Premature bearing failure due to pulleys
#27
Out Of Control!!
#28
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,394
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
2015 S212
I'll ask and see what he says. It was a while back on a C55. His reasoning was to get the bigger SC and he said it was the opposite of what you are saying. Which one did Hooley go with?
You almost need to do it on the same or two stock cars to tell the difference. Comparing a C55 with it and your car isn't exactly apples. I thought even you were considering it at one point?
You almost need to do it on the same or two stock cars to tell the difference. Comparing a C55 with it and your car isn't exactly apples. I thought even you were considering it at one point?
#29
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: So Cal
Posts: 2,347
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2006 Weistec 3.0L SC'd C55, 2006 MaxPsi PT6466 Turbo'd M3, 2019 Maserati GTS , 2020Alfa Quadrifoglio
That is a blanket statement that is in the grey zone. As has been asked, why 168 and not 175?
As mentioned, you pay to play. Honestly, I am starting to wonder if a stage 5 should run a 178mm. It may be that we need better cooling. The reason I ask is that there are many EVOsport / RennTech cars that are very fast with 168mm pullies. I am dying to see data from the guys converting from 168mm to the 178mm and see what they think. You listening, Terence?
Last thing, The 55k is 2.3L. At least one car has shown that the AMG SC makes more power than the Kleeman SC. Isn't that what this is really all about?
As mentioned, you pay to play. Honestly, I am starting to wonder if a stage 5 should run a 178mm. It may be that we need better cooling. The reason I ask is that there are many EVOsport / RennTech cars that are very fast with 168mm pullies. I am dying to see data from the guys converting from 168mm to the 178mm and see what they think. You listening, Terence?
Last thing, The 55k is 2.3L. At least one car has shown that the AMG SC makes more power than the Kleeman SC. Isn't that what this is really all about?
Yes, now that I know that the OEM 55k blowers are less expensive and still available as replacements, I'm leaning on selling my Kleemann blower and retrofitting an OEM 55k blower. I agree with you all now. So what if the bearings wear out as long as I can find a replacement blower when that happens.
#30
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: So Cal
Posts: 2,347
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2006 Weistec 3.0L SC'd C55, 2006 MaxPsi PT6466 Turbo'd M3, 2019 Maserati GTS , 2020Alfa Quadrifoglio
I'll ask and see what he says. It was a while back on a C55. His reasoning was to get the bigger SC and he said it was the opposite of what you are saying. Which one did Hooley go with?
You almost need to do it on the same or two stock cars to tell the difference. Comparing a C55 with it and your car isn't exactly apples. I thought even you were considering it at one point?
You almost need to do it on the same or two stock cars to tell the difference. Comparing a C55 with it and your car isn't exactly apples. I thought even you were considering it at one point?
#31
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: So Cal
Posts: 2,347
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2006 Weistec 3.0L SC'd C55, 2006 MaxPsi PT6466 Turbo'd M3, 2019 Maserati GTS , 2020Alfa Quadrifoglio
Confirmation of OEM vs. Kleemann Blower
I asked Cory if I can quote him on this in my PM to him and he said OK....
Sure, I don't see a problem with that. To clarify though, KLEEMANN no longer uses AutoRotor superchargers, as they sold the the rotor profile license for their larger superchargers to Kenne Bell and no longer produce them.
-Cory
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMGSC
Once again. Thanks a bunch!!! Can I quote you on this on mbworld?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory @ Kleemann
Hey Robert-
the 113K engine uses an IHI built 1.8L screw-type supercharger which has a 2:1 step-up ratio inside the SC transmission. KLEEMANN used AutoRotor 2.2L screw kompressors.
Thanks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMGSC
Cory,
Can you confirm which blower has a larger displacement and whether the OEM 55K model that is made by IHI the Autorotor design OR the Lysholm design. I believe the older Kleemann twin-screw was made by Autorotor 2.2 (4 male x 6 female lobes) correct? Or was the Kleemann actually the Lysholm 2.3 (3 male x 5 female lobes).
Thanks again for helping out a loyal customer.
Robert aka "AMGSC"
Sure, I don't see a problem with that. To clarify though, KLEEMANN no longer uses AutoRotor superchargers, as they sold the the rotor profile license for their larger superchargers to Kenne Bell and no longer produce them.
-Cory
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMGSC
Once again. Thanks a bunch!!! Can I quote you on this on mbworld?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory @ Kleemann
Hey Robert-
the 113K engine uses an IHI built 1.8L screw-type supercharger which has a 2:1 step-up ratio inside the SC transmission. KLEEMANN used AutoRotor 2.2L screw kompressors.
Thanks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMGSC
Cory,
Can you confirm which blower has a larger displacement and whether the OEM 55K model that is made by IHI the Autorotor design OR the Lysholm design. I believe the older Kleemann twin-screw was made by Autorotor 2.2 (4 male x 6 female lobes) correct? Or was the Kleemann actually the Lysholm 2.3 (3 male x 5 female lobes).
Thanks again for helping out a loyal customer.
Robert aka "AMGSC"
#32
Former Vendor of MBWorld
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Glendale Arizona
Posts: 3,193
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
C55,SL55,C63
as far as I know...The 2:1 ratio that is being talked about is the ratio between the crank pulley and snout pulley. The stock crank pulley on a 55k SC is 152mm and the snout pulley is 76, half of 152. SO for every rotation the crank makes the SC makes 2 rotations, =2:1 ratio.
As I posted in another thread, that ratio changes when you add a lager crank pulley to the 55k, that ratio changes.
I kind of have a hard time believing if you ripped the rotors out of the AMG SC you couldn't fit 2L of fluid in there.
According to this AMG SC chart below, the displacement of this blower is 2.3L. After some contact with Whipple they think the AMG blower is a 2.3L.
I dont know what other people are running who have similar setups and boost levels, But 11.74 at 119mph in 2550DA tells me this car has some more in the tank if the weather is right.
Needless to say Blackbenzz has better overlapping cams vs's my NA cams. Along with a beefy trans and high-stall converter.
All these factors, cams, trans, much better weather, could be all it takes
As far as I know, without getting way off the topic. some way the cams and the torque converter have a relationship. Every place I called (not to many) wanted to know my cam specs when I was looking for a HSTC.
As I posted in another thread, that ratio changes when you add a lager crank pulley to the 55k, that ratio changes.
I kind of have a hard time believing if you ripped the rotors out of the AMG SC you couldn't fit 2L of fluid in there.
According to this AMG SC chart below, the displacement of this blower is 2.3L. After some contact with Whipple they think the AMG blower is a 2.3L.
I dont know what other people are running who have similar setups and boost levels, But 11.74 at 119mph in 2550DA tells me this car has some more in the tank if the weather is right.
Needless to say Blackbenzz has better overlapping cams vs's my NA cams. Along with a beefy trans and high-stall converter.
All these factors, cams, trans, much better weather, could be all it takes
As far as I know, without getting way off the topic. some way the cams and the torque converter have a relationship. Every place I called (not to many) wanted to know my cam specs when I was looking for a HSTC.
Last edited by hooleyboy; 10-16-2009 at 10:29 PM.
#33
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,394
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
2015 S212
I'm not going to get into this pissing match but too many people here have played with our SC to know.
blackbenzz: I missed a part of your post. You mentioned supperior IC and I give you that. Nobody claims the 55K IC to be very efficient and many of us are working on that. As far as the SC itself, I disagree with the efficiency statement.
To the size debate: It is and always has been a 2.3L. For a member to get information from an SC maker and claim it to be a resolved issue is a bit back to my point of this thread (mostly in TITLE) being "a blanket statement that is in the grey zone."
I'm not digging at Kleeman, but in this thread alone we have the blatant claims (not by Kleeman) that anything above a 168mm is harmful and that the 55K SC is undersized. Now, that doesn't end up looking fishy to members here when we know that Kleeman ONLY sells a 168mm and have their own SC that people of late have been seriously questioning over using one off of a 55k motor?
To the OP: Be less dramatic in your titles. Cory is very knowledgable but anyone's OPINION can be debated.
Add a disclaimer here: I have recently become a Kleeman fan (since i see them in more MB development) so this is not to hate on the company but to STOP the rumors that MB owners are continuing to spread. The days of lore selling stuff was done long ago.
blackbenzz: I missed a part of your post. You mentioned supperior IC and I give you that. Nobody claims the 55K IC to be very efficient and many of us are working on that. As far as the SC itself, I disagree with the efficiency statement.
To the size debate: It is and always has been a 2.3L. For a member to get information from an SC maker and claim it to be a resolved issue is a bit back to my point of this thread (mostly in TITLE) being "a blanket statement that is in the grey zone."
I'm not digging at Kleeman, but in this thread alone we have the blatant claims (not by Kleeman) that anything above a 168mm is harmful and that the 55K SC is undersized. Now, that doesn't end up looking fishy to members here when we know that Kleeman ONLY sells a 168mm and have their own SC that people of late have been seriously questioning over using one off of a 55k motor?
To the OP: Be less dramatic in your titles. Cory is very knowledgable but anyone's OPINION can be debated.
Add a disclaimer here: I have recently become a Kleeman fan (since i see them in more MB development) so this is not to hate on the company but to STOP the rumors that MB owners are continuing to spread. The days of lore selling stuff was done long ago.
#34
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: So Cal
Posts: 2,347
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2006 Weistec 3.0L SC'd C55, 2006 MaxPsi PT6466 Turbo'd M3, 2019 Maserati GTS , 2020Alfa Quadrifoglio
I'm not going to get into this pissing match but too many people here have played with our SC to know.
blackbenzz: I missed a part of your post. You mentioned supperior IC and I give you that. Nobody claims the 55K IC to be very efficient and many of us are working on that. As far as the SC itself, I disagree with the efficiency statement.
To the size debate: It is and always has been a 2.3L. For a member to get information from an SC maker and claim it to be a resolved issue is a bit back to my point of this thread (mostly in TITLE) being "a blanket statement that is in the grey zone."
I'm not digging at Kleeman, but in this thread alone we have the blatant claims (not by Kleeman) that anything above a 168mm is harmful and that the 55K SC is undersized. Now, that doesn't end up looking fishy to members here when we know that Kleeman ONLY sells a 168mm and have their own SC that people of late have been seriously questioning over using one off of a 55k motor?
To the OP: Be less dramatic in your titles. Cory is very knowledgable but anyone's OPINION can be debated.
Add a disclaimer here: I have recently become a Kleeman fan (since i see them in more MB development) so this is not to hate on the company but to STOP the rumors that MB owners are continuing to spread. The days of lore selling stuff was done long ago.
blackbenzz: I missed a part of your post. You mentioned supperior IC and I give you that. Nobody claims the 55K IC to be very efficient and many of us are working on that. As far as the SC itself, I disagree with the efficiency statement.
To the size debate: It is and always has been a 2.3L. For a member to get information from an SC maker and claim it to be a resolved issue is a bit back to my point of this thread (mostly in TITLE) being "a blanket statement that is in the grey zone."
I'm not digging at Kleeman, but in this thread alone we have the blatant claims (not by Kleeman) that anything above a 168mm is harmful and that the 55K SC is undersized. Now, that doesn't end up looking fishy to members here when we know that Kleeman ONLY sells a 168mm and have their own SC that people of late have been seriously questioning over using one off of a 55k motor?
To the OP: Be less dramatic in your titles. Cory is very knowledgable but anyone's OPINION can be debated.
Add a disclaimer here: I have recently become a Kleeman fan (since i see them in more MB development) so this is not to hate on the company but to STOP the rumors that MB owners are continuing to spread. The days of lore selling stuff was done long ago.
And YES Cory said those exact words. As I said call him yourself if you think I'm lying. This ain't rumor. Check the thread that Marcus started that suggests the same thing. Premature SC wear using supersized pullies.
I'm not hating the OEM blower because I just bought one myself brand new. I just need to be absolutely sure I'm choosing the right one to install AND how much boost I can get away with. The other one will sit in my garage as a backup.
btw...Do you think it that Kleemann does not know how to make a pulley larger than 168mm? They CHOOSE NOT to for a reason but I don't think that reason is their lack of capability of simply enlarging the diameter.
Last edited by AMGSC; 10-17-2009 at 02:26 AM.
#35
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: So Cal
Posts: 2,347
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2006 Weistec 3.0L SC'd C55, 2006 MaxPsi PT6466 Turbo'd M3, 2019 Maserati GTS , 2020Alfa Quadrifoglio
as far as I know...The 2:1 ratio that is being talked about is the ratio between the crank pulley and snout pulley. The stock crank pulley on a 55k SC is 152mm and the snout pulley is 76, half of 152. SO for every rotation the crank makes the SC makes 2 rotations, =2:1 ratio.
As I posted in another thread, that ratio changes when you add a lager crank pulley to the 55k, that ratio changes.
I kind of have a hard time believing if you ripped the rotors out of the AMG SC you couldn't fit 2L of fluid in there.
According to this AMG SC chart below, the displacement of this blower is 2.3L. After some contact with Whipple they think the AMG blower is a 2.3L.
I dont know what other people are running who have similar setups and boost levels, But 11.74 at 119mph in 2550DA tells me this car has some more in the tank if the weather is right.
Needless to say Blackbenzz has better overlapping cams vs's my NA cams. Along with a beefy trans and high-stall converter.
All these factors, cams, trans, much better weather, could be all it takes
As far as I know, without getting way off the topic. some way the cams and the torque converter have a relationship. Every place I called (not to many) wanted to know my cam specs when I was looking for a HSTC.
As I posted in another thread, that ratio changes when you add a lager crank pulley to the 55k, that ratio changes.
I kind of have a hard time believing if you ripped the rotors out of the AMG SC you couldn't fit 2L of fluid in there.
According to this AMG SC chart below, the displacement of this blower is 2.3L. After some contact with Whipple they think the AMG blower is a 2.3L.
I dont know what other people are running who have similar setups and boost levels, But 11.74 at 119mph in 2550DA tells me this car has some more in the tank if the weather is right.
Needless to say Blackbenzz has better overlapping cams vs's my NA cams. Along with a beefy trans and high-stall converter.
All these factors, cams, trans, much better weather, could be all it takes
As far as I know, without getting way off the topic. some way the cams and the torque converter have a relationship. Every place I called (not to many) wanted to know my cam specs when I was looking for a HSTC.
Last edited by AMGSC; 10-17-2009 at 02:28 AM.
#36
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,394
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
2015 S212
Can you please call Cory since he must be pulling my chain because I've asked him at least a half dozen times? Last time I checked they make stuff for OEM 55K cars so they should know the displacement of the factory blower but it seems everybody else disagrees including Vadim.
I understand your frustration and I am not saying you made it up. Just plkease don't assume it to be the word of god. I have nothing to speak to Corey about. If I were curious about an AMG part, i would contact MB.
And YES Cory said those exact words. As I said call him yourself if you think I'm lying. This ain't rumor. Check the thread that Marcus started that suggests the same thing. Premature SC wear using supersized pullies.
Again, I am not pointing fingers. Suggesting something and starting a thread that says it as fact is two different things.
I'm not hating the OEM blower because I just bought one myself brand new. I just need to be absolutely sure I'm choosing the right one to install AND how much boost I can get away with. The other one will sit in my garage as a backup.
Advise: You will never be absolutely sure when it comes to modding, especially if you are doing anything that has not been figured out yet.
btw...Do you think it that Kleemann does not know how to make a pulley larger than 168mm? They CHOOSE NOT to for a reason but I don't think that reason is their lack of capability of simply enlarging the diameter.
I understand your frustration and I am not saying you made it up. Just plkease don't assume it to be the word of god. I have nothing to speak to Corey about. If I were curious about an AMG part, i would contact MB.
And YES Cory said those exact words. As I said call him yourself if you think I'm lying. This ain't rumor. Check the thread that Marcus started that suggests the same thing. Premature SC wear using supersized pullies.
Again, I am not pointing fingers. Suggesting something and starting a thread that says it as fact is two different things.
I'm not hating the OEM blower because I just bought one myself brand new. I just need to be absolutely sure I'm choosing the right one to install AND how much boost I can get away with. The other one will sit in my garage as a backup.
Advise: You will never be absolutely sure when it comes to modding, especially if you are doing anything that has not been figured out yet.
btw...Do you think it that Kleemann does not know how to make a pulley larger than 168mm? They CHOOSE NOT to for a reason but I don't think that reason is their lack of capability of simply enlarging the diameter.
You are missing much of my point. I am one of the ones that is questioning the efficacy of the 178mm on my setup and am wanting to see what the difference is by going to a smaller one. BUT, I am not doing this because i feel my bearings are strained and it isn't fair for you to start a thread that implies such.
The bearings are NOT getting w0rn out as evidenced by all the miles that we have put on the 178mm pulleys. Even the ones that are wearing out of normal use are being repaired CHEAP, so what is your point?
#38
Super Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Surprise, AZ
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 Crossfire SRT6
I did'nt know that cams, beefier tranny and torque converter can make a full second difference but I'm glad I got all those installed recently. What about your custom long tubes? That should give you an edge correct? btw...I'm buying a set from you once I sell my Kleemanns
#39
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
scion IQ(five axis), smart fortwo crossblade, austin rover mini
supercharger oil and bearings???
there generally seems to be some sort of failures on these AMG superchargers regardless if one installs after market pulleys or not. WOW, its amazing to know how many people don't know AMG supercharger's have replaceable oil.
https://mbworld.org/forums/s55-amg-s...arger-oil.html (and other sites as well)
Mobil came out with a 3rd generation oil for the replacement of the Mobil jet oil II and a 4th generation is in the line up.
on the Mobil jet oil 254 (3rd Gen.) the thermal properties has been increased with less thermal breakdowns for higher rpm bearing temps/high temp gears.
so it is possible to have zero failures on these pulley system(and AMG superchargers) with bearing upgrades and/or proper aviation oil change in these AMG superchargers. The more these AMG superchargers are used for track/drag purposes the sooner or earlier for supercharger oil changes. For those who have never seen a supercharger oil change between 5-10 years; look at the gunk that comes out--that is if your supercharger hasn't already failed! (when the car is tilted or with the supercharger removed the gunk can be seen oozing).
So there is nothing wrong using a 185 pulley kit but, however, with a pulley safety kit to slow and sync the entire pulley system(as a safety net)--and with a upgraded idler 100mm from a 60mm. it seems to work quite well on mine. But i never use my AMG on the track or drag strips. I only use it as a pleasure vehicle and for quick passing on the highways. (my AMG r170.2 was not designed for track purposes).
https://mbworld.org/forums/s55-amg-s...arger-oil.html (and other sites as well)
Mobil came out with a 3rd generation oil for the replacement of the Mobil jet oil II and a 4th generation is in the line up.
on the Mobil jet oil 254 (3rd Gen.) the thermal properties has been increased with less thermal breakdowns for higher rpm bearing temps/high temp gears.
so it is possible to have zero failures on these pulley system(and AMG superchargers) with bearing upgrades and/or proper aviation oil change in these AMG superchargers. The more these AMG superchargers are used for track/drag purposes the sooner or earlier for supercharger oil changes. For those who have never seen a supercharger oil change between 5-10 years; look at the gunk that comes out--that is if your supercharger hasn't already failed! (when the car is tilted or with the supercharger removed the gunk can be seen oozing).
So there is nothing wrong using a 185 pulley kit but, however, with a pulley safety kit to slow and sync the entire pulley system(as a safety net)--and with a upgraded idler 100mm from a 60mm. it seems to work quite well on mine. But i never use my AMG on the track or drag strips. I only use it as a pleasure vehicle and for quick passing on the highways. (my AMG r170.2 was not designed for track purposes).
If you asked the engineers at AMG, they would say any pulley size larger than 154mm leads to premature failure. And they should know: they designed the engine! If the 168mm pulley was perfectly safe, they'd have used it instead of the 154mm.
Bottom line: if you want the longest lived supercharger possible, stick with the AMG pulley. A larger pulley will necessarily shorten the supercharger life. The larger the pulley, the shorter the life.
Bottom line: if you want the longest lived supercharger possible, stick with the AMG pulley. A larger pulley will necessarily shorten the supercharger life. The larger the pulley, the shorter the life.
That's understandable. No doubt there are MB white papers on tolerances with all their components.
fwiw, here's a PSE rebuilder, and looks like they use better bearings(?) Seems like if they can replace bearings, somebody else should be able to.
http://www.superchargersonline.com/p...SE-MBZ-AMG-E55
Still kinda pricey, but a lot less than OEM.
fwiw, here's a PSE rebuilder, and looks like they use better bearings(?) Seems like if they can replace bearings, somebody else should be able to.
http://www.superchargersonline.com/p...SE-MBZ-AMG-E55
Still kinda pricey, but a lot less than OEM.
Last edited by ttus; 06-22-2011 at 02:58 AM.
#40
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
scion IQ(five axis), smart fortwo crossblade, austin rover mini
morever, also, one can get a metal oil check analysis for metal wear and truly see if there is thermal breakdown due to metallurgical heat or wear or whatnot by aviation laboratories: http://www.skygeek.com/ga-001.html
(heat is the number one enemy in modified vehicles). And to find each and every point of the heat weakness in a modified vehicle is a challenge and when in conjunction with a modified ECU. i am not talking about just IC and the likes. it takes more knowledge than just simply thinking a increased intercooler will suffice in heat soaks.(aerodynamics is key).
Bring in the electrical engineers, mechanical engineers and computer science engineers(these folks can almost about do anything) and see them work in a team.
hint: in a modified intel or AMD computer; the number one goal is overclocking the CPU to the extremes! And this even applies to the graphic cards and hard disks, amd memory chips. You should see some of the massive coolers and coolants(liquid and freon) used when overclocking a x86 or x64 CPU. the bulk of the systems in a pc or server system is the cooling system which is dialed to the precise and accurate single digit temperature when overclocked!
we due know that the 2 most fundamentally important factors in reducing race times is or are: 1)the limited diff and 2)gear ratios. these 2 items alone can create between 1-2 second times in the 0-62 and 1/4 miles times. the Force feeding is the easy part.
take hennessey performance for example; they literally have to create almost 1000hp to knock off 1/2 second. unless the car is super-lite; like the lotus exige in which they modified does bugatti veyron times.
(heat is the number one enemy in modified vehicles). And to find each and every point of the heat weakness in a modified vehicle is a challenge and when in conjunction with a modified ECU. i am not talking about just IC and the likes. it takes more knowledge than just simply thinking a increased intercooler will suffice in heat soaks.(aerodynamics is key).
Bring in the electrical engineers, mechanical engineers and computer science engineers(these folks can almost about do anything) and see them work in a team.
hint: in a modified intel or AMD computer; the number one goal is overclocking the CPU to the extremes! And this even applies to the graphic cards and hard disks, amd memory chips. You should see some of the massive coolers and coolants(liquid and freon) used when overclocking a x86 or x64 CPU. the bulk of the systems in a pc or server system is the cooling system which is dialed to the precise and accurate single digit temperature when overclocked!
we due know that the 2 most fundamentally important factors in reducing race times is or are: 1)the limited diff and 2)gear ratios. these 2 items alone can create between 1-2 second times in the 0-62 and 1/4 miles times. the Force feeding is the easy part.
take hennessey performance for example; they literally have to create almost 1000hp to knock off 1/2 second. unless the car is super-lite; like the lotus exige in which they modified does bugatti veyron times.
Last edited by ttus; 06-22-2011 at 03:28 AM.
#42
MBWorld Fanatic!
#44
MBWorld Fanatic!
id like to introduce you to Strigoi, I just said that because he says that when someone brings up an old thread 😂