Best Headers for Power 1st, Sound 2nd
10-13-18, 09:18 PM
#31
Your route is the same one I would take. The only thing I might do different is buy them uncoated and get a Cerakote shop to coat them with their stuff. I don't think there is anything else out there as durable. I would also run GESI cats because I hate the bad smell, and I think it's irresponsible not to keep your exhaust clean when you can and it's not a power robber the way it used to be.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzpS-5OfyUU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzpS-5OfyUU
GESI cats are also a top choice. We use them on out 200T downpipes and have used them on M4 downpipes too right after the turbos. They are very durable and efficient.
The following 2 users liked this post by PPEHeaders:
lobuxracer (10-14-18),
TARS (10-23-18)
10-14-18, 11:56 AM
#32
Tech Info Resource
iTrader: (2)
While it is best to have the wideband A/F sensors in or right after the collector, adding a short extension causes a negligible effect on the voltage reading of the sensor. It is preferable to move the sensor so it reaches the proper position than to just put it in one of the runners like some header do. Reading A/F ratio off one cylinder per bank can lead to issues down the road if one of the non-monitored sensors begins to run leaner than the monitored ones.
example on the extensions: 22 gauge multi conductor wire has about a .01614 ohms per foot. Multiply that by 100 micro amps and you get a voltage difference of 0.000001614 Volts. A very small and trivial amount for these applications.
example on the extensions: 22 gauge multi conductor wire has about a .01614 ohms per foot. Multiply that by 100 micro amps and you get a voltage difference of 0.000001614 Volts. A very small and trivial amount for these applications.
Can you extend it? Sure. It just won't be the same as the original configuration and may present weird issues.
I totally agree with not placing the wideband in a single tube. That's inviting disaster or expecting to live a charmed life.
10-23-18, 08:19 AM
#33
Driver
Thread Starter
Our headers all have O2 sensor bungs in or right after the collectors. The extension allow the sensors to reach the bungs in the headers.
A catalytic converter's efficiency is a function of heat. The hotter the exhaust gases the more efficiently the catalyst will catalyze the exhaust. The hottest point is at the collector so the most efficient a cat will get is right after the collector. This is why the monitored cats are right at the collector on factory manifolds. After the collector the temperature drops quickly, so the further you move the cat, the less effective it will be. Because of this, simply moving the downstream sensors after your cats that are 3-4 feet from the collector will not keep the CEL off. You will still need a simulator, conditioner or to extend the sensor out further to trick the ECU. (or RR tune with monitors shut off)
Having a cat in the header like Novel will keep the CEL off because it is in the hottest spot and very efficient, but at the cost of making more power. Using a cat-less header like ours will give a larger power gain, but will require tricking the ECU.
A catalytic converter's efficiency is a function of heat. The hotter the exhaust gases the more efficiently the catalyst will catalyze the exhaust. The hottest point is at the collector so the most efficient a cat will get is right after the collector. This is why the monitored cats are right at the collector on factory manifolds. After the collector the temperature drops quickly, so the further you move the cat, the less effective it will be. Because of this, simply moving the downstream sensors after your cats that are 3-4 feet from the collector will not keep the CEL off. You will still need a simulator, conditioner or to extend the sensor out further to trick the ECU. (or RR tune with monitors shut off)
Having a cat in the header like Novel will keep the CEL off because it is in the hottest spot and very efficient, but at the cost of making more power. Using a cat-less header like ours will give a larger power gain, but will require tricking the ECU.
Thanks a lot for your input on this thread! So if I'm understanding you correctly, your EL (equal length) header comes with a "bung right after the collector" that would allow me to extend and place the wideband sensors in their proper place (avoiding the stupidity of placing them on a runner). I hope I got that initial point right. Lance point related to this, is that extending these cables for those primary sensors could bring a multitude of issues that he explained, and that I in theory concur with. He says however that it can be done, but that he would rather avoid it (which is his main point), or only do it as a last resort; I concur with that as well. So, lets shelve that issue for a second if you don't mind, and go back to why I started this thread which I'm so lucky as to have you and Lance responding, please keep going!
I have a 2018 GS-F that I track. It has deleted secondary cats with a high flow aftermarket (cat-back) exhaust. In order for me to do headers (as a mod for power) the primary cats will have to go, unless I go the Novel route. I rather not, and buy the EL headers you make since I think they will "produce" more power than Novel and are much more reasonably priced. Lance mentioned that he would add GESi cats to deal with the odor, which I concur with. Then comes the issue of the CEL or the ECM not liking the readings of the sensors before and after the primary cats (even if they are gone). If you have a 2016 GSF, RR makes a tune that you can use to "tell" the computer that everything is OK. But RR has not been able to do the same thing for 17 and 18's. Therefore, in order to keep the CEL off, I have to use a sim or something of that nature, or have properly placed GESi cats in the system with the sensors at the right locations. I totally got and agree with your point of: "Because of this, simply moving the downstream sensors after your cats that are 3-4 feet from the collector will not keep the CEL off." So, I agree that for the GESi cats to do their job WELL ENOUGH for the computer to be content, they will have to be super close to the collector to get the massive amount of "heat" that they need to function efficiently enough. That said, do you know of a simulator or a device that will keep the CEL off? The ideal thing is the RR tune, but we are not there yet. If I could have a device that will accomplish that (CEL off), I could then have your EL header (with Cerakote), add GESi cats to the system and place them at the OEM secondary cat location, and most importantly have no CEL problem. Can youo answer this and then we could deal with the issue at the shelve?
10-25-18, 11:35 AM
#34
Thanks a lot for your input on this thread! So if I'm understanding you correctly, your EL (equal length) header comes with a "bung right after the collector" that would allow me to extend and place the wideband sensors in their proper place (avoiding the stupidity of placing them on a runner). I hope I got that initial point right. Lance point related to this, is that extending these cables for those primary sensors could bring a multitude of issues that he explained, and that I in theory concur with. He says however that it can be done, but that he would rather avoid it (which is his main point), or only do it as a last resort; I concur with that as well. So, lets shelve that issue for a second if you don't mind, and go back to why I started this thread which I'm so lucky as to have you and Lance responding, please keep going!
I have a 2018 GS-F that I track. It has deleted secondary cats with a high flow aftermarket (cat-back) exhaust. In order for me to do headers (as a mod for power) the primary cats will have to go, unless I go the Novel route. I rather not, and buy the EL headers you make since I think they will "produce" more power than Novel and are much more reasonably priced. Lance mentioned that he would add GESi cats to deal with the odor, which I concur with. Then comes the issue of the CEL or the ECM not liking the readings of the sensors before and after the primary cats (even if they are gone). If you have a 2016 GSF, RR makes a tune that you can use to "tell" the computer that everything is OK. But RR has not been able to do the same thing for 17 and 18's. Therefore, in order to keep the CEL off, I have to use a sim or something of that nature, or have properly placed GESi cats in the system with the sensors at the right locations. I totally got and agree with your point of: "Because of this, simply moving the downstream sensors after your cats that are 3-4 feet from the collector will not keep the CEL off." So, I agree that for the GESi cats to do their job WELL ENOUGH for the computer to be content, they will have to be super close to the collector to get the massive amount of "heat" that they need to function efficiently enough. That said, do you know of a simulator or a device that will keep the CEL off? The ideal thing is the RR tune, but we are not there yet. If I could have a device that will accomplish that (CEL off), I could then have your EL header (with Cerakote), add GESi cats to the system and place them at the OEM secondary cat location, and most importantly have no CEL problem. Can youo answer this and then we could deal with the issue at the shelve?
I have a 2018 GS-F that I track. It has deleted secondary cats with a high flow aftermarket (cat-back) exhaust. In order for me to do headers (as a mod for power) the primary cats will have to go, unless I go the Novel route. I rather not, and buy the EL headers you make since I think they will "produce" more power than Novel and are much more reasonably priced. Lance mentioned that he would add GESi cats to deal with the odor, which I concur with. Then comes the issue of the CEL or the ECM not liking the readings of the sensors before and after the primary cats (even if they are gone). If you have a 2016 GSF, RR makes a tune that you can use to "tell" the computer that everything is OK. But RR has not been able to do the same thing for 17 and 18's. Therefore, in order to keep the CEL off, I have to use a sim or something of that nature, or have properly placed GESi cats in the system with the sensors at the right locations. I totally got and agree with your point of: "Because of this, simply moving the downstream sensors after your cats that are 3-4 feet from the collector will not keep the CEL off." So, I agree that for the GESi cats to do their job WELL ENOUGH for the computer to be content, they will have to be super close to the collector to get the massive amount of "heat" that they need to function efficiently enough. That said, do you know of a simulator or a device that will keep the CEL off? The ideal thing is the RR tune, but we are not there yet. If I could have a device that will accomplish that (CEL off), I could then have your EL header (with Cerakote), add GESi cats to the system and place them at the OEM secondary cat location, and most importantly have no CEL problem. Can youo answer this and then we could deal with the issue at the shelve?
You could put the GESI cats in the secondary cat location and then use 90 degree O2 sensor extenders on the secondary O2 sensors. This should keep the CEL off and the cats can still help reduce the emissions/exhaust smell.
Option 2:
You could put the GESI cats right after the headers in the midpipe and then relocate the O2 sensor bung after the cats and angled backwards so the wires will reach. The bung will have to be extended about an inch and angled backwards. The cats would work better in this location (hotter), but they will decrease your ground clearance and may hit speed bumps if your car is lowered.
(I would go with option 1 myself)
10-26-18, 12:17 PM
#35
Driver
Thread Starter
Option 1:
You could put the GESI cats in the secondary cat location and then use 90 degree O2 sensor extenders on the secondary O2 sensors. This should keep the CEL off and the cats can still help reduce the emissions/exhaust smell.
Option 2:
You could put the GESI cats right after the headers in the midpipe and then relocate the O2 sensor bung after the cats and angled backwards so the wires will reach. The bung will have to be extended about an inch and angled backwards. The cats would work better in this location (hotter), but they will decrease your ground clearance and may hit speed bumps if your car is lowered.
(I would go with option 1 myself)
You could put the GESI cats in the secondary cat location and then use 90 degree O2 sensor extenders on the secondary O2 sensors. This should keep the CEL off and the cats can still help reduce the emissions/exhaust smell.
Option 2:
You could put the GESI cats right after the headers in the midpipe and then relocate the O2 sensor bung after the cats and angled backwards so the wires will reach. The bung will have to be extended about an inch and angled backwards. The cats would work better in this location (hotter), but they will decrease your ground clearance and may hit speed bumps if your car is lowered.
(I would go with option 1 myself)
So I had to be sure... so I raised my whole car and spent more than a few hours underneath it (no beers or music involved of course
thinking and plotting about this whole thing for the last 2 days... So, the first "mistake" or lack of foresight from my part was that the OEM location for the secondary Cats is full of clamps and hardware from the GT-Haus mid-pipe, as it comes in two separate parts that join together at that location; unlike the OEM counterpart which is one solid contiguous assembly. So to do this, I will have to do some precision cutting and TIG welding (which is not that trivial) to turn the whole thing into one long solid part, as OEM does. On top of that, not only would I have to extend the cables of the secondary O2 sensors using the "90 degree O2 sensor extenders" that the gentleman from PPE Headers was alluding too, but more cutting, welding and patching to "move" the secondary sensors from their current location (high on the mid-pipe) to downstream from the GESi cats at the secondary cat location... I get exhausted just thinking about it, hahaha.Not to open a can of worms, but a quick note on the cables before moving forward: Mr. Lance... Am I correct sir that your concern (which I share) based on your own experience with those cable extensions, refers primarily to the wideband (primary) sensors and not the secondary? If correct, would you be equally concerned with extending the secondary sensors?
At any rate (and I think that he was referring to the primary sensors) it is a lot of work guys..! Hahaha
So Mr. PPE, clearly it will be a lot easier to just get the headers and put some "sim" or "tune", or some other "device" that will keep the CEL at bay, and off... And if the smell (or the sound) gets too crazy, I'll just add the GESi cats at the secondary cat location and call it a day. So, do you (or anyone you know) or Lance, or anyone else reading, knows of a device that is available for purchase that will do such a thing? That is why I have been waiting for the RR tune all this time... obviously not for 6HP that you can get from it. Frankly, I rather have a "sim" or a "device" that will keep the CEL off independently from the Engine ECM's as I'm a Techstream user and will not like to loose my ability to upgrade calibrations by sending my ECM to RR, if you know what I mean.
10-26-18, 01:47 PM
#36
Tech Info Resource
iTrader: (2)
The wideband sensor is the only one I would be concerned about. The O2 sensor that sits post-cat is a conventional O2 sensor, so it will be a lot less likely to be problematic if you extend the wires. If you want the details of why I get spooked by the idea of extending the wires, read through the attached doc on O2 sensing, and notice the "recommended" current value is 40 microamps. That's not a lot, and adding resistance, even small amounts, will change the characteristics of how the sensor performs. It won't quit working unless you make bad crimps or introduce really big resistive values, but the ECM is comparing what the sensor sends it with values plugged into a table of expected performance. When they don't line up, you get a CEL for a bad sensor. It would really suck to go through the whole adventure, plug everything in, and have that piece of it decide it's unhappy. That's all I am saying.
10-26-18, 02:36 PM
#37
Driver
Thread Starter
The wideband sensor is the only one I would be concerned about. The O2 sensor that sits post-cat is a conventional O2 sensor, so it will be a lot less likely to be problematic if you extend the wires. If you want the details of why I get spooked by the idea of extending the wires, read through the attached doc on O2 sensing, and notice the "recommended" current value is 40 microamps. That's not a lot, and adding resistance, even small amounts, will change the characteristics of how the sensor performs. It won't quit working unless you make bad crimps or introduce really big resistive values, but the ECM is comparing what the sensor sends it with values plugged into a table of expected performance. When they don't line up, you get a CEL for a bad sensor. It would really suck to go through the whole adventure, plug everything in, and have that piece of it decide it's unhappy. That's all I am saying.
LOL!! Oh my God I agree 110% that it will really suck if after all that work the CEL is giving you crap! That is why, It will be in my interest to have the "device" that I speak about... a "sim'' a "tune" or something of that nature as a primary way of keeping the CEL off; or as a back up if I go the GESi route and still have issues…….I Imagine you wouldn't know how to build one of those little things do you, Lance?
At any rate, based on your confirmation here related to the secondary sensors (not a sure thing, but more likely to work than the primary sensors) and that of the PPE Header Gentleman (his "#1" suggestion from his last post)… That suggestion will be logical and reasonable, and the way to go if one was looking to use the GESi cats as a way to keep the CEL off in conjunction to keeping the smell (and in my case the noise) down. One of the last questions to ask and one that he alluded too (I don't know that it can be answered here) is whether there will be enough "heat" present at the secondary cat location to make that GESi cat "efficient" enough to meet the spec of the ECM as measured by the secondary sensor.
By the way Lance, thanks for the reading assignment, I'll try to go deep.
12-10-18, 08:37 AM
#38
Driver
Thread Starter
Guys-
Been away and did not have the courtesy of closing this chapter, for those of you that might care. The deal here is that the complexity of building a simulator that could actually keep off the engine ECM is not trivial if one was to use the PPE header. The secondary possibility of moving the sensors to "better locations" is also non trivial. One risks the CEL coming on one way or the other and I should not have to explain the effects of that condition and why it could negate whatever gains were accomplished by using better headers than OEM. I know RR and PPE are working on the tune that could amongst other things fix this issue, but we are not there yet... The only possibility left would be to use the very expensive Novel header with its integrated CATs, but no one was able to show performance figures for that header so if you are looking primarily for power gains more than for sound, it looks that we are stuck for now.
Special thanks to Lobuxracer and to PPEHeaders for spending their time and efforts on this interesting conversation.
Been away and did not have the courtesy of closing this chapter, for those of you that might care. The deal here is that the complexity of building a simulator that could actually keep off the engine ECM is not trivial if one was to use the PPE header. The secondary possibility of moving the sensors to "better locations" is also non trivial. One risks the CEL coming on one way or the other and I should not have to explain the effects of that condition and why it could negate whatever gains were accomplished by using better headers than OEM. I know RR and PPE are working on the tune that could amongst other things fix this issue, but we are not there yet... The only possibility left would be to use the very expensive Novel header with its integrated CATs, but no one was able to show performance figures for that header so if you are looking primarily for power gains more than for sound, it looks that we are stuck for now.
Special thanks to Lobuxracer and to PPEHeaders for spending their time and efforts on this interesting conversation.
03-06-21, 11:53 PM
#39
Pole Position
i am curious what you decided to do? I have a 2019 and thinking of getting ppe headers but really dont want the cel.
Guys-
Been away and did not have the courtesy of closing this chapter, for those of you that might care. The deal here is that the complexity of building a simulator that could actually keep off the engine ECM is not trivial if one was to use the PPE header. The secondary possibility of moving the sensors to "better locations" is also non trivial. One risks the CEL coming on one way or the other and I should not have to explain the effects of that condition and why it could negate whatever gains were accomplished by using better headers than OEM. I know RR and PPE are working on the tune that could amongst other things fix this issue, but we are not there yet... The only possibility left would be to use the very expensive Novel header with its integrated CATs, but no one was able to show performance figures for that header so if you are looking primarily for power gains more than for sound, it looks that we are stuck for now.
Special thanks to Lobuxracer and to PPEHeaders for spending their time and efforts on this interesting conversation.
Been away and did not have the courtesy of closing this chapter, for those of you that might care. The deal here is that the complexity of building a simulator that could actually keep off the engine ECM is not trivial if one was to use the PPE header. The secondary possibility of moving the sensors to "better locations" is also non trivial. One risks the CEL coming on one way or the other and I should not have to explain the effects of that condition and why it could negate whatever gains were accomplished by using better headers than OEM. I know RR and PPE are working on the tune that could amongst other things fix this issue, but we are not there yet... The only possibility left would be to use the very expensive Novel header with its integrated CATs, but no one was able to show performance figures for that header so if you are looking primarily for power gains more than for sound, it looks that we are stuck for now.
Special thanks to Lobuxracer and to PPEHeaders for spending their time and efforts on this interesting conversation.
03-07-21, 07:52 AM
#40
Driver
Thread Starter
It continues to be a general lack of reliable information (or maybe understanding from my part) the #1 thing that has prevented me from moving forward with this mod... In defense of some of the manufacturers of these headers, they seemed to be very cautious in stating plainly (and publicly) how they actually get around CEL issues, or how do they actually trick the ECM in not "seeing" or "acting" against the nonstandard condition that removing the primary cat will cause. I just don't believe in "bro science" or "trust me explanations"... Personally, I need an actual logical and coherent explanation of the mechanism of action for me to be like "hell yeah, let's do it", kind of attitude.
#2. I was somehow able to get the ""perfect"" (for me) sound from my car with the Frankenstein exhaust set up that I made, and have. To the point that I would risk damaging that "sonorous" result by introducing any headers of any type... I know that sounds counter intuitive and maybe even stupid to some, but I truly love the zero drone at any rev range, the deep low end, and the crazy loud top end sound that the car is capable of producing. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I am actually perfectly satisfied with the sound profile. So from that end, no point in pursuing a change.
#3. Another counter intuitive point where the 30 hp that are maybe "at best" up for grabs by going to an aftermarket header, seem now not to be as important as I once thought... If the argument was "I need more power Scotty" no matter what, then maybe I would do it... To that end I just don't do anything a quarter of a mile at a time in my life. Nor do I care at all about zero to 60 times or dyno numbers. I care about road course, non-competition track driving with a somewhat competent cool car that can turn and brake, without ruining the luxury experience.
#4. Getting the GS-F to turn and brake much better has been a very enjoyable, but non trivial pursuit. IMHO and for my specific utilization, adding more power would be in a sense to unbalance the little equation of handling that I have been trying to balance and solve since I bought this thing. For this specific car, and for some strange reason, I just don't want power to be an ever receding goal to chase and counter, if that could make any sense to anyone.
I actually wish these 4 points above were not true for me, LOL. As I love the idea of headers and would love the challenge of the implementation, it would be a great time. I've watched every video and read everything available and love to see others pursuing it. I hope to have answered in my own way your question. Good luck!
#2. I was somehow able to get the ""perfect"" (for me) sound from my car with the Frankenstein exhaust set up that I made, and have. To the point that I would risk damaging that "sonorous" result by introducing any headers of any type... I know that sounds counter intuitive and maybe even stupid to some, but I truly love the zero drone at any rev range, the deep low end, and the crazy loud top end sound that the car is capable of producing. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I am actually perfectly satisfied with the sound profile. So from that end, no point in pursuing a change.
#3. Another counter intuitive point where the 30 hp that are maybe "at best" up for grabs by going to an aftermarket header, seem now not to be as important as I once thought... If the argument was "I need more power Scotty" no matter what, then maybe I would do it... To that end I just don't do anything a quarter of a mile at a time in my life. Nor do I care at all about zero to 60 times or dyno numbers. I care about road course, non-competition track driving with a somewhat competent cool car that can turn and brake, without ruining the luxury experience.
#4. Getting the GS-F to turn and brake much better has been a very enjoyable, but non trivial pursuit. IMHO and for my specific utilization, adding more power would be in a sense to unbalance the little equation of handling that I have been trying to balance and solve since I bought this thing. For this specific car, and for some strange reason, I just don't want power to be an ever receding goal to chase and counter, if that could make any sense to anyone.
I actually wish these 4 points above were not true for me, LOL. As I love the idea of headers and would love the challenge of the implementation, it would be a great time. I've watched every video and read everything available and love to see others pursuing it. I hope to have answered in my own way your question. Good luck!
Last edited by TARS; 03-07-21 at 09:11 AM.
03-08-21, 11:30 AM
#41
Pole Position
thank you for your feedback, I reached out to RR last year and they don't have a tune for 2019 yet..but they said they can run O2 simulators to prevent the CEL for eliminating the Primary Cats until the tune is available.
btw what frankensein exhaust setup you are runnning?
btw what frankensein exhaust setup you are runnning?
03-08-21, 12:51 PM
#42
Driver
Thread Starter
It seems that only the 2016 ECM was cracked and tuned... The 17, 18, 19 & 20 ECMs have not been cracked, much less tuned. Have heard of different hardware implementation and some light encryption; cannot confirm that. Maybe not a big enough market (GS-F & RC-F) to justify bigger shops or companies deciding to allocate more resource into breaking into these newer ECMs to allow for a tune. RR does have a somewhat reasonable way around this by changing your later model ECM for one that has been tuned, presumably a 2016 ECM... I don't like this for other reasons, even though it seems to workout.
"...they said they can run O2 simulators" I would like to learn much more about what that actually means, in details... So many questions.
I have a GT-Haus mid-pipe with a non-valved Tom's SS axle back on an RR full intake system. I privately altered and significantly modified myself the GT-Haus mid-pipe, I'll leave it at that, lol. The rear diffuser is TOM'S, so the fit, finish and looks of the axle-back/rear diffuser combo is excellent.
"...they said they can run O2 simulators" I would like to learn much more about what that actually means, in details... So many questions.
I have a GT-Haus mid-pipe with a non-valved Tom's SS axle back on an RR full intake system. I privately altered and significantly modified myself the GT-Haus mid-pipe, I'll leave it at that, lol. The rear diffuser is TOM'S, so the fit, finish and looks of the axle-back/rear diffuser combo is excellent.
The following users liked this post:
UZ214 (03-12-21)
03-10-21, 06:42 PM
#43
It seems that only the 2016 ECM was cracked and tuned... The 17, 18, 19 & 20 ECMs have not been cracked, much less tuned. Have heard of different hardware implementation and some light encryption; cannot confirm that. Maybe not a big enough market (GS-F & RC-F) to justify bigger shops or companies deciding to allocate more resource into breaking into these newer ECMs to allow for a tune. RR does have a somewhat reasonable way around this by changing your later model ECM for one that has been tuned, presumably a 2016 ECM... I don't like this for other reasons, even though it seems to workout.
"...they said they can run O2 simulators" I would like to learn much more about what that actually means, in details... So many questions.
I have a GT-Haus mid-pipe with a non-valved Tom's SS axle back on an RR full intake system. I privately altered and significantly modified myself the GT-Haus mid-pipe, I'll leave it at that, lol. The rear diffuser is TOM'S, so the fit, finish and looks of the axle-back/rear diffuser combo is excellent.
"...they said they can run O2 simulators" I would like to learn much more about what that actually means, in details... So many questions.
I have a GT-Haus mid-pipe with a non-valved Tom's SS axle back on an RR full intake system. I privately altered and significantly modified myself the GT-Haus mid-pipe, I'll leave it at that, lol. The rear diffuser is TOM'S, so the fit, finish and looks of the axle-back/rear diffuser combo is excellent.
this is the simulator they are talking about, at least that’s what ppe provides
here you can see where the cats and o2 sensors plugged in
The following users liked this post:
UZ214 (03-12-21)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post