Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hey guys im looking at running braided oil drains because of the hot stainless manifold just wouldering what size weld on dash fittings would fit best -8 or -10? im thinking of welding a fitting on the end of the bit that comes of the block and another one on the drain bit of the turbo? just wondering what size fitting?

cheers

Use this gear over the drains, if you CBF'd using an fittings

http://www.mpsracing.com/products/Earls/Flame_Guard.asp

id rather use fittings in think? the drain is like 3mm of the manifold. would -10 be ok or should i go to a -12?

That flame guard stuff is useless if it gets too close to the manifold, mine has dried out and just crumbles when you touch it.

-10 on the drain will be fine

ATP, GCG etc all sell an drain adaptors for around $30-40 and I'm using a speedflow adaptor out of the block (currently rubber on a hose tail but will be repacing shortly).

ATP-FLA-019_450.jpg

oilreturn.jpg

Steel pipe will be ALOT more durable than any braided lines when mounted close to a heat scource, reguardless of what you wrap them in. The red firesleve (aeroquip) is designed to be a flash flame protection cover not an absolute thermal barrier for 1200 deg C...

My suggestion is to use the standard or standard style drain tube. Get the drain tube to line up 5 or 6 cm from the drain fitting on the block and use a short peice of high temp rated hose, with good quality stainless steel hose clamps to join them. As long as you flare the ends of both tubes, the hose will never come off.

If your super woried about leaks, just double clamp each end.

My 2 cents

Justin

^ I think they can input whatever they want.

I can see this being another classic SAU discussion.

make a solid oil drain pipe out of stainless dont even need to worry about mandrels just keep it flowing down wards and lobster back style it.. than use 3/4" aeroquip hose from the drain pipe to the fittin on the block. usually takes me about 20-30 minutes to knock one together, its never goin to melt because its to close to the manifold, its never goin to run the risk of collapsing

Waz191.jpg

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...