Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: Manifold / TB rule revisions

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,717

    Default Manifold / TB rule revisions

    I'm confused by all this Intake manifold/throttle body revisions to the ST rules... Can someone explain what's going on?

    Also, what if there are two possible Intake manifold that came in your car with two different numbers of throttle bodies. Are you trying to limit us to the most common one with the minimum number of throttle bodies? I'm just not sure what you're trying to do wrt the rules.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Z3_GoCar View Post
    I'm confused by all this Intake manifold/throttle body revisions to the ST rules...
    Specifically what regs are you referring to?

    If you swap engines, you can use the intake that was on the engine you installed or the car you installed it into.

    - GA
    Not my circus...not my monkeys...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post
    Specifically what regs are you referring to?

    If you swap engines, you can use the intake that was on the engine you installed or the car you installed it into.

    - GA
    It's under the section just added last month 9.1.4.G.1.e.1:

    1. Regardless of the intake chosen, the total number of throttle bodies must remain the same.

    The same as.... the chassis, the motor, or??? My chassis has two different generation motors installed in it along with about seven different motors, one of those has a two barrel throttle body, five have a single barrel (some are cable operated and some are electro-servo,) and one has six throttle bodies. All of these motors are in my dealer sourced shop manual, and are USDM.

    Any insight into what this means? Thanks Greg.

    James

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Z3_GoCar View Post
    The same as.... the chassis, the motor, or???
    Good point. The rule stems from someone - a BMW driver, of course, trying to install a 4-choke ITB intake onto an otherwise-STU compliant engine, that would have provided a distinct competitive advantage. I'll bring this to Eric Heinrich's attention, he can explain more.

    If we need to, we'll adjust the verbiage.

    - GA
    Not my circus...not my monkeys...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    The "writing a rule to prevent something specific" trap. I believe that's Ad Hoc committee standard error 37.1...?



    K

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,325

    Default

    Aye-yup.
    Not my circus...not my monkeys...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post
    Good point. The rule stems from someone - a BMW driver, of course, trying to install a 4-choke ITB intake onto an otherwise-STU compliant engine, that would have provided a distinct competitive advantage. I'll bring this to Eric Heinrich's attention, he can explain more.

    If we need to, we'll adjust the verbiage.

    - GA
    The advantage comes from part throttle driveability, every builder I've spoken with agrees that moving a single TB further away from the head can make the same power as ITB's.

    Regardless, the point of the rule wording was because initially it was completely in conflict with it self - originally the rule said you had to keep the original intake manifold unless you changed it in which case you had to keep the original intake manifold. I"ll take a closer look tonight at the wording and what's being asked here and post my thoughts.

    One thought I have had is, given the FI car's continuing dominance inspite of weight and restrictor adjustments, I think N/A cars should have more freedom to play with the intake manifold than they do, but I'm pretty sure that idea would be DOA.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    1,385

    Default

    I'm with Eric, and have been on record thinking the same (and more) for well over a year.

    in a displacement to weight class with street car origins, using street car parts is a very good way to separate the haves from the have-nots. FI will overcome a lot of those issues and, especially with the more modern turbos, sacrifice a touch of peak hp for huge gains in area under the curve over a NA sibling, even with small restrictors. couple that with a huge industry-wide shift (more true in smaller STL type engines but still) toward low end torque and efficiency over performance, and you get a similar enhancement to the NA cars but a lot less peak power potential in most cars than in a few exceptions. yes, hp/L numbers have been on the rise, but once the rules are factored in a lot of that dies off in lost "gains" and you're often times left with a relatively shitty (for racing) intake and head designed to get 11ty MPG on 7-11's 87 octane. NA generally can't compete with FI under that basic premise. open the rules and let the displacement be the driving force like it's supposed to be (at least more so), and fields will be a lot more diverse, and yes, maybe more expensive. and the gap to FI should shrink.
    Last edited by Chip42; 05-13-2013 at 02:49 PM.
    TrackSpeed

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip42 View Post
    I'm with Eric, and have been on record thinking the same (and more) for well over a year.

    in a displacement to weight class with street car origins, using street car parts is a very good way to separate the haves from the have-nots. FI will overcome a lot of those issues and, especially with the more modern turbos, sacrifice a touch of peak hp for huge gains in area under the curve over a NA sibling, even with small restrictors. couple that with a huge industry-wide shift (more true in smaller STL type engines but still) toward low end torque and efficiency over performance, and you get a similar enhancement to the NA cars but a lot less peak power potential in most cars than in a few exceptions. yes, hp/L numbers have been on the rise, but once the rules are factored in a lot of that dies off in lost "gains" and you're often times left with a relatively shitty (for racing) intake and head designed to get 11ty MPG on 7-11's 87 octane. NA generally can't compete with FI under that basic premise. open the rules and let the displacement be the driving force like it's supposed to be (at least more so), and fields will be a lot more diverse, and yes, maybe more expensive. and the gap to FI should shrink.
    Chip..

    submit a letter. otherwise it's just an idea that's on some forum somewhere.

    www.crbscca.com

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Houston-ish
    Posts
    932

    Default

    I pretty much agree with both guys above-- I've been bitching about the stock IM for quite a while now..

    for my 240, it was either go FI with a JDM engine, or go slow forever on the stock intake manifold. The old SpeedVision guys were making ~220whp with that engine built to their specs, which was about same as the current STU specs. Sorry, I need another 50hp to be able to even think about keeping up in a 2.4L.

    ... So I went to an EP rotary.. It's cheaper there. (yes, I'm going to keep fooling myself with that until I blow up my first engine..)
    Houston Region
    STU Nissan 240SX
    EProd RX7

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,325

    Default

    So while are - once again - bitching about turbos versus non-turbos in STU, can someone take a quick moment to answer the man's question...?

    Jeebus.

    - GA
    Not my circus...not my monkeys...

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    1,385

    Default

    Eric - I wrote in with my thoughts about the general idea of the class when it was reimagined a few years ago. the path I like and the path the club chose to go were pretty significantly different. yes, I've been vindicated on some occasions but other than following along at home and perking up here very now and then I don't participate on any level in ST, so wont be writing in (I'll let those with skin in the game ask for such things). I have refocused on IT where I'd been playing in some form or another since the early 90s. I am on the ITAC, and appreciate the "write a letter" comment as it is what we should be doing with our ideas.

    tGA - I think Eric did, to the best of his ability. the OP's question is valid, the rule doesn't make sense. might be that you STAC guys can shed light on how it came to be but clarifying it does seem to be improbable.
    TrackSpeed

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip42 View Post
    I think Eric did, to the best of his ability. the OP's question is valid, the rule doesn't make sense.
    Completely concur. I don't remember the origin of the reg; it was something Eric brought up as a distinct possibility in reference to a letter/request, and another committee member said something like "let's just say you gotta keep the same number of throttle bodies" and we said "Ok, sounds good; next question"...

    Honestly, as Kirk pointed out, this is kinda chasing our tails. We cannot possibly think of all situations and make individual rules to account for each...

    - GA
    Not my circus...not my monkeys...

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Houston-ish
    Posts
    932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post
    So while are - once again - bitching about turbos versus non-turbos in STU, can someone take a quick moment to answer the man's question...?
    I would if I could. but I can't. and if the STAC members can't even answer it......
    Houston Region
    STU Nissan 240SX
    EProd RX7

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,717

    Default

    Bringing back some part throttle response would be great, because if I were to cam my 2.5 liter motor as much as I would need to, I'd have to disable the intake vanos which would really kill any midrange. Think stuck in V-tec.... yoooooooOOO!

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt93SE View Post
    I would if I could. but I can't. and if the STAC members can't even answer it......
    Well, here's MY answer (note the signature).

    If you install a STU-compliant 4TB engine into a STU-compliant 1TB car, you can run the engine's 4TB intake. If you install a STU-compliant 1TB engine into a STU-compliant 4TB car, you can run the 4TB intake. And, per the regs, you can build a 1" spacer to make it all fit.

    Now, WTF this all means in the very unhappy world of BMW owners is beyond me (and, very quickly, going beyond my interest).

    Eric had a reason for bringing this up in committee; if we can't remember why, then the point is moot.

    - GA
    Not my circus...not my monkeys...

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,717

    Default

    So Greg, IYHO the rule is non-sensical and thus isn't enforceable?

    I guess I should write the paper then.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Purcellville, VA USA
    Posts
    902

    Default

    Chris "The Cat Killer" Childs
    Angry Sheep Motorsports
    810 417 7777
    angrysheepmotorsports.com

    IT,SM,SS,Touring, and Super Touring

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    10

    Default

    What makes the rule ambigous is somehow the words "for the installed engine" got left off of the TB limitation.

    Therefore, the BMW in question would not have the option (assuming 6cyl) of using the ITBs from an engine that is not allowed in STU, even though it came in his chassis at some point in time.

    I will submit a letter to get this clarified

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,325

    Default

    Good call, D.
    Not my circus...not my monkeys...

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •