2.5 petrol rebuild and conversion to EFI thread?

[Gazzar]

Yes, I understand. I was more thinking in terms of clearing the bulkhead. Custom manifolds would achieve that.

[FridgeFreezer]

Stock cast manifolds should clear everything OK unless you've put something in an inconvenient location, and tubular manifolds are a hell of a lot of work (=money) and release a hell of a lot of heat into the engine bay. I had a set and got rid of them.

I've no idea on prices, I'd expect significantly less than £1300 though, especially for an 88.

[Gazzar]

Oh, I trial fitted the lambda sensor, finger tight. The wiring run will be straightforward, along side the starter wiring until it meets the rest of the injection loom, then back to the seat bulkhead.

[Landrover17H]

The exhaust fitting seems familiar? Filled mine with a heap of exhaust paste, sorted.

Off the shelf in stainless, likely you’ll be look at offerings by Double S. Custom exhausts systems (I hasten to add, without manifold) are not as pricey as you'd think. A decent S/S by Double S is not cheap, whereas by virtue of ease of welding, your local custom-zhorst boy  will be using far heavier-grade stainless than you'd meet in any pressed-up Double S.  Be clear, tubing won't be thicker out of the goodness of his heart, more that it's easier to weld, and the cost difference over labour-increase and 'come-back' reduction makes heavier tube ‘all-in’ cheaper. Yes it'll be 50% more, but it's twice the system.

But... if you're talking one-off manifolds, things get very pricey. I can't see how Big666’s £1300 quote could be a true custom job, more likely a preset design, already set-up to 'dial-in' to a tube-bender. That is not to make light of the skills and general nouse  required to do this. Making a tubular manifold, and doing this well, is no easy task. With heaps of pricey scrap tube just staring at you, it's very simple to get wrong. Being the V8, £1300 is too cheap for a one-off, but it promises to be the better job for it.
The 4-pot is a different animal, I get the impression, others think a 4-pot should be cheaper? How so? Without the hard bit done, it needs to be a true, ‘custom’ one-off, rather than a stock ‘V8 custom’. This, we can’t just 'dial' in.

Decent manifolds are difficult to produce. Hence they tend to be amongst the pricier ‘tuning’ add-ons. Because they’re visible and the easier concept to grasp, every man-jack fits such things. If they gave the same power increases as free-flowing cylinder-heads, that’d be grand, but they don’t. At least not in the four-pot. And because their cost is high, they carry a burden which has them failing to deliver bang-for-buck. It’s not clear where you’d like to take this, be aware it’s easy to be on the path of diminishing returns. Boy-racer science can set-in.

Me? Find yourself a stock twin-box behind your ACR pipework - it’ll be quieter with no appreciable loss in power. A twin-box is less restrictive than the stock single, and, without the noise of ACR’s single straight thru’. Can’t speak for the 88, but my Double S 109 twin-box contains a silencer and resonator, much as modern practice. It's a hotch-potch of proper one-off custom-made, and Doube S. In hindsight, I wish I'd had it all done 'custom'. The 'custom' parts are piece-of-art in themselves.

The head, inlet bottleneck, and cam is where the big gobs of gain sit, and you've done all that.

Edited August 3, 2020 by Landrover17H

[Gazzar]

So, if I fit a standard back box, in mild steel, it will sound like a standard series? 

Nice!

I've not seen any swb system with two boxes, I must look through the parts book again, must be an option.

[Landrover17H]

Oh yes, if my bloke comes back with production - he thinks he can come in at under £700 for the S/S item. Be ready to bite his hand off. Unfortunately, 'horses-for-pennies', won't be what you've become accustomed to. This won't be my bloke's fault, it's the nature of the beast.

[Landrover17H]

19 minutes ago, Gazzar said:

So, if I fit a standard back box, in mild steel, it will sound like a standard series? 

Nice!

I've not seen any swb system with two boxes, I must look through the parts book again, must be an option.

Yes, for me, the whole point of the 17H is right there. No dilution involved, thus if you're after 'that indefinable Series thing' nothing else will do it. There'll be better, some faster, (unless you go my route) some more economical - yet none will run and 'feel' like a leafer. Hard to find for the 109, but you're handicapped. I only say this  because I care.... you lack those critical extra inches. Sniff, it can't helped.  Everyday, an 88 owner is harassed and abused, together we can stop this.

Until this sad situation is put right, you poor tragic thing, you want the one on the left. Sob. Was mandatory in some export markets:

Edited August 3, 2020 by Landrover17H

[Landrover17H]

It flows, as modern practice, because you're not trying to do it all in one box, and separates the two functions of the system better. Coilers have twin-box too.

[Gazzar]

Thanks. I'll look out for one of those. Shame it's a 3 bolt flange, otherwise it would have been a drop-in fit.

[Landrover17H]

We can achieve 'flow' in one box, but it'll have that MGB rort... all very fine for ten minutes, then becomes as pointless as 'the others' and gets on your t*ts... For those insistin', why mess?.... we could have stopped 46 pages back. Had a V8 or TDi and be done. A V8 or TDi does that 'thing' better. Thus:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3mPpv8h468

Edited August 3, 2020 by Landrover17H

[Gazzar]

No, prefer silent. 

[Landrover17H]

Ah, well, however you do this, insist on a twin-box. Comes a little more cerebral.

Edited August 3, 2020 by Landrover17H

[Landrover17H]

Just a thought, do you have the 88-variant of ACR's straight-thru' jobby there now? You might do better still - run with me here...

 

Edited August 3, 2020 by Landrover17H

[Gazzar]

Yes. 

[Nonimouse]

If you want to find out about exhausts, buy a copy of this and read it... some other useful stuff in there

https://www.cartechbooks.com/how-to-increase-horsepower.html?utm_source=DIY_muscle_car&utm_medium=top_blog_promo&utm_campaign=diy

[Landrover17H]

Not to knock the ACR box, it's supplied with the kit to do a job and keep the overall kit price down. Things have progressed recently, yet historically our particular solution has never been mainstream. It'd be easy to be at the fringe of the fringe here, and I think our respective routes are definitely that! You won't get what you're truly wanting easily.

At the time Rimmers offered every possible permutation, thus I found a 109 Double S twin box in S/S. If you had a LHD S2 CSW, and wanted S/S in twin-box, you could buy it?!

But it's not what the market wants. Today you'll find an 88 M/S  if you look very hard. You get more choice zhorst-wise. If  yours were  a 109, you'd have no chance.For you, under endowment, and it being a 'truck' and therefore a tad mincing....   isn't usually a good thing.

If you've space, I'd cobble ACR's box, and another box further upstream. Exhausts in my experience are a massive pain to get right, and expense. I had a part custom job to get mine truly sorted. A mix-and-match of one of these in M/S will be a cheap route, but expect woe. If you don't find at least some mild issues, consider yourself v.lucky!

Edited August 4, 2020 by Landrover17H

[Gazzar]

What difference does it make which side the exhaust exits? When I made the chassis repair sections I fitted hangers for both sides.

[Landrover17H]

Can't see exit route making any difference. We'd be wanting to ask those exhaust-gases their opinion, I would  think, more a space issue and keeping all as straight as possible? If it becomes your chosen path, sorry, I'm afraid I've never seen a twin-box 88. You really are on your own here, I think the last S3 had them, but I'm probably talking out of my rectal-passage. The ACR manifold will add another dimension, exactly how you achieve 'right' could easily get expensive. Which is why so many V8/TDi conversions have shonked-in systems.

Done right, you could finish with something superior to mine?

Back-in-the-day, Lukey made a system, (it too had issues,  I had one modded for my 109). Pix might give you clues.... but I know nothing of the 88...

Couldn't lower myself etc etc...

 

Edited August 4, 2020 by Landrover17H

[Gazzar]

Who is lukey?

[Landrover17H]

Lukey were, (or still are?) an Aussie outfit that brought a batch of the above (made of S/S) into the UK. Mind, that was nearer twenty years back. Ashley (at £400 ish) make a M/S version today ( I think?). But, in this department what we want is the ACR pipe, in S/S. Unfortunately, there's no such animal, and I grasp  why not, hence my haranguing of anyone that'll listen.

Edited August 4, 2020 by Landrover17H

[Landrover17H]

To be clear, you've really given three choices;

1) Leave system stock. It'll knock power, the single-box is restrictive.

2) Put in a single-box straight-thru',  it'll be quite 'rorty'.

3) Duplicate the coiler system where you can. Follow modern practice - find a way to a twin-box in one form or another.

In case you're minded to think S/S remains shiny, here's a piccy of the middle section of my 109 twin-box.

And when I can find one, ACR's pipe up front, in S/S, but then I might have said.

Edited August 5, 2020 by Landrover17H

[Snagger]

I had one of those on my 109 when I first bought it.  Quite hard to source a replacement from LR at the time (92), and caused them a lot of confusion.  It seemed the vehicle was originally intended to be exported to Australia, rather than being an order for the NRA.  The purpose of that centre box appears to have been to greatly encourage catastrophic rusting of the chassis rail from the inside out.

[Landrover17H]

On the 109,  in twin-box form the rear-box 'lives' in the same place as the usual single-box system. Whereas, the centre-box sits (closer to prop-shaft) further away from the chassis-rails than the matched rear-box. I would think in 109 flavour, this issue will be more prevalent in the rear. Not familiar enough with the layout of the 88.

Edited August 17, 2020 by Landrover17H

[Snagger]

11 hours ago, Landrover17H said:

On the 109,  in twin-box form the rear-box 'lives' in the same place as the usual single-box system. Whereas, the centre-box sits (closer to prop-shaft) further away from the chassis-rails than the matched rear-box. I would think in 109 flavour, this issue will be more prevalent in the rear. Not familiar enough with the layout of the 88.

No, the centre box sits extremely close the the left chassis rail, so much so that they rattle against the floor support brace if you don’t get the alignment just right and transfer all that heat into the chassis to rust it even when it is right, while the rear box has more than twice the space, though still limited, and more margin for misalignment.  It’s a horrible and unnecessary system - the single box system is much better in all respects.

[Landrover17H]

OK,  there's clearly different versions. And I can see what you mean.

eg: I've gone thru' four of the stock 'front petrol pipe', and none were straight-swaps for the last.

My centre-box is actually 'clocked' quite a bit, so that unlike the drawing above, the centre-box sits away from the vertical. This could well be a fault, in that it's not truly supposed to fit as it does. One thing's for sure, I've had no end of woe and expense, getting supposedly stock and  'correct' systems to fit. If I'm right, this system's 'poor fit' actually works in my favour. 

And from what I've seen, if yours has been a poor fit (or even as it should fit) and it gave issues, I wouldn't be in the least surprised, so i can understand why you're not a fan.

 

 

Edited August 17, 2020 by Landrover17H