Valve cover...interchangeability?

[Moron95M3]

Will the valve cover/plastic cover from a 3.2 fit on a 3.0?

I just want my oil fill up front...if it's easy/cheap.

thanks!

[Volf]

I think it does actually...


Somebody else is going to have to confirm though before you get too excited.

[nucci]

Never done it but 99% sure that the only things are: coils must match cover, and the front port for PCV and other stuff is different. Pick up a set of the coils for the same cover style and adapt the PCV hose and you're set.

[Moron95M3]

yea, I could be smart and just get a better strut bar...I have a sparco and that's what makes it annoying. :/

[shaeff]

Are you implying that you want to swap covers because of your strut bar? Why not just get a funnel? :)

Maybe I completely missed the point. Long day. LOL.

[bmdubbayoo]

the bar is directly over the oil cap...

http://www.maxbimmer.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35267&stc=1&d=1081378093

[shaeff]

Ah, I see. Looks like a funnel could still wriggle in there. I'd swap out the strut bar for a Mason Bar, or an OEM before swapping cam covers.

[NeilM]

Although they are interchangeable, the magnesium S/M50 cover has an oil separator built in, whereas the plastic S/M52 cover uses a separate oil separator device mounted to the intake manifold under the plenum. Therefore in order to swap one for the other changes to the vacuum plumbing would also have to be made.

BTW, your magnesium cover is a lot lighter in weight than the later plastic version.

I have to point out that your Sparco strut bar is a really goofy design. Ideally you want as straight a bar as possible, so the Sparco is almost perversely the opposite. As others have suggested you'd be better off to keep your cover and get a different strut bar.

(At the risk of appearing self-serving I do have a UUC Strut Barbarian that I haven't got around to offering for sale. If you're interested PM me.)

Neil

[das borgen]

NeilM raises a very good point...another point is that your wire harnsses are matched to your valve cover...otherwise, they will fit still but rather poorly

[Moron95M3]

thanks guys.

Very good info here.


and yes, the sparco bar is nowhere near what I would like, but at least it's fixed. (meh).

Just was curious...I'll deal with using a goofy funnel till I get a better bar, and put this in my vert.


...although I was thinking of just adding (welding) in a straight bar...then it'd be somewhat similar to one of the mason bars, right?

[shaeff]

...although I was thinking of just adding (welding) in a straight bar...then it'd be somewhat similar to one of the mason bars, right?

Ideally, you want a strut bar that conforms to the shape of the strut towers. This has several benefits, but the main one is that it helps reinforce the towers from the top, while the OEM plates do the same from the bottom, essentially sandwiching the sheet metal and preventing cracks and failure.

While you could cut the curved bar off and weld in a straight piece, it still would be less than ideal. As far as front bars go, I personally think that nothing beats the OEM unit, and for rears, Mason.

[Moron95M3]

Ideally, you want a strut bar that conforms to the shape of the strut towers. This has several benefits, but the main one is that it helps reinforce the towers from the top, while the OEM plates do the same from the bottom, essentially sandwiching the sheet metal and preventing cracks and failure.

While you could cut the curved bar off and weld in a straight piece, it still would be less than ideal. As far as front bars go, I personally think that nothing beats the OEM unit, and for rears, Mason.


very good point aswell.

(oh, I would be adding teh other bar, not removing the curved bar) but good thought about the conforming of the tower.


I wonder at what point if you make the top of the tower so stiff that you will cause higher stress at its edges and have fatigue issues. (changine thickness that much should show some stress...apparently not a worry though as I've never seen an issue with the oem bar.)

[shaeff]

Right on. The Sparco bar would then resemble the Rogue Race Brace. If you added a straight bar, I'd add extra bracing between the two bars to triangulate them for extra strength. That being said, I'm certainly no engineer and it probably wouldn't make any difference at all.

The strut bars I'm a fan of are those that conform very well to the strut towers, and are fixed. (Not starting a debate, just stating my preference)

I'm not really sure about pushing the stress point further out from center, but I'd think that the more sheet metal you have "clamped down" the more evenly the force would be distributed, and as such, would dissipate the overall impact better than having a smaller impact area would.

Think large surface area contact vs small surface area contact- like if you take two fingers and apply 20 pounds of pressure to your temple, vs if you take your open hand and do the same. The two fingers will hurt more because the force is over a smaller contact area, whereas the open hand will be over a larger contact area, thus allowing more of your body to soak up the pressure.

Like I said, I'm no engineer by far, and I could be completely off base, but suffice to say that larger surface area is better.