Re: stainless steel intake???
[Re: moparmanof85]
#783817
08/25/10 12:42 PM
08/25/10 12:42 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,562
Brookeville, Md
Mr.Yuck
Not enough dumb comments...yet
|
Not enough dumb comments...yet
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,562
Brookeville, Md
|
Quote:
it weighs no more thn cast iron. i have the pieces laid out ready to weld with extra. 17.774 lbs
can you go w/ a thiner gauge? I'm sure it could be fabbed up just like a home made aluminum. it wouls just be heavy as mentioned. What fuel are you trying to use? Could you somehow coat a aluminum intake?
|
|
|
Re: stainless steel intake???
[Re: moparmanof85]
#783820
08/25/10 01:10 PM
08/25/10 01:10 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,709
Bitopia
jcc
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
|
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,709
Bitopia
|
Quote:
working on an alternate fuel source and stainless is inert, whereas cast iron and aluminum are not. i need, or i would like to keep the fuel elements pure for maximum output. i'm a mechanical engineer with a major in molecular chemistry and a fetish for monster motors
Well engineer, I was always taught the simplest solution was likely the best, seems like the core issue/problem is keeping the fuel elements pure ( I'm suspicious how much of a problem that really is in the first place), and it seems to me there are many other solutions with fewer downsides and less cost/hassle, however if the "flash" factor of SS is your thing, have at it. 
Reality check, that half the population is smarter then 50% of the people and it's a constantly contested fact.
|
|
|
Re: stainless steel intake???
[Re: moparmanof85]
#783821
08/25/10 01:23 PM
08/25/10 01:23 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,051
Slidell, La.
doctor_mopar
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,051
Slidell, La.
|
So you plan stainless heads and block, pistons.................
------------------------ It doesn't matter what you do.........As long as you look good doing it !
|
|
|
Re: stainless steel intake???
[Re: jcc]
#783822
08/25/10 01:28 PM
08/25/10 01:28 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 738
TN
'84 D150 Shorty
Pickup Man
|
Pickup Man
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 738
TN
|
Quote:
Quote:
working on an alternate fuel source and stainless is inert, whereas cast iron and aluminum are not. i need, or i would like to keep the fuel elements pure for maximum output. i'm a mechanical engineer with a major in molecular chemistry and a fetish for monster motors
Well engineer, I was always taught the simplest solution was likely the best, seems like the core issue/problem is keeping the fuel elements pure ( I'm suspicious how much of a problem that really is in the first place), and it seems to me there are many other solutions with fewer downsides and less cost/hassle, however if the "flash" factor of SS is your thing, have at.
I'm no. engineer or chemist or whatever by any means, lol, but if high school memory serves me correctly, I think the stainless is preferreable but like he said it is inert. If cast iron or aluminum is used with the alternative fuel, the molecules of the fuel and intake will bond, which makes the fuel...well, not fuel anymore, and erodes the metal of the intake.....I think....
Last edited by '84 D150 Shorty; 08/25/10 01:31 PM.
|
|
|
Re: stainless steel intake???
[Re: '84 D150 Shorty]
#783823
08/25/10 01:35 PM
08/25/10 01:35 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 25,200
Upper Midwest
MoparforLife
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 25,200
Upper Midwest
|
Stainless does not dissipate the heat as quickly and will run hotter. Not a good deal in this case. Take note of how hot stainless headers run and hold the heat.
Clean it, if it's Dirty. Oil it, if it Squeaks.
But: Don't fix it, if it Works!
|
|
|
Re: stainless steel intake???
[Re: moparmanof85]
#783828
08/28/10 11:58 PM
08/28/10 11:58 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,709
Bitopia
jcc
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
|
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,709
Bitopia
|
Quote:
its not that easy. its taken me 6 years to get this far. pistons are not the issue because they are only in contact with the fuel for a short time. the heads are the same. ive made a port inside a piece of titanium sleeving that the fuel can be injected through. this is attached to the spark plug port and i've made special extended, ported spark plugs. its a long story. cant give away all of the secrets, right?
Boy a lot of lose ends on this thread, SS is not inert. Depending on the fuel, it might reactive then CI or alum, but its not inert. So what is the fuel, I know its a secret, but how much real time is the fuel in contact with alum/CI anyway with say port injection, and why not a coating, like teflon, or a ceramic. Since you are keeping so much secret, its really hard to figure out what your target really is. I can't see how heat transfer is much of an issue, and that is solvable anyway. If you have a TI fuel port, why the concern with a SS intake manifold? This feels like brainstorming, with everyone speaking a different lanquage
|
|
|
Re: stainless steel intake???
[Re: jcc]
#783829
08/30/10 08:45 AM
08/30/10 08:45 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
patrick
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
|
how about a standard cast iron/aluminum intake, and have it ceramic coated?
1976 Spinnaker White Plymouth Duster, /6 A833OD
1986 Silver/Twilight Blue Chrysler 5th Ave HotRod **SOLD!***
2011 Toxic Orange Dodge Charger R/T
2017 Grand Cherokee Overland
2014 Jeep Cherokee Latitude (holy crap, my daughter is driving)
|
|
|
|
|
