My understanding of the situation is that eliminating ram air or mandating stock airboxes is not on the menu as both those proposals were voted down in the prior thread. The question we're being asked here seems to be what restrictions/clarifications we wish to place on how ram air hoses or oil coolers can be installed in the front of the vehicle.

It seems like modifications to the inner sheet metal in the front of the car to allow for improved oil cooling are pretty well supported here.

The options for ram air hose routing would appear to be:

1.) Allow no modification to any of the stock front inner sheetmetal. Essentially requires that ram air hoses are routed through the hole in the inner fender that the stock airbox snorkel uses.

2.) Allow only elimination of the flat, triangular bracket/sheetmetal near the A/C dryer. It's not clear that all 944s came with this item installed on the unibody. Many cars don't have it before we turn them into race cars. This is the only ram air routing solution that I've seen before today (other than option 1 above). It allows for a pretty direct shot for the air hose. This is arguably already permitted in the rules, depending on whether you consider that piece of sheetmetal to be an unnecessary bracket.

3.) Allow a large hole to be cut in the headlight bucket area -- as in the picture that Eric posted. I'd never seen that before and I wouldn't do it myself.

My vote would be for number 2, but I think #3 is probably harmless. If we went for #1, we'd need to be clear about what the expectation is for people missing the flat sheetmetal piece (must they replace it or only not run a hose through the empty space?). This would also require virtually every competitor now running ram air to buy a new hose ($10-15) and reroute it. Not a big deal, I suppose, but an annoyance to a large % of our competitors (I would think more than 50%?). Would be an annoyance to 100% of Midwest and Great Lakes region competitors.

Option 4... only allow Ram Air (extra HP) if you're dyno proven to be less than 130hp.

???

KLR wrote:



Sterling Doc wrote:



This triangular bracket that I cut out is a bracket that holds the horns. It is the same part number on 924's and 944,s. Each and every late model 924 came with the same part number bracket. Each and every 944, early and late, all the way through till the end in 1991 had the same bracket with the same part number. Many were probably removed by rice burner kids getting ready to install that huge turbo! LOL
You can see the bracket here in the break down reference number 9.




This bracket holds the horns. Once I remove the horns it becomes unused.
Rule number 17.3.10 Unused wiring, brackets, nuts, bolts and studs may be removed.

I took some pictures of my setup. The hose access is basic. This was very simple to do with no great cost. Simple and low cost - it is just a hole. Spec should not equal "stock" and be the hard fast rule. I like driving a low cost race car, it I want to drive stock then I would just track my BMW and stay in DE4.

KLR wrote:


I'd agree these are our options. Working through them:

#1 This is the most "Spec", though requires the most cars to make changes. We'd have to decide if we'd Spec air entry only from the turn signal housing, or still allow the hose to run to the foglight. It seems the easiest way to deal with the "Ken Bracket" (to coin a term) is to just make a ruling/precedent acknowledging Ken's (Racer X) reasoning, and declare it a bracket. No rule change needed. [Edit: probably better to spell it out in the rules for clarity moving forward]

#2. This is a limited option. It gets around the headlight issue, but leaves the 924S out to a degree (no foglights to run to). It would require FastTater, and others to make changes, but less than #1

#3. Open season. No one has to redo. 924S now has a direct route to the turn signal. housing. Cars with headlights could use the foglight ducting option, which is effective. It is the least Spec option. That said, the variations between Ram air routing is slicing up a pretty small pie to begin with, in terms of power.

Anyone have any other suggestions options/before we take it to a vote?

P.S. CJ, even with "option 4" we'd still have to decide on the above. Also, I don't think we'd have many takers for the sub 130HP option, when we'd have to DQ them if they went over 130 on a random compliance dyno w/ a ram air setup.

It appears that Fast Tater's set up uses option 3 and cuts out part of the front of the bucket of the head light well and uses the turn signal opening in the bumper rather than the fog light opening. In my opinion, that solution has less potential for "ram air" due to the shape and location of the opening but it has been decided that either place is OK. I have mine coming from the turn signal opening, as well. It is not very practical to do that by going around the fender and through the stock hole in the fender, as Neil described, so this is a good solution for using that opening and one that the 924's have to use as they have no fog light bucket.

We all seem to agree that cutting parts of the front bucket on the passenger side, to allow for an oil cooler, is fine so there is no reason that a similar opening in the identical, opposite side should be any issue at all and seems "harmless".

It, therefore, seems like both option 2 and option 3, from Neil's list, should be OK for everyone to do. Number three allows everyone with their intake from the turn signal opening to leave it where it is and that is a good thing.

Eric, sorry this thread got off on the "NO RAM AIR" path after that had been decided but it is a good catch to resolve, once and for all, the ability to cut some interior sheet metal for both oil coolers and, to a more limited extent, for air intakes.

Jim Foxx