| Author |
Message |
JohnR. (Rivee)
Member
Username: Rivee
Post Number: 253
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 2:37 pm: | |
X(14.5)= lbs./sqin.
X=Bar |
Norm Plaistowe (Normp)
Junior Member
Username: Normp
Post Number: 161
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 9:59 am: | |
Henry-
Cheap to keep, it's when you start to drive them that they can get expensive.
All the best |
Henryk (Henryk)
Intermediate Member
Username: Henryk
Post Number: 1020
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 8:38 am: | |
Needless to say, the TR cap didn't hold pressure either.......had to add some antifreeze to it.
I took Lee's advice........went to Carquest and bought 2 caps (#33042)......they are $5.99 each.....put one in the TR and the other in the Boxer. I tested these on my pressure tester and they held pressure, so my tester is OK.
I'm almost tempted to say that Ferraris are cheap to keep!!!!!!!! HAHAHA |
Henryk (Henryk)
Member
Username: Henryk
Post Number: 974
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 10:02 am: | |
I have placed my TR cap (also reads 1.1) on the Boxer and will try it out.
My Snap-On radiator cap pressure tester doesn't seem to fit right on these caps, to properly test them. |
James Selevan (Jselevan)
Member
Username: Jselevan
Post Number: 678
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 9:25 am: | |
Henry - I have Ferrari original equipment.
The issue of ballooning the expansion tank was addressed in another thread. In summary, I do not understand why it happens, but most Boxers experience it. Mine was ballooned when I did the engine-out major, and I had it returned to normal shape. Approximately 1 month later, with a new 1.1 Bar pressure cap, the tank was again ballooned. With a working cap at 1.1 Bar, excessive pressure should not lead to expansion tank distortion, but it does. I suspect it is simple engineering forces - the surface area of the inner aspect of the tank, multiplied by 1.1 Bar, is sufficient to balloon the tank. The hoses, with less surface area and cylindrical in shape, are subject to tensile forces in the wall of the hose, and not impacted.
Jim S. |
Henryk (Henryk)
Member
Username: Henryk
Post Number: 970
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 9:06 pm: | |
James: That is strange......never would have thought of that.
Mine do read 1.1 on the top, of both the TR and the Boxer......they seem to be the same.
Why would it balloon the metal expansion tank, and NOT bust a hose first?
What brand of .9 bar unit do you have? |
James Selevan (Jselevan)
Member
Username: Jselevan
Post Number: 676
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 8:28 pm: | |
WSM calls for 1.1 Bar. However, many have changed theirs to .9 Bar because of the "ballooning" of the expansion tank. My tank has ballooned with 1.1 Bar.
Jim S. |
Lee Sanders (Lsand007)
New member
Username: Lsand007
Post Number: 48
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 8:11 pm: | |
Mine is very generic; any good parts store. |
Henryk (Henryk)
Member
Username: Henryk
Post Number: 969
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 6:42 pm: | |
My radiator cap (83 Boxer) fails to hold any pressure. Does anyone know an aftermarket one that will fit?...or do I call Rutlands?
From the looks, my cap is probably something generic......does any know the correct pressure relief setting?
Is the cap the same one as for the TR?
Thanks |