ls168camaro Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Todd-I am not worried about the new camaro at all. I am worried when the owner of the series says he is going to change something but we don't know what that is. I don't know if he is talking about the power of an engine, the powers of the directors/participants or his own power over the series? I would just like to know what is being looked at, why, and on what basis the changes are made. This also makes me wonder if changes would ever be put to a vote by the participants in the series? It could definitely have an impact on someone looking at different platforms/engines. Just look at the CMC2 tables 3 and 4 and you will see that they don't follow the same power to weight ratios. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony G Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Couple of answers: 1) I'm not the owner of the CMC series..we all are as is NASA. 2) We will adjust CMC 2 power levels for 2009 to aprox 265Hp maximum,don't ask or reply with input to this as that would be too far a head of the planned change and its not final as to what we will do. Remember: We did the same thing in CMC..reduced max power levels( no heavy high HP cars), so CMC2 will follow suit. 3) Also remember that the Toyo R888 will be the spec tire for CMC in 2009 . PM me or call me if you need to. Thanks, Tony Guaglione CMC National Director Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redding CMCer Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Tony...I think we talked about the tire situation and didn't we come to the conclusion that both the R888 and the RA1 will be accepted next year? For those of us who just bought a set of RA1s we should be able to run them out, correct? Thanks...see you this weekend. Gary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redding CMCer Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Sorry for the change of topic!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony G Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Toyo will not give out Toyo bucks for the RA1 use for 2009, so they are demanding that the R888 is now the tire for 2009,however you can run your RA1's next year in practice sessions to burn them up,or just use them up this year like I'm doing. I already have a few sets of the R888's in my garage knowing that the RA1 is going away and out of production,so any tires that you may be buying should follow suit for RA1's this year and R888's for next. Tony Guaglione Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ls168camaro Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Thanks for the answers Tony and the clarification on the 888's. I too was under the impression that you could run either tire next year. Maybe that is a sticky (or should be) and I missed it. I was not in CMC when the power levels were reduced so I don't know anything about that. I am assuming this was done when the 4th gen and 4.6's hit the track? Were they originally a heavier higher hp car in CMC? So if CMC2 will follow suit with you saying no heavy high hp cars am I correct in assuming that the minimum weights for Table 4 would drop more in line with Table 3? That could have a good impact on lessening the need to upgrade brakes for cars in Table 4. I understand that it is early for rules changes but it is great to know what might be changed for next year. It can really help people who are building a car right now so that they can build to 2009 rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony G Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Hey Bryan, Yes, I would think that table 4 would just go away. It will be real easy to change as we did with CMC last year,and the big HP cars would just have to restrict a bit more ( which we have done and the testing is complete). The Big Hp cars would then be able to remove the weight they are running with. I'll have some more info on a new post after this weekend. The tire deal was more recent with TOYO ( our best sponsor) letting us know what they wanted for 2009. Again that will be a sticky next week. Thanks, Tony Guaglione Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ls168camaro Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 Thanks for the info Tony. I'll get some smaller restrictors to try on my LS1-if anyone needs restrictors for an LS1 let me know. This makes me curiuos about going to a smaller injector to keep the AFR in line. The rules say they must be the same OEM rating but what about going to a smaller size? Would this be acceptable? I don't see this having any performance advantage or am I wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffburch Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 I wonder what this would do for numbers sitting under my TPI manifold? http://www.gmperformanceparts.com/EngineShowcase/index.jsp At $1850, for a future spec engine, it's a bargain. GM part number 12499529 http://www.lowcostengines.com/12499529.htm jb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ls168camaro Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Todd-this is also what I thought about for the 3rd Gen GM guys-http://www.crateenginedepot.com/store/350-Crate-Engine-290-HP-HO-12499529-P824C53.aspxI think trying to incorporate the new Camaro with the power will be interesting but is probably 15 years away. It is now 6 years since the last Camaro was made and 10 years since the LS1 was introduced and we are only now allowing it to run and seeing them on track. Yet we still don't know how things will be integrated so it doesn't seem things move to fast. Glenn makes a good point that the SCCA T2 cars have a definite lifespan and after that they become candicates for CMC. Thats where my car came from. JB-thats what I was talking about. Wouldn't you rather be able to buy a brand new engine for 1850 instead of rebuilding? Might that also put your numbers inline with CMC2 and let you move up if 3rd gens were allowed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadracerwhite Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 I would still rather rebuild my engine than buy a crate motor. 1850 is still more than the AI engine I toook out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Matt1548534716 Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 In the world of small-block Chevys, you can get quite a lot of engine for under 2 grand, but for someone who doesn't want to deal with a rebuild, that crate engine is a pretty decent foundation for a cam and intake swap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redding CMCer Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 I've got a question the I haven't seen addressed yet. JB...The 350/290 HP motors you have in your post...I assume those numbers are at the flywheel. How much HP/TQ do you lose to the rear wheels? i.e. What kind of numbers does a motor have to make to get say 237HP/300TQ at the rear wheels? Gary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffburch Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Gary, That 350 is the c.i. not the hp. I would hope the numbers from it would be closer to what CMC will be in the future. 260/310 per Table 3. jb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Matt1548534716 Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 There are many variables that affect this, especially with an inertia dyno, including the type of transmission and rear end, lubricants, rear gear ratio, wheel weight, etc. I have done this test once on a Mustang with 4.10s, an 8.8, and a T-5, and the difference from engine dyno to chassis dyno was 17 percent, from 406hp flywheel to 340 RWHP. So I typically start with that percentage when estimating with an 8.8 and T5. However, keep in mind that the drivetrain loss is not really a true percentage of flywheel power, as it only takes a given amount of horsepower to turn the drivetrain components downstream of the flywheel, regardless of the amount of power available to turn it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakebit Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Gary, I would hope the numbers from it would be closer to what CMC will be in the future. 260/310 per Table 3. jb I've hard mentions of HP changes coming down the pipe. I'll continue my build per the current rules set, but........what's going on? Officially or unofficially. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Matt1548534716 Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 I've hard mentions of HP changes coming down the pipe. I'll continue my build per the current rules set, but........what's going on? Officially or unofficially. http://www.camaromustangchallenge.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2889 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comeback kid Posted July 8, 2008 Author Share Posted July 8, 2008 So Matt, What would you like for me to experiment with for engine pakages? The 305 is at the point for camshaft install, I haven't bought one yet. Remember, next year I'll be going through the HPDE route for my Competition license, so I will not be interfering with CMC points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redding CMCer Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 JB...Of course you are right. I meant 290HP/326 TQ. I just noticed the post by Tony about the changes for 2010. Would these numbers be enough to get 260/300 at the rear wheels? I'm just trying to plan ahead for the change and don't want to end up where I am now with low numbers all the way around. I can only afford to do this once. What do you think? Gary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffburch Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Who the hell knows. I sure don't want a carburator I know that. Ford guys have finally got their 17" wheels. Where are 3G guys gonna find them? Huh HUH? Someone buy my car now please or just shoot me! jb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Who the hell knows.Ford guys have finally got their 17" wheels. Where are 3G guys gonna find them? Huh HUH? jb Right next to the busted up T5s, stacks of 2" wheel spacers and worn out wheel bearings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady in Nomex Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Hawk's Third gen has a selection, here are some that will work with spacers: http://www.hawksthirdgenparts.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=1992 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comeback kid Posted July 9, 2008 Author Share Posted July 9, 2008 Sombody call Ronal Wheels quick! Need to start making the 17" Firehawk wheels again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffburch Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Sombody call Ronal Wheels quick!Need to start making the 17" Firehawk wheels again. I already did several months ago. They laughed at me in german. I'd rather have the option to stay on 16's. jb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 I think the option to keep on 16s will be there but... Like I kept being told about the reasoning behind the (old) rules and why they didn't allow little items (if it doesn't say you can, you can't) is that if someone did something and started to win, then everyone would feel that they needed to do that same thing to win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.