Cold-Air Intakes (CAI) for 88-91 CRX Illegal

Annnnnnnnd, the HC ruleset was largely cribbed from the IT Rules by Scott & Karl. Since HC was limited a single marque series, it was easy for them to open up the intake rule without a high risk of unintended consequences.

IT is a whole 'nother ball o' wax. Multiple marques and models... no way to open this rule up further without running the risk of needing to rebalance everything. Add on top of this the additional cost of all the current IT cars needing to test different length/design intake systems.

Oh, BTW, I know of several top running cars that are running short ram style intakes. There's waaaay more to a fast car than an intake ;)

Christian
 
Xian said:
IT is a whole 'nother ball o' wax. Multiple marques and models... no way to open this rule up further without running the risk of needing to rebalance everything. Add on top of this the additional cost of all the current IT cars needing to test different length/design intake systems.

Oh, BTW, I know of several top running cars that are running short ram style intakes. There's waaaay more to a fast car than an intake ;)

Christian
Click to expand...

Your answer is boilerplate to some degree. I can't blame you since you have bought into the 'whole' SCCA IT rule set and mentality. I have not totally, though I have yet to race IT. I may regret this... Ok, forget the source of my quote for a moment.

1) Give me an example where it imposes an inbalance. The rule would applies to all the same way. Could there be exceptions? Perhaps... someone please help me put my shoe in my mouth. If so, I will become the wiser for it.
2) I will argue that the cost for me to fabricate and test a current IT legal intake system that maximes HP is no less than the cost is for me to fabricate and test an intake that is designed with a less restrictive rule set. (wait... I am thinking... yes, I still stand by that comment).
3) To me and many others, IT is a bolt-on class. Yes IT allows for 'minor' fabrication for gear heads like G. Amy and like to maximize HP, adjust suspensions and make top class runners. Yes, there is fun in fabricating. Yet for many starter entrants like myself, IT is bolt-on, tune and go. The rule has prohibited me and others from just purchasing $150 air intake and be done with it.

PS. You should know Xian (yes I know you know), the difference between a shorty and AEM CAI v2 on z6 is about 4-5 whp. That's a big number when you're only putting down 125whp.

PPS. This is probably a calling for me to go with SS or Touring, but I don't have $25K and I love my civic. :)

PPPS. There is cost in time, materials, effort and energy in fabricating. It costs me less to buy an AEM CAIv2 or a simple passwordJDM intake - niether of which are IT legal, both are velocity stacks and the AEM is much like Moser's.

PPPPS. I have been home all day with a cold, sorry for being crabby. Yet these thread has given me the oppurtunity to voice my concerns for something that has bugged me for a long time.

PPPPPS. Now I just remember that IT never allowed aftermarket intakes... simple, cheap, the way IT should be.... No, let's overcomplicate it to 'keep costs down and be fair' ...hmmmm. ;)
 
Last edited:
OK, I'll take a swipe at this one, and I think that keying on your question #1 should make all others moot.

To use the example of the EF CRX and the 2nd-gen Integra, there's this nice, big hole right near the battery where the OEM intake tract exits the engine compartment. Just so happens, it's possible to run a tube from the throttle body down through that hole into a nice cavity that allows you to pick up a nice cold air charge (as you've noted).

As you probably know, IT rules are built on "if it doesn't say you can, you can't," (IIDSYCYC) and whereas the Honda folks don't have to make any modifications to the tub in order to run that CAI, drivers of other types/manufacturers of cars may (and probably don't) have that liberty. In order to snake their intake outside of the engine compartment there's a pretty good chance they would need to cut a nice, big hole--something's that forbidden.

As I've learned over the past few years with the changes to our ECU rules, the IT ruleset appears to be built on the premise that the rules should, whenever possible, not unduly benefit one model over another within reason. I'm pretty confident that's why the "CAI" rule was put in place for '03 (it wan't there prior to that).
 
Last edited:
Gregg and Greg have already hit the high points but please go back and re-read my post. Specifically the part that you quoted about multiple marques and models.

Now that we've got that clear we can discuss how some certain cars (Hondas in particular) have cheap off the shelf options that will give significant power gains. Tell me where I can get one for an ITB 914? How about an ITS Alfa Romeo Milano? Maybe an ITA Mazda RX3? Or an ITA AMC Spirit? See where I'm going here? That's why I said how easy it was for Scott and Karl to allow a rule like this for a single marque series like Honda Challenge. In HC, basically all the cars have off the shelf options and you get relative performance increase parity. It WORKS in that context. IT is a completely different platform. Is it smart to take classed cars and change where they can pull air and subsequently their performance potential? NO. You'll end up with some cars that can easily take advantage of the changed rules, some that can take advantage but only at considerable expense and engineering, and still others that can't exploit the new rules at all b/c of their chassis design.

Now, I'll go back to standing next to my statement that an intake is not going to define a competitive car/driver combo. If you allow CAI, thinking that you'll have an additional 4-5hp up on the fast guys, remember that they're going to take full advantage of the new rule and likely make even more power than you on their fully built and tuned engine. Net result? An even larger power delta between you and the "fast guys". Had you peaked under the hood at the ARRC this year, you'd have seen multiple front runner with short ram style intakes... they aren't the perfect solution but they are more than competitive.

Christian
 
Greg Amy said:
Thanks for answering your own question...
Click to expand...

oh greg... :) I was using my model as an example. I would assume other cars would see relative benefits from CAIs.

I know you get a kick out of the 'rules' discussions, yet I think you forget that sometimes a forum is just that, a forum. I place for me/us to process and even nag once in a while. Can you tell I am a nager? I hope to make this a lesson in arguing rules, think about IT and it's core values, (if I'm lucky) make some good points, make others and myself scratch their heads and at least... at least, motivate me to make fabricate a better intake with current IT rules set.
 
Last edited:
Gregg said:
OK, I'll take a swipe at this one, and I think that keying on your question #1 should make all others moot.

To use the example of the EF CRX and the 2nd-gen Integra, there's this nice, big hole right near the battery where the OEM intake tract exits the engine compartment. Just so happens, it's possible to run a tube from the throttle body down through that hole into a nice cavity that allows you to pick up a nice cold air charge (as you've noted).

As you probably know, IT rules are built on "if it doesn't say you can, you can't," (IIDSYCYC) and whereas the Honda folks don't have to make any modifications to the tub in order to run that CAI, drivers of other types/manufacturers of cars may (and probably don't) have that liberty. In order to snake their intake outside of the engine compartment there's a pretty good chance they would need to cut a nice, big hole--something's that forbidden.

As I've learned over the past few years with the changes to our ECU rules, the IT ruleset appears to be built on the premise that the rules should, whenever possible, not unduly benefit one model over another within reason. I'm pretty confident that's why the "CAI" rule was put in place for '03 (it wan't there prior to that).
Click to expand...

I am at work and can't draft something more comprehensive...

I see your point about the honda battery hole - no disagreement there, yet... could not others fabricate a ram intake or velocity stacks from the bottom of the engine comparment or the front of the car?

At some point, IT will need to decide it's target model years... is it 0-40 year old models? or 0-30 or 0-20? You can't cater to everyone and the same goes for me and my little civic.

I will try post more later.
 
mossaidis said:
I am at work and can't draft something more comprehensive...

I see your point about the honda battery hole - no disagreement there, yet... could not others fabricate a ram intake or velocity stacks from the bottom of the engine comparment or the front of the car?

At some point, IT will need to decide it's target model years... is it 0-40 year old models? or 0-30 or 0-20? You can't cater to everyone and the same goes for me and my little civic.

I will try post more later.
Click to expand...

If I may: velocity stacks are illegal per ITCS D.1.c. intake points forward of the engine compartment are not legal, and the bulk of that topic has been covered in this thread. same for ducting from outside in (see jeff's "air snake")

if you have a legal (stock or within engine compartment) location on your car that is somehow beneficial for sourcing air - use it and enjoy the benefits. if you have to add unauthorized modifications like scoops, velocity stacks, or "air snakes" or pass outside of the legal locations, even when using a factory opening, you are breaking rules.

Returning to one of your older statements - the short-ram (IT legal) style intakes from AEM and the like are readily available and fully compliant (and even cheaper!). if you want a CAI for a HC/IT dual use car, then get it, cut it, use a union (water bypass is good, too) for the HC outings and put the filter in a legal place for the IT car.

generally, the rules are really very simple. anything you think you see allowances for that seems questionable, or see as overly restrictive given the readily available aftermarket support for your car, is as Greg(g) have said - the fairest way to rule in a mixed-marque class.

BTW - the '92 Si is a great ITA even car when built within the restrictive IT rules. good choice!
 
mossaidis said:
I hope to make this a lesson in arguing rules, think about IT and it's core values, (if I'm lucky) make some good points, make others and myself scratch their heads and at least...
Click to expand...
That's, in a lot of ways, why we spent time here...

If nothing else, I like to point out to the rulesmakers (e.g., ITAC and CRB) that no matter how clever you think you might be, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of other brains out there and you can NEVER have it all figured out when you write a rule.

mossaidis said:
At some point, IT will need to decide it's target model years... is it 0-40 year old models? or 0-30 or 0-20? You can't cater to everyone and the same goes for me and my little civic.
Click to expand...
This is a discussion that comes up regularly in IT, usually right after we argue whether IT should go National (the OTHER debate that's been going on for a quarter-century). As a general consensus, IT is trying to be "all-encompassing" and "all-welcome", and we try to fit in just about anyone that asks.

However, the availability of chassis and replacement parts usually causes that question to be self-resolving; as older cars wreck and/or rot away, or parts are no longer available (see RX-7 12A housings discussion), coupled to the attraction of most to newer cars, the older stuff slides into the background...i.e., not too many 60s/70s cars are competitive on a national level.

But, regardless of age of cars entered, the stability of the ruleset is what has set I.T. apart from most other categories, and there's nothing in there that is age-specific...

GA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top