Later manifolds - 'bridge' between middle headers?
Discussion
Righto, after retightening my 'rear' fasteners yet again this eve (despite ARPs, nordloks and very healthy threads accepting good torque still, the buggers still buzz loose), I'm wondering what the purpose of the bridge on the flange is - the continuation of the flange bar between the pipes for 3 and 5, and between 2 and 4? Can see why the two pairs would be braced but am guessing the bridge is simply there to aid manufacture (ie to help locate the pipes when welding up etc) and/or to make the assemply more robust when being handled etc. To my mind, it doesn't seem to serve much purpose once the manifolds are clamped to the heads.
So.... anyone cut it out and got rid? Apart from a few more ounces gone, it would aid access to the lower run of manifold fasteners immensely and might, just might, change whatever is the frequency of the buzz or resonance that causes the screws to back out so that they don't. Thoughts?
So.... anyone cut it out and got rid? Apart from a few more ounces gone, it would aid access to the lower run of manifold fasteners immensely and might, just might, change whatever is the frequency of the buzz or resonance that causes the screws to back out so that they don't. Thoughts?
Erm, you bolt to that flange - making it 4 piece can only make it less solidly fixed to the cylinder head I would have thought. Apart from it bracing the headers all together when you're fighting them to fit the Y piece?
This goes in the same class as your 'squish' comment, are you needing a holiday
This goes in the same class as your 'squish' comment, are you needing a holiday
Think you might be misunderstanding me (on both counts) - removing the piece I'm discussing will make it two pieces to clamp, each being secured by four screws to the mating faces of the block. The bridge adds nothing except lateral bracing as it hangs in mid air for 95% of its length (I'll give you the Y piece concern but that's got round with careful fitting and the ratchet strap trick). Thought you might have been the one to have tried doing away with it if anyone; maybe not as much of an experimenter as I assumed
The squish point is a whole different story (remember my bike background and think two-strokes); just not used to the term being used in the context of dished piston two-valve four strokes!
Holiday sounds great; you paying?
The squish point is a whole different story (remember my bike background and think two-strokes); just not used to the term being used in the context of dished piston two-valve four strokes!
Holiday sounds great; you paying?
spend said:
erm THAT IS the strain & stress I was referring to, it doesn't magically evaporate once you have it clamped up & release your tourniquet contraptions does it?
No, of course. But if you think about it, the pipework and that brace are actually working against each other during that particular fight given the triangulation that occurs. I have nothing more than gut instinct to go on and maybe it's asking for all sorts of crack inducing issues in the poor grade stainless, but I actually wonder whether the stresses and loads might be better distributed through the length of the manifold with the bridge gone, rather than being concentrated as must result from its presence. Could it even be that load, transferring/cantilevering along the flange and resulting from the Y piece clamping distortion, that induces the rear fasteners to back off?Do the earlier bolt-up manifolds suffer the same problem? Or the nice ACT ones (rather than the TVR clones)?
Gassing Station | Chimaera | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff