Cheap Snorkel?

[CSBrisie]

Interesting EBAY item I spotted (nothing to do with me).

Land Rover Discovery 3 TDV6 Snorkel - eBay Other, Air Intake, Fuel Delivery, Car Parts, Accessories, Cars, Bikes, Boats. (end time 29-Aug-10 20:40:29 AEST)

$AU365....hmmm.....who makes it?

[trobbo]

I asked the very same question of the seller - who makes it? answer was to the effect it is a non brand specific chinese import.

[vnx205]

It might be worthwhile reading this article before you rush out and buy one.

Don't Get Burnt - Low Quality Snorkel Copies

[oldsalt]

Could be made out of last weeks "coke" bottles......maybe

[Dirty3]

It might be worthwhile reading this article before you rush out and buy one.

Don't Get Burnt - Low Quality Snorkel Copies

A great bit of information, scientifically articulated. You pay for what you get is my mantra. Too often we opt for the cheaper product, but only for that reason. What is the real cost? Having to replace the cheapy chinese copy in a few years negates the initial extra cost. When you pay heaps for a car, why use inferior products on it?
For the sake of a few hundred dollars and that's all it is, I would go the local product (and now global) any day.

[CaverD3]

It might be worthwhile reading this article before you rush out and buy one.

Don't Get Burnt - Low Quality Snorkel Copies

Just take into account that it may not be unbiased; it is published by Safari.

However I would say the snorkel is not a snorkel but a RAI like the LR one. The sealing to the wing does not look watertight.
Agree you get what you pay for though.

[isuzurover]

A great bit of information, scientifically articulated. You pay for what you get is my mantra. Too often we opt for the cheaper product, but only for that reason. What is the real cost? Having to replace the cheapy chinese copy in a few years negates the initial extra cost. When you pay heaps for a car, why use inferior products on it?
For the sake of a few hundred dollars and that's all it is, I would go the local product (and now global) any day.

As mentioned, that is a website set up by safari, (after?) they lost a court case against the manufacturer of the other snorkels. I really don't care either way, but my interpretation of that (pseudo)"scientifically articulated" report is below:

I posted this on another forum...

...

These copy snorkels are a perfect example. They are manufactured from what is known as a dry mix of PE and carbon black to give the colour. It has a UV rating of around 8 and will degrade in a year or so when left out in the sun. They look the same until you view a section through a microscope and see the white PE polymer grains entirely enveloped in carbon black. The other ****er is that they shatter if bumped when cold.

The Safari snorkel body is manufactured here in Melbourne, using a special material that has been compounded with a number of additives and is entirely homogeneous down to the molecular level. It can be left in the sun for 20 years and has consistent physical properties down to well below minus 20 C.

These guys just don't understand the importance of using the right material. And the poor consumer ends up being shafted because he knows no better.


I made some time to go and grab a couple of snorkels to cut up and compare. To look at an ironman copy of the genuine safari article can be confusing. Some of the copies are well finished and others show signs of being forced out of the tooling.

To look at though, you'd think ****er, saved some money.

Anyway, I cut a piece out of the genuine safari snorkel and it looked like this below.



Nothing startling. A smooth cut surface with no grabbing on the fine blade.



Did the same with the ironman copy snorkel and here's the first warning sign.



The cut is rough, feathers and edges visibly lighter colour. That tells me straight away that the plastic is different to the genuine product.




Back to the genuine safari product and a very thin slice and under the microscope.



This shows a homogeneous structure (with voids).



Now the copy snorkel.



Right away I could see a grainy structure. A further close up shows the plastic grains even better.



So what we have is a copy snorkel that is made up of whatever that white polymer is (I can't test it here) with the carbon black colouring agent coating each grain.

This means that the structure itself is only as strong as the grain and will become brittle at low temperatures.

I also had a look at one of the copy rubber hoses and thought wow, that's a pretty good copy. I'd have trouble telling it from the genuine article. I then gave it a bit of a squeeze and looked inside at the huge crack along the moulding part line....





...


taken from another forum.

This text and the pics seem to be a deliberate attempt to mislead on behalf of the author (safari?)

First of all, a UV-8 rating (if that is what the Ironman snorkel has) means that the plastic can withstand 8000hrs of UV exposure before the elongation at break (under tensile stress) reaches 50% of the original value.

So at minimum it should last 8000 hrs of UV exposure, and I make that ~2 years since we don't live in perpetual sunlight. If your vehicle is usually garaged, it may last 10-20 years.

I note that it doesn't state what the UV rating of the Safari product is??? Both snorkels are just as black as each other. The black colour is due to thye addition of carbon black, which is also one of the main additives to make plastics UV stable.

Also - "shatter if bumped when cold" - how cold??? If you freeze most things in liquid nitrogen they will "shatter if bumped when cold" however for the safari they give a precise temperature (-20oC).

The statement "entirely homogeneous down to the molecular level" is a load of rubbish. PE has a crystalline structure, and the image of the safari snorkel clearly shows a crystalline structure - albeit with a reduced contrast/brightness to make it less pronounced.

As I said - it seems a deliberate attempt to mislead.

I have no doubt the safari is a superior product - I have seen vehicles which rolled heavily, yet the snorkel survived unscathed (unlike the roof). However - the Ironman snorkel may perform satisfactorily for the price.

For me - mandrel bent stainless - cheaper and will last forever!

[CaverD3]

Agree.
Always read things in context. One of the main ones to ask is: "Who wrote it and who paid for it"

[Dirty3]

Just take into account that it may not be unbiased; it is published by Safari.

Whichever way it is published, biased or not, if I were Safari I would do my utmost to discredit a chinese copy.
What is failing here is the understanding that a local company has made good, with a product developed over many, many years, they have put up the dollars to develop it (for each vehicle manufacturer and variation), intellectual property, proprietary design & implementation yet the chinese come along and copy all this with no scruples just because they can and just because we have retailers out there that want to offer a cheap product (nay, cash in on) so they can reap the rewards, yet have contributed in no way shape or form.
On the other hand you have the buyers that create the need/hunger for constant consumption, no matter what the cost. I guess that's what you call a free market? At the end of the day, you still pay for what you get. IMO

[ADMIRAL]

A couple of questions need to be asked by prospective purchasers of them selves.

ie.

What is the primary purpose of fitting a snorkel to my vehicle ?

If my chosen product fails to deliver, on that primary purpose, what are the expected consequences ?

Should make the decison making process a little more straightforward.

Me, ......I'm a great believer in that old saying....' you get what you pay for'.