A modified anti roll bar isn't an mot failure, or else everyone running an aftermarket arb would fail. Having one there that isn't functioning is, ie disconnected. I don't think having it completely removed is a fail either.spooke said:Of course it's going to handle worse, I think you should modify that manifold to fit - if possible, or get one that doesn't require any changes to the anti roll bar.
From what I've read too it is a MOT failure.
Well, that's what I want to find out. Of course It's a nice thing to say I have an NBE manifold yes, but willy waving isn't going to make me any quicker, which is what I actually care about.ep3itrdc5 said:am i missing the point here...
isnt it easier just to buy a manifold that fits?
no wonder the manifold was cheap, it doesn't fit a normal dc5, i guess you are doing it just for pub bragging rights, as the gains from a btcc manifold without the neil brown engine will barely be noticeable im sure...
Thanks. I did consider doing something like that, it seems like the simplest solution. I'm at the research stage, unfortunately my engineering knowledge doesn't stretch to calculating torsional rigidity of hollow pipe.Area Motorsport said:Kevin we've modified roll bars in the past, you could just use and modify an OEM roll bar and use rose joints/mis alignment spacers for drop links. You could remove the hump and use a hollow sleeve, the wall thickness of the sleeve to use would need to be researched though.
I did not mean a modified roll bar, but I've read that removing a OE spec roll bar is a MOT failure, even if you remove all traces of it.Kevin85 said:A modified anti roll bar isn't an mot failure, or else everyone running an aftermarket arb would fail. Having one there that isn't functioning is, ie disconnected. I don't think having it completely removed is a fail either.
If I can get this manifold on, I will. It's a great design(btcc NBE), it's very light, has a 3" vband and I bought it very cheap, so if I have to pay 1k to get it fit and running correctly with a custom arb and modified rear mount/tunnel, I'll be in the same financial boat as if I had spent 1k+ on a toda/feel's or whatever else is out there, only this manifold will likely urine on those designs.
It won't perform as well as it can on a standard engine, but it will future proof it for when it's got silly cams and a something sexier on the inlet side. I like to future proof because I'm not on a limitless budget and I do all the work myself.
I had a fujitsbo and had a power land on my sr16.Kevin85 said:I have to find out. Of course there's a risk it will be a waste of time, at which point I'll throw all the papers and receipts into the air, declare testes on the lot of it and ask solidfab Allan to make me one that does work with my future cam profile.
When I was poorer and playing with primeras, I done a similar thing to the sr20. I cut a tri-y b18 manifold to peices and rewelded it as a 1-4 2-3 config, into a 2.5" pipe. 'they' said it wouldn't fit and just get a 'proper' manifold. It worked like a treat, and made my original manifold (the one that everyone had) look and feel like junk.
Who knows, this might make the toda manifold look like mass produced junk, it certainly does visually.
so are you going to swap it with a toda and compare the results if and when its fitted?Kevin85 said:Who knows, this might make the toda manifold look like mass produced junk,
Sweet. They were doing it for a while in the states, but were mostly joining 1-2 3-4, I wanted to try something different. Clearance was an issue but it worked with some thinking and a jig.Jvzr said:I had a fujitsbo and had a power land on my sr16.
Got a b18 tri y custom built by "dale" in the uk.
Was told i wouldn't make power on a 16ve like the fuji did.
Made 12bhp mid range and 9bhp top end. All trial and error.
Have no input on the anti rollbar but very interested to see how the manifold turns out