Jump to content

What does "OEM Stock configuration" mean for engin


alexands

Recommended Posts

Reason I ask is that Hot Rod magazine has a multi-part series on building a CMC Mustang. They went with an after market crank, lightweight aftermarket rods, and, I believe, lightweight pistons. All of this was done after checking with Tony G. it says. In my opinion that really doesn't qualify as "OEM Stock". So, what do those words mean?

 

The standard "Everything is in the rule book. And if it doesn't say you can, then you can't, so don't ask" answer doesn't work all of the time. This is a clear example.

 

I'm just trying to map out a strategy for my build and want to be sure I have all of the facts. I hope others who read this rule related post will also learn something.

 

Thanks

Scott

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott,

Great questions,and I was amazed at the Hot Rod article myself.

In no way would I ever say "you can use a aftermarket Scat 4340 cranks/light rods/or superlight pistons".

I think Matt needs to do next months article and recant what he has said,because the use of "no engine teardown" really is an abusive way to say well then I can do what ever I want since no one will or can check it.

Come on 90% of us are using junkyard motors with 50-100K on them,which is what CMC is all about.

The article is way off what CMC really is,so I'll call Matt and set this whole thing straight.

I really don't know why anyone would even think of doing anything to the inside of these motors anyway.

In Hot Rods case they are doing a build up which is great,but none of us would do it like the magazine suggests,which is quite normal.

Take Todd Covini's Mustang,it has a bone stock factory crate 302 in it and was right up to the 230/300 without touching it,and it has been running perfectly for over 3 years.

How many times do I have to say this...its not your motor that will make you fast, its the driver.

I have passed so many 300-400hp cars that I can't count them all,and yes it makes me feel really good when my $1,200 motor is faster than their $10,000 motor....get it??

This is not corner carvers,so lets move on,and again Scott really good points..Thanks,

Matt email me privately or I'll get a hold of you to talk,since I know none of this is intentional in anyway.

Tony Guaglione

CMC Chief Director

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the "guilty" party, let me try to set the record straight. First of all, I did not mean to imply that Tony approved the parts I used, although I did discuss it with him beforehand. However, while I accept full responsibility for being in technical violation of the rules, I must note that I have it on good authority that I am not the only person with non-stock internal components in a CMC engine.

 

I hope that a few facts will be considered, foremost among them being that the engine in question produced 223 hp at 4,400 rpm and 275 lb-ft at 3,900 rpm on a Dynojet chassis dyno at Paul's High Performance in Jackson, Michigan. The cam, heads, and exhaust manifolds are stock from a 91 50 HO, and the carb and intake are the spec Holley and Edelbrock parts. That should be proof enough that internal balancing does not constitute a performance advantage beyond the hope of increased long-term durability, which is why I did it.

 

There seems to be a lot of confusion about the perceived benefit of internally balancing an engine. The main reason for it is to move the external weight balance on the damper and flywheel from the ends of the crank and onto the crank throws where the weight is supported by the bearings rather than flexing the crank from each end. For any given bobweight, there is no net change to the rotating mass of the crankshaft whether the engine is internally or externally balanced. An internally balanced engine will not necessarily rev faster or make more power than an externally balanced one, but it will have less stress on its crankshaft. The conversion costs a few more bucks, but I don't see it as any different than choosing to buy a $1,000 Recaro seat rather than a $150 Kirkey. I understand the desire to keep the costs of the series in check, but if everyone running an externally balanced Ford engine went out and had it converted to internal balance, it wouldn't change the results of a single race. Besides, all pre-86 Chevy 305s and 350s and the Ford mod motors are already internally balanced, so it's just leveling the playing field.

 

The CMC rules are extremely vague in regard to internal modifications, and the "gray area" rule does not provide all the answers. A prime example is the recent discussion here about pistons. Without implementing a teardown policy, there is absolutely no way to enforce any internal engine modification rule, but in my opinion, CMC does not need internal engine restrictions because the mandated power limits make them moot.

 

Frankly, I really don't see what the big deal is. I used a good crank and rods so the engine will last a long time and maybe I can step up to AI in the future without having to build another short-block. It makes 223 RWHP, so where is the competitive advantage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony and Matt,

 

Thanks for the clarification. I was hoping you would respond the way you did I really don't won't to get into a bunch of internal mods. That's what is so cool about the CMC series. I agree with you, Tony, about not being the HP, but the skill level. Again, something else I find attractive about the series.

 

Just sold my 944 Turbo race car last night! That means I give the wife 2 months to relax and enjoy the fact that I'm not wasting time and money on race cars, then I'll buy a 3rd gen and get started on my CMC project. She is so going to kill me, but once it's in you blood, there's no turning back. You guys understand.

 

Scott

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My view of mods to the engine are as follows: I don't care what a competitor does as long as he's in compliance on weight and power. The reality is that certain-year Mustangs will struggle to make enough power to be competitive without modifications. With that in mind (and as an f-body driver), I will "look the other way" when it comes to Mustang motors because I want a level playing field - this is for fun.

 

...in fact, I am kinda wondering why we even get excited about engine mods... Yeah, someone could build a motor with torque with a larger area under the curve and still be within the rules (GM L98's come to mind) but if someone is into engineering and modifying that much, I have to believe he's going to want to run AI eventually anyway.

 

Unfortunately, I didn't see the article. Based on what I am seeing here, I would not protest Matt as long as the scale and the dyno show he's within limits. Geez, these cars are so underpowered for the weight that the driver is the overriding "mod" anyway.

 

Just a noob's view, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my two cents - I agree with Tony. And Matt. And Kieth.

 

OEM spec means from the manufacturer, or an equivalent built to those specs. Meaning, if heads were cast iron, aluminum ones aren't legal. Same goes for internals. Cast cranks = cast cranks. No titanium one's allowed. Everybody follow so far?

 

Now, we do have HP/TQ limits, which we all agree on. And there's no teardown. So as long as the numbers match, we're all equal, right? I don't think so. Less mass = faster spin up. Think lightened flywheels. Hmm, they're not legal either.

 

Regardless, if you blow a motor, you can get a junkyard version, or build one up. If you build, you're going to try to "do it right", meaning ever increasing $$ for items that provide next to zero benefit. I don't see the argument on longevity when stock motors can easily go 250,000 street miles. We might run 200 miles in a weekend, so less than 2000 a year? Any reason to think a stock motor can't make it 1% of a given life at 100% output? Hell, I'd argure that in 250,000 miles, a street engine HAS seen that many WOT miles, and it's stiill running. Cooling and oiling will make a CMC motor last, not aftermarket parts.

 

Now, do I care if 'Billy' has an unobtanium crank? Not one bit. However, if new guys come into the series and see that 'Billy' has one, they'll think they need one. THEY DON'T.

 

And that's the reason for the rules. These things aren't NEEDED, so don't allow them. Everyone already in the series gets this, new guys don't. Seriously, you don't see any veterans asking if a certain part is legal, or if they can buy the latest 'goodie', do you?

 

Unfortunately a by-product of getting popular are these kind of questions. I see either more strict enforcement by the directors, or a move towards a real 'spec' series. One that says 'THESE 2 shocks are legal, THIS sway bar, THAT panhard bar'. Then there wouldn't be discussions like these, and we'd get back to racing, and not get to the point of 50 protests a weekend. That's why I'm in NASA, and not another series...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Matt

Its really disappointing that you are trying to go in the exact opposite direction then CMC is intended. You spent more money on the crank, rods, and pistons than most CMC guys spend on their entire assembled motor. We havent even touched the machine shop bill, this is just your parts!

 

Then, you keep writing about "grey areas". The only reason you think the internal engine parts rules are vague is because you're trying to reverse justify doing what you want. That's all your argument hinges on: you want to do what you want and you dont care to listen otherwise. The rules even say if you think its a grey area, ask for clarification from a director prior to competition. How confusing or vague is that?

 

Now, other people may indeed be cheating, but I dont understand how that justifies your cheating. You're certainly setting a fine example for others. Frankly, especially because you're in a position to potentially influence a lot of people due to your magazine, I would've thought you'd go out of your way to do things right. Its really a shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Al,

 

Before you make statements like that again, why don't you take a survey of what some of your fellow directors are running in their own engines. I think it's far more disappointing that people are being told one thing publicly and a different thing privately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt, I just deleted a lonnng reply to your postings and your HOT ROD series...I'm going to try to sum up my feelilngs in just several areas.

1. YOUR ENGINE IS ILLEGAL FOR CMC. Way, way illegal. You have shown an incredible lack of journalistic integrity in your HOT ROD articles by mixing in your interpretation and justificatiion for building a blatantly cheater motor. READ THE RULES. If it doesn't say you can do, you can't.

2. Your casting aspersions upon the CMC directors is without foundation and pure drivel. They must be Caesar's wife in this series. Many people new to the series mistake driving ability for horsepower. 'Tain't so.

3. Yes, there is cheating in CMC (there isn't a race series on the planet where someone isn't cheating) but it's amazing how the continual enforcement of the rules and the NO GREY AREAS help stem that and allow a newcomer to build a car and be on an equal footing with a 10 year veteran. And the penalties for cheating are the most severe of any series I've ever run. Read the rule book. You have done a real disservice to the CMC series and newcomers by endorsing blatant and costly cheating. It isn't necessary to build supermotors, as point of fact, with our 4th gen. Camaro CMC builds all we do to the engines is slap on new plugs, optispark, wires and a throttle body restrictor and we're at legal horsepower with an engine that will race for years (our oldest 4th gen build has been running 4 full seasons without a hiccup). You really took the wrong approach with this article. I believe an explanation and retraction of your misleading statements and innuendo are called for in the soonest possible issue of HOT ROD. I will be writing a letter to the editor decrying the content and attitude of your articles.

4. Here's the core of CMC racing: cheap cars, easy to build, safety the prime consideration, equal playing field.

5. I think a teardown requirement is needed. As Brad notes it is easy to hit the legal horsepower and torque figures but for big bucks you can build an engine that makes the horsepower quicker (like your lightweight reciprocating parts) and where you want it. Two of the three SCCA Pacific Coast Road Racing Championships I won in Camaros required a full heads off engine teardown before I was awarded the win. One year I finished second on the track but first after teardown (for some reason the ported and polished heads, zero deck block weren't in the rules for showroom stock). CMC needs this type of enforcement as the series grows. Any of the top 5 should be open to engine teardown and once done, sealed with tamperproof seals such as used in SCCA Spec Racer Ford. They work. Or get more realistic on dyno runs and require maximums of horsepower and torque at certain RPM to forestall "cheater legal" engines.

I hate seeing any of this necessary as it does complicate CMC racing but the bigger we grow the more the potential is for newcomers and veterans alike to want to spend that $$$ (which is always best spent on driving lessons in my opinion)

It is a problem...your article just points out how some people just can't read the rules without "interpreting" them. This is one reason why this series is so great. This bulletin board clears up any questions before you build and the directors are all eager to help and guide newcomers on the right path.

 

Yes, this is my short version. I leave many other issues to those better suited to address them. Matt, see you in the American Iron class, or just go to the junk yard and join CMC and have fun. Richard "can you believe I held my breathe the entire time I typed th is?" Pryor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are problems with some of the rules in CMC, and blaming me for pointing them out is easy to do but very short-sighted. I'm not the only person who reads rules and looks for the gray areas in them rather than treating them as black and white. I am sorry that I have embarassed some of you by pointing out the loophole in the no-teardown clause, but that does not change the fact that the loophole is there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the gray area that forced me to post this and ask the question. If the Hot Rod article was accurate I would be thouroughly confused. I'm a fairly educated newbie, but this series will invite many great people who do not have the racing experience I have and may not bother asking the questions. Instead they will make a sport of seeking out the loopholes. Afterall, cheating is a science in the most popular American racing series (NASCAR). There are books dedicated to that subject. It's a natural part of the sport in American V8 racing, unfortunately.

 

I've understood the rules to mean that the components have to made either by GM or Ford, or be made by someone else to the exact specs. That means no "improved" components made to other specs (4130 cranks or lightweight pistons). This, to me, is what makes this series so attractive and will be key to its success (read: Spec Miata). Competitors have the freedom to "get creative" within the stock confines as long as they don't exceed the power/weight ratio. Perfect!!!

 

Maybe a wording change in the rules could clarify this. Porsche Club has some very clear verbage regarding it's stock class:

 

"As delivered from the factory. No modification after the air filter or before the exhaust port." Basically, if it didn't come from the factory or is not made to exact factory specs, IT'S NOT LEGAL!!!! PERIOD!!!!

 

Having said that, let me put myself in Matt's shoes. I'm going to make some assumptions here, so bear with me. The Hot Rod magazine demographic spends most of their car dollars on engine builds. As a magazine that caters to drag racers and muscel car folks, they really aren't too concerned about camber, spring rates, and braking ability. They want to know what size cam you have. If you look at Hot Rod advertising at least 80% of it is engine components. What Matt said certainly makes the series more attractive to their readership. I could be completely wrong. If so, Matt, please forgive me. If I am right, I probably would have suggested they cover an AI build. Just my "theory". No offense intended.

 

so this is my $.03. I've already blown my .02. Hope I didn't ruffle any feathers, but I think I opened a useful dialog.

 

I'm heading to Motor Sport Ranch tomorrow to check out my first CMC race and meet some "local boys (Todd & Adam)." Just sold my 944 Turbo race car today and will be starting my CMC build shortly. I hope I can do my part to make this series live up to it's potential. Fun days ahead !!:D

 

Scott

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am currently building a camero to CMC spec's to run on HPDE day's and hopfully to compete as a CMC'er one day, the thing that made me choose CMC was the lack of "GRAY" area ..........Read my lips if it does'nt say you can you can't ........... The post's over the last week have made me want to choose another class ....... can this be fixed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, this thread has gotten out of hand! Please, Mr. Guest, don't judge the whole barrel based on these apples! Come out to the track and see us, this is NOT what we are about. We are about low budget fun- learning to drive with some of the best drivers in NASA, putting on the best show every race weekend, and having a blast together!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No ,I don't think this can or should be stopped. I am currently building a 89 Mustang to compete in CMC in the SE and TX regions. The usefullness of this forum the questions asked and answered here provide most if not all the answers even a rookie like myself building a car need.I have posted questions here and have talked to both Tony and Todd over the phone, and you can get all the answers you seek before you ever turn a wrench. Matt will take a beating for the article and the way it was worded, there will be more people that are attracted to this series because of our loopholes or grey areas. That is why I appriciate this forum and the answers given here,that coupled with the directors willingness to be contacted and give you answers you didn't find here provides no grey areas or loopholes. I argee with R.P. we not have a teardown clause, but as Matt has identified himself as running illegal parts he may have one to look forward to, or take it to A.I. IMO if you really must spend the money try building a sister car to TONY and then try to out run him around the track and you'll find out it this series is just what they have been telling you it was the entire time. A drivers series not a car series, seat time ,seat time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a conversation with Tim Bullock I think he summed it up with one phrase. "This is a gentleman's class". I never considered myself a gentleman but the connotation of the statement rings loud and clear. So do the rules. As I see it this is a class for relaxed weekend warriors on a level playing field. In every class that I have participated there have been a few standouts and everyone wonders why they are so fast. I've learned the hard way that you can't buy your way to a win. If I had a 100 more HP than Tony he would still lap me at least once. The only way that I can win is to drive better than everyone else. Engine teardowns? NO WAY! If I have to take a day off from work or skip a precious lazy weekend day to put my engine back together because some other racer "might" have a lightweight crank then this isn't the class for me. I was excited to see the article but extremely saddened when I saw that the engine build-up used obviously illegal parts. But what actually pissed me off was the attempt to justify it by the alleged action of others. Cheating because you think that someone else is doing it doesn't make you righteous. An article in a national magazine has a tremendous amount of influence and therefore carries a tremendous responsibility. It would be a tragedy to ruin this class by publicizing it. A retraction and clarification would be appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Matt

You just arent seeing it. You havent exactly discovered gold here with your thinking that there are grey areas in the rules, and you certainly havent embarrased anyone with that line of reasoning. Everyone thinks there are grey areas the first couple of times they read a rulebook! Everyone starts off by thinking the rules could/should be different. There isn't a race series on earth any different in that regard!!!!

 

The reality is you have to read ALL of the rules, not just the ones you think you can break. After a bit people always come around to realize the package we have just plain works. It isn't the best series for the good engineers or master fabricators, but it is the best series for drivers.

 

Now, where you are actually embarrasing yourself is by continuing to state that your cheating is ok because you a) chose to ignore the rules and b) think other people are cheating as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a long talk with Tony G. this morning and while he understands that the violations I committed were not made with any intention to gain a competitive advantage, I nonetheless misjudged the impact my decision would have on the series, and for that I apologize to all current CMC competitors and anyone who may be considering entering the series. I strongly believe in the CMC concept, which I hope will be apparent as the remaining magazine installments unfold over the next few months, and I will do my best to rectify any harm I may have already caused to the series. Hot Rod Magazine always welcomes contructive criticism of its editorial content, so please forward your comments to the editor for consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt,

It is unfortunate that you had to get caught up in all this. I think folks still need to understand that, as you've stated, you are a huge advocate of CMC. No one was more excited than me when I started to see your articles come out in Hot Rod. I'm sure that when the dust settles here, folks will realize that the good in your articles can far outweigh the bad.

 

With regard to the engine buildup story and the posts here, I've been biting my lip for some time. We get related questions in other areas of the rules and the mentality of OEM in the rules can mean different things. That is where the phone calls or emails to the director come in. (We just went thru it with a few Texans that thought their motor mounts had to come from Ford or GM and that AutoZone "OEM replacement" motor mounts wouldn't do.)

 

In your case, clearly building an indestructible engine with high dollar parts is a competitive advantage. It is very different than your analogy of the $1200 Momo seat and the $120 Kirkey seat. If everyone is running a stock engine and one individual has an illegal, indestructible engine, he will be the last man standing at some point, and not because of his driving abilities. Leveling the playing field must also mean that the chances of failure between the cars is also equal, within reason.

 

I've said it before, the series will only rise to the "highest cost dominator".

We are trying our best to keep that cost number low, the fun high and the competition close.

 

These are growing pains and part of going National with the series.

With the magazine coverages, lots of new folks will be sticking their heads in here and no-one wants to stay if it stinks. We have no place for tension and ill-will for another racer...too much fun & competition to worry about it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never even had the valve covers off my '92 Mustang CMC car in 5 years of CMC racing. After 4 more years, it's new owner just changed the valvesprings as preventive maintenence. That's the original motor folks.

 

Todd just set a new track record with a Ford reman short-block.

 

Since people are giving opinions, I'll give mine. I don't see an issue with someone building a blueprinted motor as long as people considering the series aren't led to believe this is the norm. If you do build a shortblock, I believe the rotating assembly components should weigh the same as the stock assembly, the pistons should have the same ring and valve relief config, pistons should yield stock compression, rings should be stock tension, and ring end gaps should be stock spec.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have to admit I was not fully understanding what the CMC was made for and had it in my head about the whole staying competetive thing. But the more that i have learned about cmc the more that i figure out that I have been wrong in alot of my questions. But reading all these replies has made me understand that I can save even more $$$ because i don't need to do all the crap to the motor that i was thiking. or even the tranny. So all thoise that think that I was being stupid.... well I was. I am also glad to see that things got straitened out with this whole thing. I was reading that article and i have to admit that i was a little misled. .......Now would anyone want to help get this turdbird workin? heheheh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...