No, not quite and, just because it's used on bridges doesn't rate it for automotive applications.

Bridge epoxy (last time I sprayed it) had lead in it. IT's also designed for adhesion to sandblasted surfaces that are cast iron, steel, cold rolled steel and is applied in a thin mil thicknesses NOT in .250 in thick as seen on that intake.

In order to choose the proper epoxy, the following must be reviewed:

final mil thickness (final depth / height per area2

What is the max allowable thickness of the epoxy. Most epoxies can't tolerate a one-off pour that achieves the final thickness. Major gross failure will ensue if step-processing is not adhered to or, if the wrong epoxy is selected and, the user exceeds the max allowable mil film / thickness ratings.

If this happens, you actually start to work soften the material and, over time, under the right condition, it begins to gel, creep, and soften with age due to not following the OEM mfr specs.


Depending on the spec for the max allowable mil film thickness, one may have to process each step in phases, just as you would when spraying a clear coat on an aircraft wing. You don't do it in one shot but, over a period of time, you achieve the final mil film per spec / print.

IF it's hobby related such as using epoxy to encapsulate flowers, rocks or bugs, etc, this is irrelevant because it is not an application that deems any process to be adhered to and, one does not have to worry about a failure. Pour it and who cares what happens.

However, since we are discussing an automotive application, this needs to be addressed. This is not a toy, or some pretty desktop paper weight so, we need to focus on the application and then choose the right epoxy for the application by looking at the thermal range of temp variation over a certain geography so that we can select the appropriate epoxy that will best suit the intended use environment.

I would look into the GM standards for automotive vibration as well as thermal shock standards applicable to automotive as well as mechanical shock and random vibration standards per GM and SAE standards respectively.

Now, many don't know or even think about the above because they simply are not aware. I am so, I immediately look at the use environment and application and then select the test standards and specs in order to determine the best material/s to use.


The epoxy will have to meet or exceed those tests in order to prove reliable.

WE also need to look at the application itself. We ask:

What is the final mil thickness desired vs. the max allowable thickness rating

The substrate

What the Coefficient of Expansion rate is along with the appropriate shore D rating as well as the Tg rate.

The desired thermal properties over long term- not just short term, immediate but, long term use.

Those are just a few of what needs to be looked at before blindly applying Gorilla Glue or Max Bond epoxy into an engine assembly.

 

yeah, sure

 

People often criticize what they fail to understand.

It's the process that I and many other professionals use to determine which material to use, it's not out of whack and, if you think about it, it's a logical way of thinking vs. the guy who grabs a bottle of Bob's Epoxy and dumps it into the intake. The out of whack part is those who blindly grab whatever they can find and have a go at it with complete ignorance.

Is the epoxy solvent and fuel resistant is yet another question and, under prolonged use, how is the epoxy going to react with oil and gasoline and heat.

You don't have to test it, but, you do have to know to what test specs it has to meet in order to choose a material that will withstand the use environment.

Good epoxy (unlike that cheap junk that was pointed out) will have a rating for all those things I mentioned such as resistance to fuels, oils, thermal ratings etc etc, you simply source the epoxy to meet the needs of the use environment and, if you do that, the chances of it failing are less than it would be when blindly choosing Bob's epoxy.

That stuff is complete rubbish and is not rated for Aerospace use, as if it was, it would be on the list of DoD standards, FAA flight hardware standards, Boeing AML , Lockheed and many more industry standard, approved material lists suitable for aerospace components. Hell, it's not even rated for automotive for that matter.

 

So true!

 

i was just kidding around since it was a long post most normal joes wouldnt understand