Results 1 to 20 of 55

Thread: "The Confines of the Engine Compartment"

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by Knestis; 06-18-2014 at 11:07 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Margaritaville
    Posts
    641

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Knestis View Post
    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.
    Steve Linn | Fins Up Racing | #6 ITA Sentra SE-R | www.indyscca.org

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Sploosh!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    schnectady,ny.usa
    Posts
    351

    Default

    Ha !! Those 5+5s are rare ! Nothing like having the radiator off to the side. The top cover of the radiator makes for a nice tool tray and beverage holder .
    John VanDenburgh

    VanDenburgh Motorsports
    ITB Audi Coupe GT

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Santa Clara, CA
    Posts
    39

    Default

    To further muddy the waters...

    I've read this thread closely as I had a friendly discussion this past weekend with one of our scrutineers about the legality of the intake I've run for years:

    IMG_20140706_090514.jpg IMG_20140706_090457.jpg

    It's a modified Racing Beat intake; the latter came with a hole in the back of the "box" for a more stock-like intake routing, which I fiberglassed closed and ran a straight pipe over from the throttle body, through the MAF and into the side of the box.

    Inarguably, the intake & intake box are located within the confines of the engine compartment, and aren't a ram air system nor cowl induction. In my case the point of contention is what "source" means. The induction box (mostly) seals the intake filter off from the engine compartment so it draws air from the wheel well. So you could say it's drawing air from outside the engine compartment... but as someone here pointed out earlier, all air comes from outside the engine compartment one way or another.

    It would be nice to get some kind of "official" (such as it is) word on this; I haven't contacted the ITAC in so long that I don't even remember how...
    Last edited by vtluu; 07-08-2014 at 11:23 AM.
    Viet-Tam Luu (a.k.a. "Tam")
    Director, SCCA San Francisco Region
    2011 SFR-SCCA ITS Champion
    #12 ITS (1999 Mazda MX-5 Miata)
    #12 STU (2003 Mitsubishi Evo 8)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    It's a gray area that, like splitters, we've all chosen to ignore. IMO, as long as all the bits are physically located within the "confines of the engine compartment", and you're not doing cowl induction or ram air, then it's compliant to the current letter of the regs, despite having been sealed off from the rest of the engine compartment. Its compliance to the spirit of the regs in current context IMO is also OK. But it would be extremely hard to interpret it to the original context of the regs because, as with splitters, they didn't exist back then at our level of competition.

    There's no longer any "official" method of getting rules interpretation. You can send a request to the ITAC for clarification (http://crbscca.com) but that clarification is really non-official and will only last through the current year and/or ITAC; all it does is indicate to you how the CRB/ITAC would rule should they be asked during a protest/appeal. The other way is to have someone protest you ($25 and you'll probably get that back) and run it through protest/appeals.

    GA

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    raleigh, nc, usa
    Posts
    5,252

    Default

    And we really don't offer clarifications anymore (we've been asked not to).

    My personal opinion is that this intake is legal as it is within the confines of the engine bay BUT the IT Miatas and RX7s I've seen have a habit of having the hood bend up slightly in that area to effectively pressurize the area around the filter, which is even more effective here due to the well designed and essentially sealed box. If the hood is bent up, I could see this conceivably being called "ram air."
    NC Region
    1980 ITS Triumph TR8

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post
    It's a gray area that, like splitters, we've all chosen to ignore. IMO, as long as all the bits are physically located within the "confines of the engine compartment", and you're not doing cowl induction or ram air, then it's compliant to the current letter of the regs, despite having been sealed off from the rest of the engine compartment. Its compliance to the spirit of the regs in current context IMO is also OK. But it would be extremely hard to interpret it to the original context of the regs because, as with splitters, they didn't exist back then at our level of competition.


    GA
    I would only add one thing...like exhaust heat shields and custom intake shrouding, in order to be compliant under the 'intake is free' or 'exhaust is free', these designs must be attached to said free item.

    So that Miata intake shroud above looks legal provided it's actually attached to the intake tubing in some way.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

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
  •