Intake and TBs - Aug Fastrack

**Preliminary Release of August 2011 FasTraCK ONLY AT THIS TIME**

What's up with the intake manifold ant TB proposed rules change? (minutes, letter #4144 / ST item #1)
Allowing the manifold and TB from the chassis or engine opens a lot of combinations that are currently not legal. you might as well propose the allowance of ANY fitting OEM intake from a swap-eligable engine. i.e. use a B16 intake on a B18-C1 long block in an EG civic hatch. you could do the same under this rule into an EM1 coupe (99-2000 Si) so I fail to see the logic behind not allowing this extension of the logic if the proposal as written is approved.

I see that Rob May of Fall-Line wrote in concerning the same issue (Minutes, no action, ST #1, letter #4143) so I assume there is a fair reaon on his end to request such a change, or that it was at some point legal (WC or later).

We're trying to manage several different things at one time, exactly as you describe. But the primary driving issue that this addresses right now is the installation of a FWD engine into a RWD chassis and vice versa. For now this is the easiest way to do it without having a lot of line-item exceptions.

We'll work on a long-term solution. Ideas appreciated.

I dont quite understand this either or see what it will achieve.

"

It is permitted to use the OEM intake and throttle body for either the chassis or the installed

engine."

Take a 240sx for example. The ONLY way to run this car in STL would be with a SR20 swap. The intake manifold needed to do this would come from a JDM engine and chassis that is not allowed.
Should we not just allow the use of non USDM intake manifolds?
If we dont find a way to "un-Honda domination" the STL rules, the class WILL fail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tyler raatz

The intake manifold needed to do this would come from a JDM engine and chassis that is not allowed. Should we not just allow the use of non USDM intake manifolds?

---

We tried the JDM route and it was firmly rejected by the CRB.

There's no reason why the 240SX cannot install a US-spec SR20DE*. But the CRB will not approve either the JDM SR20DET or the SR20VE.

Quote:

---

If we dont find a way to "un-Honda domination" the STL rules, the class WILL fail.

---

Uuum, OK. How about we get one other car built besides a single Honda Integra before we start talking "Honda Domination"? Or are you and Jake in cahoots...?

Nice early Miata denial effort, though. ;) - GA

* We were making ~180 crank ponies with the ITA-spec SR20DE. Give me 20% more cam (more than the vaunted SR20VE) and another point of compression on that engine, put that lump in a decent S13/14 chassis, and just step back and watch me in STL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Amy

We're trying to manage several different things at one time, exactly as you describe. But the primary driving issue that this addresses right now is the installation of a FWD engine into a RWD chassis and vice versa. For now this is the easiest way to do it without having a lot of line-item exceptions.

We'll work on a long-term solution. Ideas appreciated.

---

So the BMW e-36 sedans can choose to use the OBDI manifold on an OBDII motor? What about the cars that only came as OBDII?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Z3_GoCar

So the BMW e-36 sedans can choose to use the OBDI manifold on an OBDII motor? What about the cars that only came as OBDII?

---

I don't know that specific application, but under the current rules you can run the intake that came with either the engine or the car. I can't imagine anyone cares what OBD version you're running.

There's a lot of prep flexibility in STU; feel free to take advantage of it.

GA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Amy

We tried the JDM route and it was firmly rejected by the CRB.

There's no reason why the 240SX cannot install a US-spec SR20DE*. But the CRB will not approve either the JDM SR20DET or the SR20VE.

---

So please explain how you can install a US-spec SR20DE in RWD configuration using a US-spec intake manifold?
Since the rule states I can use the intake mani for the chassis, does that mean I can use the JDM manifold since it's the same chassis? That's the only way I see to fit an SR into an S-chassis and make it anywhere near reasonably affordable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt93SE

So please explain how you can install a US-spec SR20DE in RWD configuration using a US-spec intake manifold?

---

I don't know that you can, I've never tried it. Have you? What's the issue? Is there any clever engineering available within the rules to get around whatever the problem is?

Quote:

---

Since the rule states I can use the intake mani for the chassis, does that mean I can use the JDM manifold since it's the same chassis?

---

Let me be perfectly clear: as of right now JDM COMPONENTS ARE NOT APPROVED FOR SUPER TOURING. The CRB has clearly spoken to that point. I simply can't make it any clearer than that.

I'm sorry that you don't like what Nissan decided to import into this country. I don't like it either, I think they should have imported a lot of different things into this country and would have sold a lot more cars and would be enjoying a helluva lot better reputation for sportiness here, but that's what Nissan chose to do. There's absolutely nothing we can do about that.

If you don't like this position on JDM engines, then petition your Board of Directors rep to get the CRB to change their minds. Short of that, I just don't see it happening any time soon... - GA

Woah now, Greg.. put your flamethrower down. I'm VERY aware of the JDM issue as it's the primary reason I haven't built a new engine yet and am running at the back of the pack.

I was asking for a clarification on what is actually allowed, since that's exactly how some other people are going to read it when you say you can use any intake manifold from that chassis. The same chassis code was sold all over the world, and that's how I read it. That's why I'm posting and asking questions.

In the case of the 240SX, the FWD SR20DE intake manifold points backwards in relation to the required mounting on an RWD car. There's not enough room (about 2") between the firewall and the back of the engine to plumb an intake through there, especially after you "re-engineer" the ignition system to remove the distributor. All of the important bits are mounted over the tranny in the FWD version, and that's unpossible if you conver to RWD for obvious reasons.

The RWD version of the engine has the dizzy coming out of the side of the head and the intake flows from the other direction, which solves all of those problems.

240SX:
http://www.tamparacing.com/forums/at...s-pict0643.jpg

200SX/Sentra/whatever:
http://en.nissan-club.eu/graphics/ow...3_p3161172.jpg

There was, however, an SR20DE installed in the S13 and S14 chassis (in Japan of course) that could provide a bolt-on intake manifold solution, but you'd still have to re-do the entire ignition system to make it work.

See where I'm going with that? It's easy to come to the conclusion that's what this rule was intended for if you want to lean that way. The issue is stretching the chassis code designations past our shores which is easy to do if you look at it in this context.

Edit.. pics changed to links since they're huge and some clarifications.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt93SE

I was asking for a clarification on what is actually allowed, since that's exactly how some other people are going to read it when you say you can use any intake manifold from that chassis. The same chassis code was sold all over the world, and that's how I read it.

---

You should/can ask for a formal clarification (see my sig), but I suggest, given the response from the CRB to date, if you try to argue that you can use the engines from the JDM cars because the same exact chassis were available in the US and Japan, that the CRB's response would be predictable.

IMO, forget that the rest of the world exists. What matters is what equipment your local Nissan dealer was able to sell you.

Quote:

---

...the FWD SR20DE intake manifold points backwards in relation to the required mounting on an RWD car.

---

Then we got farked by Nissan, and unfortunately there's currently no legitimate way around it.

Note that the new philosophy states:

"Some amount of latitude will be considered to facilitate engine installations, however if extensive modifications are required it is recommended to seek clarification from the Club Racing Board."

...and 9.1.4.G.1 states:

"If an engine from a front wheel drive vehicle is installed in a rear wheel drive vehicle, alternate OEM intake manifolds may be considered."

...but if you make a request you better do your homework, have all your ducks in a row, and be very specific with factory part numbers and detailed supporting reasons and specifications. I can't say it'll be approved, but it will certainly be considered, and I can assure you that if you put anything with the letters "JDM" in there it will be summarily rejected.

Quote:

---

There was, however, an SR20DE installed in the S13 and S14 chassis (in Japan of course) that could provide a bolt-on intake manifold solution, but you'd still have to re-do the entire ignition system to make it work.

---

Ignition will be "free" in 2012.

Nevermind...
When you actually cut and paste the addition onto the end of the existing wording, it makes much more sense.
With that as a separate line item, it's easy to misconstrue to something is allowed that's not.

In the Honda world (haven't looked at much else) I see this as a big equalizer as this makes a K24 into the current body civic (when I say current I mean current SSB cars) more doable as they can run the good manifold but keeps the good manifold OFF the older lighter body civic hatches and makes them run the "not good" manifold when running the K24 swap. This also makes the car I see this hurting is the TSX.
This makes life easier on the S2000 swap with the K24 but I've gotta figure out an adapter plate situation as it's not exactly a bolt up.
Just got a txt from one SSB car that he'll probably do the swap now. So you got one more car in the class. I'm concerned about STU's car count once all the SM's go play in STL.

There's still tons of STU cars down here, and two more just entered the fray for the next race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Amy

I don't know that specific application, but under the current rules you can run the intake that came with either the engine or the car. I can't imagine anyone cares what OBD version you're running.

There's a lot of prep flexibility in STU; feel free to take advantage of it.

GA

---

The OBDI manifold came on the M-50 2.5 liter and S-50 3.0 liter motors from '93 to '95. While the OBDII manifold came on the M-52 2.8 liter and S-52 3.2 liter motors from '96 to '99 in the e-36 sedans. In the e-36/7 Z3, it only came with the OBD II motor. So by this change in the rules the sedan 328 can use either manifold, while the Z3 is limited to the OBD II manifold. The OBD II manifold is the main difference between the M-50 and M-52, same head, cams, valves, even the throttle body, and yet the M-52 is 300cc larger and makes the same peak HP at 600 less rpm.

I decided to just swap to the 2.5 to get the better manifold, and also to keep the weight down. But if someone wanted to build one, it seems like it deserves a spec line exception, because the sedan can swap between manifolds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Z3_GoCar

But if someone wanted to build one, it seems like it deserves a spec line exception, because the sedan can swap between manifolds.

---

easier answer is to not build that motor in the Z3 like you figured out. why should it get a specline to help it? starts getting all messy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chip42

easier answer is to not build that motor in the Z3 like you figured out. why should it get a specline to help it? starts getting all messy.

---

So, you think a specline would get messy? but, a case by case basis for JDM-yo would be neat and orderly????:o:blink::shrug::dead_horse:

a spec line for every engine, manifold, and car combination vs. a list of legal non-US engines?

sounds easier to list a legal engine than to spec-line cars + engines + builds ++++. you'd have 40 pages of cars eligible that would make the Prod and GT lists look simple.

Any case you look at, it's going to be a can of worms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DoubleXL240Z

So, you think a specline would get messy? but, a case by case basis for JDM-yo would be neat and orderly????:o:blink::shrug::dead_horse:

---

chris, your side won. lets move on. And yes, starting speclines for specific chassis and engine swap / component combinations has the potential to get very messy very quickly.

This guy is junk spamming the entire website....needs to disappear!!

Here's a new twist on this...

The S-54 came in the Z3 in 2001 and 2002 models and has 6 seperate throttle bodies as it's a real BMW motorsports motor unlike the S-52 pretend motorsports motor... Does this mean that I can use the S54 ITB's on my M-50 motor build? Just floating an idea out there for my next motor build.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Z3_GoCar

Here's a new twist on this...

The S-54 came in the Z3 in 2001 and 2002 models and has 6 seperate throttle bodies as it's a real BMW motorsports motor unlike the S-52 pretend motorsports motor... Does this mean that I can use the S54 ITB's on my M-50 motor build? Just floating an idea out there for my next motor build.

---

I think not. Block and head must match, and the stock intake manifold must be used. The ITB's on the S54 did not come on the M50, so if you want to use them, I think you would have to use the entire S54 block crank and head as well. Which means you would have to run at 3520#.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JS154

I think not. Block and head must match, and the stock intake manifold must be used. The ITB's on the S54 did not come on the M50, so if you want to use them, I think you would have to use the entire S54 block crank and head as well. Which means you would have to run at 3520#.

---

Hello Eric,

That's correct for this years rules, but by the proposed rule for next year:

SUPER TOURING
1. #4144 (Chris Childs) Engine Swaps
Add at the end of 9.1.4.G.1: "It is permitted to use the OEM intake and throttle body for either the chassis or the installed engine."



Since there was a S54 powered Z3, then I can use that oem intake and throttle bodies, and add that to a M-50 motor. Note there's nothing about how to adapt the S54 throttle bodies onto a M-50 motor, so an adaptor/spacer plate is a perfectly legal way to mount it. If you don't like this change to the STCS, then you should contact the CRB, as per the August Fast-track.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Z3_GoCar

Hello Eric,

That's correct for this years rules, but by the proposed rule for next year:

SUPER TOURING
1. #4144 (Chris Childs) Engine Swaps
Add at the end of 9.1.4.G.1: "It is permitted to use the OEM intake and throttle body for either the chassis or the installed engine."



Since there was a S54 powered Z3, then I can use that oem intake and throttle bodies, and add that to a M-50 motor. Note there's nothing about how to adapt the S54 throttle bodies onto a M-50 motor, so an adaptor/spacer plate is a perfectly legal way to mount it. If you don't like this change to the STCS, then you should contact the CRB, as per the August Fast-track.

---

Contact Karl Peoltl at RacersEdge about mating S54 TB's to that. His ex WC E46Tc car now has something like that and was turning 2:26's at RdAm in 2010 with the BMW club. see link here.> http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum....php?t=1422245

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JS154

Contact Karl Peoltl at RacersEdge about mating S54 TB's to that. His ex WC E46Tc car now has something like that and was turning 2:26's at RdAm in 2010 with the BMW club. see link here.> http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum....php?t=1422245

---

Eric,

Thanks for the link because now I've subscribed to it. I'd seen that before in my search if it'd been done before. Note he did that in D-mod with a 3.0liter block and no mimimum weight. If he bolted on enough weight to run at 3300lbs, he'd probably be a little slower. I'll be sticking with the 2.5 liter, and will be trying to be competitive at about 2800lbs.

If you remember my concern about the blanket allowance of 3.2 liter motors in STU. I just came across this thread:

http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum...7&postcount=14

This is with bolt-ons and a retune, results 328hp at the wheel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Z3_GoCar

This is with bolt-ons and a retune, results 328hp at the wheel.

---

...and 3520# and 7" wheels...?

328hp / 3520lbs * 2640lbs = 248hp.

My 2.4L I4 would have to make 250whp to keep up with it strictly on power to weight.

A 3500lb car with 328whp and the same tires I can fit on my 250whp 2600lb car? It won't run away on the straights, my 2600lb car will be more nimble, and his tires will be toast by the end of a 40 min race. IMO that's very much within the class philosophy on power/weight, and my lighter car will have the advantage in the long run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Amy

...and 3520# and 7" wheels...?

---

I know it was early Greg, but isn't it 8" rims? Also, 245/255's could be up to the task for a sprint race even at 3520 lbs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt93SE

328hp / 3520lbs * 2640lbs = 248hp.

My 2.4L I4 would have to make 250whp to keep up with it strictly on power to weight.

A 3500lb car with 328whp and the same tires I can fit on my 250whp 2600lb car? It won't run away on the straights, my 2600lb car will be more nimble, and his tires will be toast by the end of a 40 min race. IMO that's very much within the class philosophy on power/weight, and my lighter car will have the advantage in the long run.

---

That's for a motor that wasn't even touched on the inside and running a retuned oe DME. Now here's a race built motor with a custom AEM set up:
http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum...80&postcount=1

Do you think you can get 270hp?

You are correct, sir: 8" wide for STU. 7" is STL.

If the engine is too powerful for STU it'll either get a restrictor or get moved to STO. Make a request with supporting data and the CRB will consider it.