used rod bolts for years without problems.

I have never seen a used Factory Rod Bolt that didn't return to its original length after tightening to either 50Nm or to 20Nm + 90 degrees.

To me this clearly indicates that the bolt is elastic and therefore fit for purpose.
Wow.
That explains a lot. So Porsche isn't really supplying weaker bolts. Porsche is just being cautious in not reusing these highly stressed bolts. Makes sense.
__________________
Gordon
_____________________________________
'71 911 Coupe 3,0L outlawed
#56 PCA Redwood Region, GGR, NASA, Speed SF
Old 09-12-2017, 11:22 AM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #9 (permalink)
Chain fence eating turbo
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 7,879
I always thought the FW bolts were discarded due to the shallow drive, not due to elongating?

I was planning on reusing mine.
Old 09-12-2017, 12:42 PM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #10 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippy View Post
I always thought the FW bolts were discarded due to the shallow drive, not due to elongating?

I was planning on reusing mine.
I'm not sure of what the reason is for not reusing the flywheel bolts but the consensus is to ditch them if they have been on the car for a while.

Perhaps someone could elaborate further.
__________________
Current: 1963 356B T6, 1970 914-6 conversion 2.7, 1973 T, 1975 930 Turbo Targa, 1978 928 Race car, 6.57L, 1983 911SC, 2002 911 Targa, 2007 997TT, 2009 997TT, 2004 40th Anniversary Carrera

Only reproduction 3.6 cases on the planet, coming soon www.taorminaracingdesigns.com
Old 09-12-2017, 12:53 PM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #11 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackrash View Post
Wow.
That explains a lot. So Porsche isn't really supplying weaker bolts. Porsche is just being cautious in not reusing these highly stressed bolts. Makes sense.
The Porsche WSM is geared towards the Porsche repair facility, not the home mechanic. In the Porsche repair environment, there is no time or equipment to determine whether a used con rod bolt is properly elongated upon reuse. Therefore, in the effort of expediency, it is discarded and replaced with a new one.

You will not find a stretch gauge in a repair department at your dealer because no spec exists from the factory on that.

While I agree with discarding used con rod bolts, much of what the WSM says is based upon warranty repairs and other considerations.
__________________
Current: 1963 356B T6, 1970 914-6 conversion 2.7, 1973 T, 1975 930 Turbo Targa, 1978 928 Race car, 6.57L, 1983 911SC, 2002 911 Targa, 2007 997TT, 2009 997TT, 2004 40th Anniversary Carrera

Only reproduction 3.6 cases on the planet, coming soon www.taorminaracingdesigns.com
Old 09-12-2017, 12:56 PM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #12 (permalink)
 
Now Available for Ordering:   101 Projects For Your BMW 3 Series 1982-2000  [more info]
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackrash View Post
Wow.
That explains a lot. So Porsche isn't really supplying weaker bolts. Porsche is just being cautious in not reusing these highly stressed bolts. Makes sense.
I don't know why Porsche suggest discarding these bolts.

It is possible that in 1965 when the statement concerning 'malleable bolts' was first made it is quite likely that process control was not so good in virtually all areas of manufacture.

Tensile Testing machines were relatively inaccurate and batch control of heat treatment was quite poor compared to today.

Basic metallurgical education was also quite limited and you only have to look back at the text books used in the Fifties and early Sixties to see this point.

Put this together and there may have been evidence of yielding from time to time and Porsche decided that changing bolts was the conservative approach.


We now know, however, that even if a bolt yields the first time it is torqued as long as it stabilises when re-torqued it will be good to use. and the statement about discarding the bolts can be considered to be redundant.

The only caveat is that the bolt must be capable of holding the torque applied during tightening.

We always use dial indicating toque wrenches so we can easily determine that torque continues to increase in a monotonic fashion during tightening.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Catorce View Post
It is not hard to make a 911 motor 60 grand or more, yet the same group of people will trip over a hundred bucks worth of rod bolts, making themselves feel better with their own empirical tests sprinkled with words like "should" and "possibly".

Sadly we don't see many customers that want to spend $60k on an engine re-build and we have to make do with re-building standard engines at much lower costs.

I am convinced that the 'chuck it all away and buy new' is stopping many owners from re-building engines that aren't performing well.

Here in the UK we recently saw an invoice for re-building a completely stock 2.2T engine for $32.5k, they didn't rebuild either the carbs or dizzy for this price.

Many UK 'specialists' now refuse to rebuild mag engines unless they shuffle pin and some even insist on fitting new oil pumps.

The latest 'fad' is to line hone engine cases to improve alignment and to hell with the impact this has on Main Bearing Crush.

People with early standard engines are being told they 'have' to uprate their oil pumps, that they must fit piston squirters or their rebuild will be catastrophic, despite that fact that the engine seems to have run successfully for 150k miles without all of the expensive add-ons.


If you add up all of the 'must-dos' the costs of rebuilding 911 motors is simply escalating in an out of control manner.

The answer must be to carry out the work relevant to the specific engine duty in a pragmatic manner.

I find it difficult to understand why some very basic engineering knowledge is irrelevant and why we shouldn't share this information and try to save a little money when appropriate.

Many people reading these threads are re-building their own engines, have invested in some measuring equipment and have the time and patience to make the appropriate measurements.

I fail to understand why a bolt that continues to behave in an elastic manner needs to be discarded.

I am not too 'cheap' to hear the warning, I just don't understand the issue and the measurements we have made confirm my doubts.

It is interesting that the 993 manual now provides a measurement for the elongation of 3 ring Rod Bolt to quantify it's fitness for purpose.

Flywheel bolts are a similar issue and I can't find anything in the manuals that suggests that these bolts need to be replaced.

Once again if they remain elastic and are undamaged they must be fit for purpose.

There are issues with some of the larger capacity engines using 6 - Bolt 70.4mm stroke cranks.

These engines are not the most torsionally stable engines Porsche produced.

The 2.7 with relatively heavy pistons can become quite 'lively' at high engine speeds and this can cause the flywheel to shuffle and eventually it can work loose.

When this happens it is common practice to blame the bolts but this is generally not the real problem.

The real issue is the mismatch of the inertia of the flywheel and the crank. When the amplitude of the torsional vibration becomes high enough the flywheel tries to stand still and the crank boss moves as the relative forces are greater than the clamp loads can withstand.

When this relative movement occurs it is common to find evidence of fretting on the two faces and this is often accompanied by a brown dust.

There are two possible solutions:

The first is to use a torsional damper on the crank but these are heavy and increase inertia.

There is a UK Company making these devices but the cost is around $1250 each. This component reduces the amplitude of the vibrations.

The second solution is to use stronger flywheel bolts such as a Grade 14.9 or maybe even a 16,9 and increasing the preload to eliminate the shuffling.

The early flywheel bolts used on the 2.0 litre engine were equivalent to Grade 14.9 but later bolts were Grade 12.9.

If there is evidence that the flywheel has been moving I would discard the bolts.

We have never seen a 9 Bolt flywheel suffer from this problem and again we always check and re-use flywheel bolts when re-building standard engines.

For interest ARP High Performance Flywheel bolts are equivalent to Grade 12.9 and the Pro Series are approaching a Grade 14.9 and can be torqued more tightly than the stock fastener.

We are currently looking to make the M12 x 1.25 bolts in a 220 ksi material fro high revving 2.8 liter engines.

Last edited by chris_seven; 09-12-2017 at 03:43 PM..
Old 09-12-2017, 03:34 PM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #13 (permalink)
Chain fence eating turbo
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 7,879
Chris, thank you for your insight with actual data. I've probably been more vocal than others about my head scratching of the "chuck everything" mentality.

I've reused my CV joint bolts many times without issue and I plan on doing the same with the FW bolts.
Old 09-12-2017, 04:15 PM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #14 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 625
Hold the phone a minute, Chris. I am sorry I threw flywheel bolts into the mix, let's focus back on the rod bolts for a minute.

Tippy, you don;t have skin in the game here because you have ARP bolts, and they are designed to be reused.

Chris, I am assuming you are a shop of some sort. I am a parts manufacturer as well. We both have similar considerations, namely, customers.

I logged into my SSF account, and I saw that my wholesale cost on Porsche rod bolts for an SC (I picked SC at random because it is a common car) were $9.90 each.

So in total, the bolts cost me $118.80 for the whole motor, again, wholesale.

You mean to tell me that your shop breaks a motor all the way down to rods coming off, and the $118.80 it would take to replace them per factory recommendations is somehow too much? I am assuming you buy wholesale as well.

My angle is this - I get all your science and compound sentences, honest, I really do, but you're going to tell me that instead of just paying the $120 you're going to throw a bunch of science calculations at the motor and send your customer packing with old rod bolts?

What's your angle here? I am trying to understand how any of this benefits you as an engine builder. It seems to only create liability in the event of a failure.

Oh, and it's not as if Porsche recommends that a lot of it's bolts be trashed - I can only think of a couple that it explicitly states not to reuse, con rod bolts being one of them.

So what gives? Honest question.

Love the info in your posts, just after the business side of this decision is all.
__________________
Current: 1963 356B T6, 1970 914-6 conversion 2.7, 1973 T, 1975 930 Turbo Targa, 1978 928 Race car, 6.57L, 1983 911SC, 2002 911 Targa, 2007 997TT, 2009 997TT, 2004 40th Anniversary Carrera

Only reproduction 3.6 cases on the planet, coming soon www.taorminaracingdesigns.com
Old 09-12-2017, 05:44 PM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #15 (permalink)
Functionista
 
manbridge 74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: CO
Posts: 4,082
Last 2.7 I took the flywheel off of had one bolt break at the head. It was like glass almost it was so work hardened. Who knows if it was properly torqued, was 44 years old or what? Just not worth it. Same with rod bolts for my customers.
__________________
Jeff
74 911, #3
I do not disbelieve in anything. I start from the premise that everything is true until proved false. Everything is possible.
Old 09-12-2017, 07:24 PM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #16 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 625
Thank you^
__________________
Current: 1963 356B T6, 1970 914-6 conversion 2.7, 1973 T, 1975 930 Turbo Targa, 1978 928 Race car, 6.57L, 1983 911SC, 2002 911 Targa, 2007 997TT, 2009 997TT, 2004 40th Anniversary Carrera

Only reproduction 3.6 cases on the planet, coming soon www.taorminaracingdesigns.com
Old 09-12-2017, 07:57 PM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #17 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Robert Espeseth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 67
Have you ever thought about the fact that a used rod bolt has proven it's performance during operation...and a new one hasn't.

When you introduce a new one to your motor, you don't know, but just hope and assume it does not have any kind of defects from the manufacturing process??

I KNOW the chance for defects is minor, but it's there
Old 09-13-2017, 03:56 AM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #18 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 625
By that logic you'd never put any new parts into your motor. Where does the line cross between "proven performance" and "worn out" on an engine component?

As soon as you remove your rod to do new bearings, and unbolt that con rod, you are upon the horns of a dilemma. You can either do math problems, throw a science lecture that talks about bolt stretch and post calculations, or you can pay 9 bucks and put a new bolt in there.

I am being facetious but you catch my drift I bet.
__________________
Current: 1963 356B T6, 1970 914-6 conversion 2.7, 1973 T, 1975 930 Turbo Targa, 1978 928 Race car, 6.57L, 1983 911SC, 2002 911 Targa, 2007 997TT, 2009 997TT, 2004 40th Anniversary Carrera

Only reproduction 3.6 cases on the planet, coming soon www.taorminaracingdesigns.com
Old 09-13-2017, 08:26 AM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #19 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: wisconsin
Posts: 2,213
People contemplate the usage of used parts, simply because the cost of parts is ridiculous. Sure, for 1 part it makes little difference. But multiply by 20 parts, and whooooaaa.

I am refreshing my motor now as other threads attest. And spending $5k is awefully easy. I can see how hitting $10k by the home mechanic can be done. Or 30k at a shop.

Its only money, and we should all enjoy the process .

That's said... I see track ready Porsche 944 turbos for sale for 10k... That's an entire car. Rod bearings, rod bolts, pistons, oil, rings, gaskets sets all included... Not to mention ITS A FULL CAR.

I understand that Porsche parts are low volume, hence the cost. But if you take a deep breath, and look at it logically, the costs are awefully silly for what you get. It is what it is, though.

If one wants to feel better, price out Ferrari parts. For the testarossa, no one makes an oil filter. NO ONE. What was a $40 part (outrageous) is now a $300 part, while supplies last. Try to buy tires. There is one brand/size that fits, and its available whenever a production run is done. Otheriwise, need to get from Europe at $4000 a set.

See...

Feel better
Old 09-13-2017, 08:38 AM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #20 (permalink)
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

 


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:22 PM.


 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2016 Pelican Parts - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page
 

DTO Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.