Intake and TBs - Aug Fastrack

[Chip42]

**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).

[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.

[tyler raatz]

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.

[Greg Amy]

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.

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.

[Matt93SE]

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.

[Greg Amy]

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?

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

[Z3_GoCar]

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?

[Greg Amy]

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

[Z3_GoCar]

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.

[Chip42]

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.

[BruceG]

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

[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.

[JS154]

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#.

[Z3_GoCar]

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.

[JS154]

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