Coated Intakes Etc

A

Al Seim

Well-known member
Trying to unhijack the FP Runoffs thread:

Correct me if I've got this wrong, but it's my understanding that there was a rules interpretation ruling at the runoffs to the effect that the general allowance to coat driveline parts extends to intake manifolds, in this specific case, the exterior of the intake manifold.

If so, I'd extrapolate from this ruling that intake manifold interior runners could also be coated, as the coating provision doesn't differentiate between inside and outside. I'd go even further and say that by the same reasoning intake and exhaust ports in the head could also be coated - if the intake manifold is a driveline part then why isn't the cylinder head?

In my opinion allowing intake runners (inside) and head ports to be "coated" - especially with coating not having a GCR definition - is a can of worms that should be closed explicitly.

Also in my opinion - but less importantly - I'd like to see the intake manifold exterior explicitly allowed to be coated, to avoid any potential future disagreements. I don't see any major disadvantage to coating the outside and as has been pointed out it doesn't cost very much.

Anyone agree or disagree? (I know David doesn't agree with allowing exterior coating...)
 
If the coating decision was made by the COA, this decision is only good for the year in which it was made. To include this "clarification" in the 2016 rules, it would have to be proposed by the CRB to the BoD and passed by them. Of course, the CRB could take a different view and their proposal could tighten up the rule as written.
 
Matt93SE":fxbq2oln said:
http://swaintech.com/race-coatings/automotive-coatings/automotive-coatings-price-sheet/

Max of ~$300 to thermal coat an intake manifold by Swain Tech. You could do it for under $100 if you care to do the work yourself.
This is hardly big $$ money in any class, let alone Prod racing with "limited prep" engines that cost more than my entire car..
Click to expand...

Just a slight technical correction.. Swain and Zircotech are not the same thing as what Jet Hot and Cerakote offer, the latter is what you would be buying for a DIY application....

Still a lot cheaper than building an inconel / ceramic box around it...
http://www.amazon.com/Heatshield-Produc ... B002UPL64W
 
Bobby,

Not sure what you mean there. All of the products you name are sprayed on thermal barriers. Some are better than others, sure.

-Kyle
 
hoffman900":3gossdcu said:
Matt93SE":3gossdcu said:
http://swaintech.com/race-coatings/automotive-coatings/automotive-coatings-price-sheet/

Max of ~$300 to thermal coat an intake manifold by Swain Tech. You could do it for under $100 if you care to do the work yourself.
This is hardly big $$ money in any class, let alone Prod racing with "limited prep" engines that cost more than my entire car..
Click to expand...

Just a slight technical correction.. Swain and Zircotech are not the same thing as what Jet Hot and Cerakote offer, the latter is what you would be buying for a DIY application....

Still a lot cheaper than building an inconel / ceramic box around it...
http://www.amazon.com/Heatshield-Produc ... B002UPL64W
Click to expand...
There are other brands out there as well. Take a look at Techline products. www.techlinecoatings.com/
 
I dont want any coatings allowed!! for a perceived power improvement . A simple exhaust shield max . Wrap the exhaust / not the intake.
Rules creep .
 
Arguably the rules already crept (a long time ago) but most of us didn't realize it.

My main desire remains that "coatings" be explicitly banned from inside intake runners and ports. Secondarily that exterior intake manifold coatings be explicitly permitted or banned just so we are all on the same page. I slightly prefer permitted 'cause I think it's easier for me than a decent shield if I have to mount the shield to the exhaust to make it legal.

As Joe alludes, I'd rather stick or tie some fiberglass/reflective barrier material to my intake manifold than build a heat shield mounted to header. They'd do pretty much the same thing.

No one is commenting much on interior coatings, which it seems to me this COA ruling appears to allow. Maybe because it's assumed that the CRB will immediately slam that door shut? I sure hope so because that's the real can of worms.

Al Seim
HP VW Scirocco 1.6
 
Me should stay out of Al's thread, but please remember level 2 prep rules are/were an extension of IT rules and this coating is nothing more than sliding the rules in a wrong direction from the original philosophy. When my car was an RX7 in IT trim, didn't coat (illegal), put a shield between the manifolds.
 
So you're saying that adhesive-based products (tapes) are considered a coating? Like the item below?

http://www.amazon.com/DEI-010394-Reflec ... B0039Z5TUY

I don't remember seeing anywhere in the GCR where this is specifically mentioned. It says that aside from porting, intakes cannot be "modified". Although I think coatings should not be added, reflective tapes applied to the exterior of the intake seem like a simple progression of technology and should most certainly be specifically included.
 
hoffman900":1sgdhuvd said:
Where does 'coating' end and paint begin?
Click to expand...

In Spec Miata they must consider paint a coating, because it is on the list of things you cant do to your intake manifold.

I am not a fan of coatings/wraps/foils/paints on OE level 2 intakes. These items are supposed to be stock, less the 1" port matching, and anything that changes the look of the outside of the manifold could make it more difficult to spot modifications in a cursory inspection. It would be really easy to cut one open and weld it back up if you are allowed to cover the tubes in a nice think thermal blanket, and it would go undetected without an internal inspection.

Additionally, we are talking for the most part about modern cars here, L2 prep, do these cars need to be faster? *working off the assumption that a coating of some type increase performance, otherwise we would not be talking about this in the first place.

Even when I was told coatings were free I elected not to wrap my manifold, the glaring "can not otherwise be modified" was enough to stop me.
 
Wrap/shield the bottom of the intake plus 2in end wrap , and the exhaust header .
Wrap may not wrap the entire intake , no mummy intake s!! .. 50% plus 2 in on the ends.

Coating = Paint ,etc. Not legal.
 
I think you guys make a good point - fully wrapping or coating the entire exterior of the intake manifold invites abuse.

So how's this -

No coat or paint on intake manifold, inside or out.

No coat or paint in head ports. (I assume that combustion chamber heat barrier is a long established legal option??)

Allow addition of heat barrier/shield to bottom of intake manifold per Mike's suggestion.

Al
 
Protech Racing":3ekibdz6 said:
Wrap/shield the bottom of the intake plus 2in end wrap , and the exhaust header .
Wrap may not wrap the entire intake , no mummy intake s!! .. 50% plus 2 in on the ends.

Coating = Paint ,etc. Not legal.
Click to expand...
Isn't it easier to just go with the statement "No other modifications are allowed"? That is how the rule is written now, and if it wasn't for the fact that the intake manifold appears (right or wrong) in the drive train section there wouldn't be any discussion. Going that way takes all of the other discussions about wraps or paint or coatings off the table.
 
The confusion is the coating rule, not the intake rule.
1. Add a definition of what a coating is to the GCR.
2. Add a list of specific components within the drivetrain section that are not included in the unrestricted coating rule.
Stock and permitted alternate components of the drive train can have thermal barrier and friction altering coatings
applied with the exception of the Intake manifold, Cylinder Head, throttle bodies, and
carburetors.
 
I am going to have to agree with Jason on this one. Any kind of coating or wrap could be used cover up modifications like an air leak (letting air in that is not going through the throttle body). It could also make hard to know if it is even the correct intake for the car/engine. His point about using it as another way to limit the prep level 2 engines is a good one also. I think the roadster guys in HP would agree the VW's, Honda's, and Toyota do not need any other advantage over the older full prep cars.
 
Much as I'd like to stick a heat barrier to the bottom of my intake manifold, Kevin's suggestion is probably best by virtue of simplicity and anti rules creep.

Not that it really matters, but the vast majority of even the older (including LBC) HP cars these days are L2 or L1/L2 so virtually all are governed by the L2 engine rules.

Al Seim
HP VW Scirocco 1.6
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top