Chargecooler hard pipes - what are the differences?

[tomcattom 285]

I ran into a problem with the two chargecooler hard pipes that run under the nearside oil cooler duct on my car that I could do with some opinions/help on.

When I removed my pipes during the rebuild I noticed that one of the two pipes had several potential pin holes in it. I don't know if they were actually causing leaks but as a precaution I bought a replacement from one of the usual suppliers. Having tried to fit it last weekend I discovered that one of the two pipes was too long by about 75mm, by comparison to the pipes I removed from the car.

New on the left, original on the right.

Close up of the disparity in length of the pipe in question

 

The outlets on the chargecooler radiator are staggered hence the difference in the length of the hard pipes so that the hoses can make the necessary 90 degree bend to mate up. However because one pipe is significantly longer than it should be the hose completely oversails the pipe its trying to meet. Here is a very crude drawing of the situation I currently have (not to scale) with the hose mis-alignment because of the extra length on the pipe (see green lines).

The supplier has suggested to me "There are different specifications for the pipe. The difference can be made up with hose." The problem I have here is the existing hose is too short to make up the gap and even if it was long enough the act of effectively doubling it back would introduce a kink in the hose that I think would seriously impede water flow, if not cut it off entirely.

When I ordered the pipe I wasn't aware there were at least two different part numbers for this pipe, which agrees with the supplier's statement. Up to 1996 (my car) the part number for the pipes should be A082K4227F and from 1996 onwards it was B082K4227F (interestingly though the DeRoure site says the latter is the replacement for the former 😕). The part number for what I've ordered was the latter and I think that *might* be my problem. What I'm now trying to establish from anyone with a 1996 onwards car (which I guess will be GT3's only) is does anyone have a picture of these pipes from a later car to see if the difference is in fact the pipe length and this isn't simply a case of a manufacturing mistake.

I could cut the pipe down to the correct length, but I'm not sure if I could get a bead back on to the pipe given the proximity of the other pipe

[Chillidoggy 4,467]

Sounds to me like the supplier in question is the same one who sent me a secondhand coolant hose and when I complained, he told me I was lucky to get it. It also looks to me like it's a manufacturing issue. You could crop it off and fit a straight coupling with an olive, tighten it up, then cut the nut behind the olive off. Or crop it and maybe fit a solder ring coupling as an olive.

Nevertheless, I think this might help. 1995 car: -

 

[NG5 22]

For what it's worth SJ shows a staggered pipe for the later part number

https://www.sjsportscars.com/parts-and-accessories/B082K4227F.htm

 

[CarBuff 206]

You could also just bin the idea of using the pipes and use a combination of hoses and angle fittings to replace the metal.  We did that on an S4s as detailed here:

 

https://www.lotustalk.com/threads/chargecooler-pipe-leaking.253849/

 

BTW the topic includes some pictures of the actual parts and not just artist's renderings. 🤨

[Chillidoggy 4,467]

17 hours ago, NG5 said:

For what it's worth SJ shows a staggered pipe for the later part number

https://www.sjsportscars.com/parts-and-accessories/B082K4227F.htm

 

 

But as P/N A082K4227F is no longer available, it suggests that DeRoure is correct. The assembly was superseded by P/N B082K4227F, and the pipe ends in question should therefore be staggered.

[tomcattom 285]

Certainly does seem to suggest the part I've got is incorrectly made given that photo of the superseded part shown there (assuming correct) matches my earlier part too.

[NG5 22]

Looking at the 1st photo again are the new pipes a smaller diameter than the originals or is it my imagination?

I think if it was me I'd ask for a refund and send them back, then get another set from a different supplier.

Or it's probable a friendly plumber could make a copy your originals. 

[CarBuff 206]

14 minutes ago, NG5 said:

Looking at the 1st photo again are the new pipes a smaller diameter than the originals or is it my imagination?

I thought that, too.

[tomcattom 285]

I think that is an optical illusion of the photo lighting and angles. The pipe diameters are identical near as makes no odds.

Supplier is offering a refund so it'll be going back when I can find a suitable box to post it in. Just need to hope the old pipe holds water, otherwise it'll be coming off again for it to be used as a template for a replacement.