I have a bunch of 316 SS elbows from work, all 1 1/2" Sch 10, and want to use these to make my new manifold, but don't know if 316 would be good for this kind of heat range. Should I still go for either 304 or 321 or can I try out the 316. As far as I know, 316 isn't as good with high heat as 304 is, but I dont' see the manifold ever going to those extreme temperatures...

Thoughts?

 

try it out. I dont think there would be any problem. sch10

 

that's what I was going to do, considering its only a full day required to make, and parts are free.

There was a whole box of sch 40 crap laying around, but sch 40 for manifolds is just wrong

 

I used to use 316 for manifolds, it worked awesome just like the 304 but costs a little bit more. the only real difference between 304 and 316 is that 316 is designed for marine applications such as boat exhausts because 316 does not corrode to salt water.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ExploitedRacing &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I used to use 316 for manifolds, it worked awesome just like the 304 but costs a little bit more. the only real difference between 304 and 316 is that 316 is designed for marine applications such as boat exhausts because 316 does not corrode to salt water.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Yes, it has an overall, much better corrosion resistance. I worked in a mayonnaise plant and they didn't allow any 304 piping. They said that the vinegar would eat through it, but 316 held up fine.

 

I have a but load of 316l at my work... its all they are allowed to use.

 

a lot of the 316L you find is used in medical pharma field, it may be 316LVM - or low tensile vacuum remelt, it has an extremely low % of deleterious elements and basically is straight spec elements with less than .5% allowable for residuals. meaning no surface contaminents, no Fe or Mg inclusions, which makes suitable for implants, needles and medical screws, when welding this and you think it may be from a medical /pharma application note that the Carbon will be much lower than straight 316L/H.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Canuk_SiR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">that's what I was going to do, considering its only a full day required to make, and parts are free.

There was a whole box of sch 40 crap laying around, but sch 40 for manifolds is just wrong </TD></TR></TABLE> whats wrong with using schedule 40 on manifolds.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by eg6turb0 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> whats wrong with using schedule 40 on manifolds.</TD></TR></TABLE>

its too heavy for manifolds. for one, its a heat sink, and second it weighs alot more then it needs to. depending on the grade of stainless, 16 gauge down to 12-8 for tube is more then enough, and sch 10, for my thoughts on manifold thicknesses, is just about borderline on getting too heavy. Also, if you're welding sch 40, unless you have it bevelled down with next to no landing, you won't get the penetration, and if you do bevel it, you'll more then likely to need 2 passes to fill the cavity with enough weld.

Bottom line, its unnecessary to use that thick of an elbow for a turbo manifold. in my opinion, obviously other people think different, so hopefully nobody gets into an arguement over my opinion on the topic

 

I use schedule 10 on all my manifolds because 16 gauge from burns is pretty expensive and unless my costomers are willing to pay for it they arent going to get it for free.