Current F-150 model life extended; next-gen F-150 delayed until at least mid-2028

[Forumlurker24]

I appreciate your gentlemanly response, thank you.

But your first paragraph is just flat incorrect and your second has a basic misunderstanding of how the PHEV's should ideally work.

Regarding FI (Forced Induction) engines, they are less efficient because the boost leads to detonation, so to deal with this manufacturers do two things on stock FI engines: 1) they reduce compression, both static and dynamic, and 2) they retard ignition timing as boost comes in. Not doing so, leads to detonation and excessive engine failure (see FI 5.0s).

Both of these compromises lead to reduced efficiency, and not a small amount either. If you scan your modern turbo charged engine, like my own PB, it'll be running 40 degrees of timing advance with no boost (to improve economy) and the moment boost comes in timing will drop to close to 0'.

To be clear, diesels actually require that detonation (detonation: high heat causes spontaneous combustion) to even run and diesel is quite hard to even ignite, so are mostly exempt from these rules.

What FI engines do quite well is allow you to have a smaller displacement engine that can get close to the efficiency of a normal small displacement engine while off boost, yet still make big power when on the boost. However, a PB while holding 400hp almost certainly is getting a lot less economy than a NA 5.0 also holding exactly 400 hp. Where a PB can excel, is when both only need 40 hp and the PB is off-boost. Still, it won't be as efficient as the same displacement motor NA with higher compression, less weight, and less exhaust restriction. Also, FI is great at altitude. I always laugh when people say 'there is no replacement for displacement', because there is, FI. A 3.5 at 14.7 lbs boost (technically a bit more due to inefficiencies) is pumping air just like a 7.0 liter engine!

Regarding your second paragraph, the RE (Range Extender) is not designed to put out the same power as a full size truck engine so that you can maintain towing power indefinitely. See electric propulsion is flat superior, it's the energy storage of batteries that sucks.

The entire point is that you gain all of the efficiency of electric propulsion, 90% conversion of energy, regen braking, instant torque, no energy wasted in traffic or while idling, and the batteries really act as a buffer. The RE's job is to efficiently and quietly recharge the battery pack, but it's not a motor designed to provide 400 towing hp worth of juice indefinitely as that would be heavy, not efficient and expensive.

The goal of the RE is to maintain enough battery juice so that you can comfortably crest the grade to get ready to recharge on the way back down. Not to maintain 100% of your charge while climbing the Grapevine. Also you can recharge while parked getting lunch, boating, parked on the side of the road (might sound stupid but compared to trying to find an EV plug is a big advantage), or camping or even just run it while towing to greatly extend range. For that, a 175hp generator is sufficient but more importantly, very simple and efficient with it's fuel useage. The fixed rpm generator motor has been figured out a long time ago. They know exactly how to create a basic NA engine where cam duration and timing, intake and exhaust length and therefore pulsewaves, airbox design, harmonics are all optimized to have the highest Volumetric Efficiency at a very specific RPM. This generator engine doesn't need to idle, or over-rev, or take off from idle. It just needs to make the most power per fuel used while not being intrusive or unreliable. When it doesn't have to be designed for general useability, it can be highly optimized for very specific things. That's it's sole purpose.

Hope that helps.

An engine designed for boost will have a lower compression to compensate so auto detonation is a non issue. The whole point of a turbo is to scavenge energy from the exhaust to increase efficiency and I think there are a ton of real world examples of this from high end generators, boats, and trains. Diesel is ignited from compression, yes but that's the only real difference from gas (other than energy density) let me ask you this, why have diesels gone to turbos instead of having a longer stroke? I am also under the impression that peak efficiency is when the engine is at peak torque, and smaller turbo engines produce peak torque at lower rpms and generally have more.



I'm not a fan of the system you describe it just slightly increasing the range. My understanding was that the ice engine would be enough to keep the battery topped off if going long range, not extending the battery and that's why I said a naturally aspirated probably wouldn't be enough. I guess that rules out the scout and ram charger for me since I don't have a house to charge it at. But ideally I would want a system that can operate both ways, running efficiently to slowly add some charge with the option to run it less efficiently to keep the battery topped off when going really far

Sponsored

 

[Suns_PSD]

An engine designed for boost will have a lower compression to compensate so auto detonation is a non issue. The whole point of a turbo is to scavenge energy from the exhaust to increase efficiency and I think there are a ton of real world examples of this from high end generators, boats, and trains. Diesel is ignited from compression, yes but that's the only real difference from gas (other than energy density) let me ask you this, why have diesels gone to turbos instead of having a longer stroke? I am also under the impression that peak efficiency is when the engine is at peak torque, and smaller turbo engines produce peak torque at lower rpms and generally have more.



I'm not a fan of the system you describe it just slightly increasing the range. My understanding was that the ice engine would be enough to keep the battery topped off if going long range, not extending the battery and that's why I said a naturally aspirated probably wouldn't be enough. I guess that rules out the scout and ram charger for me since I don't have a house to charge it at. But ideally I would want a system that can operate both ways, running efficiently to slowly add some charge with the option to run it less efficiently to keep the battery topped off when going really far

You are really talking out of both sides of your mouth and it shows a lack of knowledge.

Regarding your second paragraph, what you want is a Hybrid. Just a Plain Jane hybrid.

The RamCharger is a PHEV with a RE, and if designed correctly it doesn't operate. the way you desire, because that wouldn't make sense as you'd just add tremendous cost (a full size ICE truck AND a full power EV truck in one, is what you are describing).

The danger to PHEV sales is people that don't really understand it's operation and think that somehow, it's going to operate exactly like a normal ICE truck. Its not. These vehicles have the advantage of utilizing low home electricity rates that equates to paying about 75 cents per gallon in most locations, and having all of the advantages of a RE including: extended range (not infinite range like an ICE), a home generator, a camping generator, and the ability to recharge even when not at an electric charger.

What it's not designed to do, is operate like an ICE truck pumping out 400 rwhp with an ICE engine alone indefinitely. That would not make financial sense because it would literally require the cost of 2 full drivetrains in one vehicle.

What most people fail to really recognize, is how they really in the real world use their vehicles.

For example my typical duty cycle is as follows:

1) 80% of miles are less than 125 miles. Any EV truck can do this.
2) 15% of days I'm towing 100ish miles or driving 200ish miles. Really EV's can do this as well but it will require inconvenient and expensive Supercharging. So it's getting in to the PITA zone.
3) 5% of days are cross country trips. Basically hell in an EV. But with a RE the ability to charge anywhere from the RE, all night, while parked, etc. opens up this use case to a PHEV with an RE.
4) Hoping to have a medium sized RV in time and haul it on a few big trips a year and to the TX coast often. A PHEV with an RE could easily do the TX coast, recharge while parked for the weekend. Ideal unit. But for XC trips, it causes some inconvenience. But really, if you think about it, still not that hard. I mean straight 12 hour driving days are hard, but short of that it would be fine.

 

[Forumlurker24]

You are really talking out of both sides of your mouth and it shows a lack of knowledge.

Regarding your second paragraph, what you want is a Hybrid. Just a Plain Jane hybrid.

The RamCharger is a PHEV with a RE, and if designed correctly it doesn't operate. the way you desire, because that wouldn't make sense as you'd just add tremendous cost (a full size ICE truck AND a full power EV truck in one, is what you are describing).

The danger to PHEV sales is people that don't really understand it's operation and think that somehow, it's going to operate exactly like a normal ICE truck. Its not. These vehicles have the advantage of utilizing low home electricity rates that equates to paying about 75 cents per gallon in most locations, and having all of the advantages of a RE including: extended range (not infinite range like an ICE), a home generator, a camping generator, and the ability to recharge even when not at an electric charger.

What it's not designed to do, is operate like an ICE truck pumping out 400 rwhp with an ICE engine alone indefinitely. That would not make financial sense because it would literally require the cost of 2 full drivetrains in one vehicle.

What most people fail to really recognize, is how they really in the real world use their vehicles.

For example my typical duty cycle is as follows:

1) 80% of miles are less than 125 miles. Any EV truck can do this.
2) 15% of days I'm towing 100ish miles or driving 200ish miles. Really EV's can do this as well but it will require inconvenient and expensive Supercharging. So it's getting in to the PITA zone.
3) 5% of days are cross country trips. Basically hell in an EV. But with a RE the ability to charge anywhere from the RE, all night, while parked, etc. opens up this use case to a PHEV with an RE.
4) Hoping to have a medium sized RV in time and haul it on a few big trips a year and to the TX coast often. A PHEV with an RE could easily do the TX coast, recharge while parked for the weekend. Ideal unit. But for XC trips, it causes some inconvenience. But really, if you think about it, still not that hard. I mean straight 12 hour driving days are hard, but short of that it would be fine.

Clearly I overestimated your knowledge and reading comprehension skills if you think I'm uneducated on the manner and if you gathered is that I want a plain hybrid.

No, it's not a plain old hybrid. I want an electric car with a range extender that can charge it faster than the motors will discharge it at highway speed, not slowly push enough electrons to only get 150 miles more of range from a tank. That does almost nothing to make up for the lack of range. I mean great you get to pull over and twiddle your thumbs for 5 hours while you charge with gas instead of pulling into an ev charging station.

Your point about 2 power trains making the truck extremely expensive is also ridiculous because these aforementioned range extenders ALREADY have 2 powertrains.

 

[JExpedition07]

A 2.7 EB will not have the capacity to do that, and torque is largely a useless measure when transferring motion into electricity at max capacity. All you care about is horsepower (TQ X RPM) which is the rate of work being done and a measure of how the torque is being applied. HP gives you your actual max charging capacity on an engine. The N/A 3.3 with very similar HP to the 2.7 will have the same charging capacity at max load. The 2.7 would just suck down more gas at all loads and be generally worse for the job lol.

 

[Forumlurker24]

A 2.7 EB will not have the capacity to do that, and torque is largely a useless measure when transferring motion into electricity at max capacity. All you care about is horsepower (TQ X RPM) which is the rate of work being done and a measure of how the torque is being applied. HP gives you your actual max charging capacity on an engine. The N/A 3.3 with very similar HP to the 2.7 will have the same charging capacity at max load. The 2.7 would just suck down more gas at all loads and be generally worse for the job lol.

Are you comparing peak hp or the whole powerband? Ideally you wouldn't want to keep the rpms low. I don't know much about about the 3.3 but if the power was similar enough to the 2.7 and used less fuel I don't think ford would be bothering with the latter.

I don't think it's coincidence that a majority of heavy transportation vehicles use this series hybrid configuration. They do it because it is efficient and cost effective.


I'm genuinely confused as to how a forum for a vehicle with mainly turbo powertrains can continue to deny that turbo engines are more efficient than naturally aspirated lol

 

[JExpedition07]

There are a lot of instances where turbocharged engines are less efficient than naturally aspirated, especially in the gasoline realm. Ford has a great video on the creation of the 7.3 Gas V8 for the Super Duty and why it is more efficient than an F/I powertrain put into the same duty cycle producing the same power levels. The 7.3 can stay in a stoichiometric state of combustion all day and make 430 HP hauling a trailer uphill. It doesn’t need controlled enrichment and an enriched AFR to do so. This same phenomenon is observed by multiple automotive testing outlets in our very own F-150’s. The 5.0 N/A V8 is largely regarded as the most efficient towing engine Ford offers in a half ton.

You mentioned boats, most boats run large cubic inch N/A engines as well. Take a look at Mercury Mercruisers website and browse their powertrain packages, you are going to find a lot of small block and big block pushrod V8’s for the inboards and high revving N/A V6 and V8 outboards.

 

[Larrymoe]

Hey, at least they nailed the look of the new 2 door Daytona. Now just need to put a blown V8 in it….

Those are ugly.

 

[Forumlurker24]

Are you comparing peak hp or the whole powerband? Ideally you wouldn't want to keep the rpms low. I don't know much about about the 3.3 but if the power was similar enough to the 2.7 and used less fuel I don't think ford would be bothering with the latter. Mind you im also not talking about fuel efficiency in the sense of mpg, more so the thermal efficiency

I'm genuinely confused as to how a forum for a vehicle with mainly turbo powertrains can continue to deny that turbo engines are more efficient than naturally aspirated lol

There are a lot of instances where turbocharged engines are less efficient than naturally aspirated, especially in the gasoline realm. Ford has a great video on the creation of the 7.3 Gas V8 for the Super Duty and why it is more efficient than an F/I powertrain put into the same duty cycle producing the same power levels. The 7.3 can stay in a stoichiometric state of combustion all day and make 430 HP hauling a trailer uphill. It doesn’t need controlled enrichment and an enriched AFR to do so. This same phenomenon is observed by multiple automotive testing outlets in our very own F-150’s. The 5.0 N/A V8 is largely regarded as the most efficient towing engine Ford offers in a half ton.

You mentioned boats, most boats run large cubic inch N/A engines as well. Take a look at Mercury Mercruisers website and browse their powertrain packages, you are going to find a lot of small block and big block pushrod V8’s for the inboards and high revving N/A V6 and V8 outboards.

I don't really know much about the towing mpgs but it makes sense that the Ecoboost used more fuel as it makes a good bit more power in the rev range you would be towing at. They probably run it rich for cooling too since the 3.5 was not exactly designed to be boosted to begin with.

For the boats I was mainly talking about freight boats. Smaller boats are always breaking down so yeah I can imagine it wouldn't be a good idea to add more parts to something that is fights corrison and other failure daily. Also people don't seem to care about efficiency for personal boats as much as a shipping company would

 

[Suns_PSD]

Clearly I overestimated your knowledge and reading comprehension skills if you think I'm uneducated on the manner and if you gathered is that I want a plain hybrid.

No, it's not a plain old hybrid. I want an electric car with a range extender that can charge it faster than the motors will discharge it at highway speed, not slowly push enough electrons to only get 150 miles more of range from a tank. That does almost nothing to make up for the lack of range. I mean great you get to pull over and twiddle your thumbs for 5 hours while you charge with gas instead of pulling into an ev charging station.

Your point about 2 power trains making the truck extremely expensive is also ridiculous because these aforementioned range extenders ALREADY have 2 powertrains.

I won't dive in to the turbocharged vs. NA efficiency debate with you any longer. You are welcome to your opinion, I'll stick with well documented facts however.

Regarding the RE, you might not be a good fit for the product, but a more average duty cycle would be something like the following:

1) it's plugged in every night at home, and the operator can use it for daily driving while enjoying EV torque and silence, at about 1/3 the cost of gasoline, up to about 120 miles. This covers the vast majority of most people's daily use. I own a trucking company and carry tires and crap all of the time, and this would still cover me most of the time.
2) for the family Thanksgiving dinner that most of us take, 100- 350 miles. It can do that with just the home charge on the battery pack and just running the RE during the drive to slow down the battery drop, enough to make it to your destination. Where you can either plug in the truck to recharge when you arrive, or just leave the RE idling to recharge, or both if you are in a real hurry.
3) Going to the local lake with the boat, it's 75 miles away? Run the RE while driving. While boating continue to run the RE and recharge those batteries to drive back home, especially when combined with the RE still running on the way home. I assume the RE utilizes an app to control remotely to charge as needed while parked.
4) Going camping doing 500 miles per day, dragging a camper? This is where you need to pay attention, if you are in a hurry. Charge before leaving, run the RE the entire time. Stop for the usual breaks every 150 miles but never shut off the RE. If you stop and eat, continue running the RE, each time extending the battery range. Furthermore, some of the stops, like a Buccee's, might have Supercharging so you top off that battery pack while eating. Depending on speeds traveled and length of breaks taken it might go the entire 500 miles without any need to stop and charge at all even while towing. At the least, it allows you to be more choosy and pick your own stops, because you can always gain some range back on the RE and aren't in danger of getting stranded. What an advantage!

It's not designed for hot shotting, running hard with a trailer day in day out. It's designed for home charging (you said you don't own a home) and saving that money most days to try and recoup the cost premium, while still being able to accomplish the other tasks that truck owners do with their trucks on the weekends.

Moving forward, manufacturers of FS trucks and SUVs should really focus on 2 powertrain options: 1) PHEV for home owners; and 2) Hybrids for non-home owners. This is what makes sense.

 

[Suns_PSD]

I don't really know much about the towing mpgs but it makes sense that the Ecoboost used more fuel as it makes a good bit more power in the rev range you would be towing at. They probably run it rich for cooling too since the 3.5 was not exactly designed to be boosted to begin with.

For the boats I was mainly talking about freight boats. Smaller boats are always breaking down so yeah I can imagine it wouldn't be a good idea to add more parts to something that is fights corrison and other failure daily. Also people don't seem to care about efficiency for personal boats as much as a shipping company would

At the exact same power output, a NA gasoline engine is more efficient than an FI engine. I've already explained the reasons why. Which is why a fixed rpm generator (RE) will be set for the desired hp in a NA engine, just like every other gasoline generator in existence. Think of it this way, ignore the boost, to make exactly 'X' hp, a certain amount of fuel has to be injected right? Yet due to less detonation and less hot intake air (compressing air super heats it) the NA engine can do it with higher compression, and more advanced ignition timing, all while having a more free flowing exhaust (parasitic losses) since it's not spinning turbine(s). The first 2 improves volumetric efficiency and the last one reduces parasitic draw.

Large boats that run FI gasoline engines are notably different because they use ocean/ lake water for cooling and it dramatically reduces detonation, and they can turn the boost, timing, compression, etc. WAY up.

Regarding marine diesels: I own 550 hp X15 Cummins, in my commercial trucks. My dad has 2 of the same motors in a boat and they are rated for double that power because of the water cooled turbos, intake air, etc.

 

[Forumlurker24]

I won't dive in to the turbocharged vs. NA efficiency debate with you any longer. You are welcome to your opinion, I'll stick with well documented facts however.

Regarding the RE, you might not be a good fit for the product, but a more average duty cycle would be something like the following:

1) it's plugged in every night at home, and the operator can use it for daily driving while enjoying EV torque and silence, at about 1/3 the cost of gasoline, up to about 120 miles. This covers the vast majority of most people's daily use. I own a trucking company and carry tires and crap all of the time, and this would still cover me most of the time.
2) for the family Thanksgiving dinner that most of us take, 100- 350 miles. It can do that with just the home charge on the battery pack and just running the RE during the drive to slow down the battery drop, enough to make it to your destination. Where you can either plug in the truck to recharge when you arrive, or just leave the RE idling to recharge, or both if you are in a real hurry.
3) Going to the local lake with the boat, it's 75 miles away? Run the RE while driving. While boating continue to run the RE and recharge those batteries to drive back home, especially when combined with the RE still running on the way home. I assume the RE utilizes an app to control remotely to charge as needed while parked.
4) Going camping doing 500 miles per day, dragging a camper? This is where you need to pay attention, if you are in a hurry. Charge before leaving, run the RE the entire time. Stop for the usual breaks every 150 miles but never shut off the RE. If you stop and eat, continue running the RE, each time extending the battery range. Furthermore, some of the stops, like a Buccee's, might have Supercharging so you top off that battery pack while eating. Depending on speeds traveled and length of breaks taken it might go the entire 500 miles without any need to stop and charge at all even while towing. At the least, it allows you to be more choosy and pick your own stops, because you can always gain some range back on the RE and aren't in danger of getting stranded. What an advantage!

It's not designed for hot shotting, running hard with a trailer day in day out. It's designed for home charging (you said you don't own a home) and saving that money most days to try and recoup the cost premium, while still being able to accomplish the other tasks that truck owners do with their trucks on the weekends.

Moving forward, manufacturers of FS trucks and SUVs should really focus on 2 powertrain options: 1) PHEV for home owners; and 2) Hybrids for non-home owners. This is what makes sense.

Thermodynamics disagrees from your facts but we'll agree to disagree. There's no point in digging out equations from my thermo notes because even if I did go through the effort of changing your mind, it won't change what ford will do.

I agree, the erev system does not make sense for me in the the ram charger or scout, a plug in hybrid would suit me better. I drove 30 miles a day typically and about once or twice a month I'll have to drive 400+ miles round trip for work, soon with a trailer

 

[JExpedition07]

The laws of thermodynamics are exactly why a high static compression N/A engine is so thermally efficient. More power is extracted from the air/fuel mixture and exerted on the crankshaft by its very nature. There is more time in the expansion/power stroke in a given revolution of the engine meaning less energy is lost as *heat* and more energy is put into creating *motion* or torque transfer to the crankshaft by the piston with the injected atomized fuel. Higher compression ratio means more complete combustion, which is observable in the exhaust temperatures. A high compression engine has lower exhaust temperatures than an engine with a lower compression ratio. This is thermodynamics at work and the final result is actually observable, it’s cooler because more energy was used for motion and not wasted as heat.

Using cubic inches/compression has the benefit of no need of being met with enriched AFR’s under load for cooling because that exhaust is nice and cool from the efficient use of thoroughly burning the atomized gasoline the first time around while scooping in fresh cool air at the nose. It doesn’t get hot and produces good power as a constant. Alot of the reason car makers love F/I motors is off load they can cut back boost, retard timing, and almost run as a smaller N/A engine off load.

 

[Wookz]

After the deal I got on my 25 lariat pb, unless there is a huge difference in upgrade ain't no way I trading in my 59k deal I got ??.

After reviewing things about the lithium issue and China having most lithium in the world now along with current administration with ICE engines would tell me the PB will most likely be the current road trip king for the next decade. As that would be my opinion lol.

I might get me a dark horse though eventually in the mean time.

 

[Forumlurker24]

The laws of thermodynamics are exactly why a high static compression N/A engine is so thermally efficient. More power is extracted from the air/fuel mixture and exerted on the crankshaft by its very nature. There is more time in the expansion/power stroke in a given revolution of the engine meaning less energy is lost as *heat* and more energy is put into creating *motion* or torque transfer to the crankshaft by the piston with the injected atomized fuel. Higher compression ratio means more complete combustion, which is observable in the exhaust temperatures. A high compression engine has lower exhaust temperatures than an engine with a lower compression ratio. This is thermodynamics at work and the final result is actually observable, it’s cooler because more energy was used for motion and not wasted as heat.

Using cubic inches/compression has the benefit of no need of being met with enriched AFR’s under load for cooling because that exhaust is nice and cool from the efficient use of thoroughly burning the atomized gasoline the first time around while scooping in fresh cool air at the nose. It doesn’t get hot and produces good power as a constant. Alot of the reason car makers love F/I motors is off load they can cut back boost, retard timing, and almost run as a smaller N/A engine off load.

Yes if you're soley going off the otto cycle (which you can't really use for calculations of turbo engines) even then the difference in efficiency between say the coyote and Ecoboost from compression is less than 1% if you do the math.

Smaller engines have less friction losses, and yes turbos run hotter, but more of the heat moves out the exhaust than into the block (with na)and that heat is recycled. You have a little more heat but you are using it with a turbo instead of wasting it.

A simple energy balance will tell you that turbo engines are more thermodynamics effecient

Ein=Eout

Turbos have the Ein of compressed air where NA doesn't

 

[HammaMan]

At higher power levels, EGTs cause a fuel-rich condition to keep them safe which is why the EBs drink fuel like no other. Unparalleled in towing and their ability to drink gas. I suspect they'd be more efficient if they were able to put power back into the crank like turbo superchargers of WW2 did, but those systems were insanely complex even by today's standards.

Perhaps an alternative today would pair a motor on the turbo to be able to both eliminate spool time as well as recapture energy in the form of electricity to be put back into the hybrid drive. Intake water injection can be used to keep EGTs down alternatively, but running a 1:1 ratio of water to fuel via a separate tank is likely to be seen as impractical, particularly in winter, for typical scenarios especially seeing as how you'd want pure water as possible to avoid mineral buildup as well as any other contaminants that may be present in municipal water. Not to mention it'd have to be a stupidly reliable setup to avoid hydrolocking the motor if it leaks.

As to the OT -- The BYD Shark 9 is coming for the half ton market. The BYD 6 is already taking on the ranger raptor (and ranger in-general) throughout the rest of the globe being both faster and ~$30k cheaper. Though tariffs will likely keep the BYD 9 out of the US, it's scheduled to launch in 2027 and I'd bet is the prime reason the F150 is delayed as it needs a total redesign to match what the BYD shark 9 is going to bring. Ford has gotten the message from the BYD shark 6 and they know the 9 is a direct threat to them, especially coming with at least a 30kWh battery and will be an EV w/ a generator. The exact truck ford should have started on 2 years ago. Better delayed than never I guess?

Given ford's reliance on the trucks to carry the company, a competent competitor priced 30% less with all of an EVs benefits and none of the drawbacks like relying on public charging while also being able to tow -- Well it's not surprising this news is leaked just months after farley went to china and read the writing on the wall. Unlike ford, BYD won't gimp the payload to make the 250 more attractive. The shark 9 will be both a 150 competitor as well as encroach on the 250s territory. Shark 6s can't be sold in the US, but that's not stopping people from going to MX and buying them. A mexican shark 9 will all but end mexican 150/Lobo sales.

Sponsored