Automotive Air Conditioning Information Forum (Archives)

Provided by www.ACkits.com

We've updated our forums!
Click here to visit the new forum

Archive Home

Search Auto AC Forum Archives

Now R134 is bad for global warming? Pages: 12Last

phibbs on Tue August 22, 2006 10:03 AM User is offline

Today's news (Aug 22, 2006) says since R134 is so inefficient, that the overall effect of running it causes MORE global warming (helps the ozone layer but hurts global warming). You gotta run the motors that push the pumps longer to get the same cooling. Motors use fuel - that creates more CO2 in the air. Now is the AC industry going to stick us (again) for changing everything to a new refrigerant? What is your expert opinion on this mess?

phibbs on Tue August 22, 2006 1:04 PM User is offline

Here are some links from today's news:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209520,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Ozone-Global-Warming.html

NickD on Tue August 22, 2006 5:13 PM User is offline

"But they had little idea that using other gases that contain chlorine or fluorine instead also would contribute greatly to global warming."

This is pure unadulterated BS, it was known from the start that HFC's had over 1000 times the global warming potential as CO2, from the very start the EPA required technicians to recover it. And again, ha, recover what? Since the advent of R-134a, a new cheapness of MVAC systems appeared that poured out R-134a quicker than you can pour it back in again. That R-134a port is about the sickest design anyone could come with it, OE's like it, slap on a couple, charge it and go the the next one.

Now HFC's is appearing and has been appearing in aerosol cans, but you don't have to recover that. Go figure.

Fox is only 17 years too late with this story, but suspect that someone at DuPont teed them off, so they are going to make an issue out of it. I don't even brother with Fox anymore, get more reliable and interesting news from my neighbor.

iceman2555 on Tue August 22, 2006 6:59 PM User is offlineView users profile

Suppose they have to write about something......!!
I must have missed something along the many years of mindless freon 'sniffin'......when was it PROVED that R12 and other chlorine based chemicals actually did harm the ozone layer. Seems the last I remember it was still a simple 'theory' that had been accepted as fact by...well...by those 'tree huggin' liberals'.....!!! Still would like to know when it was actually proven. It was simply a theory based on a study by Moline and Rowland. Never have seen the actual proof. Perhaps it was missed during one of those 'gray' moments.

-------------------------
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson

JJM on Tue August 22, 2006 7:02 PM User is offline

My expert opinion, and it IS indeed EXPERT since I am right far more than any environmental groups. Granted, the bar isn't that high, since environmental groups have the unique distinction of being the most consistently wrong, so even if I were right only once I would have these groups beat by a huge margin. Fact is, there is no global warming -- at least not in the way that the pop culture defines it (being man made/caused).

The sun is the only thing that can heat our planet, and since the sun IS burning out, we should welcome global warming. Unless the Earth comes off its axis and finds another orbit around a hotter star, we really don't need to be concerned with "global warming". Add to that the fact that for the last 800,000 years, the Earth has gone through a number of recurring Ice Ages lasting roughly 10,000 years each. The last Ice Age was 10,500 years ago, so we're about 500 years overdue now for another one and therefore we should be greatful for any "global warming" we might be getting.

Worst part of this whole "global warming scare is simple SCIENCE -- like basic temperature readings -- just doesn't bear it out. Look at the chart I've complied below:

LOWEST temperatures EVER were recorded:

-69F / Peter's Sink, - Feb. 1, 1985 Peter's Sink
-61F / Maybell, Colorado – Feb. 1, 1985
-60F / Tower, Minnesota - Feb. 2, 1996
-55F / Couderay, Wisconsin – Feb. 4, 1996
-47F / Elkader Iowa – Feb. 3, 1996
-37F / Shelbyville, Kentucky - Jan. 19, 1994
-36F / Congerville, Illinois - Jan. 5, 1999
-36F / Whiteplan, Indiana - Jan. 19, 1994
-34F / Mt. Mitchell, North Carolina - Jan. 21, 1985
-30F / Mountain Lake, Virginia - Jan. 22, 1985

And the coldest temperature ever recorded in the entire world:

-129 / Vostock, Antartica - July 21, 1983


And look at when some of the HIGHEST temperatures ever were recorded:

134F / Death Valley, California - July 10, 1913.
100F / Fort Yukon, Alaska -- yes ALASKA -- June 27, 1915.
121F / Steele on July 6, 1936.

HIGHEST temperature EVER recorded in the world was:

136F / El Azizia, Libya - September 13, 1922

So how many people were driving SUV's and using air conditioners between 1913 thru 1936?

If global warming was a reality shouldn't the equation be reversed, in other words the hottest temperatures now and the coldest temperatures 70, 80, 90 years ago?

Bottom line is use whatever refrigerant works for you and don't concern yourself with things that have absolutely no effect on the Earth. The Earth will survive us all.

Joe

k5guy on Tue August 22, 2006 7:09 PM User is offline

Actually NASA did a lot of flights over the Antartica in the 90s and documented where the ozone holes were at the time. Something about spending lots of money and collecting a lot of data to support the theory moves it beyond a thoery and into a conclusion. Where I find the most fault is to go from "we have holes" to the cause being attributed to refrigerant release. For all we know, it could end up being caused by whale farts. Proving causation is quite hard, and may never be proved.

-------------------------


Send me e-mail

NickD on Tue August 22, 2006 7:44 PM User is offline

NASA did come out with report about 5-6 regarding the size of the ozone hole over the south pole, their conclusion was the size of the hole was determined chiefly by air currents.

Discovery Science is reshowing that Tom Brokaw or whatever his name is series on global warming interviewing "scientist", namely one all about global warming, certainly a very biased view. They never mentioned sun spot activity that is at an all time high, but the program was designed to scare the hell out of us.

Chick on Tue August 22, 2006 8:16 PM User is offlineView users profile

What about the penguins....SmileyCentral.com

-------------------------
Chick
Email: Chick

---------------------------------------------

Freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose

rbinc on Tue August 22, 2006 8:19 PM User is offline

I dont know. Agree that the EPA is not consistent, but with R-12, I remember the days we would pull a Schrader and walk away without a care in the world until it was done spewing, when it was KNOWN that it was O3 depleting.

R-134 was known from the outset to be a contributor to global warming. Not an O3 hazard, but retained in the atmosphere and contributing to GW.

If I can do my small part to reduce damage to my grandkids environment, why not? Can't control irresponsibility of others (or the EPA).

Customer pays regardless, do they not? Why the fuss?

Cheers

iceman2555 on Tue August 22, 2006 8:23 PM User is offlineView users profile

Understand the NASA thing....contacted NASA several years ago and was furnished with reams of information. Seems this increase and decrease of the ozone area over BOTH poles is a constant changing event. Since NASA has been keeping records, there has been a constant change in the size of the 'hole'.
Still have not seen any concrete evidence to support this 'theory'.
Also since many of the 'third' world countries were not signers of the Montreal agreement, there still seems to be sufficient quantities of R12 being used....and no it is not for auto A/C....much is used for food preservation. Our neighbor to the south, still uses large quantities of 12. Makes one wonder.....????
But then we are in the region of reopening the 'conspiracy' theories.....do not want to go there....just would like to see the proof that the newspaper speak of......guess that will come when they release the JFK files......yeah right....!!!!

-------------------------
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson

rbinc on Tue August 22, 2006 9:31 PM User is offline

Quote
Still have not seen any concrete evidence to support this 'theory'.
Also since many of the 'third' world countries were not signers of the Montreal agreement, there still seems to be sufficient quantities of R12 being used....and no it is not for auto A/C....much is used for food preservation. Our neighbor to the south, still uses large quantities of 12. Makes one wonder.....????

Again, since we are paid fees by our customers that reflect our cost of doing business in order to adhere to these rules, what is the issue?

Are we advocating that customers should be allowed to vent refrigerants 100 times until they find the source of their leak?

Customers accept the cost of servicing their autos. My Vag-Com is paid for many times over. Why not be on the safe side of the equation and do what we can to preserve the environment? What is lost if we do and are wrong? Your livelihood and your children's? Not at all.

Regards

CorvairGeek on Tue August 22, 2006 9:43 PM User is offline

I think the issue that bothers most of us is - Honesty -

Whether you make money or not has nothing to do with it. Scaring people and making the least financially fortunate folks suffer because some pointy headed people had a thesis or dissertation is wrong.

-------------------------
Jerry

rbinc on Tue August 22, 2006 10:04 PM User is offline

Quote
I think the issue that bothers most of us is - Honesty -

Whether you make money or not has nothing to do with it. Scaring people and making the least financially fortunate folks suffer because some pointy headed people had a thesis or dissertation is wrong.

I'm not talking about making money. I'm saying that we, as professionals, are stuck with adhering with the laws that we have. The honesty of global warming remains to be seen. If true, it's the "end of the world as we know it" If not, what was lost? Nothing.

It is indeed a travesty that a single mother of five in Oakland, CA loses her car to transport her children because she cannot afford $1500 to get it smog compliant. But that would be an issue to raise with CA politicians and the CARB. Not the technician.

I'm saying that we are stuck with these rules. And if they save the environment, have we not done the right thing? If it was all a hoax, was anymore lost by the downtrodden due to A/C laws than the million other ways that they were raped?

Regards

iceman2555 on Tue August 22, 2006 10:22 PM User is offlineView users profile

"Are we advocating that customers should be allowed to vent refrigerants 100 times until they find the source of their leak? "
Yet this happens each day.....only the technician and shops are required to recover refrigerant....yeah...it is known what the EPA regs state....yet....while 134a is being sold to the un licensed public......wholesale venting is occurring.

This and the EPA regs on 12 do not bother me.....it is a part of business. It is as corvairgeek states...it is the misconception of the entire package that bothers. Seems Americans are so easy to 'convince' that this is right or this is wrong.

And never in the old days did we ever 'pull a schrader' and walk away.......the pressure differential blows too much oil out and all over everything.....vented it...yes....but never pulled the valve.


-------------------------
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson

JJM on Tue August 22, 2006 10:46 PM User is offline

Ok RB, your attitude seems to be f_ck 'em, let 'em pay... after all, if it saves the Earth... Let's see how true you really are...

Say the pointy-headed elites of academia -- who never worked or produced anything in their lives other than excrement -- decide current methods of refrigerant recovery are woefully inadequate, and lobby their cohorts in the UN for new rules. The new rules are shops who perform MVAC work do so in a completely sealed "clean room" type of environment, because even the most miniscule escape of refrigerant will result in environmental armageddon. After all, "why not be on the safe side of the equation and do what we can to preserve the environment?"

The costs of the just the equipment alone amounts to $60,000, plus at least another $40,000 in construction costs for the building. Of course, such major construction will necessitate bringing the building up to current code, and since your building happens to be old, that will cost another $75,000. Being the good steward of the Earth you are, you mortgage your house and put up the $175,000 to comply. Customer pays anyway, right? And your rates are more than enough to cover that, right?

As they break the floor to put in the extensive ventilation equipment, they discover the soil is contaminated, likely from the lube shop that operated the building before you. Now a Phase I and II environmental report is required, another $12,000. The environmental reports show significant soil contamination, and you get estimates from three environmental remediation companies. Cheapest one is $950,000, since the contamination spread to adjoining properties.

EPA has now been contacted, and demands you must clean up the mess (previous owners fled to Pakistan). You don't have over a million dollars, so you are forced to sell all your assets, business, home, car, retirement accounts. But hey, what was lost? Nothing, right? Would your homeless family see it the same way.

And don't say this is impossible. I bet that's what many of the techs and shop owners said in the 1970's and 1980's when the heard that Freon had to be recovered and the equipment would cost several thousand dollars.

Joe

k5guy on Tue August 22, 2006 10:47 PM User is offline

"It is indeed a travesty that a single mother of five in Oakland, CA loses her car to transport her children because she cannot afford $1500 to get it smog compliant. But that would be an issue to raise with CA politicians and the CARB. Not the technician. "

This is the same story, different day. It is still sad, but those with the gold, they make the rules. The MPAA (Disney, WB and friends) and RIAA (Sony, Arista, Atlantic, et al) have enough money and influence to buy congress for thier own ends. So what did thier money buy?

For the MPAA, they bought the Mickey Mouse Protection act, aka The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998. The original intent of the copyright was to allow creators (artists, not media companies) to get paid for their efforts. For this right to payment, the public would inheirit the works into the public domain. Well, with the passing of this act, no artwork will enter the public domain until 2019, and under some conditions, until 2047.

Not satisfied, they bought draconian Digital Millennium Copyright Act which makes it illegal to circumvent any copyright systems, which for the MPAA, was the DVD region coding system. The lawyers thought it was just bringing copyrights into the digital age. What it really does it prevent reverse engineering, libraries from functioning in the digital arena, and opens litigation for thousands of lawyers. The litigation is so ridiculous that Lexmark sued a ink cartridge reseller (sells refilled cartridges) under this act. How the heck do you copyright a ink cartridge?

The RIAA has taken the battle to the public, by calling fair use (a right granted by the supreme court) and labelling it piracy. Now they are suing thousand of people like you, just for sharing music. I recall days in my youth by the campfire singing songs, and no music executive there demanding that we pay royalties. Well those days are gone. See How To Not Get Sued for File Sharing.

The latest in the combined effort of the MPAA and the RIAA is the Broadcast flag. They want Congress to require the use of a digital flag to block you from seeing programming you haven't paid for (and maybe to prevent you from blocking broadcasting that you might want to miss.....ummm....like commercials, perhaps?) Once again, they want to eliminate the fair use of programming that you now record with a VCR or Tivo, like time-shifting.

Get some gold. Make the rules. It's the American way.


-------------------------


Send me e-mail

Edited: Tue August 22, 2006 at 10:48 PM by k5guy

JJM on Tue August 22, 2006 11:31 PM User is offline

You see, I have a real problem with forcing a couple on fixed income to pay $1,200 to retrofit their vehicle to a refrigerant which also supposedly causes environmental problems, when they could've recharged their system with a few dollars of R-12. Everyone wails about poverty, and not enough money for this and that... well look at billions of dollars wasted on retrofitting which could have been used for something more productive.

The "let 'em pay" attitude is also behind the high price of energy many are suffering under today. There is absolutely no reason why families need to struggle paying for energy because a bunch of ignorant fools who believe they know better are preventing us from drilling, refining... in short production. Again, I think all this money we're spending to enrich people who want to kill us would be better spent here. The US is the 3rd largest energy producing nation in the world, and there's no reason whatsoever we can't be the first, and perhaps even a net exporter.

Lower energy prices would be better for the "children" as would a world where energy dollars aren't going to nations that hate us. But what the heck, energy is just another "cost" and we have to abide by it.

Joe

rbinc on Tue August 22, 2006 11:52 PM User is offline

Don't hammer on me; change the rules, by any means you can. Call your representatives and senators.

Until the rules are changed, we are stuck with them.

You seem to be berating me for my opinion that, if GW is a possibility, it is realistic to do our individual parts to lessen such a possibility??

I would argue that I am doing my part. When I am dead, my efforts could have been in vain, who knows? Do you?

Until then, again, my customers pay. Yes, many people vent (in more than one way), but this is beyond my control. But they pay at the pump, the smog station, the dealer, the DMV and at my shop. You want to fight for the little guy? Start campaigning in your state.

Thought this was a professional A/C board? Are we abiding by professional A/C standards and laws or not?

Regards

rbinc on Wed August 23, 2006 12:03 AM User is offline

Quote
And never in the old days did we ever 'pull a schrader' and walk away.......the pressure differential blows too much oil out and all over everything.....vented it...yes....but never pulled the valve.

Sure we did. Put a rag over it as we pulled it. If you didn't, you were not working on A/C in the eighties. Vacuum pump, thermometers, manifold and a can tap was all we had.

But doesn't matter; did you recover R-12 in the eighties at all?

Cheers

TRB on Wed August 23, 2006 12:31 AM User is offlineView users profile

Here is my take, the laws put in place are only being followed by a few. R12 should have never been banned! All the EPA did was mandate a new refrigerant and then poorly enforced the rules, which they passed. I know the EPA just sets the rules and were not intended to enforce them. Well they should have added that part when deciding the rules to begin with.

Now I don't buy the $ 1200.00 conversion is taking advantage of a customer. Our shop has always offered both R12 and R-134a. Quotes are provided for both refrigerants for vehicles originally equipped with R12. Taking advantage of a customer in my opinion. Is the people that offer these sealers or other magic in a can products. They play on the individual which does not have the money to do a proper repair. But after the sealer has failed and everything is clogged up where is that snake of a sales rep then?

Yes we in the industry should fellow all the rules set in front of us. It is our trade and we selected it. So let's do it correctly. Should we write the powers that be, absolutely! But I also understand where Joe is coming from and agree there is a greenish standard which is way out of control.

-------------------------

When considering your next auto A/C purchase, please consider the site that supports you: ACkits.com
Contact: ACKits.com


Edited: Wed August 23, 2006 at 12:32 AM by TRB

graeme on Wed August 23, 2006 12:35 AM User is offline

Quote
Originally posted by: JJM
My expert opinion, and it IS indeed EXPERT since I am right far more than any environmental groups. Granted, the bar isn't that high, since environmental groups have the unique distinction of being the most consistently wrong, so even if I were right only once I would have these groups beat by a huge margin. Fact is, there is no global warming -- at least not in the way that the pop culture defines it (being man made/caused).



The sun is the only thing that can heat our planet, and since the sun IS burning out, we should welcome global warming. Unless the Earth comes off its axis and finds another orbit around a hotter star, we really don't need to be concerned with "global warming". Add to that the fact that for the last 800,000 years, the Earth has gone through a number of recurring Ice Ages lasting roughly 10,000 years each. The last Ice Age was 10,500 years ago, so we're about 500 years overdue now for another one and therefore we should be greatful for any "global warming" we might be getting.



Worst part of this whole "global warming scare is simple SCIENCE -- like basic temperature readings -- just doesn't bear it out. Look at the chart I've complied below:



LOWEST temperatures EVER were recorded:



-69F / Peter's Sink, - Feb. 1, 1985 Peter's Sink

-61F / Maybell, Colorado – Feb. 1, 1985

-60F / Tower, Minnesota - Feb. 2, 1996

-55F / Couderay, Wisconsin – Feb. 4, 1996

-47F / Elkader Iowa – Feb. 3, 1996

-37F / Shelbyville, Kentucky - Jan. 19, 1994

-36F / Congerville, Illinois - Jan. 5, 1999

-36F / Whiteplan, Indiana - Jan. 19, 1994

-34F / Mt. Mitchell, North Carolina - Jan. 21, 1985

-30F / Mountain Lake, Virginia - Jan. 22, 1985



And the coldest temperature ever recorded in the entire world:



-129 / Vostock, Antartica - July 21, 1983





And look at when some of the HIGHEST temperatures ever were recorded:



134F / Death Valley, California - July 10, 1913.

100F / Fort Yukon, Alaska -- yes ALASKA -- June 27, 1915.

121F / Steele on July 6, 1936.



HIGHEST temperature EVER recorded in the world was:



136F / El Azizia, Libya - September 13, 1922



So how many people were driving SUV's and using air conditioners between 1913 thru 1936?



If global warming was a reality shouldn't the equation be reversed, in other words the hottest temperatures now and the coldest temperatures 70, 80, 90 years ago?



Bottom line is use whatever refrigerant works for you and don't concern yourself with things that have absolutely no effect on the Earth. The Earth will survive us all.



Joe
Here we go again, that waffle above is like some year 8 student participating in a school debate for the negative, quoting max and min temperatures.....thats basically meaningless, the average temp of the planet is increasing and most places where accurate records are kept show exactly that. The ice caps arent breaking up because its getting colder!

tgore3 on Wed August 23, 2006 12:37 AM User is offline

I read that story as well and was going to post on here the other day. I found it interesting. I use to do residential HVAC work many years ago. We'd just vent whole house systems to change out a compressor, unit, etc.. like it was nothing, it was just common practice. Times sure have changed. I don't think the laws are helping anything, they quite possibly could be making things worse, as laws sometimes do. The switching to 134a seemed like a rush "find something to blame it on quick" decision that the government tends to do quite frequently. It is harder on people who have to drive older cars and deserve ac just like the better off folks. At least I'm fortunate enough to have enough mechanical experience to learn and do my own work. (and to have you guys great advice)

I'm not saying I know what the ozone or global warming problem is. I just feel like the actions that were taken weren't based on facts and are causing other concerns, like the article suggests, and some we might not even know about. I'm sure it has helped ac shops and companies that make ac equipment monitarily. The vibe I get here is most of you professionals aren't real glad to be having to charge these amounts to folks. I'm sure there was initial costs for all of you but that has been made up for. I'm quite sure there's plenty of ac shops that are very happy because these laws are making them more money.

I've read convincing articles about how bad R12 is and just as many on how it's not. There's lots of bad things said about 134a as well. It's like one day they say milk is good for you, then the next day it causes cancer, then the next day it's good for you again. Who knows what to believe anymore. I think they should've changed some laws, I agree with the certification laws they have. Problem is, how they did it just caused lots of other problems...Like people with older cars trying to do thier own ac work because R12 became so high, coverting is expensive, etc... It's created the whole R12 black market and things like that. There might be even more freon venting now compared to before the laws. It's just how I look at it, you guys are way more in the know than I am. I'm just throwing in my non-professional thoughts on the matter.

NickD on Wed August 23, 2006 8:51 AM User is offline

I just find posts like, I am goodie two shoes, I recovered two ounces of R-134a amusing when the question was never asked, what happened to the other three pounds of refrigerant? Of course that other refrigerant is in the air, so what about that putting refrigerants into the atmosphere? Aren't there regulations against that as well?

Doesn't take a mathematical genius to figure out that the vast amount of refrigerant emissions put into the atmosphere are caused by the major manufacturers of faulty equipment nor does it take a genius to figure out that these supposingly dangerous to the environment refrigerants are still being manufactured in huge quantities by very powerful corporations.

So who is really responsible for this mess the EPA is claiming, and what are they doing about it? Nothing, except picking on an extremely insignificant segment of the population to control what little is left. They have no regulations for the proper manufacturing of AC equipment, nor exactly what the major chemical companies are producing.

It's isolating and picking on the very small individual as the only means of control.

Ha, was at O'Hare and saw a guy lit up a cigarette, nervous perhaps, wasn't thinking when four guards ran up and arrested him. Cigarette is burning what may be considered fine tobaccos, but other things are burnt as well. Like millions of tons of jet fuel with planes taking off every 45 seconds, air is so bad at these airports, can barely lit a cigarette, no oxygen left. Not to mention the thousands of diesel powered buses belching out black smoke at the gates. But that is okay. Here again, we have the government picking on the least offending most insignificant form of pollution. The anti-smokers love to pick on things like this, but totally ignore the amount of burning of highly cancerous fuels in their large SUV's as being a problem.

Not fun living in a society overloaded with donkey pits.

Just saying, get your head out of the sand and look around at the much larger picture, if you are concerned about depletion of the ozone layer or global warming, look at the big picture. Quit driving cars and using electricity if you are so concerned, and certainly do not travel with the airlines. With the most exaggerated estimates, man still only accounts for 5% of global warming, nature is still in charge.

Ha, heard on the news this morning that 16 out of 18 of the most expensive suburbs around Milwaukee have a high delinquency rate in the inability of these "rich" people to pay their property taxes. Claim the high cost of energy, health insurance, interest especially credit card interest are part of the cause. Wife would like to move down there, but a home like ours would cost three times as much with a tax bill also with that same increase. How can we afford it? Most are trying to get second and third mortgages to pay their tax bill, that can't last, they will lose everything. Maybe then the market will be flooded and the prices will come down with the taxes and then we could think about it.

rbinc on Wed August 23, 2006 6:39 PM User is offline

I agree with everything said here. The hypocrisy and futility of the situation is overwhelming, for now. Just meant to say, the law is what it is and until it's changed we are stuck with it.


Didn't mean to insult anyone.

Regards


TRB on Wed August 23, 2006 6:42 PM User is offlineView users profile

Quote
Originally posted by: rbinc
I agree with everything said here. The hypocrisy and futility of the situation is overwhelming, for now. Just meant to say, the law is what it is and until it's changed we are stuck with it.





Didn't mean to insult anyone.



Regards

It an open forum, we allow you to speak your mind around here! Well for the most part anyway.



-------------------------
When considering your next auto A/C purchase, please consider the site that supports you: ACkits.com
Contact: ACKits.com

Back to Off Topic Chat

We've updated our forums!
Click here to visit the new forum

Archive Home

Copyright © 2016 Arizona Mobile Air Inc.