Snyder's Exhaust Manifold

[Steve Plucker]

I have just received Snyder's Exhaust Manifold for use on the Model A/AA Ford. I must say it appears to be a very fine casting and true to the form at first glance.

However it has a ruff surface as do most castings.

So my question is this...just how does a NOS Exhaust Manifold compair to the Snyder's Exhaust Manifold as far as the surface texture is concerned?

I will try to post some photos tomorrow.

Thanks.

Pluck

[Ray64]

The grit of the sand used will dictate the finish of the product

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

You can 'detail' a new exhaust manifold to look close for Fine-point, but there are some issues that must be dealt with. The repro manifolds typically have a fixture line (??) at the top that has been removed and ground with an aggressive stone. This must not be there nor can this area be flattened.

Second, the original manifolds had a small "delta mark" on the backside cast into the manifold near where the distributor hold-down screw is located. This must be added. I have tried JB Weld however the manifold soon burns it off. The only thing I have found that works is to make a 0.250" thick brass template with a void in the shape of this casting mark. Then TIG weld a product called Muggy Weld into the void using the brass to form the shape. It works with mixed results however the weld can be detailed using a file to shape it better. Then use a needle scaler to provide the proper texture.

Third, the original manifolds had a number stamped on the lower section near the flange boss. This random number was found facing the valve chamber cover and on the opposite side facing outward. The repro manifold has an 'S' stamped to represent Snyders. This S must be changed to a digit. In the perfect world, if a manifold could be specially ordered without the stamping, it would help.

Fourth, if you look closely at the mounting lugs used where the manifold clamps & the stud nuts tighten against, you will see some variation where there is a taper and a recess that must be made.

All in all, it is doable however you will have a lot of time invested. I have done several that passed in F/P without receiving any deduction. In my opinion, finding an original manifold and building a fixture to straighten it is much easier/faster.

[Steve Plucker]

Originally Posted by BRENT in 10-uh-C

You can 'detail' a new exhaust manifold to look close for Fine-point, but there are some issues that must be dealt with. The repro manifolds typically have a fixture line (??) at the top that has been removed and ground with an aggressive stone. This must not be there nor can this area be flattened.

This I agree with...Looks ugly!

Second, the original manifolds had a small "delta mark" on the backside cast into the manifold near where the distributor hold-down screw is located. This must be added. I have tried JB Weld however the manifold soon burns it off. The only thing I have found that works is to make a 0.250" thick brass template with a void in the shape of this casting mark. Then TIG weld a product called Muggy Weld into the void using the brass to form the shape. It works with mixed results however the weld can be detailed using a file to shape it better. Then use a needle scaler to provide the proper texture.

I agree with this statement for the most part as many originals do have this delta mark...some do not...HOWEVER it boils down to a "play with words" and just how it is stated. Using the word "MUST" means that, yes, it absolutly, positively, MUST have that "delta" mark on the back. If one were to read the Standards, it states on page 5-1 Revised 2016 that "The exhaust manifold MAY have had a delta mark in the general area above the two exhaust ports on the engine side".

This means, at least to me, maybe not you, that there is "a certain measure of likelihood or possibility" that one is there or not.

If the "delta mark" MUST be there, then the wording in the Standards MUST be changed from "MAY" to "MUST".

Third, the original manifolds had a number stamped on the lower section near the flange boss. This random number was found facing the valve chamber cover and on the opposite side facing outward. The repro manifold has an 'S' stamped to represent Snyders. This S must be changed to a digit. In the perfect world, if a manifold could be specially ordered without the stamping, it would help.

Again, I agree for the MOST part...HOWEVER, and according to the Standards (with picture) "Manifold mold letter example (numbers were also used) MAY also be located on the engine side of the manifold". Also, "MOST (not all) original manifolds had mold numbers OR letters just above the muffler inlet pipe clamp". If this statement in the Standards is wrong...then I suggest it get changed to what you indicate above in that NO letters were ever used. Are the Standards misleading us?

Millions of these manifolds were made during the Model A era...has anyone figured out and proven one way or the other that an "S" (or any letter for that fact) was never used on these? Just what is, or was, the highest LETTER used in the manufacturing of these original manifolds? Is it stated on the Part Releases or drawings anywhere?

Fourth, if you look closely at the mounting lugs used where the manifold clamps & the stud nuts tighten against, you will see some variation where there is a taper and a recess that must be made.

This is doable...hopefully.

All in all, it is doable however you will have a lot of time invested. I have done several that passed in F/P without receiving any deduction. In my opinion, finding an original manifold and building a fixture to straighten it is much easier/faster.

Pluck

[Steve Plucker]

Originally Posted by Ray64

The grit of the sand used will dictate the finish of the product

That is what I have heard Ray...Thank you for answering the question.

Pluck

[McMimmcs]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

very good explanation Brent!

[Steve Plucker]

Originally Posted by McMimmcs

very good explanation Brent!

Is it McMimmcs? Please explain your thoughts Sir! If you can!...If you are able! Please tell us why!

Pluck

[McMimmcs]

Originally Posted by Steve Plucker

Is it McMimmcs? Please explain your thoughts Sir! If you can!...If you are able! Please tell us why!

Pluck

The man Brent is a true professional and has an indepth knowledge concerning everything Model A! He has what others such as myself are lacking! Obviously we can all learn from him!

[alexiskai]

Originally Posted by McMimmcs

The man Brent is a true professional and has an in-depth knowledge concerning everything Model A! He has what others such as myself are lacking! Obviously we can all learn from him!

Honestly not sure whether Brent is paying you too much or not enough.

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Originally Posted by Steve Plucker

Is it McMimmcs? Please explain your thoughts Sir! If you can!...If you are able! Please tell us why!

Pluck

Steve, I am not here to argue, ...and I even debated writing this above for just this reason. I will state my opinion once more then I am done.


FWIW, I HAVE participated in F/P adjudication and entered cars into MARC/MAFCA competition, ...and therefore I have learned what they are looking for in exhaust manifolds by one of the best Team Captains in Area 5. The surface texture is not nearly as important as the other details of the manifold. In actuality, the manifold is worth more points than what the exhaust pipe & muffler is worth.

Regarding your comment about whether my info is correct, let me state my opinion -and then you choose whatever you feel is best for you. The comment that always surfaces in F/P adjudication is if you display something that causes the Judge(s) to make a decision on authenticity or correctness, then you have a 50/50 chance they might not make the correct decision. When this happens, there is likely a large point deduction given without any chance of having that point deduction reversed.

I also know that some feel like service replacement manifolds were different (possibly did not have special markings), however most adjudicators are looking for the 'delta mark' and the numbers to validate the manifold is indeed original. If you know going in what they are looking for, then why would you tempt the outcome to not be in your favor?? Your car, so do it however you feel best.

[Steve Plucker]

Brent,

I am not arguing either...I am just relating what the Standards are saying and if the Standards are wrong, then the wording needs to be changed to what your observations are. But with the way the Standards are worded...it leaves it wide open.

If you were to set down and read the Standards...you will see what I mean.

Pluck

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Originally Posted by Steve Plucker

Brent,

I am not arguing either...I am just relating what the Standards are saying and if the Standards are wrong, then the wording needs to be changed to what your observations are. But with the way the Standards are worded...it leaves it wide open.

If you were to set down and read the Standards...you will see what I mean.

Pluck

Well I am breaking my own promise as I am answering you after I just said I wouldn't.

I am going to be brutally honest with you. I know what it says in the RG&JS, ...however I also know how adjudication is done. The guys that are Team Captains for that given day are guys that have done WAY more research than what is printed in Area 5 in the RG&JS. They know what to look for, and/or the details they want to see.

Next, on the judging sheet it does not give any instruction as to how to score whether the numbers are there or whether the mark is or is not there. On the expanded sheet, if the judge has any feelings it is a reproduction part, all he needs to do is write RP and take off 15 points. He does not need to write any justification or reasoning other than in his opinion, it looks like a repro.

Now suppose that in a month or two after the meet, you receive your scoring sheets for the meet and you see your deduction. At that time, you cannot go argue or change the scoring, ...and suppose you know the Team Captain so you ask him about it. In one quick comment, all he has to say is it appeared to be a repro. How do you argue with him at that point? THAT in a nutshell is why I am saying you need to make 110% certain there is no question in his mind. Having the mods I listed above either fools him into thinking it is the real deal, --or he knows it is a repro but he sees you went to great effort to make it look exactly like what he feels they should look like. In either of the last two, you don't receive a deduction.

[alexiskai]

Originally Posted by BRENT in 10-uh-C

I am going to be brutally honest with you. I know what it says in the RG&JS, ...however I also know how adjudication is done. The guys that are Team Captains for that given day are guys that have done WAY more research than what is printed in Area 5 in the RG&JS. They know what to look for, and/or the details they want to see.

Next, on the judging sheet it does not give any instruction as to how to score whether the numbers are there or whether the mark is or is not there. On the expanded sheet, if the judge has any feelings it is a reproduction part, all he needs to do is write RP and take off 15 points. He does not need to write any justification or reasoning other than in his opinion, it looks like a repro.

I feel like this is good and honest information, and yet also it speaks to the chatter I've heard from various people about how incredibly esoteric (and expensive) FP competition has become. Personally I don't have a problem with it as long as people are clear-eyed about what they're getting into. A judge is going to see lots of cars that meet the RG&JS baseline on paper, so they're inevitably going to devise finer and finer gradations of authenticity to help them assign numbers to these cars.

[Steve Plucker]

Originally Posted by BRENT in 10-uh-C

Well I am breaking my own promise as I am answering you after I just said I wouldn't.

I am going to be brutally honest with you. I know what it says in the RG&JS, ...however I also know how adjudication is done. The guys that are Team Captains for that given day are guys that have done WAY more research than what is printed in Area 5 in the RG&JS. They know what to look for, and/or the details they want to see.

Next, on the judging sheet it does not give any instruction as to how to score whether the numbers are there or whether the mark is or is not there. On the expanded sheet, if the judge has any feelings it is a reproduction part, all he needs to do is write RP and take off 15 points. He does not need to write any justification or reasoning other than in his opinion, it looks like a repro.

Now suppose that in a month or two after the meet, you receive your scoring sheets for the meet and you see your deduction. At that time, you cannot go argue or change the scoring, ...and suppose you know the Team Captain so you ask him about it. In one quick comment, all he has to say is it appeared to be a repro. How do you argue with him at that point? THAT in a nutshell is why I am saying you need to make 110% certain there is no question in his mind. Having the mods I listed above either fools him into thinking it is the real deal, --or he knows it is a repro but he sees you went to great effort to make it look exactly like what he feels they should look like. In either of the last two, you don't receive a deduction.

Brent,

I am not talking about what the judges think persay...I am talking about what the Standards are telling us.

I will ask you this again as I have asked you above but seem to be side-stepping the issue...What do the following statements, as written in the Standards, mean to you?

"The exhaust manifold MAY have had a raised delta mark in the general area above the two exhaust ports on the engine side";

"MOST original manifolds had mold numbers OR letters just above the muffler inlet pipe clamp";

"Manifold mold letter example (numbers were also used), MAY also be located on the engine side of the manifold" (as seen in photo on page 5-1 Revised 2016).

Thank you.

Pluck

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Originally Posted by alexiskai

I feel like this is good and honest information, and yet also it speaks to the chatter I've heard from various people about how incredibly esoteric (and expensive) FP competition has become. Personally I don't have a problem with it as long as people are clear-eyed about what they're getting into. A judge is going to see lots of cars that meet the RG&JS baseline on paper, so they're inevitably going to devise finer and finer gradations of authenticity to help them assign numbers to these cars.

Actually, most people who give a response about F/P restorations honestly do not have a clue for which they speak. I do agree it is an esoteric sport, however it really is not that expensive when the restoration is performed as the sport was intended.

The fallacy that comes with F/P is most participants either choose not to, -or don't do their research prior to performing the restoration of each component. Somewhere along the way, it seems easier to whip out the checkbook to purchase the NOS part instead of restoring the existing part they have. This in a nutshell is why the costs are high for some restorations, and not for others.

To illustrate my point, there are knowledgeable guys that have researched what is correct for their car, and then attended swap meets looking thru the $1 box to find items like ammeters or valve stems from cars that were disassembled for restoration and discarded in lieu of a repro part. Now the 'swap meet picker' takes the $5 worth of valve stems home and preps them for plating himself. When completely restored, he has about $100 cash outlay in 5 restored valve stems whereas other F/P restorers will pay $500 for a set of restored valve stems. Another example is an original Ammeter can be nicely restored for under $40 plating and all the necessary hand work, -or a NOS one ready to install can be purchased for $250.

I could go on, but using this mindset throughout the entire restoration makes it easy to see why some feel like the costs for F/P are excessive, ...when in actuality it is not.

[CWPASADENA]

I think what Brent is trying to get across is that if the JS states that a component MAY have a particular feature and that feature is present, the judges are more likely to declare the component to be original.

If the feature is missing, then the judges may declare the component to be a reproduction. You have much better chances of a component being declared original if it has this feature.

Now, if the JS state a component MUST have a particular feature, then in order for a component to be declared an original, it must have this feature.

This is the way I interpret it.

Chris W.

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Originally Posted by Steve Plucker

Brent,

I am not talking about what the judges think persay...I am talking about what the Standards are telling us.

I will ask you this again as I have asked you above but seem to be side-stepping the issue...What do the following statements, ... mean to you?

Thank you Chris.



Steve, honestly not much because the RG&JS is not an all-inclusive answer book. Everything written in that book is not 100% correct. Therefore just because something is written in that book does not mean that is how it should be, -or was. That book is only a STANDARD by which a vehicle in competition is to be evaluated against.


I am going back to the first of this thread. Ray answered your question perfectly in post #2. I felt no need to expound on it.

You asked how it compared to an NOS one with respect to finish. Personally I feel that the Ford manufactured ones had a better finish, however I have only had one NOS one which I suspect it was a later service replacement because of the reinforcement. None the less, the original ones seem to have a better quality finish, however that detail is minor in comparison to the other details I mentioned. So does this answer your question(s) now??

[Steve Plucker]

Steve, honestly not much because the RG&JS is not an all-inclusive answer book. Everything written in that book is not 100% correct. Therefore just because something is written in that book does not mean that is how it should be, -or was. That book is only a STANDARD by which a vehicle in competition is to be evaluated against.

Then you, Brent Terry, had better change the Standards in that area and word those three statements to fit your agenda or get rid of them to make them 100% correct in your eyes! If something, such as a Delta mark, or numbers, and not letters, MUST be there, then they MUST be there and no beating around the bush or side-stepping the issues.

So in essence of what you are telling us, that if a person goes into Fine Point judging and he or she is abiding by what the Standards say at the time, but if you see it another way, then he or she gets a deduction. How nice.

So to avoid all this BS...Change the wording in the Standards so it fits your agenda.

Pluck

[Ruth]

Originally Posted by Steve Plucker

[B]
So to avoid all this BS...Change the wording in the Standards so it fits your agenda.

Pluck

Now Pluck, you're making too much sense!! But I agree with you 100%.

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Originally Posted by Ruth

Now Pluck, you're making too much sense!! But I agree with you 100%.

Originally Posted by Steve Plucker

Steve, honestly not much because the RG&JS is not an all-inclusive answer book. Everything written in that book is not 100% correct. Therefore just because something is written in that book does not mean that is how it should be, -or was. That book is only a STANDARD by which a vehicle in competition is to be evaluated against.

Then you, Brent Terry, had better change the Standards in that area and word those three statements to fit your agenda or get rid of them to make them 100% correct in your eyes! If something, such as a Delta mark, or numbers, and not letters, MUST be there, then they MUST be there and no beating around the bush or side-stepping the issues.

So in essence of what you are telling us, that if a person goes into Fine Point judging and he or she is abiding by what the Standards say at the time, but if you see it another way, then he or she gets a deduction. How nice.

So to avoid all this BS...Change the wording in the Standards so it fits your agenda.

Pluck

Please Steve, explain to me what my 'agenda' is. You asked what I thought about certain verbiage of one or two sentences. I answer you with my opinion on just those two sentences, and evidently because my thoughts do not align with yours, you now accuse me of having an agenda? Seriously?? I have never judged Area 5 nor do I have have plans to do so in the foreseeable future, ...so I really do not have an 'agenda' as you imply.

I have always tried to help and support you when possible. I truly wish the same could be said for you towards me. Nonetheless, lets just end this nonsense with a truce and lets both move on to more productive ways to help others.