"The Confines of the Engine Compartment"

[Greg Amy]

>>> It's also an easy protest that I have to imagine would come with a small protest bond fee. Curious, what do you think that would be?

Nothing, just the $25 protest fee. Bonds are collected to cover the expense of any destructive inspections (e.g. engine tear-down) to reimburse the protestee if found compliant. In this case, there are no such costs.

>>> After this simple protest is filed, it's then going to be a debate amount the powers that be just as being done here. Maybe found illegal then move on up to National.

After the protest is filed, the Chief Steward will form an SOM to discuss the issue. They may ask for feedback from ITAC/CRB members. At that point they will present their decision. The protestee at that point can file an appeal to Topeka, at which point an Appeals Court will be formed to review the issue.

>>> Back to the real question, it sure looks debatable and right on the edge of the rules if it's not illegal.

Concur. Which is why I brought it here (with the permission of the original questioner.)

>>> That plastic cover near the rad. All year 1.8s have them? I don't recall ever seeing one on a Miata.

Yup, but it's a commonly-lost item. I think it's held in by a couple of plastic clips that are easily broken/brittle from time. Since we can replace the radiator with a sufficiently-large one, it's quite possible an advantage to 1.8L Miata drivers to "leave it lost" and allow cooler air to come into the engine compartment...probably a "weenie protest" item, unless coupled to something like this intake...but technically non-compliant.

GA

[JLawton]

I think you have to also look at the intent of the rule(s). From that perspective I dont think it's legal.

[Greg Amy]

I think you have to also look at the intent of the rule(s). From that perspective I dont think it's legal.

I concur. In my opinion the intent of the reg is to allow opening up of the restrictive stock air filter systems while avoiding allowances of things like ram air, cowl induction, and cold air intakes. We subsequently opened that further by allowing anything upstream of the throttle body/MAF/etc.

On the other hand, all air comes from outside the engine compartment, and it has to get in there somehow. We're seeing cold air boxes and radiant and convective heat shields around air filters and intake tubes to minimize the heating effects of the engine compartment.

With that in mind, how does this fit into that mindset? Is it incremental, and if so, within the boundaries of the intent? Or is it revolutionary to the point of being extra-compliant?

I dunno, that's why I'm asking. But at this point, ignoring the value of it, I'm thinking if you trim back the upper edge of the rectangular section such that it is at or behind the vertical plane of the aft edge of the radiator then you're compliant.

GA

P.S., Mr Original Asker, please note that nothing decided on this board even begins to imply what answers you'd get during a protest and/or appeal. This is the Internet and these opinions are worth exactly what that implies...

[gran racing]

Mr. Original Asker: It this were to be protested, I'd honestly flip a coin on what the results were. Would most likely just depend upon who happens to be making the decisions, whether they are having a good day or not, among other risky variables.

Nothing wrong with bringing it up for discussion, that's for sure.

[Andy Bettencourt]

We tried one to baseline from a HP and an air-intake temp perspective. We built a better one by V.3 and V.4. (by my definition - torque curve)

As to the plastic over in front of the radiator, I kept mine. It actually keeps better air into the radiator. Back in the day, the 1.6 SM guys were adding the 1.8 piece IIRC to improve cooling. It might be specifically allowed in SM.

[Wreckerboy]

As to the plastic over in front of the radiator, I kept mine. It actually keeps better air into the radiator. Back in the day, the 1.6 SM guys were adding the 1.8 piece IIRC to improve cooling. It might be specifically allowed in SM.

It is allowed for the 1.6 in both SM and SSM, and makes a big difference in cooling. I've run my car back to back with and without and the differences on an 80 degree day were immediate.

[Rabbit05]

I have never considered that intake to be legal for an ITA Miata. I believe, like RP, that anything flush or encroaching on the plane of the radiator sources from 'outside' the bay. That's oversimplified for sure.

I have always considered the engine compartment as a place where the engine resides. Clearly, the engine does not reside in front of the radiator, therefore, the engine compartment ends with the rear of the radiator. Non compliant.

+1

Just to debate the definition of the Engine Bay/Compartment .

Where would the radiator be located, or described as being located, if it's not the considered the engine compartment ? I would think anywhere under the hood, and aft of the grill , would be considered as engine bay . Plus, I believe in the definition that Greg supplied, makes no reference to for or aft of the radiator being a boundary for the engine compartment.

-John

[Marcus Miller]

It is allowed for the 1.6 in both SM and SSM, and makes a big difference in cooling. I've run my car back to back with and without and the differences on an 80 degree day were immediate.

Agreed, these do matter for cooling. Dave, look around online, some of the Miata aftermarket places have the factory pieces availabe (gomiata I think?). I just put an NRG aluminum panel on my SU car becauase bling matters... (and it was the same price as the factory piece, and I don't have rules to live by)