free hit
Alunox SS manifolds - Page 4 - Site Sponsors & FFM Discounts - The Lotus Forums Jump to content

Alunox SS manifolds

Recommended Posts

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 post
Share on other sites

Upgrade today to remove Google ads and support TLF.
  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I ran mine without the support bracket for several weeks and took a number of measurements, and found nothing to concern me.  The bracket is now fitted - neutral load - and things are still peachy.  T

If you are refering to me as selling then you have misunderstood my reason for buying and mislead others that I am selling because I don't have faith in the product. This is entirely not true and if I

Having put around 100 miles on the new manifold, my findings...   Surprisingly light, and just fantastic to fit.  Plenty of spanner-swinging space around the nuts.   A different sound - naturally

Posted Images

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.

Totally agree, and it's exactly how I thought the thread was progressing until post #57


The link to the Burns web site that I provided was, I believe, very informative.

And my own input to the thread had been very complimentary of the manufactures and quality of workmanship and constructively critical where necessary. Here is where I was with it prior to thread breakdown.

this is quite possibly the best effort to date but it has just the one fundamental weakness in its design

I don't see an issue with this statement?

Chunky Lover

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simon, maybe let go of any previous fallouts/disagreements on previous posts?please? that would allow us all to progress WITHOUT any reference to who said what and when....


I read the link to the burns site and yes it was ok. Not sure if anyone else picked up on one point though, it did say that it should be avoided that any turbo support be attached to the manifold...which in itself would create stress in the system. So, I think it may have been on another thread on this subject there was a picture of a manifold someone had made with a massive triangular reinforcement web to support the turbo between it and port4..this would go against the idea that this very type of support would create issues of stress...which is something that has been seen on other manifolds.


So, maybe a stabiliser bar of the type Alunox is trying to develop is the best solution and not a solid link?


Also, there are other factors that need to be taken into consideration I would think, as Derek mentioned earlier about a vibration issue from one customer. Could this be caused by an oversized turbo? Or balancing issues in the turbo? The production Alunox is making is made for the 'normal' version of the esprit. Any specific applications would need to be looked at individually surely to ensure suitability if there are big changes to the engines setup.


On the note of vibration, could worn engine/gearbox mounts play a small part in these things, the general 'health' of the engine..its balance of internal rotating components...these will also cause vibrations..


One person above earlier in the thread has a bracket mounted to the chassis, which I don't believe is advisable..I believe Travis mentioned this also.


Suspension setup, harsh stiffer suspension can cause shocks through the whole body/chassis and could possibly create vibrations. These are just ideas that COULD POSSIBLY contribute, individually or collectively, to vibration issues..Im not saying that they are definitively, but why not look at all aspects.


Another thought is that a small stock of the supplied steel had a fault in its manufacture. This is not an impossibility. Welds can be defective even when done by a lifelong experienced welder. Human error is always an unfortunate option, hence the use of robot welding to provide todays high standards.


The design of the support bar MAY be unsuitable, or it may simply have fallen foul of imperfections in its manufacture from whatever source. This is where the modern manufacturer (vehicle) will test multiples to destruction to gain the data that we simply cannot do in small numbers. So we have to theorise over ALL aspects and deduce most likely cause through technical deduction, correct mathematics and sensible experience...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im gonna need one sooner or later so im happy Trev's keeping stock for in between the group buys, once my garage is re built, and ive got some new tyres ill be looking for a manifold (might need a vice, hammer, hack saw and a drill to whip a bracket up though ha ha)

Link to post
Share on other sites



If you are asking about my breakage, the bottom bracket failed at the bend if memory serves. I just sent an email to Leon to notify him of my support bracket failure as no one answered my question if I should or not.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Emailing him directly would be your best option with photos of the failure.

I know they are sending out replacements by way of the new support as a matter of course, but I'd want notification of all failures in the filing cabinet in my office for reference if it were me.

Edited by Simon350S

Chunky Lover

Link to post
Share on other sites



NUTS! I did not even think about pictures... But you are correct as I would like to know if I made the part. Car is in shop about 60 miles away so that might not be possible in a timely manner. Hoping he will respond and let me know if they are required for replacement part or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to Simon’s, in my opinion rather blunt criticism at my reply to his post. I feel a few things need clearing up…

In post 61 you express concern that I may be winding up Mark and Alunox, I can assure you this is not the case, their comments are free from my influence. What you are not aware of is that we worked together and have spoken at great lengths regarding technical details on the manifold. As a result we think on the same lines.


Joint input was made with some design changes implemented by me for higher output engines like mine. The first of these units with burns joints was passed to me for assessment and testing. I did various analysis on the initial unit making certain observations regarding the collectors. As a result a new design higher volume unit was made available for those with larger turbo’s.  The testing was independent by me, so no Alunox influence could be inferred.   Mark was invited to look in on the dyno session, to report back to Leon as he could not attend.  The findings on that are a matter of record.


During my assessment and tests I considered the heat, expansion and flex characteristics of the system as well as the flow dynamic’s. Part of this was the stabilising arm and turbo weight influence. On a mock set up it was clearly apparent that the turbo was independently supported sufficiently by the exhaust and the compressor connections as not to be a burden on the manifold collectors. The stabilising arm acted purely as that, providing an additional flexible connection between the collectors and the block nothing more.  In the case of a poorly maintained exhaust system with loose mounts or charge cooler connections of poor quality then an influencing load from the turbo would be transferred to the stabilising arm, which could exceed design limits.

This assessment along with tests took a couple of months to complete, Alunox, Mark and I consulted continually during, before and after, so everyone was fully aware of what transpired..

My conclusion was that the new design system ticked all the boxes and would be an asset to the future maintenance of the Lotus Esprit.

This assessment was done by me for Alunox, details of which they gave permission to be released on the forum to help promote awareness of its availability and potential. Any comments I made with reference to this manifold were based on information gained during the assessment and testing.


On other points.  You also said in post 61 ( I’ve not said the whole design is flawed)  then a few paragraphs later said (Yes I have said that I believe there is a fundamental flaw in its design,)  I think this is where we crossed swords. If you had said there was a fundamental flaw in the design of the stabilising arm, as it is not capable of taking the weight of the turbo, then I would have agreed with you, as it was not designed to do that.  Your initial implication was that the whole design was flawed and that it could not take the weight of the turbo which was apparent by the failure of the arm. This accusation was what I defended.  

As a result Alunox are changing the design to make it more suitable for taking the weight or shock load from the turbo, to reassure customers who have doubts. I am still of the opinion that the design of the stabilising arm was fine and the failure of the few has been due to influences as mentioned or other factors.  This does not detract from the fact that a more substantial unit is now being provided to isolate this area from repeat failures, along with heavy twin unit for those who feel they require one.  This is development and commendable that Alunox responded so quickly when only a few have failed out of all those fitted.

With reference to post 63,

I cannot help but feel that you dislike my involvement in the introduction of this manifold, and take objection to me speaking out on the subject, especially when it does not agree with your assessment on things. You seem to feel that if someone see’s things different to you and says so, then they have an attitude problem.  Unfortunately you have taken my replies as personal criticism of your assessments rather than as my assessment of the same situation.  You also take umbrage at me giving an opinion on the subject and replying on the forum. It seems you feel Alunox should be the only ones to reply. Yet you have self-appointed yourself as chief critic. I thought this was a public forum. You have your view I have mine, personalities don’t come into it. It’s an exchange of view’s open to all…

You enquired how and when I got directly involved with this manifold which I have answered above, However Mark and I had discussions a year or so prior to this about the prototype one piece unit he had fitted to his car and was testing. I expressed my concern at the time on a one piece LCB design on a turbo engine.  This is the unit you refer to that was fitted to Marks car, not the new 5 piece design we now have. I only got involved with the introduction and testing of the new unit as detailed above.


We now have to address the comments you made referring to the article on the burns joint and turbo support. This is all correct and as I have said previously in my opinion the turbo is sufficiently supported by the exhaust system and compressor hose etc. The exhaust manifold is NOT being used to support the Turbo’s weight, in essence the collector is hanging from the turbo with a stabilising arm attached.      The article you made reference to is assuming the exhaust system is independent slung under a car in a flexible fashion as is in most cases. In situations like that the turbo would lean on the manifold, especially if the compressor connection was free to move also. That is what they refer to.  In the case of the Esprit the exhaust system is attached to and part of the engine, gearbox unit. The anti-vibration mounts on the back box are quite rigid in comparison to standard exhaust loop mounts. As a result when the turbo is connected along with its other connections a fairly rigid structure is made. There is some slight forced movement available which is an asset as it allows the system to breath under expansion. But as a result the turbo is independently suspended and does not rely on the manifold to hold it up.       

Unfortunately you don’t seem to except my assessment of this, so maybe we should just agree to disagree and leave it there.

The rest of post 63 I feel was just cheap snipe remarks and nit picking at me personally over petty points. These have little relevance to subject so do not warrant justifying so I will ignore.


I wish you luck with your engine, gearbox upgrade, maybe when you do this conversion and hopefully fit an Alunox manifold you will be able to see the points I have made first hand and understand better why.


In this reply and previous I have addressed the points raised and remarks made, no intention of personal criticism has been implied or statements made undermining your credibility, Hopefully our exchange of views has helped the members understand more about how the manifold and adjacent parts integrate and work as one..



  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Any more posts in this topic which are in the slightest to be considered anything but well structured discussion considering the merits or indeed demerit of this system will be deleted. Any posts considered to be in the slightest anything personal towards other members will be removed.


Read the rules, adhere to them - this decision is not for discussion.  

  • Like 1

88 Esprit NA, 89 Esprit Turbo SE, Evora, Evora S, Evora IPS, Evora S IPS, Evora S IPS SR, Evora 400, Elise S1, Elise S1 111s, Evora GT410 Sport

Evora NA

For forum issues, please contact the Moderators. I will aim to respond to emails/PM's Mon-Fri 9-6 GMT. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The internet is filled with Automobile forums.  There are very few members that actually take the time to formulate an opinion based on solid information backed by real world experimentation and results.  Dave spent a fortune on his vehicle and shared his experiences with the rest of us.  The wealth of information can only help others build a similar project at a fraction of the time and a reduced cost as the R&D is done.


The factories spend a fortune trying to achieve the same results but with inferior manufacturing techniques as they aim to make a profit.


Salute Dave...Thanks for sharing!

If the only thing constant is change, then why do we resist change the most?

Link to post
Share on other sites



I believe it is only the standard replacement that will be sent to all who have prior purchased.

If you would like the double unit, contact Alunox and they can arrange that for you...



Link to post
Share on other sites

Having put around 100 miles on the new manifold, my findings...


Surprisingly light, and just fantastic to fit.  Plenty of spanner-swinging space around the nuts.


A different sound - naturally - but it does pluck at the paranoia strings until you get used to it!


Performance - I remember being told I'd miss the 200cc when I migrated from Carb Turbo to GT3, and that was so true.  From a standing start I've found GT3s to be quite pedestrian, but that's well-compensated after a second or so.  However, with the Alunox manifold, the engine feels so much more responsive at low revs now.  I really didn't expect that much difference - it's a vastly improved driving experience.  Don't know what it'll do for the 2.2 engines, but it's put a smile on my face.


And it looks SO GOOD.


Hats off to Dave and Leon for making this wonderful bit of kit available to us!

  • Like 2

British Ambassador to Florida, New York, Denmark and Newfoundland.  And Sweden.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Sparky it does look rather sexy! Found myself starting at it many times during the install, the exhaust manifold that is! not for long tho as Sparky is such a slave driver ;)


1982 DeLorean DMC 12 #16327, 1999 Lotus Elise, 1998 Lotus Esprit GT3 #2272, 2011 Lotus Evora S, 2013 Lotus Exige S,2016 Lotus Evora 400

Link to post
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...