mse wrote:

Just looked - safari have changed the design 4 bolts each side of the snorkel base around the intake - tightened from the outside - I like

It is indeed undoubtedly alot easier to fit than the SS580 but you will still end up with the four mounting bolts visible and the 'wasted base' shaped to contain the four bolts! For looks the SS580 has no visible mounting bolts and allthough harder to fit looks better in my opinion!
 If you go through life with your head in the sand....all people will see is an ar5e!!

Treat every day as if it is your last....one day you will be right!!

mse wrote:

...

I dont take the view that because i have a snorkel its now waterproof - there is more in the engine to worry about. My view is the snorkel is additional safety.

...

alantd wrote:

mse wrote:

...

I dont take the view that because i have a snorkel its now waterproof - there is more in the engine to worry about. My view is the snorkel is additional safety.

...

I completely agree. If I'm really going deep enough and for long enough to trouble the RAI then I'll likely have bigger problems - not just mechanical/electrical but more importantly a completely soggy interior! I'm afraid I have to admit that I'm never going to turn my puma into a deep water explorer.

However, having some extra protection will give me the courage to enter water up to around 700mm knowing that I can probably drop the RHS into a dip temporarily and get away with it.

Couldnt have put it better exactly my view

Quote:

I have the 'Sinatra' style RAI on mine. Last winter I drove through a local ford (there was a crowd so I couldn't turn back, even though I should of!)

The ford was showing 4ft on the depth guage and the bow wave came an inch up the windscreen

Always had safari's before so thought the mantec would be the same, only to be told it wasn't sealed after I'd done it.....a little bit lucky

K9F wrote:

mse wrote:

Just looked - safari have changed the design 4 bolts each side of the snorkel base around the intake - tightened from the outside - I like

It is indeed undoubtedly alot easier to fit than the SS580 but you will still end up with the four mounting bolts visible and the 'wasted base' shaped to contain the four bolts! For looks the SS580 has no visible mounting bolts and allthough harder to fit looks better in my opinion!

For comparison....

New design SS581 with four mounting bolts visible.



Harder to fit SS580 no bolts visible.

 If you go through life with your head in the sand....all people will see is an ar5e!!

Treat every day as if it is your last....one day you will be right!!

harveyg77 wrote:

Is the only difference between the 580 and 581 the bolts?

K9F wrote:

The instructions are more or less exactly the same with the exception of having to drill four smaller holes (with the New model) in comparison to three larger holes with the old for base mounting and three holes in your pillar in comparison to four! Even the airbox sealing pictures are exactly the same.
Uniform tightening can be achieved on both types (old type with a torque wrench if you so wish).
With sufficient sealing and attention to detail any deformities of your wing will be immaterial!

mse wrote:

although 4 bolts certainly will do better than the 3

Not for looks they won't and if they're up to the usual disappointing standard of the plated fasteners I got with my Safari they'll be rotting out in a matter of a few weeks. Replace with stainless or buy some prior to fitment would be my advice. The pillar fasteners (self-tappers) were the usual black plated ones and by the photo of the SS581 it looks like that's exactly what you'll be getting with the four mounting bolts too as well as the self-tappers. Your fitting instructions must have been different with regard to the sealing pictures....mine were clear and concise (there's a link to them in my previous post).
The top nuts I found a doddle to get to, the forward one through the wingtop vent and the rear with a suitable ratchet extension and 'uj' type adaptor for the socket. The bottom ones I found a ' muddle' as I didn't remove the wheel arch spat in fear of breaking the plastic securing rivets and I've got digits like pork sausages, my mate Matty got his lithe-like arm in and done 'em up for me! Cheers Matey if you see this!

 If you go through life with your head in the sand....all people will see is an ar5e!!

Treat every day as if it is your last....one day you will be right!!

mse wrote:

What did you torque them too? I hope you have put your plastic washers on those stainless bolts

The lowest setting on my small torque wrench which is either 15 or 20NM I think. Wet assembled the three securing studs and associated 'nylocks' with as much sealant as I could get stuffed in there.

With regards to plastic washers or anything else I am off to Rustmaster Hatfield this Thursday where all will be totally encased in Waxoyl 'by two technicians in a five hour process.' Will be staying on site to watch process being done and shall take photos, so I think I will be able to sleep soundly in my bed with regards to corrosion, for the foreseeable future anyway.

 If you go through life with your head in the sand....all people will see is an ar5e!!

Treat every day as if it is your last....one day you will be right!!

TJ101 wrote:

It was mentioned on maybe this or another thread, about the RAI affecting fuel consumption ??

After 4000 miles in 2 weeks,,,2 x 09 year 110 Pumas, same speed, same route, same roads, same rack, same roof tent, same size and make of Mt tyres etc etc, but one with a Mantec RAI and one without , difference was aprox 4lts of fuel extra, per 40-45lts in the RAI Puma, over the one without, and that extra was put down to the Bas remap fitted to the 110 without the intake ?

Plus the amount of dust etc in the air filter was considerably less with the RAI

Wow! That's what I call a controlled experiment  One that started out as a 2.4 TDCi 110 XS
+ New Defender 110 First Edition