Death Pipe remanufacture in Stainless Steel. Hopefully now available.
- Thread starter Phil_B
- Start date
Mark Adams
Member
Wow! That looks fantastic, and worth every penny. 
Phil_B
Member
Update.
The prototype is ready.
I will be bringing it with me to the meal and meet on Saturday at The Green Man, along with the original hopefully.
I have to say, I am happy with what I have seen so far. And Andy's turnaround time for this.
We should now have an immortal death pipe
The prototype is ready.
I will be bringing it with me to the meal and meet on Saturday at The Green Man, along with the original hopefully.
I have to say, I am happy with what I have seen so far. And Andy's turnaround time for this.
We should now have an immortal death pipe
Phil_B
Member
So, after the meal, several people have now seen the Immortal pipe. It needs to be tested in its current round form.
I'm thinking a logged drive that covers urban, fun A roads, and motorway/dual carriageway on the same car before and after its fitted.
Does that sound like a good idea?
I'd be happy to test on my car, but am happy to let someone else do it instead.
I'm thinking a logged drive that covers urban, fun A roads, and motorway/dual carriageway on the same car before and after its fitted.
Does that sound like a good idea?
I'd be happy to test on my car, but am happy to let someone else do it instead.
PlasticMac
Member
I think it needs a longer term test, I'd suggest it needs at least a few hundred miles, preferably more.
It then needs careful examination of the ends, particularly the female car fittings, to check if the harder, and heavier male pipe terminations have degraded the softer glass reinforced nylon.
The stainless part is much heavier than the original, and that mass, (plus the coolant inside), is is held in place only by the female socket at each end. This is, in my opinion, the area in need of most scrutiny.
Do you have the comparative weights Phil?
This post is not intended to shed doubt on the new part, just to make sure it is as good as we can make it, before I, and others, fit it to our cars
Mac
It then needs careful examination of the ends, particularly the female car fittings, to check if the harder, and heavier male pipe terminations have degraded the softer glass reinforced nylon.
The stainless part is much heavier than the original, and that mass, (plus the coolant inside), is is held in place only by the female socket at each end. This is, in my opinion, the area in need of most scrutiny.
Do you have the comparative weights Phil?
This post is not intended to shed doubt on the new part, just to make sure it is as good as we can make it, before I, and others, fit it to our cars
Mac
Phil_B
Member
Hadn't thought about the weight issue.
It probably isn't an issue, but as you said, it would be an idea to test that long.
I will get Andy to weigh the original one.
They can be made of aluminium too.
audifan
A2OC Donor
Mac is correct, far more extensive testing needs to be carried out. Short trip almost useless. A few thousand miles covering all driving conditions is required. To include hot and cold extreme temperatures, hard and light loadings, start stop, how it is effected by cold rain when the system is hot and working hard, the durability of the seals under all conditions etc etc.
Even after all this extensive testing as the part is not approved by Audi or the authorities it can not be endorsed by the club as a replacement part. Then the possible copyright although probably not as significant now.
Do not take this the wrong way I really do hope this is a viable project but end users MUST accept responsibility and use at their own risk if issues present themselves at a later date
PlasticMac
Member
Personally, I don't see temperature as an issue. The temperature of the IP, (Immortal Pipe), and the seals, will be, (practically) the same as the rest of the engine/coolant. The temp coefficient of stainless is less the the PA GF. Heat loss/gain via the pipe's surface will be very small, it's not in the air flow, and being close to the engine, the air around it will be warm.
Mac.
Mac.
Phil_B
Member
Ooooo. That's interesting.
PlasticMac
Member
The pipe is "soft" mounted at both ends, push fit with O ring, so it's not structural in any way.. It has to be rigid to maintain the relative positions of the end male connections, which are at a slight angle to one another.
It has to contain coolant at around 1 - 1.5 Bar pressure, and 110 - 120 C.
The rigidity and pressure requirements make the tubular shape perfect, (better than the rectangular original, imo).
I don't know if my slight concern about weight is valid, but using aluminium would not be without concerns, particularly corrosion.
Mac.
It has to contain coolant at around 1 - 1.5 Bar pressure, and 110 - 120 C.
The rigidity and pressure requirements make the tubular shape perfect, (better than the rectangular original, imo).
I don't know if my slight concern about weight is valid, but using aluminium would not be without concerns, particularly corrosion.
Mac.
Indi
Member
I don’t think corrosion should be an issue, as the coolant has corrosion inhibitors which will protect the inside, and as far as I’m aware the aluminium boost pipes on the TDIs don’t have issues with corrosion, though I guess the death pipe will experience higher temperatures…
That being said, stainless does feel like a higher quality option for some reason.
PlasticMac
Member
You're right about the premium feel of stainless. I was thinking external corrosion of ally, but not really, given where it is.
Mac
I’d be keen provided reliability wasn’t in doubt and this new pipe reduced installation costs.
I had one done recently and the part was around £60 with labour around £300, so it’s a question of whether to fit one once (assuming the gaskets can last a lifetime..) or budget to have it replaced every 10/15 years.
I had one done recently and the part was around £60 with labour around £300, so it’s a question of whether to fit one once (assuming the gaskets can last a lifetime..) or budget to have it replaced every 10/15 years.
I would be interested in 3.