free hit
Alunox SS manifolds - Page 3 - Site Sponsors & FFM Discounts - The Lotus Forums - Official Lotus Community Partner Jump to content


Alunox SS manifolds

Guest Mutley00

Recommended Posts

Upgrade today to remove Google ads and support TLF.

Totally agree Jacques

This manifold is fundamentally flawed, the design needs to be re-looked at, and a way found to rigidly support the turbo to the engine.

I haven't looked into a solution as my esprit is not local or easily accessible, plus it's a slightly different design being of the external wastegate variety. Also, I'm not the one making the money off the back of these, so as much as I'm happy to help in finding a properly engineered solution, I'm not financially motivated to do at present.

Would be good to hear back directly from Alunox but all seems quiet.

Chunky Lover

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Will this be sent to all previous purchasers?


Kenny , 

That's fine, I will mention it to Alunox, 

A direct replacement bolt on bracket will be despatch to you when manufactured..

As stated it is a stabilizer arm and does not hold weight, using the car without it

should not be an issue as long as your turbo is secure on its pipework mounts..

Just fit the new one when it arrives...  

Visit Sanj's Lotus Esprit Turbo SE pages

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just hoping so Sanj.. been two plus weeks since I posted and it was said they would be but nada since then. I am not a fabricator though hard to see why it should take so long...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sanj and kenny,


I have been told these will all be sent to previous purchasers. 

I believe the pattern had been made and test fitting being done, as soon as

this is complete the tooling can be done to make production units.  how far along

this all is I am not sure, Mark K. would be the best to ask on production matters..

Unfortunately Mark has been on his jollies so will not be up to date on things yet..

These brackets will be made properly not a quick fix... so please be patient...or

contact Alunox direct.


General note. 


The problem which some have experienced with the bracket lug breaking off is not

a major issue..  As I have stated before the function of the stabilizing arm is just that,

its primary function is not to support the turbo weight.


Simon's Quote

This manifold is fundamentally flawed, the design needs to be re-looked at, and a

way found to rigidly support the turbo to the engine.


As someone who has not purchased one, fitted one, designed one, tested one, or as 

it seems has no intention of owning one.... That is a bold statement and may be bordering

into area's of industrial slander. ( be careful ) 

Whether you do or don't intend to design, test, prove, and produce your own production manifold I

feel that you are out of order with the comments you are making . For some unknown reason you

have taken it upon yourself to to slag off this product... The only grounds for this is that a few fairly

insignificant brackets that have no effect on the manifolds performance have broke off,  As a result

the manufacturer (Alunox) has done a design change and is supplying all issued units with the

upgraded part FOC...

As you imply you have the engineering design capability to manufacture a better unit, may i suggest

you get financially motivated, make the investment and get on with it, instead of throwing cheap remarks

​at someone else's product without foundation.

To help you along, your first development unit with design / manufacturing / material / tooling costs should

not come to more than £10,000....  You should recovered this in your first 30 sales. So all being well you

should start making a profit after 18 months if sales go well...  based on what we have seen and assuming

​you already have all the necessary production equipment....


 Would be good to hear back directly from Alunox but all seems quiet. 


 ​Alunox is a business, they can not be expected to comment on forums. If you have a question for them

then contact them direct as you would with any other Lotus parts suppliers on here..  


As I am on the fringes of this and was involved in the design, testing ect . i feel i have the right to reply

to comments i feel are unwarranted....  I do so as Alunox as a company will not get involved with such

chatter and i would not expect them to either...

However this does not mean your comments should not be challenged... we must maintain a balance.

I also feel that the moderators should consider the legal implications of industrial slanderous posts..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my take in it.

I haven't had any problems, but..  

Looks to me that the lowest rod end attach point lies more or less directly under CG of the turbo.

Hence the weight of the turbo is mostly supported by the link and the angle bracket  that a few people are complaining about.

The primary exhaust tubes serve to stabilize the turbo on the support strut and keep it from rolling about the link and its rod ends.

This leaves the primary tubes free to expand and contract-- within limits.

The problem is with the angle bracket itself. Not that the material is thick enough-- it is plenty thick.

It only has to support maybe 120 lbs when the car hits a pot hole.

The angle bracket is rather sloppily bent-- you can see the material puckered out at the inside bend radius, and a notch in the metal periphery. 

When I determined that the bracket wasn't going to fit as supplied and didn't want to force it all together, I ground a a bit of material away. Then I spent some time polishing up the edges of the bend area.

Looks to me like a sloppy bracket design combined with end customer installation errors.

This could be sorted with almost zero effort at the factory, IMO. 

EDIT--BTW, they might also ease up a bit on the bend radius too...........


Edited by gixxer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in the middle of writing a lengthy post following Marks constructive response but I thought I'd break out for this quickie.

Dave I will get back to you tonight at some time, but your very poor attitude puts you far down in the priorities list of my life this evening. Your angered response is in line with most of your responses to anyone ever questioning anything about this manifold design. I'm not the first person to highlight your extreme sensitivity on the subject. I'll try to remain constructive in my response, as I have done throughout my discussion on this subject, it's a shame you couldn't do the same.

Hell I may even break out the laptop later, you should feel honored!

Had we have met up in Brands I would have happily sat down with you and chewed the fat over this but your presence wasn't mentioned until very late on and I had a very busy, non Lotus day for which I was heavily committed.

Looking forward to chatting later :)

Chunky Lover

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I also feel that the moderators should consider the legal implications of industrial slanderous posts..

On the basis that there have been more than one failure in a specific area of this manifold's design and that this area is what this discussion seem so to be centred around, I can't see any issues with potential slander as yet. 


Your (well meaning) assertions that the failed part is not fundamental to the design of the manifold don't ring true, as if it wasn't important then Alunox wouldn't have deemed it necessary to be there.


The trouble with low batch manufacturing is that testing will never be able to replicate owner/operator's experience in the field. A single (or low number)  item fitted to a low number of test cars will always have limited chance to give feedback to the manufacturer. As such failures of an initial production run are almost inevitable. It's the manufacturer's response to these failures which is the important factor. They have chosen to release a product to the general public and have to accept there may be teething problems with the Beta testing the end user is sometimes subjected to. I will also point out that they will have gone into this project from a commercial vantage point and will be anticipating a profit margin.


Maybe it's time to lower defensive barriers from all sides and communicate to endeavour to work towards a solution which will be of benefit to both sides. Esprit owners want a reliable and cost effective performance manifold. Alunox want a manufacturing run which will be financially worthwhile and a good addition to their portfolio. 

Work together rather than being at loggerheads. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wales, good choice! :thumbsup:

Thanks for the reply Mark,

The effort you put in to the communication between Alunox and TLF is great, it's not an easy job I can imagine. It's a shame Alunox don't maintain a presence here directly but I'm sure they are busy on other tasks, it would however allow them to personally engage with their target audience and feedback would be more direct and could avoid any misunderstanding whilst forwarding 3rd party information.

Like I've said, many times, I think the manifolds look to be extremely well made, my only concern is the lack of turbo support and I'll be honest, I was a bit miffed at being told my concerns about turbo support were completely unfounded and that, in no uncertain terms, there was no issue to be found. Subsequently more failures have come out of the wood work. This is unfortunately a fundamental flaw.

I'm not sure if Dave is winding you up in the background, I would hope not but then again you're free to interpret the information as it's presented, he does always seem so be highly strung when presented with information and questions about the design, even when those questions are not even directed at him. He seems to have taken it upon himself to become the spokesperson for everything technical relating to Alunox manifolds when in reality that really is not the case, Alunox are themselves, and I'm sure he is not consulting with them at every step of the way regarding his responses to those questions posed.

I had been talking about this exact potential issue at a meet before the first failure was even reported on here so was not in retaliation to anything but like I'd said, off forum, prior to the reported failure, that concerns were already being discussed.

I originally suggested an additional mount to support the turbo but was told point blank, that I was wrong by the 'technical authority on Esprit'. Imagine my surprise when there was announcement of an additional brace almost immediately.

I think it's great Alunox are supplying these to all pre-existing customers FOC, I'm sure I've said that already, but I'm on my ipad and as such I daren't navigate away from this page incase the screen refreshes and I loose everything I've already typed.

Dave whittled on about the Burns double slip joint, how he knew what he was talking about and wasn't wrong.

Dave has also pointed out repeatedly that the original support was in no uncertain terms in any way supposed to be supporting the weight of the turbo in any capacity as it simply wasn't needed, the reasoning being that it was already mounted to an exhaust down pipe and flexible coupling to the chargecooler and as such was rock steady and required no further support.

You have now said that it is there to support shock load of the turbo weight. That's great, and I think it's good that this point has now finally been confirmed, but it's exactly what Dave has insisted it isn't for.

Now, I've looked further in to this, quite a lot further actually and it's been an interesting, enjoyable read, but everything I have come across supports my statement in my last post that no matter what, the turbo should be sufficiently supported at all times and that the manifold pipe work should simply not be used for this purpose, even with slip joints. I'll post the link up to the topic when I find it, seemed to have closed that tab....

I've not said the whole design is flawed, in fact I've been very complimentary of every product that has been shown on the forum, including this one, that has come out of the Alunox workshops. If that's aimed at someone else that's fine but I'd rather not be misquoted on that. I also can be quoted as saying

Glad they are looking into this. Product development and customer feedback is key to making a very good product even better

Dave's immediate response was

This sort of development work is part of my day job....

The support on the turbo is fine...

The support of the turbo was looked at in detail, and as I have said before not an issue....

Additional supports.... Up to you.... Any alteration to the initial design will effect any guarantee on the product....

I would encourage anyone who has taken any offence at my postings, to actually read them as they are written and not make an interpretation of them.

At no point in time have I been anything other than constructive, from the viewpoint of a very real prospective customer who has concerns that would need to be addressed before I committed to a purchase.

Yes I have said that I believe there is a fundamental flaw in its design, which there is, but in the same paragraph I was also complimentary of the product as well?

this is quite possibly the best effort to date but it has just the one fundamental weakness in its design and that's all around the fact that the mounting of the turbo has not been correctly implemented.

Now I think that's a perfectly acceptable way of highlighting a very real concern. A concern that has been realised as a factual problem.

I could have said the design is shit and that nobody should buy it, but that's not what I believe and is also something I'd never contemplate doing in a open online community, that's just wrong.

I've also said the following in the 2 most recent topics alone, verbatim:

"I like them, well made for sure."

"Many many manifolds have been made over the years, none to the quality of the Alunox one"

"I really like this manifold, I think it's been very well manufactured, of that I've no issue."

"Like I've already said, I like the product and will most likely buy one, but only when this is addressed properly"

"They do look quite sexy....."

I really do want these to work, and I do appreciate the effort you put in Mark.

I guess I've addressed some of my response to Dave in this post without actually meaning to but just sticking to facts as they have been written on this very topic and one other.

I will pen another specifically though, out of courtesy, as I didn't want this one to turn in to a rant.

Edited by Simon350S

Chunky Lover

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a second bit of kit out there now? I only have one as pictured. I am afraid of driving the car until this issue has been remedied due to there apparently being some force actually being strong enough to break it and that puts a bit of fear of something not being quite correct.


I would be happy to hear from someone here that my name is on the list for whatever part is issued and am I to return the original part?


To Mark,

I was not listed in any group buy but went direct to Leon and was given the group Buy pricing due to my early order of this. The shop that has my car may or may not deal properly with this issue so would someone let me know, please? Or should I go direct to Leon. Much thanks.


And NO, I will not take the manifold off. It performs its magic - just the issue with improper support for all the weight that apparently is not being handled correctly. And could we chill this discussion just a wee bit lest we antagonize Alunox? TIA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well here we go, for better or worse....

Dave you've a serious attitude problem, I'm going to do my best to not get personal in this post as unfortunately you have yourself been unable to during yours.

The attitude you have expressed to anyone whom has dared question anything relating to this manifold is boggling.

I have no problem with Mark, his posts have been constructive and informative.

I have no problem with Alunox, they have worked hard to produce a suitable replacement manifold for the Esprit, the quality of their fabrication work, from the photos I've seen and the comments I've heard first hand have been nothing but complimentary.

I've no idea what part you've actually had to play in this manifold design, or what indeed your qualifications are to deem you suitable to do so. You may have a folder full of high grade passes in all relevant subjects but none of these have been made apparent here. I know very little about you, apart from that you can throw a decent spanner around a car in a competent fashion. That's great, but that doesn't make you an expert in manifold design and metallurgy.

Your one biggest point is that you keep on about the fact that no brace is required and that the turbo is suitably supported.

That is the one and only concern I've had about this manifold design, and it's not unfounded. Indeed it is a proven fact that the original design was flawed in that area. You may not like that I pointed this out, I've no idea why, but the fact remains that it is a true statement.

I have spent time trying to understand the design that's been implemented, and read up on the Burns double slip connectors. I've no idea if these were suggested by yourself, which IIRC you said you did, or if they were part of the original design?

On that point, when did you get involved out of interest? From what I've been told, (I'd rather you confirm) there was a fully completed manifold fitted to Marks car before you even got involved.

Anyway, I read up on it, as I believe you used these as a reason for being able to support the turbo on the exhaust manifold pipes itself, and it really was a genuinely interesting read.

Now I'm not going to make this bit up or risk being mis quoted so I'll include the link to the information for all to see.

Here goes.

From the horses mouth so to speak.

I'll quote you a pertinent couple of sentences from paragraph 7

The fabricator has to be diligent in designing the system avoiding the temptation to support the turbo on the manifold and build short runners. Ideally, a free-standing turbo mount should be fabricated to support the weight of the turbo.

Now it was also interesting to find that they will also do all the design work for you as far as sizing your headers and they also go in to detail about 321 stainless too.

It's all there on one page.

How can you then tell me and everyone else on the forum, indeed the general public, that they are wrong and you are correct, and that there is no issue and that there isn't a need for the new support Alunox are providing FOC to all owners on the manifold, when the designers of the exact system you are using stated to NOT use the manifold to support the weight if the turbo and that a separate free-standing mount should be fabricated to support it.

Clearly you have more fundamental underpinning knowledge and experience to draw from, in which case I suggest you contact Burns and tell them to update their website as it's clearly wrong.

Simon's Quote

This manifold is fundamentally flawed, the design needs to be re-looked at, and a way found to rigidly support the turbo to the engine.

As someone who has not purchased one, fitted one, designed one, tested one, or as it seems has no intention of owning one.... That is a bold statement and may be bordering into area's of industrial slander.

It's interesting you should pick up on this one line from me, in response to one others post, of whom you have not also quoted, but shares the same views as myself, this does seem quite targeted from you as to try and undermine me?

You made some very astute observations in that paragraph, indeed I haven't bought one, or fitted one, or designed one, or tested one clever observations, gold star!

But then followed it up by total bull stating that it seems I've no intention of buying one. That's strange, I seem to recall mentioning more than once that I actually quite like the idea of buying one for when I complete my full swap over to S4 spec in my S3T. I already have the engine fitted and running on carbs, the injection system is waiting in a box ready to go with wiring harness and chargecooler, as is a brand new chargecooler rad and I'm currently looking out for a suitable Renault box so I can go the full hog and wind it up to around the 300bhp mark.

Should be a lot of fun then, but I'll certainly not be shelling out to be a full priced Beta tester of a system that I already know for a fact has a confirmed issue several times over and has now been confirmed by the link above to be carrying the weight of a turbo in direct contradiction of the originators product information.

As you imply you have the engineering design capability to manufacture a better unit, may i suggest you get financially motivated, make the investment and get on with it, instead of throwing cheap remarks ​at someone else's product without foundation.

Making up stories now, nice one Dave :)

I have implied nothing of the sort, I've pointed out on obvious issue that's been conformed as fact several times over and needs to be addressed, on a product that a lot of people hare handing over hard earned for, some of whom will not have the faintest idea and will soak up your drivel like a sponge. There are Esprit owners posting up here all the time regarding issues they've had and been fobbed off with misleading technical jargon, this is what you are trying to do by belittling anyone who dares question your superior? knowledge.

​Alunox is a business, they can not be expected to comment on forums.

Why not? Many many other businesses do every single day. If they chose not to that's their decision, again you are speaking on their behalf. I don't have a manifold as yet, I have no reason to call them to complain, but I am part of an open forum where we are free to discuss topics like this and express opinion.

If they chose to sign up and actively participate in the discussions here then I'm sure they would be welcomed by all and I personally would be pleased to see them contributing and taking feedback first hand from their actual customer base.

It would also take a bit of the pressure of Mark having to chase for delivery dates of members that have purchased as part of this group buy. Nature of the beast of organising a group buy unfortunately.

As I am on the fringes of this and was involved in the design, testing ect . i feel i have the right to reply to comments i feel are unwarranted.... I do so as Alunox as a company will not get involved with such chatter and i would not expect them to either...

Step off the fringe would be my suggestion, you are a really poor ambassador for the business, your attitude may unfortunately get tagged with the product and the business. That'd be grossly unfair if that were to happen.

However this does not mean your comments should not be challenged... we must maintain a balance.


I've backed them up with facts now as well as common sense. The only thing out of balance in this thread and any other relations to this product, is your attitude and behaviour. You can't maintain balance just because you don't want to be wrong with your opinion.

I once had a certain amount of respect for you based on your main thread from a few years ago and complimented even recently on some of its contents. You've finished that to zero now and that's quite sad.

Apologies that this thread had dropped to this level. Such a shame when it could have turned into a very positive contribution to produce the bast manifold verger offered for the Esprit by way of constructive discussion.

Chunky Lover

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Trevor. Sorry about misunderstanding you. I did not know, that the two manifolds were bought to support the Group buy.

So, I will retract that statement, just to be clear.

"There are no other customers selling theirs what so ever, and in no way connected to any problems related to the manifold design or otherwise related to Alunox".


I hope that made it clear ;)


My other points are still valid to me at least, which was my point in the first place.

I will wait and see if the solution that Alunox will come up with, will last, before I will spend Money on that manifold. If it takes a year or two before we see what it brings, then be it. I can wait, as I am not in a hurry to get another manifold and I can just buy a cast one meanwhile, if need be.


I don't know a bit about Construction of such items and engines in general. I just know that I've been looking at enough engine internals, manifolds etc on my previous cars to know them enough to balance and tune them about 75% with no blower of any kind. And it could take 8500 rpm's as well for 13 years (with a banana manifold), without missing a beat ever  ;)  I just read some books on the subject, and did what they suggested.


So, as a potential customer, I have not been frightened off, and I'll just take my time and see what comes up on this otherwise very interesting design. No rant, harm or what so ever intended. I am just trying to explain, that I as well as maybe some other potential customers, are waiting to see if the final small problem is solved permanently, before shelling out.

It's not about money for me, but rather trying to avoid having to do the work over Again.


I really don't hope I am hurting someones feelings or contributing to an off-track debate. That is not my intention, rather the opposite.


While I am Looking forward in Peace to seeing this solved propperly, I remain,

yours friendly ;)


Nobody does it better - than Lotus ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Thank you for replying and making it clear as I was concerned Simons posts would put off potential purchasers of what is the best design and manufactured manifold to date. If I don't sell mine then so be it and certainly wouldn't want to pass on a product that I thought might fail to another enthusiast. If that was the case I would be taking this up with Alunox, which I am not. All this fuss over a stabiliser is completely over the top and takes away the focus from the manifold itself. The suggestion here is that the cast manifold supports the turbo but as has been made clear in previous post this brings with it its own set of issues. If Lotus had produceed the Alunox manifold or even marketed it now I'd wager it would be well received and a slight shrug of the shoulders at bracket failure and a pat on the back for addessing it quickly. Heaven forbid Alunox had come up with a cast iron anchor, this forum would ridicule the company for such an inefficient design and claims of engine mount failure, performance degredation etc.



  • Like 1

I'll get around to it at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it might be worth clarifying something too for the sake of current owners and of those who have just purchased or are wanting to purchase the manifold.

I have ran without the stabiliser bar for over a year now with absolutely no issues at all in its performance or reliability or design. I have done a non stop (except for 2 ten min fuel stops and the 30 min channel crossing) 1000mile fast paced drive back from the south of france without a stabilisation bar. I recieved no issues from this.

The point im making is that while the initial design of the stabilisation bar has been looked at to improve it, under no circumstances should anyone be worried about using their esprit with this manifold in place whether their stabilisation bar is in place or not. The unit will still perform correctly and your turbo will NOT fall off the end..this is the important fact I feel.

As for previous posts they all read like people have sore heads over this. Some of you may remember (sailorbob) that in the first instance I was very critical of the manifold when it was announced and I questioned everything, with some disagreement. However, my questions and concearns were suitably answered and I was present at its dyno testing also. Having seen first hand the data and the testing and some changes over original design I purchased one and have not looked back since.

It is important that people are passionate about their subject and interests and profession. Yes sometimes. .and especially through text....this can come accross argumentative, agressive, defensive etc. The interpretation can sometimes be affected by the readers frame of mind or personal view. This does not always mean a bad thing. Progress is made by disagreement and "throwing ideas out there" ultimately for the greater good although it may not get there directly.

Without any further bickering between fellow passionately driven enthusiasts, it should I feel be agreed that simon has his concearns as did I initially. They are currently being looked at to find the best fit solution. Dave is passionate and takes a LOT of stick from people on this forum for his driving ability to (excuse the phrase) "Go where no man has gone before. ." And as such he has an insight beyond what a lot of us will comprehend or be able to do. That does not mean that any one person has the only view that is right, but based on a long industry history of experience, it is experience that is giving sight and ability to go to the next level and push for all of us to get better products and help as much as is needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold FFM

I'm with you guys ^^ - I think the stabiliser is very much a false flag, and would happily run the manifold without it.

British Fart to Florida, Nude to New York, Dunce to Denmark, Numpty to Newfoundland.  And Shitfaced Silly Sod to Sweden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO the brace is required to help support the turbocharger (and a substantial part of the exhaust system and catalytic converter). Without this I suspect that in the long term issues with the exhaust studs will be found.

It's also been reported by one forum member with a failure that vibration occurred without the brace. This vibration clearly shows the need for a brace (what ever your opinions on whether it's there for turbocharger support or otherwise) and will cause damage if not prevented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason for the "stabilizer" is to take most of the loads off the tubes, which are supposed to be more or less free floating.

When you remove the link, a now cantilevered load is transferred through the tubes and their slip joints, to the flange welds and to the studs.

You have now shortened the potential life of the system.

However, if you choose to retain the bracket for the link, it has to be well made, well thought out, and installed well, because that will now be the load path for the weight of the turbo.

The fact that the bracket has been breaking should be an obvious clue that there is indeed, some substantial loads (or vibrational loads, which are still loads) going thru that point.

And by removing the bracket and link, you are simply transferring the loads elsewhere, where they are not supposed to go.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

what is the best design and manufactured manifold to date.

Totally agree and pretty much what I've already said.

I've no beef with Alunox, I think they've made a positive contribution with every one of the products they have invested time in creating.

This thread has unfortunately degenerated due to the attitude of Dave, not only towards me but anyone else who has forwarded a criticism or concern.

I personally have tried to be constructive.

I'm sure Mark will work with them and provide feedback to work the issue out, I'm not sure this new bracket will provide the answer unfortunately but we've all yet to see this. Doesn't sound like it will be providing the fixed mounting the turbo ultimately needs.

It's very pretty like several of us including myself have said, almost work of art in its appearance. Like the radiator set. It's a shame to hide such pieces underneath body panels never to be seen again... :)

Edited by Simon350S

Chunky Lover

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold FFM

Actually I've had a long chat with Dave about the stabiliser, and he, like me, was totally reasonable, as he always is. The difference is that we did it face to face at Brands.

British Fart to Florida, Nude to New York, Dunce to Denmark, Numpty to Newfoundland.  And Shitfaced Silly Sod to Sweden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad mate, would have been a messy mud fight otherwise with all that rain we had.

It's a little ironic? Not sure that's the correct word to use, but it was with yourself and Trevor at Bibs party when I spoke about exactly this.

Unfortunately I got dragged off by those SELOC boys and that god awful Tinder account experience!

Edited by Simon350S

Chunky Lover

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am somewhat disheartened by the tone and implications of this thread. It's not constructive in any way. I own an anulox manifold, it's fitted and works very well. I am pleased with my purchase.

Like all developments it takes time, we the purchasers want a good produced that lasts and anulox need to make it worth their while, there are very few businesses that will take on a development for such a limited market. Good on them I say, the fact that they are proving a fix (foc) is good news, again part of a development cycle.

We should all be helping develop this to ensure the longevity of the car and get the best performance we can, not fighting amongst ourselves.

Actually I think I started the last group buy, now I am glad I back away from it, snipping at each other is not constructive.

I assume those who have experienced a failure have reported this to Anulox, they should now be in a position to provide a final fix.

Come on chaps put your swords away every one is entitled to their opinion, and that just what it is..

Finally, it would be a great shame if anulox or other suppliers decided it is not worth the agro, let's be constructive and not destructive as this thread no seems to be becoming.

Dave F

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts..


A. seems to have turned into a situation of "trying to herd cats" !


B. Keep in mind, Alunox created a TOTALLY NEW performance mod, small companies like them will tend to say SCREW this if they see stuff like the whining and moaning going on


C. I have no doubt they will come up with a solution so patience is in order..


Just my $0.02

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I started typing a response also along the lines of Daves above, so I wont repeat it all. Basic scenario is that its a small production run, small market and a company has come to our aid in supporting us where none have been successful or inclined to do so. We do not have the luxury of developing this unit on several esprits over 100k miles at MIRA in intense and differing enviroments in order to swiftly develop the design to create the ultimate product. The fact that without question the minor issues are being addressed and until the new stabiliser bar(s) are available, it cannot be said whether they will or wont be the solution. That's development for you...


Views will differ on the function, load bearing capabilities and point of the stabiliser bar, which could make for an interesting TECHNICAL read, for those that are interested in such theories and calculations. What it shouldn't be is the childish prattle of 'he said this, he said that its him..' that it has degenerated into above. I would rather see cold hearted data and experienced views over dramatized opinion, whether it reads defensive (which invariably if your trying to prove a point it has to) or not.


So bottom line could be, stop the bullshit and have a proper discussion on the capabilities and theory behind the bar or leave the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...