2pc EM p/n

[Ken Keith]

Hi Phil,

So on the ur-q's when they crack, most of the owners replace them with 
new single piece manifolds, and make sure the motor mount, 
heatshield, and cooling duct is good, or replace them?

Do they not have problems after that?  Assuming a good engine mount.

I haven't looked at a new stock single piece manifold as an option.  I 
think for the money it might be worth the extra to go for the two-piece, 
due to the better (looking, at least) flow.

When I had read your previous posts about the engine mount being bad, 
causing the EM to crack, I was thinking the EM was coming into 
contact with something.  Now I read it and see that you refer to the 
shock transmitted through the motor.

In that regard, not that I would want to let the mount go bad and 
transmit those shocks, the cryogenic treatment would help prevent the 
cracking due to relieving stresses and increasing strength.  I "was" 
thinking mostly heat expansion at different rates was causing the 
cracking, not so much shock.  But now I can see where both are 
potential problems.

Thanks,

Ken

On 26 Oct 2001, at 11:04, Phil Payne wrote:

> Gerard wrote:
> >
> > Here some pics of a 2-piece:
> >
> > http://www.2226.co.za/images/manifold-ceramic-sharp.jpg
> > http://www.2226.co.za/new-topview-001.jpg
> >
> > I haven't been following the thread, but I'm sure you know the 2-piece
> > isn't the end of cracked manifolds, but they're a damn lot stronger than
> > the 1-piece judging by the junk I pulled off my car.
> 
> I'm entirely convinced that the cause of cracking is right hand engine mount
> failure causing the sump to sit on the subframe.  The resulting HAMMERING
> upwards on the bottom of the block just makes the already questionable
> suspension of the whole turbo and downpipe weight on the manifold frankly
> ludicrous.
> 
> Twp-parts also crack.  If you don't fix the engine mount and heatshield
> issues, in about 10,000 miles.  You might make the argument that only the
> front part of the two-part cracks, but the saving is minor.  We do not fit
> two-parts to ur-quattros, and I'm beginning to wonder whether they're
> justified on Type 44s.