Hey Guys,
I’m looking to change my MK3 Manifold. I’ve heard good things about both the BBR and the I.L Motorsport. Is one better made than the other?
I was told that the BBR has no bottom bracket which could become an issue?
Good question which I and others have looked into.
Personally you have a choice of 3. (sure others will suggest different ones perhaps).
- Racing Beat.
- IL Motorsport (which I have).
- BBR.
There are other ones, but…
It will depend whether you fit it yourself or a specialist like Rodders or Skuzzle or any where else.
I believe Rodder’s still uses Racing Beat.
Skuzzle uses IL, (His opinion is that it’s the best performance wise).
The first 2 are very good in my opinion.
Pretty much swings and roundabouts to be honest.
As a little tip stick with a 4 into 1 and NOT a 4-2-1.
Hope this info helps with your decision making.
Has anyone fitted a new manifold and not remap their ecu ?
With the general consensus being the manifold is the best upgrade, I’m just wondering if it’s worth fitting it alone.
GazzaBurton has.
Seems daft spending upwards of £400 on a manifold and not remapping.
The support bracket of the original cat manifold can be removed and tacked on to the new if using RB etc.
If you want to avoid an EML light you will need to relocate the 2nd O2 sensor to a position after the midpipe cat.
Radiant heat from the new manifold will attempt to cook the rear side of the alternator so some additional heat shielding would be wise long term. The Track Dog Racing heat shield is good but expensive in this regard.
I agree with that. As the whole point is to get the best out of everything. Most of the money for the remap is the license fee. Just the hourly rate if needed again.
In regards to tacking the bracket would this need to be welded on?
We use Racing Beat manifolds and have done so since 2007, they don’t have bottom bracket and have NEVER had an issue…we have new manifolds in stock if you need one
Paul
I know it’s pedantic, but technically they should have a cat, I don’t know anyone that failed but by rights shouldn’t they all be an instant fail?
I went for the BBR with cat, ordered it Thursday.
1 Like
New mot rules if it was fitted from factory it as to be there …if removed instance mot fail even if it passes co2 bbr now sell with cat for road use some friendly mot testers may turn a blind eye…but if spending that amount off money I would not gamble…
2 Likes
I knew this would crop up. 
Likewise, I know we have some fully active MOT Testers on the Forum, so would be great for the input.
People quote the instant fail for mot, but the ONLY part I can find is as below.
If any one has any other legislation that would be great.
INTERPRETATION AND LOGIC is the key surely?
Is it not the fact that the regulations are written to be applied to vehicles that have all the Catalyctic Converters removed and therefore do not comply with emissions standards?
I will say it again, “Are ALL MOT Testers turning a blind eye and incompetent”? (Of course they aren’t).
It would be my opinion they are applying sound logic.
I am not saying who is right or wrong, just going by what information is available.
FROM BBR WEB SITE.
Please note. A change in MOT regulations May 2018 dictates that removal of a catalyst where fitted will now result in an MOT fail. All non-catted MX-5 NC (BBR or otherwise) manifolds are no longer MOT compliant.
Just saying and putting the point over if we are going letters to the rule.
By fitting the BBR one, you would also be an instant fail too as “Obviously Been Modified” from the standard as “Fitted by the manufacturer”.
You would be fitting the 4-1 Catted Manifold which is NOT as fitted by the Manufacturer.
It is a can of worms I know.
UPDATED VERSION 30TH OCTOBER 2019.
SECTION 8.2.1.1. Exhaust emission control equipment
This inspection is only for vehicles that must have a full catalyst emissions test (disregarding the basic emissions test). You only need to check components that are visible and identifiable, such as catalytic converters, oxygen sensors, and exhaust gas recirculation valves.
| Defect | Category |
|---|---|
| (a) Emission control equipment fitted by the manufacturer: missing, obviously modified or obviously defective | Major |
| (b) An induction or exhaust leak that could affect emissions levels | Major |
1 Like
In addition and to quote an example “Unrealrocks” has just put a post on for failing emissions test.
He states that the centre cat has been removed and exhaust modified and has always passed the MOT Test (twice) previously.
So ANY MOT tester would certainly not miss that had been removed during the inspection.
I bet there are many cars out there (Not just MX5’s) like that.
So why do they pass it?
Perhaps it is all based on emissions.
Food for thought.
I would say that it is quite possible an MOT tester could “miss” that. I was an MOT tester at Mazda main dealers for 20 odd years, 99% of the cars I tested were Mazdas. If for example an Audi came in I would have no idea about the factory exhaust system and if it had a catalyst in a certain position, so without being certain I couldn’t fail it, it’d have to be a pass and advise. I think that’s why the Testers Manual uses the word “obviously” quite a lot.
Thanks, I was hoping you would comment. I always appreciate your input and interest
You hit the nail on the head.
But, are we any further forward regards to people saying it’s an instant fail for not being there?
It would be my opinion BBR would say that. Let’s say to “enhance” sales against others perhaps?
Perhaps they can prove the statement by way of firm evidence?
As you say it’s impossible to know and digest all the different configurations.
By your own admission you would pass it.
So perhaps emissions win? I don’t know 
Cheers and thanks once again.
On an Audi which I didn’t know I’d pass and advise, If it looked like there should have been one there, on an MX-5 which I do know I would probably have to fail.
I’ve been off the tools for 3 years now so am a bit out of touch with the new MOT regulations, but it doesn’t say “obviously missing” does it?
…But the “rule“ was always test to the manual, not to what you know.
Agreed no it doesn’t, but if you didn’t know the car as you say, you wouldn’t know…
To me it’s a very large “Grey Area”.
Which perhaps is why no one knows any one who has had a car failed for a cat not being there?
Rodders has obviously done quite a few of these and up to speed perhaps?
It’s a bit like modifying brake components. Some will be totally different to what the manufacturers put on. But, putting other factors aside you test the brake efficiency.
Like with the exhaust system you test the emissions…
Hope you don’t mind me asking, but have you or any of your customers had a car fail an MOT because there was “one of” the Cat’s missing in the 13 years of doing this modification?
Any other input or information would be greatly appreciated.
One could argue that as the Testers Manual says that the inspection only applies to components that are visible and identifiable, or words to that effect, then if a component is missing then it’s not visible therefore doesn’t apply to the test…
The ins and outs of an MOT discussion could go on for years. The DVSA or whatever they’re calling themselves at the moment don’t write the Testers Manual over a couple of pints…
My point exactly.
cheers, I’am off for a pint 
Off to where? 