Diff. cooler pump

[rsportvolvo]

I am looking into using a differential cooler for my ITB Volvo 240. Diff. coolers are not in the ITCS, unless I completely missed a line in the drivetrain section. The Volvo Factory 240 Turbo's of the '80's used a Facet fuel pump and I'm not sure which flow rate to get.

Facet (square) solid state: 4-6 psi max, 15 gpm @ 3 psi, 32 gph, * AN-6 fitting size
Facet "Sliver" top (cylnder): 4-5 psi max, 23 gpm @ 2 psi, 36 gph
Facet "Blue" top (cylinder): 6.5-7.5 psi max, 35 gpm @ 2 psi, 45 gph

I am basically drawing suction from the drain plug (thru the cooler) and discharging through the filler in the diff cover. I plan on using -8 or -6 hose with an inline filter.

I'm not worried about weigh as my car has to weigh 2780# and it is going to be way under that without ballast. Not to mention this weight is low in the car.

Any recommendations?

[ITANorm]

My initial response would be, "It's illegal".

Diff coolers are not addressed. If it doesn't say you can, you can't. Volvo Turbos are not on the same spec line, so you can't update / backdate using their parts.

If you figure a way around that, there are a few bits I'd like to incorporate from the factory Supercharged MR2 on my ITA car - like the supercharger! (Although, ironically enough, the "optional gearset" allowed in the MR2 is the S/C set - and it's totally useless for an IT car!)

[rsportvolvo]

Originally posted by ITANorm@Jan 22 2006, 01:21 AM
My initial response would be, "It's illegal".

Diff coolers are not addressed. If it doesn't say you can, you can't. Volvo Turbos are not on the same spec line, so you can't update / backdate using their parts.

If you figure a way around that, there are a few bits I'd like to incorporate from the factory Supercharged MR2 on my ITA car - like the supercharger! (Although, ironically enough, the "optional gearset" allowed in the MR2 is the S/C set - and it's totally useless for an IT car!)

[snapback]71554[/snapback]

Illegal or not, I'll take it up with SCCA since it is not mentioned. I just wanted to know if this issue had been dealt with before.

The Facet pumps are aftermarket pieces used for aircraft and race cars. It was the same brand pump used on the Volvo 240 Turbo's for the diff. coolers. Nothing to do with line items, ITCS, etc. Volvo Turbo's are not in the ITCS.

Maybe I'm thinking about this too much and I should just pick a pump and use it.

[Chris Wire]

Originally posted by rsportvolvo@Jan 21 2006, 08:41 PM
Illegal or not, I'll take it up with SCCA since it is not mentioned. I just wanted to know if this issue had been dealt with before.

The Facet pumps are aftermarket pieces used for aircraft and race cars. It was the same brand pump used on the Volvo 240 Turbo's for the diff. coolers. Nothing to do with line items, ITCS, etc. Volvo Turbo's are not in the ITCS.

Maybe I'm thinking about this too much and I should just pick a pump and use it.

[snapback]71556[/snapback]

I seem to remember Catman writing the CRB years ago for what I would assume would have been installation in a 240Z at the time. The response in Fastrack was the standard "inconsistent with class philosophy".

I don't think its legal under the IIDSYCTYC, but I could be wrong. I say write the letter.

[wbp]

It currently is illegal, and should stay that way I suppose. Also should be unneeded if you will use an excellent synthetic, like Redline.

[Knestis]

Originally posted by rsportvolvo@Jan 21 2006, 08:41 PM
... Maybe I'm thinking about this too much and I should just pick a pump and use it.

No question - not legal, so it would be a bad idea to do this.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by rsportvolvo@Jan 21 2006, 08:41 PM
Illegal or not, I'll take it up with SCCA since it is not mentioned. I just wanted to know if this issue had been dealt with before.

[snapback]71556[/snapback]

Why would you build something that was illegal? The rules DO say that it isn't legal.

"D. AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS
The following modifications are authorized on all Improved Touring
Category cars. Modifications shall not be made unless authorized
herein. No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform
a prohibited function."

There is no allowance for a diff cooler in IT, therefor it is illegal. If you have something like this on your car - and you are fast, people are going to wonder about EVERY other aspect of your program - and your effort to be a legal racer. It's sooo not worth it.

AB

[Eagle7]

"Any final drive ratio is permitted provided it fits the stock
differential/transaxle housing without modification to the
housing."

Seems like that's your answer - you're fine as long as it stays entirely within the unmodified housing. Does that work for you?

[kthomas]

Not legal, and for no good reason.

[dj10]

Originally posted by kthomas@Jan 22 2006, 06:39 PM
Not legal, and for no good reason.

[snapback]71605[/snapback]

This is the most honest and intelligent statement I've seen.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 23 2006, 09:31 AM
This is the most honest and intelligent statement I've seen.

[snapback]71677[/snapback]

Really? Why?

This would be a CLASSIC case of rules creep. No need for the modification allowance, yet it adds some performance and longevity. If we used those two factors alone for what the rules read, then you would have hundreds of more allowances. Costs go up for everyone.

AB

[dj10]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 23 2006, 10:18 AM
Really? Why?

This would be a CLASSIC case of rules creep. No need for the modification allowance, yet it adds some performance and longevity. If we used those two factors alone for what the rules read, then you would have hundreds of more allowances. Costs go up for everyone.
AB

[snapback]71685[/snapback]

"Costs go up for everyone".
Hmmm is that like allowing the use of Motec's? This adds absoutely no performance just like short shifters. Make the stuff that has no performance values legal

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 23 2006, 03:07 PM
"Costs go up for everyone".
Hmmm is that like allowing the use of Motec's? This adds absoutely no performance just like short shifters. Make the stuff that has no performance values legal

[snapback]71764[/snapback]

We can't look backward to look forward. You can only learn from mistakes and go from there.

I submit again that if there is no advantage, people woudn't ask for it. If your car don't 'go away' at the end of the race, would you consider that a performance improvment?

AB

[Joe Harlan]

Not legal at all, but the answer is not need to move a lot of fluid as it needs time in the cooler to cool, I would shoot for the middle unit.

[lateapex911]

On top of that, i really doubt that its necessary at all! Are the diffs THAT weak that they can't take the modest IT hp bump?

Worse, it invites that guy Murphy into the game! Here's something thats really not needed, AND it adds unreliability to the equation. A great way to pump the diff fluid on the track AND burn up gears that would have been just fine.

leave well enough alone.

JMHO, of course!

[rsportvolvo]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Jan 23 2006, 01:31 AM
On top of that, i really doubt that its necessary at all! Are the diffs THAT weak that they can't take the modest IT hp bump?

[snapback]71615[/snapback]

The differential is a Dana 30 and can easily handle the IT power ouput. Plate style limited slips can create a lot of heat. I am thinking about solutions before the problem arises. I've already seen Volvo /Dana 30's blow at the track and heat was a factor.

As far as this modification being legal, I will take that up with SCCA. This forum is a good source of information, but our interpretaions on the ITCS are just that. A letter from SCCA removes all doubt. I'm sure many remember the forged piston and "any bushing material" debates. I don't want to argue about it or put my car in the "cheater's" arena. I'll write the letter and post the response.

Thanks to all for the input.

[Gary L]

Originally posted by rsportvolvo@Jan 23 2006, 06:31 AM
I'm sure many remember the forged piston and "any bushing material" debates. I don't want to argue about it or put my car in the "cheater's" arena. I'll write the letter and post the response.

[snapback]71652[/snapback]

David - With all due respect, the forged piston and bushing material debates had some basis with which to start a discussion... they are at least mentioned in the ITCS. Diff coolers are not mentioned in the ITCS. Therefore, by definition (if it doesn't say "yes", it means "no"), they are not allowed.

If I were you and just had to write a letter to SCCA, I'd be writing to ask whether the Volvo 240's were reviewed during the recent ITAC realignment process. Which 240 of the 3 listed are you preparing? There is at least one of those 3 (the 1975 2.0 liter) that would clearly not be competitive at the listed weight of 2780 pounds, IMHO. My understanding of how the ITAC process went down was that if no one was currently campaigning a specific model, that model was not reviewed for proper classification weight.

[rsportvolvo]

Originally posted by Gary L@Jan 23 2006, 10:06 AM
David - With all due respect, the forged piston and bushing material debates had some basis with which to start a discussion... they are at least mentioned in the ITCS. Diff coolers are not mentioned in the ITCS. Therefore, by definition (if it doesn't say "yes", it means "no"), they are not allowed.

If I were you and just had to write a letter to SCCA, I'd be writing to ask whether the Volvo 240's were reviewed during the recent ITAC realignment process. Which 240 of the 3 listed are you preparing? There is at least one of those 3 (the 1975 2.0 liter) that would clearly not be competitive at the listed weight of 2780 pounds, IMHO. My understanding of how the ITAC process went down was that if no one was currently campaigning a specific model, that model was not reviewed for proper classification weight.

[snapback]71656[/snapback]

Gary,

I am builidng my car to the 1976-1981 line item. There are some nuances that I've uncovered that should make the car competitive. Don't worry, it is all in print from Volvo.

I am also planning on writing a letter about the 2780# weight. The ITCS lists the exhaust valve diameter as 37mm when it is in fact only 35mm for the B21/23/230 SOHC engines. There are some other incorrect pieces of information that I am going to correct, with Volvo technical literature to back it up. Nothing is for sure, but reducing the 240's weight to that of the 140 would be equitable, considering that they are bascially the same car behind the firewall, save some refinements and the fact that the 140 has an SLA front suspenion and the 240 has a strut. The SLA is far superior to the strut.


To all,

There seems to be a trend with SCCA, both at the club level and the Pro level and I have some experience with both. The SCCA isn't what it used to be, and never was. Some things need to change and some things don't. Modifications for the sake of having a reliable car is not an outlandish proposal. Shot-peening connecting rods is one of those things. It doesn't give anyone an edge, and depending on which cleaning method your local machine shop uses, you may get your part shot peened regardless. (for the record my connecting rods will be shot peened, protest away!). Adding and oil cooler to the engine is legal so you can keep your engine alive, why not the same solution for drivetrain pieces? Maybe my car needs it, maybe it doesn't. I am building an IT because it is affordable. Blowing up parts just because is ridiculous! And purchasing new parts is costly, if they're even available.

One thing I find strange is the blank check live axled cars get in the ITCS and no one complains about that. I can legally remove my 5-link and put in a race-spec 3-link and smell like a rose in tech. Also, IRS cars can slot suspension mounting points to adjust alignment, isn't suspension geometry part of the suspension's alignment? These are areas that introduce performance enhancing modifications, not adding a pump and a cooler to increase the life of a differential. But maybe I'm off base here.

Thanks to all for the feedback.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by rsportvolvo@Jan 23 2006, 01:31 AM

As far as this modification being legal, I will take that up with SCCA. This forum is a good source of information, but our interpretaions on the ITCS are just that. A letter from SCCA removes all doubt.

[snapback]71652[/snapback]

I think you should hash it out here a little before you waste your ink. What rule are you citing that makes you think it is legal?

I have a feeling that if you substituted 'supercharger' in your response where you write 'diff cooler', it would make the same amount of sense but lets give it a go.

AB

[MMiskoe]

If the final drive system requires cooler oil than can be provided by the amount in the housing, why can't a cooler be considered part of the "final drive"? No modifications to the housing have been made. It does say ANY final drive.

I know this is a stretch, which is why I am asking, but I am curious to see the rebuttal this would get if actually brought up.