Landracing Forum Home
May 21, 2013, 01:32:34 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News:
BACK TO LANDRACING.COM HOMEPAGE
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  

(Note: Donations are not tax deductible)
Pages: 1 ... 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 [76] 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 ... 129   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Getting ready for Bonneville(rebuild)  (Read 257295 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
saltfever
Guest

« Reply #1125 on: June 16, 2010, 11:21:54 PM »

WOW.........You are going to have a ton of wiggly lines to look at after a run!
Does that mean it also records his tire tracks?   FREUD 

Got those on video.  grin
Logged
bvillercr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Age: 46
Location: fresno, ca
Posts: 2056





Ignore
« Reply #1126 on: June 17, 2010, 01:39:46 AM »

WOW.........You are going to have a ton of wiggly lines to look at after a run!
Does that mean it also records his tire tracks?   FREUD  

Got those on video.  grin

like this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Udo7XM472Qk
Logged

bvillercr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Age: 46
Location: fresno, ca
Posts: 2056





Ignore
« Reply #1127 on: June 17, 2010, 10:28:26 AM »

Or these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHUEA-pScY8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55XA0vrNNj0
Logged

saltfever
Guest

« Reply #1128 on: June 17, 2010, 04:52:16 PM »

I see a rooster-tail but no tire tracks! Thats the problem with loose adobe  grin
Logged
bvillercr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Age: 46
Location: fresno, ca
Posts: 2056





Ignore
« Reply #1129 on: June 17, 2010, 09:51:42 PM »

I see a rooster-tail but no tire tracks! Thats the problem with loose adobe  grin

Speaking of loose adobe, here you go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17HOby9FnC8
Logged

bvillercr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Age: 46
Location: fresno, ca
Posts: 2056





Ignore
« Reply #1130 on: June 19, 2010, 02:40:24 PM »

We got the flanges and some pipe, not sure if we will use the pipe.  It wasn't what we thought it was going to be. afro
Logged

jl222
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Location: Clovis calif.
Posts: 1882




Ignore
« Reply #1131 on: June 20, 2010, 11:51:49 AM »

We got the flanges and some pipe, not sure if we will use the pipe.  It wasn't what we thought it was going to be. afro

  I ordered stainless u-bends from summitt racing and when they arrived I checked to see if they were non-magnetic [they wern't]
after checking the companys web site [dynomax] I found out that it was 409 stainless steel but it will rust a bit and is used on auto applications were appearance doesn't matter.
  Oh well live and learn, I thought stainless steel meant no staining huh
 I hope to order 304 stainless from Columbia River Mandrel Bending tomorrow.

            JL222
« Last Edit: June 20, 2010, 11:54:23 AM by jl222 » Logged
jdincau
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Age: 72
Location: Palmdale, Cal.
Posts: 462





Ignore
« Reply #1132 on: June 20, 2010, 02:14:27 PM »

It's only "stainless" to the people selling it. The people manufacturing it call it "corrosion resistant"
Logged

"We can never select the one result we want to the exclusion of all others"
David Pye
saltfever
Guest

« Reply #1133 on: June 20, 2010, 06:11:46 PM »

Quite a few years ago (can’t remember exactly) the EPA upped the mileage requirement on all emissions equipment. A few existing items were upgraded and required to last 70,000 miles instead of the original 50,000 requirement and new items were added to the list. While EGR and the pump were part of the original EPA requirements the actual exhaust pipe system was not, due to the tremendous cost and OEM resistance. I can’t remember the steel company but a new formula was created to be low cost (relatively) and malleable. That is when EPA include the exhaust system under the 70,000 requirement. 409 stainless was created solely as a cheap material to meet EPA mandates. It is still more costly than aluminized tubing so you will find 409 used sparingly unless it is an expensive car (i.e., more profit for the OEM). On cheaper cars, 409 is used only where aluminized tube will not survive the 70,000 mile mandate. This is typically, but not always, in the headers, and CAT. I haven’t cared to keep up with the EPA so my numbers above are probably wrong or outdated. I agree that 409 is mislabeled. However, even from the beginning 409 was called stainless because of its nickel content which is far less than either 304 or 316. It was marketing swill and it perpetuates to this day. Corrosion resistant steel (CRES) and stainless are words used almost synonymously on most drawings and specifications. Those in the industry who see either word will ask for further specification of either 304 or 316 because of the tremendous cost difference. You can never rely on the word “stainless” due to the tremendous range of alloys, properties, and cost. Much marketing of 409 in the aftermarket is relying on the consumers lack of knowledge.  YMMV   wink
Logged
bvillercr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Age: 46
Location: fresno, ca
Posts: 2056





Ignore
« Reply #1134 on: June 20, 2010, 07:51:32 PM »

If it looks to good to be true it must be something you probably don't want. rolleyes  looks like another day gone by, and another rush order to be placed Monday or Tuesday. cheers  there's always a learning experience just around the corner. grin
« Last Edit: June 20, 2010, 07:53:50 PM by bvillercr » Logged

jl222
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Location: Clovis calif.
Posts: 1882




Ignore
« Reply #1135 on: June 20, 2010, 08:14:42 PM »


 Saltfever.... corrosion resistant or cres doesn't apear in the add or 304 in the borla tubing that is the good stuff but I did find 304 U bends from Columbia River tube for not much more in price but will ask more questions before buying this time.
 No problem returning to Summit but I have to pay shipping.

                             JL222
Logged
GH
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Age: 71
Location: Springfield, Missouri
Posts: 698





Ignore
« Reply #1136 on: June 21, 2010, 08:13:49 AM »

John and Troy, all my stainless steel is either 304 or 316, but I am lucky to know a couple of people who work at a food processing equiptment plant who use stainless steel. Even got many T-304 180 degree bends in the 3" OD size.
Logged
Rex Schimmer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Age: 70
Location: Fulton, CA
Posts: 1474


Only time and money prevent completion!




Ignore
« Reply #1137 on: June 21, 2010, 10:54:19 AM »

John and Troy,
Most "race car" stainless headers are made from 321 stainless as it is stronger and has higher strength at temperature than 304. If you look up the stength properties of 304 you willl find that it has about the same tensil and yeild strenght as mild steel and when use for headers really only provides protection against salt. Don't forget to get the special weld flux for doing stainless or make up some plugs and argon line for purging the ID of the tube while you weld or you will get a really ugly looking weld on the inside of the tube that is both restrictive but provides a great place for the weld to start cracking.

Rex
Logged

Rex

Not much matters and the rest doesn't matter at all.
saltfever
Guest

« Reply #1138 on: June 21, 2010, 03:22:36 PM »

Rex, great point about purging the inside!  Good information about 321. Thanx.  smiley
Logged
bvillercr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Age: 46
Location: fresno, ca
Posts: 2056





Ignore
« Reply #1139 on: June 22, 2010, 01:06:16 PM »

Lots of grinding in our future. evil  flanges need to be ported. cheers
Logged

Pages: 1 ... 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 [76] 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 ... 129   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!


Google visited last this page April 27, 2013, 05:51:28 PM