Articles
   
       
Pics/Video
       
Wake 101
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WakeWorld Home
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Boats, Accessories & Tow Vehicles

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old     (MarkMason)      Join Date: Feb 2014       01-14-2015, 6:32 AM Reply   
If this recent announcement at the Detroit auto show is accurate with regard to the Ford 6.2 potential demise, this would not be good for marine brands that have jumped on the Ford bandwagon....

Will Ford still support these engines?


http://horsepowerkings.com/sources-f...50-after-2017/

http://www.freep.com/story/money/car...ptor/21623349/
Old     (Rusty)      Join Date: Mar 2014       01-14-2015, 6:35 AM Reply   
They're still going to make the 6.2L for marine and other industries just not for those specific vehicle models
Old     (Fixable)      Join Date: Oct 2012       01-14-2015, 8:32 AM Reply   
Ya, they dropped the 6.2 from the lineup for 2015 except for super duty, which will keep it for 15. Totally gone from ford vehicles in 2016. This would be why Ford is supplying the 6.2 for marine. Otherwise all of the R&D and tooling was going to be wasted for an engine that was only produced a few years.
Old     (redsupralaunch)      Join Date: Aug 2002       01-14-2015, 3:39 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkMason View Post
If this recent announcement at the Detroit auto show is accurate with regard to the Ford 6.2 potential demise, this would not be good for marine brands that have jumped on the Ford bandwagon....

Will Ford still support these engines?


http://horsepowerkings.com/sources-f...50-after-2017/

http://www.freep.com/story/money/car...ptor/21623349/
NOT TRUE

"A Ford official vehemently denied a report proclaiming the death of the V8 engine in the Mustang and F-150 models after 2017. The article from Horsepower Kings quoted an unnamed Ford representative..." http://www.carscoops.com/2015/01/for...p-v8-from.html

IMO today gas is $1.99 & diesel is $3.09 Although I put 250K miles on my 96 and 210K on my 05 diesel trucks, I will not be buying another diesel. My next F250 will be Raptor motor. I see Ford doing very well with this motor in Super Duty. You just wait - our greedy government will throw more tax on fuel now that it is lower and they will really stick it to diesel fuel. Now for the marine applications - I love the fact that this has a cast iron block unlike the aluminum GM 6.2
Old     (denverd1)      Join Date: May 2004       01-28-2015, 12:32 PM Reply   
was talking fuel taxes last night with some folks. I think fuel tax hike will be an Obama swan song. Can't imagine how they'll jack diesel up and how that will trickle down to EVERY thing in the country
Old     (Fixable)      Join Date: Oct 2012       01-28-2015, 5:28 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by redsupralaunch View Post
NOT TRUE

"A Ford official vehemently denied a report proclaiming the death of the V8 engine in the Mustang and F-150 models after 2017. The article from Horsepower Kings quoted an unnamed Ford representative..." http://www.carscoops.com/2015/01/for...p-v8-from.html

IMO today gas is $1.99 & diesel is $3.09 Although I put 250K miles on my 96 and 210K on my 05 diesel trucks, I will not be buying another diesel. My next F250 will be Raptor motor. I see Ford doing very well with this motor in Super Duty. You just wait - our greedy government will throw more tax on fuel now that it is lower and they will really stick it to diesel fuel. Now for the marine applications - I love the fact that this has a cast iron block unlike the aluminum GM 6.2
You better get on it!!!

You are right about Ford not getting rid of the "V8"........ The 5.0 and the new 5.2 flat crank will be sticking around for the mustang, and they will most likely have a 5.0 option for the SD.....

The 6.2, on the other hand, is dead. Removed from the F150 this year, and is being phased out of the super duty for the next gen., which is due for 2017 I believe. You have about 1 year to get that 6.2 if you want it.

Why do you think Ford was so eager to push this thing into the marine market?!?!? All that R&D and tooling for an engine that was only used for a few years. They are looking to get those costs back.
Old     (501s)      Join Date: Feb 2010       01-28-2015, 8:47 PM Reply   
Is there a known reason why they dropped it?
Old     (xstarrider)      Join Date: Jun 2007       01-29-2015, 3:48 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by 501s View Post
Is there a known reason why they dropped it?
My guess is ECOBOOST,

Call me old fashioned but I will take an old simple v8 over all these tricked out new engines. I see all these old Crown Vic's and Bubble Chevy Caprices with standard v8's going 200k easily on cars we beat the crap out of in our fleet. They get no where near the required maintanence. We have gotten brand new 6cyl Impalas, Chargers, and Just recently Explorers al w new, refined, v6's and they are blowing up left and right. If it ain't broke don't fix it. I have a hard time believing an Ecoboost that is pushed to the max to gain performance and run at high end of its curve will outlast a simple v8 run in the "sweet spot " with plenty left to give.

Last edited by xstarrider; 01-29-2015 at 3:55 AM.
Old     (timmyb)      Join Date: Apr 2007       01-29-2015, 8:22 AM Reply   
Horsepower Kings is a joke lately, literally! They have been reporting stuff that isn't true at all like this and then yesterday they reported the new Z06 "Ring" time that was a total fabrication and put to rest by the Corvette Chief Engineer.
Old     (timmyb)      Join Date: Apr 2007       01-29-2015, 8:24 AM Reply   
Also, my dealer here in Denver has gotten to know the guys at Indmar very well since he let them use his private lake here to do all of their high altitude testing and they keep telling him over and over that Ford is backing Indmar on this venture and will make it work. They are determined to be at the top of the food chain for marine engines, especially in the tow boat segment. I don't think that 6.2L is going anywhere as far as our market is concerned.
Old     (timmyb)      Join Date: Apr 2007       01-29-2015, 8:27 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverd1 View Post
was talking fuel taxes last night with some folks. I think fuel tax hike will be an Obama swan song. Can't imagine how they'll jack diesel up and how that will trickle down to EVERY thing in the country
Um, too late, diesel is already jacked up and the food prices already show it. Right now, the food mfr's are all raking in profits while fuel is low. Haven't you noticed that your 16oz bag of Dorito's is now 12oz for $1 more than it was when it was 16oz? Your loaf of bread and boxes of cereal are also 4 to 6oz short. They raised food prices without most consumer's even knowing that they did.
Old     (alans)      Join Date: Aug 2005       01-29-2015, 8:46 AM Reply   
Quote:
I have a hard time believing an Ecoboost that is pushed to the max to gain performance and run at high end of its curve will outlast a simple v8 run in the "sweet spot " with plenty left to give
You have that reversed. An Ecoboost runs in a sweet spot and has a lot more to give, where V8's are pushed to the max to get the performance needed to keep up. When I tow boats, sled trailer, or my travel trailer though the Eisenhower tunnel, my ecoboost chugs along casually at 70 mph at 2,000 rpm in 5th or 6th gear, while my old 6.0 V8 Chevy was screaming at 5,000 rpm in 3rd unable to keep over 55 mph.
Old     (redsupralaunch)      Join Date: Aug 2002       01-29-2015, 9:03 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fixable View Post
You better get on it!!!

You are right about Ford not getting rid of the "V8"........ The 5.0 and the new 5.2 flat crank will be sticking around for the mustang, and they will most likely have a 5.0 option for the SD.....

The 6.2, on the other hand, is dead. Removed from the F150 this year, and is being phased out of the super duty for the next gen., which is due for 2017 I believe. You have about 1 year to get that 6.2 if you want it.

Why do you think Ford was so eager to push this thing into the marine market?!?!? All that R&D and tooling for an engine that was only used for a few years. They are looking to get those costs back.
I'm not buying what you are selling. What is your source?
Old     (timmyb)      Join Date: Apr 2007       01-29-2015, 9:15 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by alans View Post
When I tow boats, sled trailer, or my travel trailer though the Eisenhower tunnel, my ecoboost chugs along casually at 70 mph at 2,000 rpm in 5th or 6th gear, while my old 6.0 V8 Chevy was screaming at 5,000 rpm in 3rd unable to keep over 55 mph.
Exactly! And the whole time you're going "CHIT! Is this thing going to blow up?!?!?", I was never comfortable with towing with the engine rpm's that high. You also have to think that fuel consumption is a lot more at 5,000 rpm than it is at 2,000 rpm.
Old     (chpthril)      Join Date: Oct 2007       01-29-2015, 9:29 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by alans View Post
You have that reversed. An Ecoboost runs in a sweet spot and has a lot more to give, where V8's are pushed to the max to get the performance needed to keep up. When I tow boats, sled trailer, or my travel trailer though the Eisenhower tunnel, my ecoboost chugs along casually at 70 mph at 2,000 rpm in 5th or 6th gear, while my old 6.0 V8 Chevy was screaming at 5,000 rpm in 3rd unable to keep over 55 mph.
thats rear and trans gearing, not engine. The answer is in your own post, the Eco has a 6 speed and the old chevy has a 4 spd.
Old     (alans)      Join Date: Aug 2005       01-29-2015, 9:45 AM Reply   
My Eco has 3.73's. my 2500HD had 4.10's. My chevy had the final drive advantage, especially in 3rd gear.

They may be goofy, but check out the video of these guys comparing the new Chevy 6.2 against the ecoboost on the drive I do every weekend. What is the excuse there?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR-g...-ts=1421914688

I do realize that the chevy probably would compare much more favorably at lower elevations. But for us high altitude guys, the ecoboost is a beast.

Last edited by alans; 01-29-2015 at 9:49 AM.
Old     (timmyb)      Join Date: Apr 2007       01-29-2015, 9:54 AM Reply   
What's the final drive ratio of 6th gear in the Ford vs 4th gear in the Chevy? The Chevy can't do it at 2,000 rpm, it didn't have enough torque at that RPM to do so whereas the Ecoboost does. Eisenhowser tunnel is 12,000' of altitude, HP Loss = (elevation x 0.03 x horsepower @ sea level)/1000 for a NA engine. Speed shops in our area find that turbo charged engines typically lose about 1/2 of that. 12,000 x .03 x 320hp(?)/1000 = 115 hp loss, so total engine power is now 205 for the Chevy. For the Ford, 12,000 x .015 x 365/1000 = 65.7, new hp = 299. I don't have scientific facts for the 1/2 correction factor, just going off of the local speed shops and the many dyno days I have been at where the turbo cars get a half correction factor. Of course those are peak hp numbers but should give you an idea of what the engine is up against. The 6.0L has is down 94 hp at peak to the Ecoboost at that altitude, no surprise that it would lose the battle.
***my numbers may not be entirely accurate, please check the math for yourself and correct as appropriate. Poster makes no claim as to being an expert of anything except pot stirring.
Old     (alans)      Join Date: Aug 2005       01-29-2015, 10:06 AM Reply   
Obviously if the chevy is spinning 5,000 rpm at 55 mph and the ecoboost is at 2,000 at 70 mph. The chevy has a tremendous mechanical advantage. The key is that the ecboost has 420 lb-ft of torque, and maintains 90% of peak torque from 1,700 rpm to 5,000 rpm. Most V-8s reach max torque at 5,000 rpm+/-. In the case of the Ford 6.2, 405 ft/lbs at 4,500. Factor in elevation and it really gets ugly for the V-8's.
Old     (timmyb)      Join Date: Apr 2007       01-29-2015, 10:17 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by alans View Post
My Eco has 3.73's. my 2500HD had 4.10's. My chevy had the final drive advantage, especially in 3rd gear.

They may be goofy, but check out the video of these guys comparing the new Chevy 6.2 against the ecoboost on the drive I do every weekend. What is the excuse there?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR-g...-ts=1421914688

I do realize that the chevy probably would compare much more favorably at lower elevations. But for us high altitude guys, the ecoboost is a beast.
Part 2 of that video when they are in the Chevy and going 45mph up hill and the tranny keeps shifting up and down is the sole reason I got rid of my Avalanche for a diesel. I couldn't stand that crap. I would downshift into 3rd and it would scream at 5,000 rpm but if it went to 4th, the speed just dropped. The 6-speed solved some of that but as you can see in that video, the NA V8 gas engine is just outgunned up here by the twin turbo V6 even though it's rated at higher HP and Torque. Love me some turbo power!
Old     (jonblarc7)      Join Date: Jul 2006       01-29-2015, 10:31 AM Reply   
I love my 6.2 gm v8 and with the headers and a tune it is very quick.

But I think it's funny how people get stuck on the V8 thing like its the only engine that makes power. Just look at all the GTR's that make 800 hp out of their twin turbo V6 and are killing Z06 and ZR1 vette's. I wouldn't mine giving the 2017 raptor a chance. That thing pulling my boat would be awesome, all you would here come down the road is turbo's singing.

It's almost like when fuel injection first came out.

"I don't need no computer to tell me how much fuel my car needs. You can't make no power with that crap, give an carburetor anyday and I'll drag your A$$ "

LOL

not so true any more.
Old     (timmyb)      Join Date: Apr 2007       01-29-2015, 10:47 AM Reply   
We need a fancy graph overlay of the Ecoboost and 6.2L raptor and 6.2L Chevy to show the torque at various rpm's. I'm sure someone can find that...
Old     (alans)      Join Date: Aug 2005       01-29-2015, 10:52 AM Reply   
Here is a nice one straight from Ford comparing the ford engines.
Attached Images
 
Old     (timmyb)      Join Date: Apr 2007       01-29-2015, 11:34 AM Reply   
Perfect! I'm guessing the old Chevy 6.0's graph looks similar to the 5.0. Even if it looked the EB, you can see why the EB wins @ 2,000 rpm, especially when you cut the NA engine's output down by ~35-40% at altitude. Interesting how the 6.2L has second spike at 4k rpm. I would have thought that it would lay down flat from 3,500 to 5,000 or so like the EB is. I wonder what the profile of the Indmar 440 is like compared to the truck version?
Old     (redsupralaunch)      Join Date: Aug 2002       01-29-2015, 1:44 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by timmyb View Post
Perfect! I'm guessing the old Chevy 6.0's graph looks similar to the 5.0. Even if it looked the EB, you can see why the EB wins @ 2,000 rpm, especially when you cut the NA engine's output down by ~35-40% at altitude. Interesting how the 6.2L has second spike at 4k rpm. I would have thought that it would lay down flat from 3,500 to 5,000 or so like the EB is. I wonder what the profile of the Indmar 440 is like compared to the truck version?
Indmar is reporting the 3 Raptor motors outperforming the previous GM blocks in that critical 2500 to 3500 RPM where its needed the most.

The Raptor 575 supercharged motor doesn't even fit on the above torque chart. I'm sure the 575 has a very flat torque curve like the EB above. I got to drive a SC 5.7 GM Indmar during Collegiate Nationals and the LSA at Worlds a few years ago. Torque is NOW. You know what they say, turbo is nice but I'd rather be blown. Makes a 8,000lb wakeboard boat drive better than that little ski boat I had with a 440. I have not drove the 575 yet but I cant wait!
Old     (Fixable)      Join Date: Oct 2012       01-29-2015, 6:59 PM Reply   
Chris- Straight from the horses mouth at the Detroit auto show..... You might be able to find a video on you tube of that portion of the ford release segment. I went this year. Mostly to see the new Raptor.

Also- The 6.2 supercharged has nowhere near the torque of the EB at 2500rpm. My roush raptor has tons of power up top in the rpm range, but it is not anything special at 2500. I have a couple fleet f150s with EBV6, and they are much better for towing than my RSC6.2.

Being as it is supercharged, the torque climbs linear with RPM. It's not going to have that mega low end torque like the EB.
Old     (timmyb)      Join Date: Apr 2007       01-30-2015, 6:46 AM Reply   
Here's a dyno of a roush supercharged Raptor truck. This is at the wheels so not the same as the dyno chart above but you can see the torque curve
Attached Images
 
Old     (timmyb)      Join Date: Apr 2007       01-30-2015, 6:54 AM Reply   
Here's an LSA dyno, I don't know that the GM crate motor LSA uses the same cam that the marine mfr's were using but you can see why a tow boat would pick the Raptor 6.2L over this. Look how long it takes to build the torque.
Attached Images
 
Old     (Fixable)      Join Date: Oct 2012       01-30-2015, 8:48 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by timmyb View Post
Here's an LSA dyno, I don't know that the GM crate motor LSA uses the same cam that the marine mfr's were using but you can see why a tow boat would pick the Raptor 6.2L over this. Look how long it takes to build the torque.
Umm..... Where is that from??? I would try to find an LSA dyno that is actually correct....

There is one VERY huge giveaway on that dyno, that proves it completely inaccurate. Let's see if anyone else picks up on it
Old     (spikeTX42)      Join Date: Dec 2014       01-30-2015, 9:02 AM Reply   
LSA should max out the torque at about 3800 rpm. The 6.2 raptor's torque curve looks like it was drawn by Michael J. Fox.
Old     (redsupralaunch)      Join Date: Aug 2002       01-30-2015, 9:11 AM Reply   
Someone help me out here. I don't have the tool to pull the graph off a pdf, but here shows the GM powertrain LSA at about 450@2500 rpm. Graph is right off GM website.

http://gmpowertrain.com/pdfpage.aspx#M_62LV8SC_specs

LSA has more torque above that EB above 2500 rpm. Raptor 575 supposed to have a little more but I have not seen the chart.
Old     (timmyb)      Join Date: Apr 2007       01-30-2015, 9:40 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fixable View Post
Umm..... Where is that from??? I would try to find an LSA dyno that is actually correct....

There is one VERY huge giveaway on that dyno, that proves it completely inaccurate. Let's see if anyone else picks up on it
HAHAHAHA! Well, I guess GM has no clue what they are talking about and putting out inaccurate information about their own engines. I stole it straight from their page...I'm guessing that you are referring to the fact that the HP/Torque don't cross at 5250 RPM?
http://www.chevrolet.com/performance.../lsa.html#dyno
Old     (timmyb)      Join Date: Apr 2007       01-30-2015, 9:46 AM Reply   
Here's the LS9 dyno,it crosses at the proper 5252 rpm. You can still see that it has the same slow ramp up on the torque.
Attached Images
 
Old     (timmyb)      Join Date: Apr 2007       01-30-2015, 9:48 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by redsupralaunch View Post
Someone help me out here. I don't have the tool to pull the graph off a pdf, but here shows the GM powertrain LSA at about 450@2500 rpm. Graph is right off GM website.

http://gmpowertrain.com/pdfpage.aspx#M_62LV8SC_specs

LSA has more torque above that EB above 2500 rpm. Raptor 575 supposed to have a little more but I have not seen the chart.
They must use a different cam/intake combo, here's the chart:
Attached Images
 
Old     (timmyb)      Join Date: Apr 2007       01-30-2015, 9:54 AM Reply   
Sorry for posting the car variants first, I didn't find those marine versions.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       01-30-2015, 9:56 AM Reply   
and the ls3 graph:

Old     (timmyb)      Join Date: Apr 2007       01-30-2015, 10:01 AM Reply   
The LS3 looks to have good bottom end torque, enough to compete with the Raptor at any rate.
Old     (Fixable)      Join Date: Oct 2012       01-30-2015, 10:42 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by timmyb View Post
Sorry for posting the car variants first, I didn't find those marine versions.
Wasn't so much that...... Not sure where you got that dyno from, but it is a bad fabrication.....

If a dyno has equal scales for HP and TQ, the HP and TQ will ALWAYS cross at 5252rpm. Doesn't matter what engine type/size/output. They will always cross at 5252rpm. Horsepower and torque will always be the same, for any engine, at that rpm. (Because horsepower is a direct measurement of torque, and the calculation base is 5252.)
Old    aacadiacom            01-30-2015, 10:55 AM Reply   
There is a reason why PCM choose not to go with the 6.2L Ford block, and instead choose to create all their new power plants around the Gen 5 Chevy motors. The new generation of motors will not only be around for many years after the ill fated Raptor, but like everyone else is stating, the power curves are a much better fit to the tow boat market! It was a much more expensive choice, but a better one for PCM's health and prosperity long term. The 6.2 is a band aid for Indmar, while they take the time to develop engines from newer platforms.
Old     (timmyb)      Join Date: Apr 2007       01-30-2015, 11:26 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fixable View Post
Wasn't so much that...... Not sure where you got that dyno from, but it is a bad fabrication.....

If a dyno has equal scales for HP and TQ, the HP and TQ will ALWAYS cross at 5252rpm. Doesn't matter what engine type/size/output. They will always cross at 5252rpm. Horsepower and torque will always be the same, for any engine, at that rpm. (Because horsepower is a direct measurement of torque, and the calculation base is 5252.)
See other post, it's straight from GM. Yes, I am very familiar with 5252.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       01-30-2015, 11:29 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by aacadiacom View Post
There is a reason why PCM choose not to go with the 6.2L Ford block, and instead choose to create all their new power plants around the Gen 5 Chevy motors. The new generation of motors will not only be around for many years after the ill fated Raptor, but like everyone else is stating, the power curves are a much better fit to the tow boat market! It was a much more expensive choice, but a better one for PCM's health and prosperity long term. The 6.2 is a band aid for Indmar, while they take the time to develop engines from newer platforms.
That's probably what people said when the last 5.7L Gen i SBC rolled out of the roadgoing assembly line in 2002...
Old    aacadiacom            01-30-2015, 3:48 PM Reply   
The length of time the 5.7 was in production (50 plus years) was a little longer than the life the Raptor motor. I would venture to guess that demand is what has kept the 5.7 alive for so long after production stopped, but those blocks are probably about dried up. This is most likely why no engine manufacturer is offering that as an option anymore...
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       01-30-2015, 4:13 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by aacadiacom View Post
The length of time the 5.7 was in production (50 plus years) was a little longer than the life the Raptor motor. I would venture to guess that demand is what has kept the 5.7 alive for so long after production stopped, but those blocks are probably about dried up. This is most likely why no engine manufacturer is offering that as an option anymore...
Even though the 5.7 left vehicle production in 2002, it was produced in Mexico until last year for marine use. There's no reason that the 6.2 couldn't stick around for marine use for the foreseeable future too.
Old     (redsupralaunch)      Join Date: Aug 2002       01-30-2015, 4:27 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fixable View Post
Chris- Straight from the horses mouth at the Detroit auto show..... You might be able to find a video on you tube of that portion of the ford release segment. I went this year. Mostly to see the new Raptor.

Also- The 6.2 supercharged has nowhere near the torque of the EB at 2500rpm. My roush raptor has tons of power up top in the rpm range, but it is not anything special at 2500. I have a couple fleet f150s with EBV6, and they are much better for towing than my RSC6.2.

Being as it is supercharged, the torque climbs linear with RPM. It's not going to have that mega low end torque like the EB.
Eric, I have watched all video's and found nothing about 6.2 going away in Super Duty. There is all the hype about EB in the little 1/2 ton. Don't get me wrong, I am very impressed with the EB. But there is no evidence it is going away in a Super Duty. Now I did find about a dozen 3rd party articles speculating 6.2 getting direct injection coupled with the new 10 speed in 2017 Super Duty. I drive my truck like my boat, a lot of weight.

I understand completely why the little half ton gets a super light weight motor with big turbo. EPA fleet MPG ratings says it all. Super Duty MPG is exempt from that fleet rating, correct?

On another note, I am stoked that I only paid $2.49 for diesel yesterday But it was still 50 cent more than gas.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 9:13 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2019 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us