So, I'm tearing my motor apart due to a bent valve (sigh), and while it's apart, I'm considering cams. But, I see that the BMWCCA Prepared class doesn't seem to currently allow the Porsche 996 MAM that most of the CAM kits are using.

Jay Hudson (thanks Jay) pointed me to a rules clarification request here:
http://www.bmwccaclubracing.com/static/2006Series/Rules/clarify.htm
(06-0028)

After that response, did anyone ever request a rules change? to include the 996 Mass air meter? Just wondering if people in prepared are running cams, and what MAM they're using that's legal?

Thanks for your time.

I sent a request to David McIntyre. I'm in the same boat with my Sunbelt OBD2 cam kit and Porsche 996 MAM. I'm hoping I don't have to convert to OBD1...but I'm staging it just in case.

He said they will not know if it will be allowed per the 2007 rules until the process is completed around Oct 1, 2006.

It looks like under the rules, you should go OBD 1 at the same time to use the 540 MAF.

I was rather under the impression that Bimmerworld has figured out how to fix a BMW OBD-II MAF to make it work.

I was rather under the impression that Bimmerworld has figured out how to fix a BMW OBD-II MAF to make it work.


I haven't heard of anyone getting a 3.5 BMW MAF to work with an OBD2 cam setup. The issue is with the output voltage of the MAF in higher RPM ranges. The OBD2 ECU cannot accept a voltage above 5v.

Last I saw on this, James Clay (bimmerworld) requested a rule change/clarification. You can make the 540 MAF work, but only if you modify its output voltage, but because it's not mentioned in the rules, that mod is not legal. So as far as I know, there is no legal way (yet) to use the Porsche MAF or a modified output 540 MAF with the cam kits.

Here is the thread, start at post 137

http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=482976&page=6

I haven't heard of anyone getting a 3.5 BMW MAF to work with an OBD2 cam setup. The issue is with the output voltage of the MAF in higher RPM ranges. The OBD2 ECU cannot accept a voltage above 5v.

Now you have....;)


Last I saw on this, James Clay (bimmerworld) requested a rule change/clarification. You can make the 540 MAF work, but only if you modify its output voltage, but because it's not mentioned in the rules, that mod is not legal. So as far as I know, there is no legal way (yet) to use the Porsche MAF or a modified output 540 MAF with the cam kits.

Yes there is........;)

OK Scott, stop braggin', and start spillin'

;)

OK Scott, stop braggin', and start spillin'

;)

I spent $$ to have a program written that will allow the 540/Euro HFM to work with OBD-2 cam kit. Well at least with my Schrick Eurosport kit. I can't speak for the Sunbelt kit. It puts out 252whp and is a long way from being lean, actually a bit on the rich side. We are still working to tweak it a bit more, he's sure there's more HP to be found. He did the program with just the ECU and didn't have my car to do any dyno tuning, so it's not quite optimized. It is 100% IP legal. CR tech folks have looked at it along with a few snoops :D. They can look it over all they want . I know the so called experts say they couldn't make it work, but my expert did. He doesn't believe OBD-1 conversions are necessary. I was ready to do the conversion, before I talked to him. I even had a draft written up for a rules change just for the OBD-2 cars, but found it wasn't needed. I'm not sure if he wants to do others, but I will find out. I should charge a fee, since I was the test rat and put up the $$...:stickoutt

I spent $$ to have a program written that will allow the 540/Euro HFM to work with OBD-2 cam kit. Well at least with my Schrick Eurosport kit. I can't speak for the Sunbelt kit. It puts out 252whp and is a long way from being lean, actually a bit on the rich side. We are still working to tweak it a bit more, he's sure there's more HP to be found. He did the program with just the ECU and didn't have my car to do any dyno tuning, so it's not quite optimized. It is 100% IP legal. CR tech folks have looked at it along with a few snoops :D.

What did they look at? Part number, a roundel or what? A savvy tech I would imagine would record what the 540 p/n, Euro HFM p/n, and Porsche p/n's are and if anyone is found with scratched off part numbers then chances are they are probably using the illegal HFM. Write a note in their log book or issue a penalty at that point methinks.

I would imagine there are a few IP'ers running the P-car one, I mean who checks for this stuff? :D I bet there are people running around with spherical bearings where they're not supposed to be also.

-Carlos.

What did they look at? Part number, a roundel or what? A savvy tech I would imagine would record what the 540 p/n, Euro HFM p/n, and Porsche p/n's are and if anyone is found with scratched off part numbers then chances are they are probably using the illegal HFM. Write a note in their log book or issue a penalty at that point methinks.

Actual, that *exactly* what Jack Money (National Tech Steward) did this past weekend, out here on the Left Coast.
Of course a savvy racer could probably retrofit the HFM element into a 540 housing ...:devillook

Actual, that *exactly* what Jack Money (National Tech Steward) did this past weekend, out here on the Left Coast.
Of course a savvy racer could probably retrofit the HFM element into a 540 housing ...:devillook

That would be out right cheating :nono , besides the Porsche HFM element has a different connector than the BMW HFM, which a knowledgeable Tech could tell the difference.



QUOTE=clopez95m3]What did they look at? Part number, a roundel or what? A savvy tech I would imagine would record what the 540 p/n, Euro HFM p/n, and Porsche p/n's are and if anyone is found with scratched off part numbers then chances are they are probably using the illegal HFM. Write a note in their log book or issue a penalty at that point methinks.

I would imagine there are a few IP'ers running the P-car one, I mean who checks for this stuff? :D I bet there are people running around with spherical bearings where they're not supposed to be also.

-Carlos.[/QUOTE]

There is no Roundel on the BMW HFM, just the Bosch part number that shows what car it belongs to. The 540 part # is 0 280 217 800 the Bmw Euro is 0 280 217 806 and the Porsche is 0 280 217 809. The Porsche HFM's that come with the cam kits have the part number scratched off, so that is a dead give away. Spherical bearings were checked for at the last CR I ran, as was my HFM and the tech had a list of correct and incorrect part numbers. I even went as far as to show him how to tell the difference between the connectors.Jack Money and his regional techs have also been looking at the HFM's as part of his compliance checking, but I'm sure you already knew that ;) .

I was rather under the impression that Bimmerworld has figured out how to fix a BMW OBD-II MAF to make it work.

You can't modify the HFM or add anything to alter the signal to the ECU. You also cannot alter the stock ECU, except for programming.

That would be out right cheating :nono , besides the Porsche HFM element has a different connector than the BMW HFM, which a knowledgeable Tech could tell the difference.


Yes I know. I guess I should have added more emoticons.

You can't modify the HFM or add anything to alter the signal to the ECU. You also cannot alter the stock ECU, except for programming.

I have been trying to figure this one out and another question brought it to mind again today. What rule allows you to modify the harness side plug to make the 540 unit plug in? You can retrofit electronics, but there is no permissive statement about modifying portions of it.

I hope they change the rules and allow the Porche HFM. It would save me the $$$ and hassle of an OBD1 conversion.

I spent $$ to have a program written that will allow the 540/Euro HFM to work with OBD-2 cam kit. Well at least with my Schrick Eurosport kit. I can't speak for the Sunbelt kit. It puts out 252whp and is a long way from being lean, actually a bit on the rich side. We are still working to tweak it a bit more, he's sure there's more HP to be found. He did the program with just the ECU and didn't have my car to do any dyno tuning, so it's not quite optimized. It is 100% IP legal. CR tech folks have looked at it along with a few snoops :D. They can look it over all they want . I know the so called experts say they couldn't make it work, but my expert did. He doesn't believe OBD-1 conversions are necessary. I was ready to do the conversion, before I talked to him. I even had a draft written up for a rules change just for the OBD-2 cars, but found it wasn't needed. I'm not sure if he wants to do others, but I will find out. I should charge a fee, since I was the test rat and put up the $$...:stickoutt

Well quit holding out on us! Who did the software? ;)

I have been trying to figure this one out and another question brought it to mind again today. What rule allows you to modify the harness side plug to make the 540 unit plug in? You can retrofit electronics, but there is no permissive statement about modifying portions of it.

The wiring harness is allowed, a BMW HFM is allowed. I don't see why a connector which has no effect on the function of either part would matter. The connector does not allow one part to operate in any fashion which is noncompliant. The connector itself has no performance advantage nor is it noncompliant by itself. The 540 HFM compared to the euro HFM is no different except for the connector, I don't see an issue.

The rules will not say exactly 100% what is and is not allowed, if they did no one would ever read it and there would not be enough paper to print it. But of course this is not official, it's rhetoric.

The wiring harness is allowed, a BMW HFM is allowed. I don't see why a connector which has no effect on the function of either part would matter. The connector does not allow one part to operate in any fashion which is noncompliant. The connector itself has no performance advantage nor is it noncompliant by itself. The 540 HFM compared to the euro HFM is no different except for the connector, I don't see an issue.

But modification to the wiring harness is NOT allowed. It is not a compliance issue on its own, until it is found on a harness it does not belong on from the factory.

If it were to be allowed, the rules would have to say the harness can be modified. Or the rules could be rewritten so racers are allowed to pick and choose parts from two legal combinations (unmodified legal OBD II harness AND the plug from a legal unmodified OBD I harness) and to make the one they want to use (imagine the engine fun then!). If we are following the rules strictly, then this is an issue also.

The Porsche HFM doesn't give any advantage over some other mass air meter, it is just the known solution, used by every major tuner in the US market, and does not require a significant investment to rewrite conversion code from some other 3.5" meter that will support OBDII voltage thresholds.

Also, I would make more money if we sold an OBD I conversion to every IP racer so maybe I should just let this go? It just doesn't make sense.

You can't modify the HFM or add anything to alter the signal to the ECU. You also cannot alter the stock ECU, except for programming.

People use O2 simulators to run without cats dont they? That is modifying the signal sent to the ECU is it not?

But modification to the wiring harness is NOT allowed. It is not a compliance issue on its own, until it is found on a harness it does not belong on from the factory.

If it were to be allowed, the rules would have to say the harness can be modified. Or the rules could be rewritten so racers are allowed to pick and choose parts from two legal combinations (unmodified legal OBD II harness AND the plug from a legal unmodified OBD I harness) and to make the one they want to use (imagine the engine fun then!). If we are following the rules strictly, then this is an issue also.

The Porsche HFM doesn't give any advantage over some other mass air meter, it is just the known solution, used by every major tuner in the US market, and does not require a significant investment to rewrite conversion code from some other 3.5" meter that will support OBDII voltage thresholds.

What if you didn't use the plug and just rearranged the pins to the right holes on the HFM and say siliconed them in place. That way you wouldn't have the plug that you don't think is compliant.

The rules say you can use data acquistion, but it doesn't state in print that you can tap into the harness to get the signals. Is that compliant legal??

I'm running JC based modified OBD-2 software with a 540 HFM with OBD-2 Schrick cam kit. It works just fine. My investment to make it work was minimal, and I believe I'm compliant in the Spirit of Club Racing.

Not an argument, just my somewhat useless opinion...:D

What if you didn't use the plug and just rearranged the pins to the right holes on the HFM and say siliconed them in place. That way you wouldn't have the plug that you don't think is compliant.

My issue with this method is that you are modifying the harness which is not allowed. Has nothing to do with the connector used. But really I don't have a problem with your idea at all - I just think it is as illegal and makes as much sense as using the alternate Bosch HFM.

The rules say you can use data acquistion, but it doesn't state in print that you can tap into the harness to get the signals. Is that compliant legal??

Traqmate is a complete standalone system, 5 minutes to install. Stack uses redundant sensors in all locations, does not tap into the harness. Besides, if you do tap in, you are measuring, not alrering the stock configuration/function.

I'm running JC based modified OBD-2 software with a 540 HFM with OBD-2 Schrick cam kit. It works just fine. My investment to make it work was minimal, and I believe I'm compliant in the Spirit of Club Racing.

Not an argument, just my somewhat useless opinion...:D

All opinions here are useful - we are having a nice roundtable discussion, not a flame war in the mods section! I think that using the same Bosch mold part, stamped with a different part number, because it plugs directly in is also in the spirit of BMW CR. But what has started to happen is a move away from the all-catching "Spirit" clause and into nit-picky line item review, which is now affecting things we never even thought to put in the rules.
Example from Randy Mueller - oil coolers were never legal using this analysis. Now O2 sims aren't either.

Send in your ECU, we can flash out the rear O2 sensors for $200. Spend more money to fit in the rules...

NOW, I am not saying at all that rules are a bad thing and I think it is very amusing how some things are rationalized into working into the existing rules. In fact Jack, not to hit you publicly, but as a tech guy I am sure you are aware that almost EVERY arguement to break the rules starts the same way your post did - "I don't see why [insert part name] which has no effect on the function of either part would matter". Rules are written as a permissive document - in fact they state "if the rules don't say you can do it - DON'T".

I am a rules pusher possibly, but not a rules breaker and I do think there needs to be a fine line. But I think if we are in the process of drawing that fine line, we need to use some good sense of what current solutions should be accepted as exceptions to the new hard line we are drawing.

James,

I too think that the Porsche HFM has no advantage over the other HFM, and would have loved to just left it in. In fact when you sent in your clarifcation I sent emails to my CRAC and the National Tech Director supporting it. They said it wasn't legal, so I decided to make the 540 HFM work with my OBD-2 set-up instead of the more costly and time consuming conversion. I believe my setup is legal, and has passed CR tech inspection. I don't run cats or the post cat O2 sims, so that's not a problem for me. Sometimes this seems like a never ending battle and it's getting old. This hobby is supposed to be fun and not so complicated.

What if you didn't use the plug and just rearranged the pins to the right holes on the HFM and say siliconed them in place. That way you wouldn't have the plug that you don't think is compliant.

The rules say you can use data acquistion, but it doesn't state in print that you can tap into the harness to get the signals. Is that compliant legal??

I'm running JC based modified OBD-2 software with a 540 HFM with OBD-2 Schrick cam kit. It works just fine. My investment to make it work was minimal, and I believe I'm compliant in the Spirit of Club Racing.

Not an argument, just my somewhat useless opinion...:D

I would agree with that opinion with my own useless opinion. :D To me a connector swap to be able to run a legal HFM remains within the spirit of the rules. However a Porsche part does not. The one part I think it violates is in prepared class engine 1D that states "Devices that alter, condition or otherwise modify the inputs to the ECU or the signals from the ECU are prohibited." That is exactly what this part is doing is it not? It changes the HFM output so it modifies the input to the ECU.

Engine management programming internal to the ECU is free so if that route is taken to make the cams work with a BMW HFM again I believe that remains within the spirit.

Part of me wants to agree that a Bosch part swapped for another Bosch part of equal dimensions has some validity in the argument but as the rules are written at the moment it isn't a legal part IMHO.

-Carlos.

Part of me wants to agree that a Bosch part swapped for another Bosch part of equal dimensions has some validity in the argument but as the rules are written at the moment it isn't a legal part IMHO.


I agree, but it seems like at this point in the rules change process, a widely adopted solution (used by all Dinan, Eurosport, AA, Turner, BimmerWorld kits) might be considered as a logical adendum versus a change in the wording to allow engine harness modification, leading to the other solution using a BMW meter (used by Scott).

QUOTE=clopez95m3]I would agree with that opinion with my own useless opinion. :D To me a connector swap to be able to run a legal HFM remains within the spirit of the rules. However a Porsche part does not. The one part I think it violates is in prepared class engine 1D that states "Devices that alter, condition or otherwise modify the inputs to the ECU or the signals from the ECU are prohibited." That is exactly what this part is doing is it not? It changes the HFM output so it modifies the input to the ECU.

Changing the plug does not alter the signal or the output. It uses the same wires in the same position, it's just one plug is a different size, so it needs to be changed to fit the HFM.

Changing the plug does not alter the signal or the output. It uses the same wires in the same position, it's just one plug is a different size, so it needs to be changed to fit the HFM.

But the rules don't say you can modify the harness.

Changing the valve depth in a piston relief does not alter the potential power output. You use the same piston and valve, it's just that you get better protection against accidental over-revs when you do it, so pistons with bigger reliefs need to be made so that the engine is safer in an over-rev.

But the rules don't say you can modify the harness.

Changing the valve depth in a piston relief does not alter the potential power output. You use the same piston and valve, it's just that you get better protection against accidental over-revs when you do it, so pistons with bigger reliefs need to be made so that the engine is safer in an over-rev.

But the rules do say the piston must be the same exact config. as stock, so the deeper reliefs would not be legal, though I don't beleive they are a problem. One of the problems is that we can pick apart all the meanings and come up with different opinions and interpretations.

Maybe they should just go to an absolute power to weight ratio based system and we can eliminate all the rule disecting, and get on with the racing.

Amen!

It doesn't look like the Porsche 996 HFM will be allowed in Prepared class in 2007. :(

I guess it's OBD-1 conversion time for me.

I would write to comment to the rules committee. What I want doesn't make a bit of difference if no one else wants it. Show support for this or anything else you want as a competitor, not by posting on a forum but buy giving the feedback as requested and the exclusion in the proposed rules.

I would write to comment to the rules committee. What I want doesn't make a bit of difference if no one else wants it. Show support for this or anything else you want as a competitor, not by posting on a forum but buy giving the feedback as requested and the exclusion in the proposed rules.



That's the first thing I did as soon as I saw the draft rules. They responded by saying they've been checking for this issue all season and did not find many instances where people were running the Porsche HFM so there was not much consideration for a rules change.

I explained again why this was a legitimate rules change request and did not get an explanation why it was rejected. I've submitted this request numerous time and it just doesn't look like they are going to budge. :(

I emailed the folks, telling them I was building up an IP car, and that I planned to do bimmerworld sunbelt cams (porsche hfm), etc, but they just told me that the Porsche HFM was illegal, and that companies don't make the rules, etc. I went back and forth a bit with them, but it seemed to have little to no effect.

My question is, to those of you running sunbelt cams in IP, how are you legally running them? and did your performance suffer as a result of being forced not to use the porsche hfm? Beyond that, is there a bimmerworld sanctioned change that is IP legal?

I emailed the folks, telling them I was building up an IP car, and that I planned to do bimmerworld sunbelt cams (porsche hfm), etc, but they just told me that the Porsche HFM was illegal, and that companies don't make the rules, etc. I went back and forth a bit with them, but it seemed to have little to no effect.

My question is, to those of you running sunbelt cams in IP, how are you legally running them? and did your performance suffer as a result of being forced not to use the porsche hfm? Beyond that, is there a bimmerworld sanctioned change that is IP legal?

The cam kit only uses the Porsche HFM on OBD-2 cars. They have converted back to OBD-1, which is IP legal, since it uses the BMW 540/Euro HFM.

I have been trying to figure this one out and another question brought it to mind again today. What rule allows you to modify the harness side plug to make the 540 unit plug in? You can retrofit electronics, but there is no permissive statement about modifying portions of it.

Hey James, looks like they reworded to make changing the plug a non-issue.

From the new rules:

4. Fuel injection air metering devices must remain in the stock
configuration and operation. An originally equipped air flow meter
(AFM) or air mass meter (AMM) and housing may not be replaced
with an aftermarket mass air flow sensor (MAF). Further, an AFM
may not be substituted for an AMM or vice-versa. However, any
originally equipped AFM or AMM and housing may be upgraded in
size with another stock BMW AFM or AMM and housing provided
the internal construction and operation is identical, i.e. air flap, hot
wire or hot film.

5. The wiring connector for the air metering device may be altered to
allow the use of an alternate legal air metering device.

Hey James, looks like they reworded to make changing the plug a non-issue.

From the new rules:

4. Fuel injection air metering devices must remain in the stock
configuration and operation. An originally equipped air flow meter
(AFM) or air mass meter (AMM) and housing may not be replaced
with an aftermarket mass air flow sensor (MAF). Further, an AFM
may not be substituted for an AMM or vice-versa. However, any
originally equipped AFM or AMM and housing may be upgraded in
size with another stock BMW AFM or AMM and housing provided
the internal construction and operation is identical, i.e. air flap, hot
wire or hot film.

5. The wiring connector for the air metering device may be altered to
allow the use of an alternate legal air metering device.


Oh well....