Crown

Board: Porsche - 911 - 997 - Turbo Language: English Region: Worldwide Share/Save/Bookmark Close

Forum - Thread


    Re: Heard a energy analyst just now

    Quote:
    Ian C said:
    Just a few thoughts:

    25 years ago I visited China for the first time and there were no private cars - the roads were full of oxen, horses and above all, bicycles. One day in The Forbidden City I saw a queue of people strething about 1/4 mile - they were waiting to have their photograph taken with a car!

    Ten years later, driving in from Beijing airport, one of the first cars I saw was a Ferrari.

    The demand for cars in China is only just starting and in another ten years time who can guess how much oil is going to be consumed there ?
    China has a car manufacturing industry in its infancy and I cannot see that they will want to do anything but make that industry grow so demand for oil from China is going to have a dramatic effect.

    In the West, you are not going to get people to move away from cars. Public transport is expensive, inefficient and inconvenient.Petrol price rises will only have a limited effect on consumption and people will find a way to finance it just as they did with property. House prices in the UK have probably tripled in the last ten years but it hasn't killed demand and we're certainly not earning three times as much as we were ten years ago

    Governments know that we will keep paying for oil and for our cars and they will keep pushing taxes on motoring as far as they dare because it is an enormous source of revenue
    both in the tax they charge directly and in indirect taxation such as speed cameras, annual vehicle licence, new vehicle registration charge and so on.

    So, motoring is expensive, it's going to get more expensive but we are lucky enough to own and drive fantastic cars!

    p.s. compared with the money we lose in depreciation on any car, the cost of fuel is relatively minor.......



    Interesting read in the news:

    "The structural rebalancing will provide greater stability to the Chinese economy and "could have profound implications" for the global economy and world financial markets, said Stephen S. Roach, chief economist with Morgan Stanley, at the annual meetings of the Boao Forum for Asia (BFA) in this scenic town of China's southernmost province of Hainan.

    Delivering a speech titled "China's Rebalancing Challenge", Roach pointed out that a mid-course correction in China's development model is in the offing, that is to shift away from export and investment-powered growth to more of a consumer-driven dynamic....

    China's pro-consumption initiatives will also boost Chinese import demand, reducing its trade surplus and thereby providing support for its major Asian trading partners such as Japan, Taiwan, and the Republic of Korea, and alleviating the tightened relations with the United States and European Union in currency and trade issues."

    hmmmmmm

    Re: Heard a energy analyst just now

    Quote:
    SciFrog said:
    So where do you put the three kids and two dogs?

    How do you go to work when you get 2 feet of snow?

    That won't happen in the US either.



    I should've been clearer. I was talking about Europe. Our cities aren't built for yuppies, riding around in SUV's, which are shinier than most normal cars. Now, if you really use an SUV the way it's supposed to be used (for example lots of off-road or driving driving on really bad roads), that's fine with me, same goes for large families. However, most SUV's here (and I'm not talking about the smallish RAV4 Toyotas) are being used by 5' tall soccer moms, who only ever drive these vehicles inside the city limits, hogging multiple park spaces in malls, blocking half the street because the Lincoln Navigator just won't fit into a normal parking space here and generally being a menace on the road, via inferior driving skills and non-stop cell phone usage. Sadly, these drivers are in the majority.
    AS for going to work in winter, a Suzuki Jimny or a Fiat Panda 4×4 will fill that role just as well (however, roads are kept reasonably drivable here even during the harshest snowfall). That's the reason for my SUV frustration. I'll admit they're very nice, spacious and comfortable, but are very rarely used the way they're meant to be used. A Geo Metro would fit the soccer mom just as well, however she wouldn't feel as safe using her cell phone and her ego would drop (the smaller the woman, the bigger the SUV ).

    Re: Heard a energy analyst just now

    This is good for the purchasing power of the dollar, but bad for the oil demand. It could swing both ways as far as oil prices in the US are concerned.


    To those who say SUVs are here to stay: remember the mid 1980's, when Renaults were popular? They were utter POS, but people bought them nevertheless because they could not afford the gas guzzlers from Detroit.
    I predict the same thing will happen. People who want to carry two dogs and three children in winter will have to make do with a Subaru Outback. It's just a bit less roomy, but much more economical.
    By the way, a Dodge Caravan is even roomier, and also more economical. It's not sexy today, but neither was the Alliance.

    Re: Heard a energy analyst just now

    Quote:
    The Groom said:
    This is good for the purchasing power of the dollar, but bad for the oil demand. It could swing both ways as far as oil prices in the US are concerned.


    To those who say SUVs are here to stay: remember the mid 1980's, when Renaults were popular? They were utter POS, but people bought them nevertheless because they could not afford the gas guzzlers from Detroit.
    I predict the same thing will happen. People who want to carry two dogs and three children in winter will have to make do with a Subaru Outback. It's just a bit less roomy, but much more economical.
    By the way, a Dodge Caravan is even roomier, and also more economical. It's not sexy today, but neither was the Alliance.



    Very nicely put. If people could do with minivans and station wagons before, why not now?

    Re: Heard a energy analyst just now

    Saw this picture on foxnews.com, thought it was funny -- look at the size of that thing! lol

    Re: Heard a energy analyst just now

    They will cut something else before not buying SUVs. Also car makers will come with SUVs that will have less power and use less gas, enough for people to keep buying them. Most SUVs around here have 250hp and 6 cylinders at the minimum. It wouldn't take much to improve gas mileage, there is a lot of slack to play with.

    Re: Heard a energy analyst just now

    Quote:
    Crash said:
    Quote:
    SoCal Alan said:
    Quote:
    SciFrog said:
    Just move back to the US, it won't happen here.



    Absolutely correct. Here in the US, the environmentalists would be chained to trees and clear cut if they tried to ban SUV's and other low fuel mileaged cars. And that would be by the soccer moms alone.



    If you ask me, SUV's SHOULD be banned... They consume much more gas than sports cars and are no fun. Plus, soccer moms often drive them.



    You might have to take that back:

    (City MPG/Highway MPG)
    Ford Expedition (14/19)
    Toyota Land Cruiser (13/17)
    Ferrari F430 (11/16)
    Lamborghini Gallardo (10/17)

    Re: Heard a energy analyst just now

    You see these big truck daily around here, lanscapers and builders use them. The biggest ones use diesel and not gas.

    Re: Heard a energy analyst just now

    We have landscapers and builders here in Aus aswell, and they drive that truck's baby.

    Re: Heard a energy analyst just now

    Quote:
    SoCal Alan said:
    Quote:
    Crash said:
    If you ask me, SUV's SHOULD be banned... They consume much more gas than sports cars and are no fun. Plus, soccer moms often drive them.



    You might have to take that back:

    (City MPG/Highway MPG)
    Ford Expedition (14/19)
    Toyota Land Cruiser (13/17)
    Ferrari F430 (11/16)
    Lamborghini Gallardo (10/17)


    Sports car are not deadly weapons whenever they are involved in an accident. And they actually have brakes.


    I understand why a landscaper would use an F250 or an Expedition. But wouldn't a smaller truck do the job just as well? Something like this:



    (This is what contractors typically use in Europe. Similar to a Ford Econoline, but also available with a flat bed, double cab, tow truck...)

    Re: Heard a energy analyst just now

    Quote:
    SoCal Alan said:
    Quote:
    Crash said:
    Quote:
    SoCal Alan said:
    Quote:
    SciFrog said:
    Just move back to the US, it won't happen here.



    Absolutely correct. Here in the US, the environmentalists would be chained to trees and clear cut if they tried to ban SUV's and other low fuel mileaged cars. And that would be by the soccer moms alone.



    If you ask me, SUV's SHOULD be banned... They consume much more gas than sports cars and are no fun. Plus, soccer moms often drive them.



    You might have to take that back:

    (City MPG/Highway MPG)
    Ford Expedition (14/19)
    Toyota Land Cruiser (13/17)
    Ferrari F430 (11/16)
    Lamborghini Gallardo (10/17)



    Alan, sports cars waste so much gas for a reason - they go devilishly fast. The SUV's waste so much gas just to keep moving - and they are several thousand times more populous than the sports cars you listed.

    Re: Heard a energy analyst just now

    Quote:
    Crash said:
    If you ask me, SUV's SHOULD be banned... They consume much more gas than sports cars and are no fun. Plus, soccer moms often drive them.



    I agree to a certain point: I'm not sure a Ford Excursion is the best car to travel from point A to point B alone or just with another two or three passengers. But otherwise, I don't see a problem with SUVs. Bottom line is: fuel consumption is too high on SUVs. One solution, especially for the US, would be to offer DIESEL engines. I know there are some SUVs available with Diesel engines in the US but mostly Pickups with 6 or 7 l engines.
    But the truth is: a modern Diesel engine with let's say 300 HP eats maybe 12-15, maybe even up to 20 litres/100 km.
    A gasoline operated engine with the same power eats at least 5 litres/100 km more. This would be a beginning.
    Hybrids? Too expensive right now, I'm not sure if people are really willing to pay that extra money.

    Like I said in another post: saving energy may be a good start but it can't be THE solution for eternity. We have to find technologies to provide more and clean power in the near future. Cold fusion, solar panels, hydrogen, etc. are a good start in my opinion. Energy consumption won't go down, on the contrary. We NEED more and more energy at the end of this century, if we like it or not.

    Re: Heard a energy analyst just now

    Quote:
    RC said:
    Quote:
    Crash said:
    If you ask me, SUV's SHOULD be banned... They consume much more gas than sports cars and are no fun. Plus, soccer moms often drive them.



    I agree to a certain point: I'm not sure a Ford Excursion is the best car to travel from point A to point B alone or just with another two or three passengers. But otherwise, I don't see a problem with SUVs. Bottom line is: fuel consumption is too high on SUVs. One solution, especially for the US, would be to offer DIESEL engines. I know there are some SUVs available with Diesel engines in the US but mostly Pickups with 6 or 7 l engines.
    But the truth is: a modern Diesel engine with let's say 300 HP eats maybe 12-15, maybe even up to 20 litres/100 km.
    A gasoline operated engine with the same power eats at least 5 litres/100 km more. This would be a beginning.
    Hybrids? Too expensive right now, I'm not sure if people are really willing to pay that extra money.

    Like I said in another post: saving energy may be a good start but it can't be THE solution for eternity. We have to find technologies to provide more and clean power in the near future. Cold fusion, solar panels, hydrogen, etc. are a good start in my opinion. Energy consumption won't go down, on the contrary. We NEED more and more energy at the end of this century, if we like it or not.



    Yes. I actually read a study somewhere a while ago, which claimed that even if we replaced every single thermal and hydro powerplant in the world with a nuclear powerplant, there would still be a shortage of power in about 50 years. My point of view is that we should start saving energy where we can, even if it's pollutant free, and start simultaneously developing new technologies, which would in turn provide us with more available power. Also, we should pressure the so-called developing nations into adopting the stringent eco standards and actually use the new technologies as they become available (hey, if China can afford to subsidize gas to its citizens and subsidize their manufacturers who consequently perform dumping on European and US markets, it can afford to subsidize new technologies for its companies).
    Like stated before, I'm not an environmentalist freak, however I feel that as long as we have an option of doing something we should do something, not say "bah, the Chinese will spend the oil we'd spend anyway".
    The problem we have to consider on top of that is global warming. Regardless of whether it is mankind-induced or not (although more and more scientists are conceding that it actually is), everyone agrees that we are at least accelerating it. This, for me, is reason enough to halt overconsumption, not just by us, but by everybody else.
    A good start to relieve oil dependancy would be ethanol (Brazil is at the forefront and is actually making a huge industry out of it, currently) usage (we can still use the same engine technology, with smaller pollution and less oil dependancy). The manufacturing tech is getting cleaner by the day and until we create cold fusion or anything else that will give us clean, safe and limitless energy, we should at least switch to a renewable source.
    In the end I'd like to add that I'm not particularly knowledgable in this field and everything I write is just my personal opinion of things as I see them.

    Re: Heard a energy analyst just now

    I'd be wary of counting too much on ethanol or hydrogen. They might be part of the solution, but they are a far cry from the panacea they get passed around as.

    Hydrogen hardly exists naturally on the planet, it has to be manufactured. As such, it is not an energy source, it is a chemical battery. The problem with hydrogen is that it is either made from methane (in other words it's useless as a way to replace fossile fuels), or by hydroelectrolysis (which is very inefficient). If you add to this the fact that hydrogen leaks from tanks over time, hydrogen would be a very poor energy container.
    However, there are some designs for nuclear power plants that crack the vapor into hydrogen after it goes through the generators. This would be an ideal solution since it's using a waste product (excess heat) and has a very high efficiency. In which case, hydrogen would be a viable candidate. Unfortunately, there are no plans to actually build a few test reactors yet.

    Ethanol is great in theory, because it requires only minute changes in both engine technology and distribution infrastructure. It is also ecological, as ethanol burns cleanly, and the CO2 such a combustion generates will be reclaimed during the production process.
    Unfortunately, we have to be very careful about the way we produce this ethanol. Ethanol production in the US is a great example of how NOT to do it. In the Midwest, ethanol is made of corn in intensive, mechanized farms. This is a huge waste of energy because the amount of oil that goes into fertilizers, farm machinery, and the refining process far exceeds the amount it replaced. Regardless of the energy-efficiency of the process, it would not work anyway because we'd have to cover the entire US with corn in order to get enough ethanol for the annual consumption of the US!
    Beet would be a better choice in the US or in Europe. So far, E85 is more about winning the Iowa caucus than actually solving the energy crisis.
    In Brazil, it works for several reasons. First of all, they use sugar cane instead of corn, which outputs a lot more ethanol per acre. Second, the net energy gain is positive, because cane is grown extensively, without fertilizers or heavy farm machinery. The downside is that the latter is only made possible by the use of semi-slave labor. Let's see how THAT flies in the US or in Europe.
    I'd put my money on algae ethanol. Their energy density and the available space make it a very promising field of research.

    As for cold fusion, don't even think of it. After the Pons-Fleischman debacle, nobody worth any credibility is touching it with a 10-mile pole. It's not theorically impossible, but I bet if anything ever happens of it, it will be discovered by chance, just like penicillin. That would not be before a century. Hot fusion will become reality long before, and even hot fusion has always been 50 years away.

    For the time being, I'm putting my money on MOX-fueled fission plants and algae ethanol. Still, energy will be much more expensive than today. As a consequence, any company that is looking into energy savings today is preparing to leap ahead of its competition tomorrow.

    Re: Heard a energy analyst just now

    Quote:
    The Groom said:
    I'd be wary of counting too much on ethanol or hydrogen. They might be part of the solution, but they are a far cry from the panacea they get passed around as.

    Hydrogen hardly exists naturally on the planet, it has to be manufactured. As such, it is not an energy source, it is a chemical battery. The problem with hydrogen is that it is either made from methane (in other words it's useless as a way to replace fossile fuels), or by hydroelectrolysis (which is very inefficient). If you add to this the fact that hydrogen leaks from tanks over time, hydrogen would be a very poor energy container.
    However, there are some designs for nuclear power plants that crack the vapor into hydrogen after it goes through the generators. This would be an ideal solution since it's using a waste product (excess heat) and has a very high efficiency. In which case, hydrogen would be a viable candidate. Unfortunately, there are no plans to actually build a few test reactors yet.

    Ethanol is great in theory, because it requires only minute changes in both engine technology and distribution infrastructure. It is also ecological, as ethanol burns cleanly, and the CO2 such a combustion generates will be reclaimed during the production process.
    Unfortunately, we have to be very careful about the way we produce this ethanol. Ethanol production in the US is a great example of how NOT to do it. In the Midwest, ethanol is made of corn in intensive, mechanized farms. This is a huge waste of energy because the amount of oil that goes into fertilizers, farm machinery, and the refining process far exceeds the amount it replaced. Regardless of the energy-efficiency of the process, it would not work anyway because we'd have to cover the entire US with corn in order to get enough ethanol for the annual consumption of the US!
    Beet would be a better choice in the US or in Europe. So far, E85 is more about winning the Iowa caucus than actually solving the energy crisis.
    In Brazil, it works for several reasons. First of all, they use sugar cane instead of corn, which outputs a lot more ethanol per acre. Second, the net energy gain is positive, because cane is grown extensively, without fertilizers or heavy farm machinery. The downside is that the latter is only made possible by the use of semi-slave labor. Let's see how THAT flies in the US or in Europe.
    I'd put my money on algae ethanol. Their energy density and the available space make it a very promising field of research.

    As for cold fusion, don't even think of it. After the Pons-Fleischman debacle, nobody worth any credibility is touching it with a 10-mile pole. It's not theorically impossible, but I bet if anything ever happens of it, it will be discovered by chance, just like penicillin. That would not be before a century. Hot fusion will become reality long before, and even hot fusion has always been 50 years away.

    For the time being, I'm putting my money on MOX-fueled fission plants and algae ethanol. Still, energy will be much more expensive than today. As a consequence, any company that is looking into energy savings today is preparing to leap ahead of its competition tomorrow.



    I know the limitations of hydrogen and don't consider it an option.
    Like I said, ethanol production is getting more and more sophisticated (obviously not in the US ) and I basically see it as the best option we've got for powering our vehicles. I'm also sure that better and more efficient ways of making it will turn up in the next few years, which will speak even more in favor of it. I don't know much about MOX fission though, so I cannot comment on it.

    Re: Heard a energy analyst just now

    If we replaced all power plants with nuclear fission power plants, we'd run out of 235-uranium within 50 years. But we can make that last much, much longer if we use the nuclear waste generated by the uranium (if it's radioactive, it's full of energy - which is begging to be harvested).

    There are two ways to do so. The first one is breeder reactors, which use a charge of plutonium to convert depleted uranium into plutonium. Such reactors generate more fissile material than they consume. This proliferation potential is exactly why we're not going to run out of energy (there's plenty of depleted uranium around), but it's also exactly why they are a huge no-no for export markets.
    Besides, breeder reactors are expensive to operate. So, as long as we still have some 235-uranium, traditional reactors are the way to go.

    The second way is MOX. MOX is a mix of depleted uranium and plutonium. MOX is made by recycling the waste in plants such as the Hague plant in France. MOX basically amounts to replacing 235-uranium with plutonium in traditional nuclear power plants.
    The mix is not rich enough to be considered weapon-grade, so if we're supplying a country with power plant-grade uranium, there's no reason not to supply it with MOX.

    Re: Heard a energy analyst just now

    Quote:
    The Groom said:
    If we replaced all power plants with nuclear fission power plants, we'd run out of 235-uranium within 50 years. But we can make that last much, much longer if we use the nuclear waste generated by the uranium (if it's radioactive, it's full of energy - which is begging to be harvested).

    There are two ways to do so. The first one is breeder reactors, which use a charge of plutonium to convert depleted uranium into plutonium. Such reactors generate more fissile material than they consume. This proliferation potential is exactly why we're not going to run out of energy (there's plenty of depleted uranium around), but it's also exactly why they are a huge no-no for export markets.
    Besides, breeder reactors are expensive to operate. So, as long as we still have some 235-uranium, traditional reactors are the way to go.

    The second way is MOX. MOX is a mix of depleted uranium and plutonium. MOX is made by recycling the waste in plants such as the Hague plant in France. MOX basically amounts to replacing 235-uranium with plutonium in traditional nuclear power plants.
    The mix is not rich enough to be considered weapon-grade, so if we're supplying a country with power plant-grade uranium, there's no reason not to supply it with MOX.



    Wow, you really know your stuff! I say we offer Iran free access to MOX technology and see if they are really serious about peaceful energy (I sincerely hope so).

    Re: Heard a energy analyst just now

    Thank you. I'm not a nuclear scientist, but I do play one on Rennteam!

    Unfortunately, MOX is exactly like commercial-grade uranium. It does not have enough fissile material to build a bomb, but this can be worked around. Just purify enough commercial-grade fuel until you've got enough for a bomb. Since an A-bomb can be made out of 235-uranium or out of 239-plutonium, Iran would just purify commercial-grade plutonium (i.e. MOX) instead of commercial-grade uranium using the very same centrifugation process.

    (inverted actually: the purification of uranium is done in centrifuges which separate the source material into lighter, fissile 235-uranium at the top and the heavier, non-radioactive 238-uranium at the bottom. If you used this on MOX, the fissile 239-plutonium would be at the bottom since it's heavier than 238-uranium.)

    Re: Is the price of gasoline increasing all over the world?

    Its official, the price of fuel in Saudi Arabia has been lowered from about 0.24$ a liter to 0.16$ a liter as of today.

    Re: Is the price of gasoline increasing all over the world?

    I'm moving back to Riyadh!

    Seriously, we should all be counting ourselves as the fortunately few who can buy these exotic cars and be able to fuel them despite what gasoline goes to. It's the poor who HAVE to have transportation to get them to their modest jobs to eek out an existance that are truly suffering the most. I have coworkers in my office who travel some 60-70 miles one way to work each day (because of high housing costs in SB) and must feel the pinch of the pump every week. Right now the 'cheap' stuff is at $3.29 a gallon in Santa Barbara. That's 'unleaded regular for you folks).

    Dan

    Re: Is the price of gasoline increasing all over the world?

    Quote:
    yarub1 said:
    Its official, the price of fuel in Saudi Arabia has been lowered from about 0.24$ a liter to 0.16$ a liter as of today.



    Oh, I've just suddenly understood the meaning of the idiomatic phrase "rubbing salt into an open wound".

    Re: Is the price of gasoline increasing all over the world?

    Sorry, I could not resist!

     
    Edit

    Forum

    Board Subject Last post Rating Views Replies
    Porsche Sticky SUN'S LAST RUN TO WILSON, WY - 991 C2S CAB LIFE, END OF AN ERA (Part II) 4/17/24 7:16 AM
    GnilM
    778196 1798
    Porsche Sticky Welcome to Rennteam: Cars and Coffee... (photos) 4/7/24 11:48 AM
    Boxster Coupe GTS
    442063 565
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: Cayman GT4 RS (2021) 5/12/23 12:11 PM
    W8MM
    262960 288
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: Porsche 911 (992) GT3 RS - 2022 3/12/24 8:28 AM
    DJM48
    261225 323
    Porsche Sticky The new Macan: the first all-electric SUV from Porsche 1/30/24 9:18 AM
    RCA
    85484 45
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: Taycan 2024 Facelift 3/15/24 1:23 PM
    CGX car nut
    5708 50
    Porsche The moment I've been waiting for... 2/1/24 7:01 PM
    Pilot
     
     
     
     
     
    880882 1364
    Porsche 992 GT3 7/23/23 7:01 PM
    Grant
    816529 3868
    Porsche Welcome to the new Taycan Forum! 2/10/24 4:43 PM
    nberry
    391128 1526
    Porsche GT4RS 4/21/24 11:50 AM
    mcdelaug
    390334 1454
    Others Tesla 2 the new thread 12/13/23 2:48 PM
    CGX car nut
    372504 2401
    Porsche Donor vehicle for Singer Vehicle Design 7/3/23 12:30 PM
    Porker
    369095 797
    Porsche Red Nipples 991.2 GT3 Touring on tour 4/11/24 12:32 PM
    Ferdie
    289383 668
    Porsche Collected my 997 GTS today 10/19/23 7:06 PM
    CGX car nut
     
     
     
     
     
    261508 812
    Lambo Huracán EVO STO 7/30/23 6:59 PM
    mcdelaug
    240347 346
    Lotus Lotus Emira 6/25/23 2:53 PM
    Enmanuel
    230778 101
    Others Corvette C8 10/16/23 3:24 PM
    Enmanuel
    221306 488
    Others Gordon Murray - T.50 11/22/23 10:27 AM
    mcdelaug
    169480 387
    Porsche Back to basics - 996 GT3 RS 6/11/23 5:13 PM
    CGX car nut
    141221 144
    BMW M 2024 BMW M3 CS Official Now 12/29/23 9:04 AM
    RCA
    117743 303
    Motor Sp. 2023 Formula One 12/19/23 5:38 AM
    WhoopsyM
    108773 685
    Porsche 2022 992 Safari Model 3/7/24 4:22 PM
    WhoopsyM
    84299 239
    AMG Mercedes-Benz W124 500E aka Porsche typ 2758 2/23/24 10:03 PM
    blueflame
    75166 297
    Porsche 992 GT3 RS 3/3/24 7:22 PM
    WhoopsyM
    53755 314
    Motor Sp. Porsche 963 3/16/24 9:27 PM
    WhoopsyM
    25180 237
    Ferrari Ferrari 296 GTB (830PS, Hybrid V6) 1/21/24 4:29 PM
    GT-Boy
    21179 103
    BMW M 2022 BMW M5 CS 4/8/24 1:43 PM
    Ferdie
    19511 140
    AMG G63 sold out 9/15/23 7:38 PM
    Nico997
    16595 120
    AMG [2022] Mercedes-AMG SL 4/23/24 1:24 PM
    RCA
    13807 225
    Motor Sp. 24-Hour race Nürburgring 2018 5/25/23 10:42 PM
    Grant
    11269 55
    126 items found, displaying 1 to 30.