"The Confines of the Engine Compartment"

[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

[Chip42]

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

cool, so my whole car is engine compartment?
<--- drives an MR2

[Rabbit05]

yes ...yes it is... HA I totally forgot about the mid/rear engine cars...!

You must now drive backwards....

[JS154]

cool, so my whole car is engine compartment?
<--- drives an MR2

I would consider the engine compartment to be forward of the firewall, aft of the radiator core support, and surrounded by the inner fender wells and hood.

[Chip42]

Out of context that quote makes me look like I was being serious...

[Greg Amy]

Out of context that quote makes me look like I was being serious...

No worries, Chip; we rarely take you serious anyway...

[Gary L]

...definition that Greg supplied, makes no reference to for or aft of the radiator being a boundary for the engine compartment.

-John

Damned good thing, particularly if you're talking about cars like the Fiero or the soon-to-be-classified-I'm-sure Austin America.

[billf]

Hi guys,

Just responding to the question of "Ram Air", as it was discussed in the forum. Back in the day, I was protested for this item in ITB. I then referred to the GCR Technical Glossary, where "Ram Air" is defined (fancy that). In 2011, the definition was: "A type of induction system in which the incoming air is obtained from an extension into the airstream outside the bodywork." Bold is mine.

No one has mentioned a reference to the glossary, so I thought I'd bring it up. If this definition still exists, then the discussion could take another turn?

Good racing,

Bill

Good racing.

[JeffYoung]

No real impact I think Bill.

THe issue here is what is "inside the engine compartment" since our rules allow the pickup of air there, or in the stock location.

To me, the radiator has to be the forward definition of the engine compartment. Otherwise, you could use the void between the grill and the radiator on pretty much any car to make an effective and never intended cold air intake.

Based on that, he Jackson intake is not legal as it extends past the rear of the radiator. Cut it off there and probably legal.

[Greg Amy]

I agree with you, with the following:

...radiator has to be the forward definition of the engine compartment. Otherwise, you could use the void between the grill and the radiator on pretty much any car to make an effective and never intended cold air intake.

This is supported philosophically, in that the regs do not allow you to make a shorty radiator and leave a hole next to it for air intake. It would be nice, howver, for that to be explicitly clarified in the regs (easy to supplement the "engine compartment" definition within the ITCS.)

Based on that, he Jackson intake is not legal as it extends past the rear of the radiator. Cut it off there and probably legal.

I agree that the intake portion of it should be behind the plane of the radiator. However, there is no restriction to the mounting portion of it needing to be behind that, as long as air is not taken in from there.

GA

[Knestis]

1987-audi-4000q-5.jpg

Audi 4000 5+5, just for giggles...

I miss that car.

K

EDIT - Whoops. Thats a 4000Q but the radiator layout is the same; ditto for the ITB Coupe.

[Racerlinn]

1987-audi-4000q-5.jpg

Audi 4000 5+5, just for giggles...

I miss that car.

K

EDIT - Whoops. Thats a 4000Q but the radiator layout is the same; ditto for the ITB Coupe.

Turd, meet punch bowl.

[JeffYoung]

Agree.

I agree with you, with the following:


This is supported philosophically, in that the regs do not allow you to make a shorty radiator and leave a hole next to it for air intake. It would be nice, howver, for that to be explicitly clarified in the regs (easy to supplement the "engine compartment" definition within the ITCS.)



I agree that the intake portion of it should be behind the plane of the radiator. However, there is no restriction to the mounting portion of it needing to be behind that, as long as air is not taken in from there.

GA

[Chip42]

I dislike the radiator being considered a standard part of the outline of the engine compartments due to mid engined cars and oddballs like the 5cyl audis, not to mention 1/2 width radiators found on many hondas and a few other cars.

in the case of the miata - yeah, a fine, common sensical boundary, but I think we should be clear with ourselves that it is not a valid definition in MANY cases.