CMC-2

[supermac]

Are there any 13" brake options for GM products in CMC-2.

The best I can tell the only upgrade you get in a 4th gen is more power, no chassis or brake upgrades, am I correct?

Also is there any advantage to running the same width tire on a bigger rim and are there any disadvantages?

Thanks

Cody

[King Matt1548534716]

8.35.9 Braking systems shall conform to the following specifications:

1. The one piece front or rear hub with rotor may be replaced with a separate hub and rotor or separate hub, rotor hat and rotor.

2. Rotors shall be of a ferrous material only and may be vented. No cross drilling or slotting is allowed.

3. The maximum front and rear rotor size shall not exceed the following dimensions:

a. All CMC GM vehicles: 12.0†diameter and 1.25†thickness

b. All CMC Ford vehicles: 12†diameter and 1.125 thickness

c. All CMC-2 vehicles: 13.1†diameter and 1.31†thickness

4. Front calipers may be updated/backdated within cars of the same manufacturer on the eligible manufacturers/models list with the following exceptions listed below:

a. All GM vehicles may use stock 98+ Camaro/Firebird 44mm dual piston calipers or C5 40mm dual piston calipers

b. Early Ford vehicles may use stock SVO calipers.

c. All CMC-2 vehicles may use any single line, aluminum bodied caliper with four or fewer pistons. Modifications to the spindle/upright to mount an alternate caliper are allowed provided their only purpose is to mount an alternate caliper.

 

I'm not sure if there is anything from the factory for the GMs that fits these parameters, but the aftermarket is wide open.

[supermac]

Thanks Matt, it was that last bit that I missed, so I can run a C5 corvette set up which is 13". Hence the need for 17" wheels. Got It.

[supermac]

So I was talking to Mitch this weekend and he thought that I was not allowed to put a LS motor in my 95 Camaro and race the Duece but the way I read the rules there is no difference between a 93-02. Can someone clarify this.

Also what is the ruling if any on the LS-2 motor, are these legal if not why?

[King Matt1548534716]

I'm not sure if there would be any objection to updating an earlier tub to the later spec engine as long as all pertinent technical chassis details remained consistent with the later model car.

 

But as far as the LS-2 goes, I can't imagine any way that would be allowed. For one thing, it's a 6.0L rated at 400hp. Plus, it never came in any car that's legal for CMC or CMC-2.

[supermac]

Sorry I meant the LS-6. It is the same size just a different intake as far as I know. I am looking for some thing more reliable. I realize that is a poor reason just thought I would ask.

[King Matt1548534716]

Again, since that engine never came in an eligible car, I can't see it being allowed. I don't see why you would have any reliability issues with a stock LS1 as long as cooling and oiling are adequate. That's been proven to be a very durable engine.

[supermac]

You are correct I was confused, in fact I don't even know what I was thinking.

[j dawes]

8.35.9 Braking systems shall conform to the following specifications:

c. All CMC-2 vehicles may use any single line, aluminum bodied caliper with four or fewer pistons. Modifications to the spindle/upright to mount an alternate caliper are allowed provided their only purpose is to mount an alternate caliper.

 

 

is the four piston caliper option noteworthy? as we've seen on the forum, and from my discussions with the MA CMC crew, some guys even run the stock single piston calipers up front.

 

just curious, why the addition of the 4 piston option, or am i reading this wrong and the rule really hasn't changed?

 

i can definitely say that i'm not running out and dropping $2,100 on the Griggs PRO setup!!!!

 

thanks.

[Glenn]

in a round about way the LS6 is legal, and i'll explain.

the LS6 block was installed in some 4th gens from the factory, this has been confirmed. they were not advertised as LS6 equiped cars, but it was there. at this time the LS6 block is the only block you can get as a GM replacement for the LS1/6. the LS1 block has not been produced since late 2000-2001 time frame. also the LS6 intake was the stock intake for all 2002 4th gens. so it is legal due to the update/backdate rule. the heads and cam are a different story. the LS6 cam was a Vett only cam and i do not think it was ever put in a factory 4th gen. the heads (LS1 vs LS6) are an unknown to me also. it could be that the LS6 heads were stock on a few 4th gens and i just dont know about it.

 

so is the LS6 a better motor than the LS1? not at the level we are playing. there are some differences in the block related to windage in the crankcase, but otherwise, they are the same. the LS6 heads are better, but i think its just a different port design. those will make more power.

 

none of this is differnt than the TPI motor stuff. the later years are more desireable than the earlier years.

[King Matt1548534716]

is the four piston caliper option noteworthy?

Yes, it's very noteworthy. For one thing, it allows the Mustangs to run the Brembo four-piston Cobra R calipers, as well as many high-end aftermarket systems from Wilwood, Outlaw, Brake Man, etc. BTW, this option is allowed in CMC-2 only, not CMC.

[jeffburch]

Why are 5 liter cars not eligible for cmc2 presently?

(see top of page 6 in rules)

 

jb

[Keith]

Why are 5 liter cars not eligible for cmc2 presently?

(see top of page 6 in rules)

 

jb

 

My guess is that they have enough trouble making CMC power levels within the allowed modifications. I think that the CMC-2 power levels might be out of reach.

[supermac]

Yeah but if they want to run down on power I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to. And don't give me the dilution of the class story, this was bound to happen when this was created.

Edited November 14, 2007 by Guest

[doug1548534725]

I'm sure something will be coming that will get the 5.0 liter guys up into CMC2 power levels. Maybe blowers?

[Glenn]

i talked w/ Al today about the possibility of allowing the OEM 350's in the 3rd gens for CMC-2. its a thought (thanks JB) and will surely be considered. as for the Fords? who knows, but its could be just a head and can change along w/ a better intake (GT-40?). if you want to be a part of the solution, pony up some data to show how you would solve the problem. dont just give what you think should be done, provide hard data.

[King Matt1548534716]

The way the CMC-2 rule reads now, you can run an SN-95 Mustang with a pushrod 5.0L in CMC or CMC-2, but a Fox must run in CMC. It's the exact same engine, and the cars are classed as equals in CMC, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the people who created the class simply do not want the older bodystyles to compete in the new class.

 

Since the stated intent is to eventually phase out CMC and roll all the cars into a single CMC-2 class or the equivalent, something will have to be done to give the Foxes and 3rd Gens a place to run, because I don't foresee those cars falling by the wayside by choice, or interest in racing them waning much in the next 5, 10 or 20 years. Millions were made and people will be racing them somewhere, somehow for the rest of our lives and beyond, just like people are still racing MGs and Triumphs.

 

We aren't the only class going through this. A Sedan is trying to work out a new engine rule that will allow late-model EFI cars to run with carb'ed 302s, 305s, and even 350s. No easy task. At some point, you probably do just need to cut off some older cars because the myriad permutations of legal combinations just becomes too complicated to police unless you have a power/weight formula like AI.

[jeffburch]

Well, NASA has a clear advantage in forward thinking on this very issue.

That being the use of a dyno.

My point simply is, as the way the rules are written presently, I can't do CMC2.

We all know the newer cars are the wave of the future and thats terrific.

But 5L cars are excluded right now as wriiten and that is not cool.

 

jb

[Tony G]

Its probably my turn to post some kind of a response here .

When we decided we needed another way to let the new higher HP cars into the group we started CMC2, but from day one we we did not like splitting it up, and we still really don't.

So, we are working on a way to get it back to one as it was, and as you can see the talk is starting already by all of you which is actually great to see.

Basically you guys on on the right track by saying why can't we do this or that to make the HP increase to match the CMC2 numbers, but its not so simple to do just that.

So now its up to your directors to come up with a plan to make this all work out without affecting anyone in a way to make them do something they dont want to do,which is the hard part in all of this.

We maybe should stick a poll on here to see how many of you would be interested in doing this to your CMC cars ( adding more HP ).

One thing is for sure and that is that I want one group and not 2, but how long that takes will be up to all of us to decide and to make sure CMC stays strong and gets stronger.

Email me or your director and cc me with your comments, as I would love to hear from you.

Thanks,

Tony Guaglione

CMC National Director

[email protected]

[TurboShortBus]

As I stated in another thread, I come from a drag racing and engine-building background. I see some of the CMC rules as being similar to index-style drag racing (not bracket racing, but index...there's a difference). There's a 12.50 index class in one of the Ford series. You can bring anything you want...small block, big block, 4-banger, blower, turbo, nitrous, whatever. Just don't run any quicker than 12.50 seconds in the quarter mile. Run 12.499, and you're on the trailer. Everybody is aiming for the same bullseye, but they can use whatever darts they want (it's all in the wrist, anyway lol).

 

With the CMC power/torque/weight charts, this is similar to index racing. If you're making 230 hp and 300 tq while weighing 3150 lbs (Tables 1 and 2 for Fords), then who really cares how you got to those power numbers? You could easily achieve that with a beefed up V6 or a turbo 4 banger. Now, I can see the possibility of cheating after your dyno session or during a race (crank the boost up a little, etc.), and the desire of the officials to eliminate dishonest shenanigans, but anybody can find ways to increase their power output on-track if they are sandbagging in tech.

 

So, if somebody really wants to run a pushrod 5.0L in CMC-2, why can't they just slap a mild set of heads and intake on there so that it makes the power numbers in Tables 3 or 4, then just make sure that the weight is correct for that combination?

 

Mark

[Glenn]

you missing the "power under the curve" part of HP/TQ. if we just put a 230/300 limit on the class, anyone w/ the budget will get a $10K motor built that makes 230/300 from 2K to 6K. this series is all about preventing that. i know of no other class of racing where a $10K car built in ones own garage is considered overkill.

back to the point. if we allow billet cranks and H beam rods and bla, bla bla, we are also providing a reliability advantage to those who can afford it. once again, this series is not about who has the deepest pockets or whos willing to 2nd, 3rd mortgage thier house. its about who can drive. if this class was anymore limited engine wise, they would hand out motors friday for you to run for the weekend.

road racing is nothing like index racing. index racing's challenge is about adjusting the car to the track, weather, alt, ect..., - thats the challege of index racing. i dont see a big deal in running a 12.50 w/ a car thats able to run a 10.0 if it ran flat out. CMC is like taking a 12.50 car and figuring out how to get a 12.49 out of it.

 

dont take this the wrong way and i hope i dont offend you. build a legal CMC car (read the rules - if it doesnt say you can, you cant!), get to the track, leave your pride at home and be prpaired to be humbled your first weekend. i cant tell you how many guys (including me) was devistated when they found thenselves 2-3 seconds off the pace thier first weekend racing in CMC. big heavy underpowered car w/ no grip and small brakes - giveme goose bumps just typing it.

 

i've rambled on enough. i hope it all made sence. and please dont let me run you off - i'm really a nice guy, just ask Matt King.

[TurboShortBus]

i've rambled on enough. i hope it all made sence. and please dont let me run you off - i'm really a nice guy, just ask Matt King.

 

Huh? Not to worry...there's no danger of me getting offended here!

 

Don't get me wrong...I like the idea of snatching an engine out of a wrecked car, dunking it into a mildly prepared road racer, and heading out to tear it up. I have no desire to get myself into an American Iron spending contest. That's why I'm heading in the CMC direction, even if it means I'd be the only retard in the whole state of Florida with a CMC car! At best, it will be the 2009 season before I'm able to actually run CMC (getting past HPDE, my own stupidity, etc.), so maybe there will be another car or two by then.

 

Mark

[Keith]

HEY! I resemble that remark. I am STILL the only retard with a CMC car in the state of Pennsylvania.

[TurboShortBus]

HEY! I resemble that remark. I am STILL the only retard with a CMC car in the state of Pennsylvania.

 

So, am I a moron for planning to build a car to run in a region where there are no other cars? At this point, there's a slight difference between what I would "like" to build (won't fit into any real rules anywhere), and what would fit into the rules.

 

Mark

[Glenn]

build it, they will come.