Leafy

iTrader: (1)

I'm thinking I've been under estimating the hood clearance all this time. I've been tempted to drop a block of wood between the pan and sub frame and ratchet strap it to the strut towers with the jack under the tranny so I can disconnect the hoist and actually check the hood clearance. I think I'll do this Sunday. Setting up the dry sump is a huge pita on this motor with the damn non keyed crank and weird crank pulley shape.

I figured out the tranny and diff mount. I've been really struggling with a diff mount that didn't involve welding 2 inches from the gas tank. And then I realized I've got over 3 inches between the bottom of the tail housing and the floor plan height so I can have the exhaust cross over to the stock side and just use a shortened ppf and adapter bracket to the t5.

asmasm

iTrader: (1)

Have you tried stretching masking tape between the fenders to see how close it is?. I put a straight edge on the outside of my hood just in front of the engine clearance hump and estimated the hood curve to be about 1" higher at the center.
I have been day dreaming about a 2.5 mzr/duratec lately. Using a stock oil pan would be a big cost saver. The engines are cheap on ebay and an NC miata trans would be fine for naturally aspirated power.

jpreston

iTrader: (4)

I can't remember where I saw it, but a guy on one of the escort or locost forums posted pictures of the ranger pan on his car. The sump is reeeeally deep. With the ranger pan on a 2.5, I don't think you could clear the hood while also keeping the oil pan completely above the bottom of the subframe.

Leafy

iTrader: (1)

I found that tracktuned article. There's no way they could have gotten that engine back far enough to clear the steering rack without modding the firewall more than I'm allowed to. And the damn artys large aperture photos in the article make the firewall all blurry so I cant tell. I can tell that they sectioned the firewall to clear the cam sensor and I have like like an inch of clearance before mine hits there and I already bashed the firewall in almost an inch to clear the coolant pipe, and the ranger coolant pipe is lower profile than the NC one. So they're at least 3 inches further back than I'm allowed to go and **** yeah that **** would fit with the FWD oil pan and a v8r subframe at that point.

I didnt realize the miata 2.0 was tipped over that much. That looks like more than the 10° that mazda claims. I think I could have my motor stick up just as much as it does now with the NC pan setup.

asmasm

iTrader: (1)

The ranger oil pan is really tall at the front edge where it needs to sit ontop of the steering rack, right? Locost forums suggest that an NC miata oil pan would work if you transferred the NC oil pump and pickup. It is pretty slim on the leading edge:


Edit:
I saw earlier in the thread where you suggested that the NC pan was too deep. Was that for steering rack clearance or for the oil pan hanging too low in the car?

Leafy

iTrader: (1)

By the rack. Literally with no pan and the oil pump installed I hit the rack.

asmasm

iTrader: (1)

Ouch, that is a bummer.
From what you have in front of you, does it look doable with a wet sump if you weren't constrained by SSM rules? How much farther back does the engine need to come to get it to clear? The 2.5 is a pretty compelling option for low $ power. The NC 2.0 is less interesting to me.

Leafy

iTrader: (1)

If I could move the engine back like 2 more inches I could just use a v8r subframe and a wet sump no problem. I'm tempted to try again now that I've done more clearancing to see if I can like tip the motor over more and have it work. I'd rather spend $1k total between the V8R subframe and NC oil pan and pickup than like 3k for a dry sump and a whole bunch of dicking about installing it.

TNTUBA

iTrader: (1)

I'm pretty sure the rules expressly forbid modifying the firewall in any way to allow for engine setback. 16.1.O. You might want to write a letter asking for clarification if what you are doing is allowable before you go much farther with "bashing the firewall in"
"Modifications to the firewall in order to allow for increased engine setback, and any modification that changes the location of a suspension pickup point, are explicitly forbidden."

aidandj

iTrader: (5)

To me that rule reads moving the stock engine back is forbidden. Wonder how it applies to engine swaps.

TNTUBA

iTrader: (1)

And I have been interested in the V8R Subframe but have been reluctant to pull the trigger because I think it makes you protest bait.

There is no way to effectively prove the suspension pickup points are EXACTLY in the same location as the stock pickups and there is no way to prove it's weight is legal without removing the entire damn subframe in a protest.

TNTUBA

iTrader: (1)

It doesn't say that the rule only applies for stock engines. Wording like that is 90% of the issues I have with the SCCA Rule Book. It could also be interpreted that you are not allowed to modify the firewall for set back and that any modifications to make a swap fit must be done elsewhere.....regardless of the difficulty.

The whole "If it doesn't say you can...you can't" Leaves A LOT open to interpretation. That is why I would write a clarification request letter before I went any further. It would suck to get it done and find out you aren't legal.

aidandj

iTrader: (5)

Sounds annoying. What is the "exact same" pickup point even mean. Seems like a 20+ year old car could be tweaked in ways just by being old.

TNTUBA

iTrader: (1)

The rule clearly states that any modification that changes the location of a suspension pickup point is expressly forbidden. To me...that is crystal clear.

Leafy

iTrader: (1)

I'm not modifying the firewall to increase engine setback, I'm modifying it a reasonable amount in order to perform an allowed modification.

Sub frame wise? Just do it. As Chief of Dick Punches I rule that protesting the suspension pickup location of a subframe specifically marketed as having stock suspension pickup locations is a dick punchable offense. Now the rule specifically say an alternative sub frame is allowed for engine swaps so I think it would be a legit protest of you did on with a B motor.

TNTUBA

iTrader: (1)

Technically my car does have an engine swap. It came with a BP05 and is has been swapped to a BP4W. The issues about the suspension pickup points has been secondary to me as compared to the weight. It is advertised as being 10lsb lighter than stock. Even if you visibly added weight to the subframe...it would be hard to verify that you added 10lbs.

And Street Mod is changing. When I saw the surprise impound checks at Nationals it was all I needed to see. It wont be long before we are being policed for things like interior trim pieces.

As to your take on the "set back" The way that "could" be interpreted would be "could the engine be made to fit forward enough to not necessitate the modification of the Firewall. But choosing to locate the engine where you have chosen to locate it...you have in fact modified the fire wall for "additional setback"

You can...and are clearly going to do whatever you want to do.....but if I were you....I would ask.

TNTUBA

iTrader: (1)

FYI, I just informally and without mentioning names or cars, asked a member of the SMAC if you could modify the firewall for an engine swap and I got an immediate and firm "NO!"

That is not at all official and is just one member of the SMAC's take. You should seriously write a letter asking for an official opinion.

m2cupcar

iTrader: (5)

The problem with rules like this is that it's completely clear that you can't modify the firewall to increase "engine setback" rather than stating you can't modify the firewall period. So if you found another reason to modify the firewall (say for a crazy exhaust routing) then it's justified? Because it's going to be hard to establish the default location of an engine in a swap.

TNTUBA

iTrader: (1)

That confusing aspect of the rule is why I would ask.

My opinion, leafys opinion or anyone else's opinion doesnt matter. Its how a PC would look at it IF someone wanted to be a *****.

I have always erred on the way conservative side of my interpretation of the rules to avoid issues. I'm trying to be helpful and point out a possible stumbling block.

There are just A LOT of new competitors, some of whom have spent well north of 6 figures on their cars. We don't know how they will react when faced with issues like these...that's why it's prudent to ask the question and have your answer before moving forward.

I have had to do this several times and more than a few clarifications have been published as a result. The most recent example was the rewording of the splitter rule. The SMAC chaged front Fisca to "Front Body Work." To me...that was the same thing....but the SMAC published a clarification that is actually meant any bodywork and attachements forward of the centerlne of the front wheels.

Like that rule....the firewall rule needs clarification....and this is a great time to request it.

I would send a letter with pictures, specifics of what youare doing and request a ruling on the legality and then request that the rule be clarified.

I don't have a dog in the fight....and I really dont care if Leafy cuts 6" out of the firewall.....but someone else might.

Savington

iTrader: (31)

IMO, the logic behind that wording is to allow for firewall modifications for things like wiring harnesses, extra sensors, etc. If you have a stock engine and it's clear that the engine is in the stock location then any firewall modification would clearly not be for engine setback. It's almost certainly easier for them to state what they don't want you doing (moving the engine backwards through the firewall) than to state what you are specifically allowed to do (drill or plug small holes for brake lines/wiring/master cylinders/etc). All of this notwithstanding other parts of the rulebook, of course - I'm not well versed in SSM rules.

You can't honestly believe that you aren't. The engine doesn't fit under the hood, so you want to move it backwards. To do so, you must modify the firewall. By the letter definition of the rule, you are modifying the firewall to move the engine backwards. End of story, IMO