Skip navigation

carsguide.com.au

Elmer Rudd

  • By Neil Dowling
image

Shhhhh ?Be vewwy qwuiet ? I?m hunting hybwids.

So Rudd has committed $35 million of taxpayers’ funds for Toyota to build a car that Toyota was going to build anyway.

The Toyota Camry Hybrid — available since last year in the USA — arrives in Australia in 2010 aimed at those people who still have money left in their pockets.

Where did the $35 million come from? It's the money Mitsubishi returned to the Federal Government after giving up on building the 380.

I guess more money will be needed from us to give an equal amount of money to Ford and Holden who may have similar ideals. Maybe the Victorian government can foot that bill after personally coughing up $25 million to further help the Toyota hybrid scheme.


Is the price of petrol hurting you? Tell us how ...


In an amazingly naive, off-the-cuff gesture with our money, Rudd reckons hybrid cars should be produced by car makers and sold as low-emission, low fuel consumption answers to personal mobility.

It's a warm and cuddly idea that will go nowhere. In the same week as Rudd's announcement — incidentally it was World Environment Day during that week — our own carsguide.com.au website survey found very few motorists were interested in hybrid cars.

As we have found, they are expensive and compared with a similar-sized petrol car, take more than 10 years of driving before their economy compensates for the purchase price difference.

Did I mention the hybrid battery. In fact, did anyone mention the hybrid battery?

This overgrown, overpriced mobile phone battery costs about $5000.

It will last anywhere from five to 10 years before needing replacement. The battery cost is falling, so guess $2500 as a future replacement cost — or in layman's terms, equivalent to the cost of 21 months of petrol at the average annual car distance.

The old battery will then need to be disposed of with considerable safety.

So we have a new Toyota Camry Hybrid costing about $5000 more than a petrol Camry but is estimated to be 43 per cent more economical.

The official fuel consumption of the Camry Hybrid is 5.7 litres/100km, compared with 9.9 l/100km for the Camry petrol.

The breakeven point — when the Hybrid's better fuel economy finally catches up with the Hybrid's $5000 extra purchase cost, is five years. (at $1.60 a litre and 15,000km a year).

So if you keep the car for five years and maintain the official fuel figures the Hybrid will work for you.


Find cheap fuel: search by suburb or postcode


But do you really need one?

Australia sold 1437 Toyota Prius in the five months to May this year. That's a mere 7.4 per cent of the sales of the much cheaper Toyota Corolla.

So who's pushing the hybrid line?

Does the Federal Government's sudden interest in hybrid cars go deeper?

Rudd wants hybrid cars made here because he has heard — later than any other motoring journalist and their readers, it seems — that Toyota intends to build a hybrid version of its Camry.

Last year, during the Tokyo motor show in October, Toyota president Katsuaki Watanabe told journalists that the Camry hybrid would be made at an additional factory in the Asian region. When asked, he did not dismiss that Australia would build that car.

Toyota's Victorian plant manufactures or assembles Camry and Aurion models. It has room for a third model and, using imported hybrid powerplants, it is feasible to make a hybrid version of the Camry. Toyota has never denied or refused to acknowledge this fact.

But the point is: Why? Why would Toyota spend millions and millions of dollars to make a hybrid car that will cost motorists more to buy and yet show limited long-term economic benefits?

The over-riding error in Mr Rudd's thinking is that the car industry is self-policing. It doesn't need — and won't listen to — a politician telling them how to make cars. Customers do that.

If the Toyota Prius hybrid is such a great car every Australian family would have one. Not only that, but every other car maker would be making a hybrid rival.

Better benefits for ourselves, the environment and a future of reliable energy may be found on our rooftops.

Except for the Federal Government's very anti-environmental stance of cancelling the subsidy on solar cells.

The demise of the subsidy on solar panels for domestic and commercial buildings was one big — and unexpected — hit, especially for West Australians.

Do you know how many Australian homes can have “free” domestic electricity — without contributing anything to greenhouse gases — by restoring the $8000 subsidy?

With the $35 million picked up by Toyota to do what it was going to do anyway, the answer is 4375 homes that will dramatically reduce energy needs from coal, gas or nuclear.

Time to look after the needs at home, Rudd, not in Tokyo.

 

Comments on this story

Displaying 3 of 42 comments

  • Very enlightening and beneficial to someone whose been out of the circuit for a long time.

    -Murk

    Xbox Spiele of Deutschland Posted on 11 September 2010 9:30pm
  • I am just making a blog related to this. If you agree, I would like to use some of your content. And with full refernce of course. Thanks in advance.

    - Josh

    Feedback Form of Deutschland Posted on 24 August 2010 4:59am
  • All we need are plug in natural gas hybrids and solar panels to recharge them. Then we could tell the oil companies where to get off. This would be a lot simpler if KRudd hadn’t dropped the rebate on solar panels (I bet the coal industry had something to do with that) and John Howard hadn’t sold a fair chunk of our natural gas to China for 3 cents a litre.

    Allan Green Posted on 21 June 2008 1:35am
  • Hydrogen is the way to go.  It can be extracted from sea water through the use of solar power.  I think bio-fuel/ethanol is rediculous.  The world is suffering, for the first time, of using more food than we are producing.  There is a shortage of corn, wheat, soy, rice and all grains, and YET WE ARE USING THEM FOR FUELLING POLLUTION EMITTING CARS INSTEAD OF FEEDING OURSELVES!!!!!!  The Ug99 fungus has affected billions of dollars worth of wheat crops in Asia and does not have a cure as of yet.  It may be possible that we won’t have enough to eat, let alone crops to turn into fuel.  Australia exports millions of honey bees a year to other countries because we are luckily not affected by the deaths of these bees.  If all the bees die then so will humans, who rely on cross-pollination. 
    There are more important things to be spending 35 million dollars on than some stupid battery-operated car!

    Jason Davie of Brisbane Posted on 18 June 2008 2:02pm
  • Why not use the most readily available source of fuel - sea water??  BMW have developed a number of hydrogen powered cars.  I read an article in the RACQ magazine about the Hydrogen 7 being driven around the streets of Melbourne by John Dee, the founder of Planet Ark.  This car has a top speed of 230 km/h.  BMW have another liquid hydrogen car that drives at 302 km/h.  The space shuttles use liquid hydrogen as a fuel.  It can be extracted from sea water.  The cars take 8 minutes to fill.  All we need is refuelling stations around the country, which is what the government should be spending the 35 million on, for a start.  The university of NSW has already developed solar power technology that turns sea water into hydrogen.  Why isn’t this being promoted!!!!!!!!!!  The only omission that these cars emit is water!!  Before long, I’m going to get a horse and cart to travel because at least I can grow my own food to feed the horse as opposed to paying $2+ per litre of fuel in the near future.  We might have to have stage coaches again to travel to other cities!

    Jason Davie of Brisbane Posted on 18 June 2008 1:52pm
  • I can sleep soundly, secure in the knowledge that I didn’t vote for Mr Rudd or his fellow idiot ALP travellers.

    'Morris Dancer' (journalist & media/MR consultant) of Sydney, Australia Posted on 18 June 2008 1:26pm
  • Why is my diesel fuel so so so much more expensive than city E90 / E95 fuel. Why am I taxexd / excised on one of the cheapest fuels. Where o where is my bio diesel, the good fuel for my trucks. Mr Rudd & his predecessors need to live in remote locations, forget about white shirt advisors. Politicians and Bureacrats owe me and many others lots and lots and lots. Where o where will this lack of understanding lead us. Why is the trading market allowed to gain finacially by playing with fuuel prices by bidding on the barrel?

    Kevin Rockemer of Central Australia & Fraser Island Posted on 18 June 2008 11:56am
  • I think Mr Rudd should also start looking at the price of Diesel, as many people are unaware that Diesel fuel itself is a bi-product of the oil that come straight from the ground. One of the first stages of refining the oil is to get rid of the crap, this crap is commonly known as ” Diesel ”  and sells for 20 cents more per litre than unleaded.

    COME ON - Mr Rudd, We should be paying under a dollar for this over rated fuel. Help the transport industry a little, some of us truck drivers work damn hard and need to see extra dollars in our pockets to feed our families.

    Kim Smith of Perth Posted on 18 June 2008 9:42am
  • Elmer Rudd !!!  Be vewwy, vewwy afraid people !!

    Susie Leigh of Melbourne Posted on 18 June 2008 9:39am
  • THE rudd circus is in town and were all gunna wear the inflated cost for a poor show both federally and local government the roads out here are crap you need a rv to get threw some of the holes were is our taxes going the m5 every body seems to forget that carr promised to drop m5 toll as soon as it was paid for they just lie these buggers and us silly buggers let them get away with it time and time again it costs me 100 bucks a week just to go to work per week via the m 5 and i gotta spend two hours in a car park thats costing me money pensioners are doing it real tough and thats bull crap what happened to the guy from bexley that had an old ap6 valliant that ran fully on water and shell brought it and the blue prints were did it go i bet it got buried put the money into bio diesl and ethinol transform the country and stuff the oil giants there are farmers disgarding there fruits cause the giants are bringing in cheap fruit there going broke give them an incentive to grow sugar caine for fuel give them a go AUSTRALIA WAS A THINKER WHATS HAPPENED

    KENNY of sydney south west Posted on 18 June 2008 8:48am
  • Elmar Fudd has more sense than KRudd.

    Spartacus Posted on 18 June 2008 8:28am
  • Government “action” in this area is only window dressing; the truth is they are making far too much money out of petrol to want to do anything. As long as they can keep making news so that people think they are doing something they can continue to supress the real development of viable alternatives, and keep raking in billions in excise.

    Dennis Wright of Central Goldfields Vic Posted on 18 June 2008 7:46am
  • I shows how much the people in the current Government know about the car industry or cars in General, Australia needs cars that are suitable to the conditions and tasks we need them for, maybe even cars that can be serviced and repaired in the outback.  I know in India they are having trouble getting vehicles to operate in their rough roaded country.  Alas now the MPs from the new Government cant travel around the world rabbiting on about how they are forcing Hybrid cars on the poor punters here with little or no regard to if they work here for us or not.  Many scientists also have proven that human activity isn’t responsible for the changes in the climate.

    Ian Campbell Posted on 18 June 2008 6:36am
  • KEVIN RUDD is a full blown DROPKICK

    Roger Knight of Adelaide Posted on 18 June 2008 6:30am
  • To trivialise this important measure is foolishness.  While there are other means or alternative fuels one should not put one sector of the car industry aside.  The effort to find alternative means of transport or fuels should be applauded.  There will always be others that know of someone that knows that we export LPG for a few cents a Litre but they never put a name to the story which only weakens their argument.  While it would seem to have been prudent to have checked with the car industry before offering the money to build the vehicles here which of us really does know how these deals are made.  It would seem that most of the correspondents are millionaires and know exactly how business works.  As to the pensioners any large rise such as they wanted would only increase inflation and they would only be poorer for it.  Perhaps Steven Mills would like his taxes increased to ensure the pensioners do get a better deal.  As to reducing the amount of tax on fuel then perhaps we would like the services that we get from government to be reduced due to the reduced revenue that they would get.  Perhaps in a effort to reduce global warming some of us should turn off our hot water system and take a cold shower.

    Viv Miatke of Armadale WA Posted on 18 June 2008 6:20am
  • Our personal gain/loss and the time it takes to break even aside..we must..individually and collectively attempt to do not just something, but everything toward reducing our environmental impact. Hybrid cars arent THE solution, but rather a step, and a part of the solution. The Govt’s grant to Toyota may help reduce the cost difference. The solar issue is achievable, but I think the govt probably had to do something otherwise everyone was going to go solar too quickly and they would be heavily out of pocket, but $100K income threshold may be a bit low. What I want to see is a purely electric car complete with Toyota’s(?) technology to capture break energy to charge the batteries - forget Hybrid..100% electric, or LPG hybrid. Electricity is the cleanest energy we can use (in theory) as mass production in one power plant(even coal) is cleaner than all our little petrol engines. As for the costs..well we will have to pay for it one way or the other..cash or breathable air?

    Frank Clay of Perth Posted on 18 June 2008 6:14am
  • Hybrid cars are not currently efficient enough or environmentally friendly enough to justify the hype. Sure, inner city driving is great, but the manufacture/disposal requirements are so far above that of a standard car, that it overrides any pollution gain gathered during it’s life on the road.
    Encouragement needs to be given to CNG / LPG use in cars. CNG fired powerplants are better than coal fired plants.
    As a nation, we sell CNG and LPG to overseas customers way under value. We practically give it away. Use the money from this resource to develop the next generation of transit systems.

    I am also in agreement with the comments above with regards to household solar panels. The one biggest change that the average householder could easily make has been ripped out from under them by a careless policy reversal. Increasing the subsidy on household solar panel systems and solar hot water systems is a better way of meeting our Kyoto requirements than importing car parts for local assembly at massive taxpayer cost.

    David Hall of Sydney Posted on 18 June 2008 5:51am
  • This is the start of the pay back,70 mil to toyota out of a fund contoled by the one and only kev 07.remember the Jobs slogan in the last election,well the unions want some of their hard earnt back…..how much are gm and ford going to hold out for?wernt ther two dipsticks in that photo

    colin of mid north coast Posted on 18 June 2008 5:14am
  • Steven mills is right, none of this makes sense.  Hybrid cars do not sell because they do not return any benefit…...in real life you do not get those fuel figures, especially if you drive on the freeway a lot…...they take heaps more greenhouse gases to produce (I think 40,000km is the break even point for a Prius in this regard)......and don’t get me started on novated leasing making my car cheaper the further I drive it (useless trips up and down the freeway in March????).....make my bicycles that I ride to work a tax deduction and I will be happy.

    Jason of Newcastle Posted on 18 June 2008 5:01am
  • Let me get this right. The car costs $5000 more to buy. You need to replace the battery pack every 5 years at a cost of around $3000 each and in real world driving it only saves 1 litre of petrol per 100km of travel. This has got to be the biggest fizzer in history. On top of it who has ever heard of any rechargeable battery that lasts as long as its manufacturers claim. They usually start losing charging capacity and hence power from day one.

    Before the car would repay itself in fuel savings I would need to buy another battery. The fact that process and energy required to make the battery is more than the savings made by a hybrid car over its (battery’s) lifetime is another scam.

    Why would I buy a hyrid with these kinds of numbers. Another disadvantage is that the car would be a Toyota (not my favourite brand).

    I voted for Kevin Rudd because I thought he had vision. Now that I see him backing such a lame duck I wonder if I have made the right choice.

    Picking up on what another person said about us paying our hard earned tax dollars to the world’s richest company is disgusting. I heard that the president of Toyota was completely bemused by the money and reputedly was emabarrassed to take it. This smacks of populist politicking.

    On a slightly different note, my BF Falcon XR6 when driven really really gently returns around 9.0l/100km and at least I look cool driving it.

    Sasha Posted on 18 June 2008 4:51am
  • What an absolute joke! Rudd needs to get himself into the real world. Apart from the fact that he is the richest pollie ever..oops sorry ..its his wifes money!! He is so obssessed with doing the right thing with our Asian neighbours that he’s forgotten all about charity beginning at home. As far as the hybrids go I hired a Prius recently and yes they are very economical to run (1000kms -1 tank of fuel) but as previous writers have said its a false economy ..Im sure the hybrids are a bonus for the environment but they need to be more within reach to the average motorist.
    Bobby Boy from Adelaide has the right idea, thats the direction we should be heading. I’m sure the $35 million would have gone a long way into developing his project

    Janine Gibson of Sth Coast NSW Posted on 18 June 2008 4:44am
  • I work for a taxi company and we are seeing more and more cars being replaced with the Prius. Taxi operators are saving something like $1200 per month just by buying a Prius over a Camry. At this rate, they are recouping the additional purchase cost in less than 6 months.  The only problem I see with the Prius is the size, it’s a bit small. The Hybrid Camry is an ideal replacement for the Prius in taxi service. I just hope we see them before 2010. How about a Hybrid Tarago as well?

    Peter Humphreys of QLD Posted on 18 June 2008 4:16am
  • Just a plain good excellent article.

    Greg Brinkley of Sunshine Coast Qld Posted on 18 June 2008 4:06am
  • The PRIUS can’t be charged off the mains for a cheap quick shopping trip.
    The electric drive only replaces the gearbox. So what’s new?
    A tiny bit of regeneration on slowing down will save you enough to buy a box of matches to burn the mongrel car when the battery goes dead.
    Oh and it still runs on petrol.

    Charlie Posted on 18 June 2008 2:33am
  • What, a politician being seen to be doing the “right thing” instead of actually getting with reality? Surely not! My only wish is that governments (and the media) would stop blaming the car industry for all of the worlds supposed problems and start concentrating on the real problem - mainly dirty electricity production, and manufacturing plants. Toyota has already said that their next priority is Hybrid cars that plug in to your home electricity for recharging overnight - blind Freddie should be able to see that this will only increase the need for electricity production, therefore only producing more greenhouse gases than ever! Surely our governments should be concentrating on making clean electricity production an urgent priority, be it solar or wind power. Australia has plenty of both, and plenty of empty land that could quite easily be utilised for endless miles of solar panels and/or wind turbines. Why didn’t the $35 million go into finding ways of doing this cheaply? It would have been money netter spent, and we would all benefit from this sort of investment, rather than giving money to a company that doesn’t really need it!

    Dean Turner Posted on 17 June 2008 10:41pm
  • Let’s face it - the inmates are in charge of the asylum, and the head wardsman has no idea what’s going on.

    We have no solar rebate, but a hybrid car policy that is neither responsible, equitable or cost effective.

    We have changes in FBT rules that are impacting low paid instead of the high paid that were meant to be restricted.

    We have working families getting hit by the increasing fuel impost made worse by the fuel tax and the double counting of FBT, yet they keep saying that the goal is controlling inflation.

    Time to stop massaging their egos Australia and realise that inflation is going to get worse before it gets better, and that all the hybrid cars in the world won’t contribute to the positive outcome we need.

    Australia - learn from Winston Churchill - “You get the politicians you deserve”.

    Ross Wilkinson Posted on 17 June 2008 10:26pm
  • We`ve already had this Dudd for 6 months ...How much longer??Are we there yet??

    simon aniere Posted on 17 June 2008 7:28pm
  • Very well said Mr Dowling, and especially as today 17th June, Honda has released it’s Hydrogen car in limited numbers in the US. Petrol Hybrids were never going to be an answer with all of the environmental problems of disposing of the batteries and their replacement costs each 5 to 10 years.

    Roger Knight of Adelaide Posted on 17 June 2008 6:57pm
  • Elmer is pretty well right isnt it? Elmer Fudd, Rudd, DUD!
    It is ridiculous to GIVE Toyota a lot of money to MAKE money off of us…

    bill williams of gawler Posted on 17 June 2008 6:19pm
  • I think bb from adelaide has a great idea.  why can’t we have more funding for research into other ways to power cars.  I wouldn’t even care if the top speed of my car was only 90-100kms/hr, as long as i’m not paying ridiculous amounts to run my car.  The government should get more behind our inventors than large car companies that can fund themselves.

    J Tilley of Perth Posted on 17 June 2008 5:49pm
  • Even if you discount the environmental aspects, it’s sensibleto consider the economics of buying a Hybrid car in terms of break-even point, but when we expect to see this car in a couple of years at the earliest, and petrol could realistically be $2.50 a litre by then, the maths presented here is entirely out the window. Worse, you’re making calculations of 10 years of fuel basing the price of petrol on the first year. Before you call someone an idiot, I would like you to sell me some petrol today at 1998 fuel prices.

    Rod Whiteley Posted on 17 June 2008 5:40pm
  • Fuel Efficiency, Fuel Economy, A Safer Environment!
    The right market with the best product..for the 21st Century, and Beyond!
    Tomorrow’s Solution for Today’s Fuel
    This is not a water additive and for anybody that is interested in this product contact me via carsguide.

    Julie Eden of Werribee Posted on 17 June 2008 5:30pm
  • Great article. This should be published on the front page of every australian newspaper.

    Tim of Melbourne Posted on 17 June 2008 5:20pm
  • Geez people, when are we going to wake up to the fact that we have no choice but to change. Maybe Rudd has made a dumb move but in my opinion its far less stupid than Howard & Co. giving Holden & Ford money for a decade to prop up a failing local industry & not once putting a rider on the funding to say they must develop energy efficient low-emission engines. Where’s our locally developed engine? It doesn’t exist because Holden & Ford are too stupid to realise that the markets shifted year ago. Too busy pandering to the rev heads and pissing money against the wall.

    Rex of McMahons Point Posted on 17 June 2008 5:06pm
  • These Hybrid vehicles are not new, in the USA, GM withdrew over 80,000 vehicles in 2000, because they were too efficient and did not need servicing, the only thing they needed was to rotate tyres every 10000km, no oil filters no spark plugs no nothing at all, so do you thing the car companies want to loose money and governments want to loose money? NO WAY, GM has a fuel system which can run a V8 7kw system on unleaded doing an average of 120 miles to the gallon or 192km on 4.3 liters, this system was invented by an Australian in the early 1970’s they bought it of the inventors wife after his death for a mear $100,000. and shelved it. If there is no profit in it for the car compinies or governments then we all suffer.

    Dave Handa of Hassall Grove NSW Posted on 17 June 2008 5:05pm
  • Mr Rudd needs to get staff that knows what they are talking about and stop listening to a whole heap of bull from people who have never been in the auto game.
      I know that most people out there driving cars have heard the same old story time and time again about running your car on water but has anyone stopped to really give it some real deep thought, if think about the power of a hydrogen bomb, you are virtually looking at the power that can be harnessed quite safe to your vehicle and the emission is sweet bugger all .
      Maybe if the government put the money where there mouth is and let people with this knowledge get on with the job of perfecting the system so as it could be made available to the public at an affordable price to the battlers that put this government in power then we would be making some very big inroads to overcoming the pollution we are all so concerned about.
      I know there are heaps of people out there who think its all crap but the biggest stumbling block of all is the bloody oil companies as the are only interested in there own pockets not ours.
      If a full blown government effort was to be launched into this project I believe it could be up and running within 6 months.
      There are people out there that have already put some sort of system to this effect on there vehicles with great success so why in the hell aren’t they getting some sort of support.
      I myself have a design for a unit to run as a supplement to petrol and still working on a unit for EFI vehicles to run completely on hydrogen but I have one large problem as others indulged in these types of experimental systems $$$$$$$$‘S.
      I have been trying to get somebody interested in developing this system but they all laugh and say it will never work.  Thats the trouble with this country they know it’s out there but get shirty when somebody else or another country comes up with the same idea and successfully markets it .
      It’s the same old story of shutting the gate after the horses have bolted.
      If you think this is only a joke don’t bother replying but in the same token if you have an interest in this project I would welcome you views as I believe it could be the answer to the fuel problem.
      I also know there are other issues that are problematic to a project such as this but I could be on this keyboard for hours would rather talk face to face with some one that has a genuine interest in this system.

    bobbyboy of adelaide Posted on 17 June 2008 10:59am
  • Not much has been said about LPG prices lately -but I am led to believe that Australia sells LPG to China for 1 or 2 CPL - I find that hard to accept- especially after we were encouraged to convert petrol engines to run on LPG- bit like giving millions to Toyota. Thankyou for this opportunity to express my view.

    Rod. Walker of Gold Coast Posted on 17 June 2008 7:20am
  • In Piers Ackerman’s column in the “Daily Telegraph” on 12 June 2008, our benevolent PM was pictured, with an equally under performing Minister Kim Carr, in front of a Toyota Prius, holding a dipstick. Says it all.really!!

    Nigel Andrews of Dee Why 2099. Posted on 16 June 2008 11:49pm
  • Don’t just think economically. How about sustainability?
    If we continue to produce greenhouse gases at the current rate, we will be facing serious worldwide climate change in the next century.

    Jackson of Ryde Posted on 16 June 2008 10:13pm
  • I don’t drive a Hybrid but I know when the traffic isn’t heavy my fuel consumption falls dramatically. Why doesn’t Rudd spend more on unclogging our roads then we all would be more fuel efficient drivers instead of the lucky few that drive a hybrid.

    Bill of sydney Posted on 16 June 2008 9:42pm
  • I have to totally agree with Steve Mills on this. What is Rudd thinking to make this allright in his mind?  This is so un-Australian.

    Milly Stewart Posted on 16 June 2008 7:00pm
  • Rudd and Brumby throw tens of millions of dollars to the largest and possibly richest car maker in the world and yet destroy the solar industry and also keep neglecting our pensioners who are expected to survive on $269.00 a week.  They obviously have no idea or compassion for real people.  This is absolutely repulsive and disgusting

    steven mills of mt. eliza Posted on 13 June 2008 8:29pm
Read all 42 comments

Add your comment on this story

Indicates required

We welcome your comments on this story. Comments are submitted for possible publication on the condition that they may be edited. Please provide your full name. We also require a working email address - not for publication, but for verification. The location field is optional.

Cars for sale

Sponsored Links