Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, iruvyouskyrine said:

You would think that but it's not. It's a parallel thread, and it's not M10x1 because that's what I took a punt on and the thread is about half that size ?

Um.....female pipe threads (BSP, NPT) are always parallel. The taper goes on the male.

Pretty sure its metric, did it over Christmas. Maybe M8? Don't have the reference catalog here but it was pretty much the only option in metric for a -3 male fitting for that thread size.

Edit: well, for an 8374, maybe its different on the smaller ones?

 

I distinctly remember how odd it was that my USA designed turbo had metric threads and the Australian Designed Turbostmart wastegate had imperial threads.

There's not really any such thing as "metric pipe threads". When we're talking about screw in fittings, and elbows and Tees that go onto pipe, etc etc, there is really only 2 dominant threads. BSP and NPT. The Yanks, the oil & gas industry and a few others are stuck on NPT. The rest of the world pretty much uses BSP. The Europeans call BSP threads by other names though. If you see a German company describing a threaded port or stub on their equipment, they will call it G1/2" or G15 (same thing). And there are other variations on the theme.

M8 is a bolt thread specification. It is really not relevant to "plumbing" fittings. People don't use metric bolt thread forms for tapered male into female sealing threads. They may well use metric bolt thread forms on collars of fittings that use seats to seal (like Swagelok or other similar pneumatic or hydraulic fittings) but they are just as likely to be imperial/American or totally custom in those systems, seeing as they are usually proprietary anyway.

  • Like 1

Yes, and look at the conical seat on that port. It is clearly meant to work with a bespoke fitting that has that cone on it. Seems silly, when everybody else would just use a 1/8" NPT or BSP parallel in there, with a tapered fitting.

I mean, good on the yanks for doing something, anything, in metric. But dumbo points for using a metric bolt thread for a f**king plumbing fitting.

48 minutes ago, taijohnsen said:

It's not that big of a deal really...

Well, it kinda is. They've used a thread that looks about the same as a 1/8" pipe thread, but isn't. Then you either have to use their fitting or go out of your way to get a fitting that has that thread on it, which has got to be about 100x more difficult than just getting something with a 1/8".

50 minutes ago, taijohnsen said:

Conical seat would be for an o-ring I would have thought.

But then it wouldn't tighten up. You'd be relying on a threadlocking compound to stop the fitting backing out.

3 minutes ago, burn4005 said:

Why not? AN fitting ORB threads are parallel and they seem to be fine.

Because an o-ring is a cushion that prevents the male fitting from pulling up hard on the external seat of the connection, unless the o-ring is deformed beyond intended design in that conical seat.

That seat is not designed for an o-ring.

AN fittings do not look like that. Parallel threads are of course completely normal on collar type fluid couplings that have conical metal on metal seats. This is not the same situation.

Agree with what you're saying re the fact that metric pipe threads are not a thing, but in the end, it is a M8x1.0 thread. And Speedflow makes a fitting for it so it can't be that rare of a thing: https://www.redlineauto.com.au/p-2547-speedflow-349-04-m8-x-10-to-4-male.aspx

 

For what its worth Iv'e had one in there for a while now, leak tested to 30PSI no issues, doesn't seem to back out at all (steel fitting in aluminium probably helps there). If you're that worried put some sealant on there. 

How the actual f**k do brake fittings work!

Here is the short version. True pipe threads seal on the threads. Other applications use a standard thread then use a gasket/copper washer ect.

And then you can also seal on a tapered bit but thats another story.

The end of the brake pipe is flared. That forms the female part of the cone seat. The male part of that is either buried in the bottom of the threaded hole (say on a caliper, MC, prop valve) or in the other fitting, if is just some coupling fitting somewhere partway along a line.

The "nut" that is on the brake line has a male thread that screws into the female thread (on the caliper, etc) and pushes on the back side of the flared end of the pipe, pushing it against the male flare.

So, it is a tapered seal, as per your discarded throwaway line at the end of your post.

Simples, squeak.

Or were you being ironic?

Not unless it's bleeding boost or compressor stalls on throttle lift off...

My 7136 used to comp stall a lot, and I  don't have a VL commo, so I put the 50/50 kompact shorty on it with a lighter spring.

I'm not using it any more if anyone would like it. It's bronze now, not black tho... 

15 hours ago, Timmaz300 said:

Is there any reason to upgrade the factory recirculation valve for a Turbosmart recirculated or 50/50 valve on my 9274?

received_895708637612980.jpeg

What are the temperature ratings on the Festo pneumatic hose and fittings?  It looks nice and neat and definitely easy to install. But I'm a bit sceptical it would live long on the hotside there? ?

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

    • Got the gearbox in and the front drive shafts.
    • Hi There I went through a rabbit hole of reading about Xenon headlights and the ADR regulations for having them installed. As people have been defected by running factory xenon I was researching in ways to make them compliant. Everyone always say needs to be self leveling and have washer installed, which I don't necessarily agree with. For this argument I'm using R34 as reference as I'm more aware on the construction of the headlight compared to the R33 Xenon, which may still be the exact same case.   For the self leveling clause taken from ADR 13 - Installation of Lighting and Light Signalling Devices on other than L-Group Vehicles As you can see the bold text "these manually adjustable devices from driver seats" are fine to use. As Series 1 Xenon model headlights do have a 4 level adjuster on the right near the ignition (however not series 2) then these model are consider compliant in that argument.   For the Self Cleaning aspect of this argument clause taken from ADR 13 - Installation of Lighting and Light Signalling Devices on other than L-Group Vehicles Now i can understand the argument that Xenon will need a washer as they are over 2000 lumens, but I clicked on the 12 at the end of that sentence and it takes me to the end notes which states R34 for headlight lenses are plastic, not sure if PL is mark as I don't currently have my skyline to confirm that marking is there. But could you not technically get a lenses with the PL marking on it and then get away with the argument that you need a washer. I went through a quick read of the adr and might have missed something else that may cause them to be non-complaint.    But wouldn't these technically be complaint headlights   Would love to hear other people input on this and shed some light   Edit In regard to the the washer portion I might be mistaken ADR 45 (which I believe is Regulation NO.45) states 12 cd (candela) I dont understand that portion in regarding to calculating the candela if anyone can shed some light. Otherwise I guess throw in a washer for the headlight and you definitely comply.
    • Took it to all Japan day, flogged the hell out of it and took it all, am a very very happy man  don’t know how that ended up in Greg’s thread before
    • Hey Nismo, any chance in the world you still have these seats?
    • I'd say closer to OG GTX3582R, just smaller trim - so 59mm inducer/82mm exducer as opposed to 62/82 for the first gen GTX3582R. Yeah EFRs were boss, the EFR8474 is still an absolute beast and it perplexes me that people still go to things like Turbosmart/Garrett etc when the results people are getting with those are pretty unremarkable compared to what you could get with a turbo available well before those options came out.  DriftSquid (I think) "upgraded" from an EFR9174 to a Turbosmart turbo and promised a comparison video - and kinda shuffled awkwardly and did a bit of diversion from the fact that they didn't get any improvement going to the currently massively hyped brand of turbo from a turbo that was a bit of a frankenstein that had been well superceded in it's own range before the Turbosmart unit he put on there even came out. I suspect the EFR would outperform most Xonas for what a lot of less-insane RB owners would go for, in the 400-600kw range but the Xonas are looking hard to beat up to maybe in the mid 700kw range at this stage- basically where EFRs don't really reach, and before the Precision turbos take over.  What the Xonas do well in the "EFR range" is be easier to package etc, and work very well if a divided housing doesn't suit your application.  
×
×
  • Create New...