BIG CMC announcement.

[RichV]

That's a good idea. We should do a seperate post on each engine and propose ideas on getting to the #'s required. Also, post what you would like to see as a allowable mod.

 

The 350/347's are a no-brainer but are not yet allowed.

[jeffburch]

Yup.

jb

[Dave Schotz]

347 stroker motors don't seem like a 'no brainer' in the engine dept. to me.

 

350's & 351's maybe... but It's hard to believe the 302's are going to have difficultly making 30 hp... with some bolt on's.

 

I mean... 5.0 camp... make up your mind... you either are afraid to spend money... or you want to break the bank? I'm confused.

 

As to all this back and forth... if you want the class to die... than just call it Dinosaur racing... and only allow 3rd Gen Camaro's & Fox body mustangs.

 

Of the current registered list I only count three 5.0's (Mustangs) and only 1 Fox body...

95 Mustang (5.0)

98 Mustang (4.6)

84 Firebird (5.0)

94 Mustang (5.0)

87 Firebird (5.0)

95 Camaro (5.7)

89 Firebird (5.0)

89 Camaro (5.0)

89 Mustang (5.0)

 

I was registered in the LS1 5.7... but based on what looks to just be unfortunate low participation chose the class that was close to at least 10 entrants.

 

When I built the CMC car, I knew CMC2 was about testing what would be necessary to merge the classes... why is it coming out like it's something new here???

 

Sheesh... where are the arguments from all those guys complaining about 'Finding Good OEM parts'? Heck... JB... I know you personally were mentioning how scarce finding the high flow exhaust manifolds are for the 305... etc...

 

Now as to mods... and what people are comfortable with... I don't know... I (at least think) Headers & Intake, and ECU tuning... get all the 3rd Gens where they need to be in the Fuel Injected level. 3rd Gen Carb... may need a better cam & better intake??? But I believe Cams of any kind are a slippery slope...

 

For the 4.6 guys... we definitely know Pulleys, intake & tune... can get them 260 to the rear...

 

for the 5.0 Mustangs... same thing.... intake, GT40 Parts, headers, and a tune.

 

Sorry... ECU tuning is inevitable...

 

Either way... I just hope they do the class combination sooner than later... I for one am looking for all 'Camaros & Mustangs' (Ok Firebirds too!) to be racing together.

 

And just for the record... my 224 RWHP Camaro ran within 2 Seconds of my 279 RWHP LS1 Firebird at Willow Springs (Pure HP Track)... just ask those who were there... And most of us running the faster CMC 1 cars, have noticed we've been very close to the faster CMC2 cars... so honestly... it sure seems like the cars only need a minor bit of help. My CMC 1 car has the 255 -16's... and the CMC2 car has the 275-17's as well.

 

Looking forward to seeing everyone in Mid Ohio in September.

 

Peace,

Dave

 

P.S. For the record... I was able to constrain my self for the first 15 pages of discussion without getting involved!

[jeffburch]

I crated up your trophy this eve.

Enjoy.

jb

[Dave Schotz]

Lol I'm sure quite a few other racers will have something to say about that!

On a more serious note, JB, what would you race in the Cmc series if your car were to sell?

[Flash Gordan]

I've been trying to complete my car for the last two years and just when I finally think I've gotten the motor right, now I have to get more power out of it. To those people that think we all have large bank accounts to go raid to buy new parts, think again. I've been nickel and dimeing it for so long that I don't know what new parts are anymore. As much as I'd love to hit the lottery and go out and buy myself a newer car to race in, it's not happening anytime soon. So I'll keep building up my '79. My .02 is that while CMC2 is great for the newer cars that make lots of power. I'd like to see that there is a regular CMC for us guys that are still trying to keep the bills paid without going into serious debt or having to sell our first born for parts and tires.

[RichV]

I built my car in the last off season. My motor came appart in the 1st 6 laps the car was out in 2008. That pissed me off. So I got a new bottom end and she was on the track the next event, where I learned I had a severe overheating problem. Spent a few more bux, last weekend was my 1st weekend where I could just drive. It was a blast. A race car is not cheap any way you cut it. You're buying something regardless. Maintenance or broken parts are allways on the list. What's a few more mods IMO. I enjoy doing these things myself so my financial impact will be sheer parts. And if I can get them at the bone yard cheaper, I will. My car was built from ebay, craigslist, junkyard, and handouts. Safety equiptment was the only 'new' stuff I did not bargain on.

 

I say recover from the H&N purchase and get what you need to get these old junkers to run with the higher powered cars. The RM region will probably not split the classes next year even tho we may have a couple of CMC2 eligeable cars. Which is fine by me. So we technicaly have 2 off seasons to do this. You can still ask Santa twice for some good parts!

[jeffburch]

On a more serious note, JB, what would you race in the Cmc series if your car were to sell?

 

DS, regardless of what the car has accomplished, it will remain under my right foot.

But to answer your question, I'd build a S197 from the ground up to the very edge of the rules.

 

Good luck @ MO.

jb

[Pat Stone1548534713]

To clarify the 347 no brainer statement. It's cheaper on a Ford motor I believe to put in a crank kit than to buy a new 351. I think. I haven't looked at everything. A friend of mine is running a 347 in track day car. It makes 250hp and 305 torque, and has been dependable and fast. 1.55 at Infineon in a Fox body. So it struck me that instead of buying a whole motor I could just bore my 302 and put in a crank and rods which I will have to do eventually anyway. Seemed low buck to me. I have about $3000 in my motor now after rebuild. The only thing different would be a new crankshaft instead of polishing the old 100,000 mile one. Polishing $120. Cost of a new one from summit $242. That's cheaper than a set of headers. That's why I think it's cheaper and gets the cubes at least close to the chevys. Is it because Ford makes a better running motor that the chevy guys are always looking for an advantage, say 50 cubic inches. Come on guys, cubes for cubes on the old cars. If we make too much power we'll run a restrictor. haha Do the Chevy guys really want to keep running 305's? Doesn't a 350 bolt right in? I may just have to go back to Chevy. Maybe LS1 cop car. You MOD motor guys keep quite, Kevin. Peace and Love, out.

 

PS

[Tony G]

I've built a dozen 331/347's.

Its not just slapping in a crank.

You have to clearance the block so the rods don't hit,you have to get a complete kit rods/pistons/crank/etc.

I have seen 302's put out big HP,so the extra cubes for the huge investment is not worth a penny, beside's rememeber that 4.6 Mustangs put out 250-260 HP bone stock and with only 281 Cubes.

Its not the cubes that do it.

I also don't like using a non based cubed motor,we have A/I for that.

Don't worry Pat we are working on testing this stuff right now, and I'll probably ask you for some help.

We have lots of time and will get it right.

Our main goal is to make it as painless/cheapest as possible, thats why I have to laugh at some of these comments, you would think we said "Ok you have 2 weeks to get 100Hp or your out ".

You have a year and a half to get 25-35HP, if thats not enough time then I'm not sure what is.

Remember the max will be around 260HP, so most will shoot for 250-255, that is only 20-25 more HP than we have now.

Take it easy, it will all come along just fine.

Tony Guaglione

[Alien]

I hate assuming, but I assume the test mules will spin the dyno in the old CMC configuration first to get a baseline before doing the mods?

[RichV]

So we have some concers in our region that the Fox cars and the 3G cars will be phased out of the series entirely. I would think that would just not be very smart. Any comments on this?

 

The other is the commercializing of CMC. Are we gonna get some heavily sponsored CMC cars running new platforms that are gonna make us grassroots racers loose interest in the series due to being overspent? No one wants to bring a pencil to a gunfight.

[Tony G]

Thanks for the questions:

100% no on both counts.

I actually think the Fox car may be favored after you see the new additions to the rules for the platforms.

There is no way we will sell out any old car platform, the Big HP LS1 Camaro's will not dominate the early model cars.

CMC is all about grassroots and all the directors love the 3rd gen Camaro's and the early Mustangs.

We are working on a very even. across the board series no matter what you come in with.

The East coast guys and the West coast guys are getting their heads together on this all right now,since both regions have 20-30 CMC cars at the events and you get to see a nice 50/50 split on how the CMC/CMC2 cars actually do on the track..which gives us lots of feedback.

Thanks,

Tony Guaglione

CMC National Director

[ST#97]

331/347 combos on E7 or GT40 iron heads is a waste of money... you can easily hit the 260/300 numbers on GT40's and an e-cam with 302 cubes...maybe some rockers to get flow moving. 347's aren't all that great when it comes to piston wall wear either...

[OldCMC17]

331/347 combos on E7 or GT40 iron heads is a waste of money... you can easily hit the 260/300 numbers on GT40's and an e-cam with 302 cubes...maybe some rockers to get flow moving. 347's aren't all that great when it comes to piston wall wear either...

 

Definitely don't want to stir the pot, but making assumption without documented proof can lead someone to actually believe that statement above in bold.

 

Again, if someone has dyno results from more than one setup, I'm all ears. I don't think it's as simple as everyone thinks.

 

331cu will = more torque down low and across the curve

 

302cu will = not much down low followed by a high spike in torque at mid rpm and fall off dramatically

 

I'm sure it will all work out in the end and everyone will be happy.

[Adam Ginsberg]

331/347 combos on E7 or GT40 iron heads is a waste of money... you can easily hit the 260/300 numbers on GT40's and an e-cam with 302 cubes...maybe some rockers to get flow moving. 347's aren't all that great when it comes to piston wall wear either...

 

Not to mention - 331's and 347's are COMPLETELY outside of CMC.

 

There's no way to make a 302's TQ curve look/act like a 350. As I've said before, the driver needs to learn how to capitalize on what they have, use it to their advantage. That's precisely why various cars are faster on some parts of the track vs. others.

[King Matt1548534716]

You are assuming that there will be a substantive difference in the peak RPM values of the 350 and 302 combos that would perhaps give a high-winding 302 an opportunity to capitalize on a gearing advantage. That's pretty unlikely given the parts we are experimenting with, and is still going to be a disadvantage to the 7200-plus RPM 2V Mod Motor combos that are being discussed. How do you take advantage of an engine that makes the same peak HP but has less torque area than another engine or can't rev as high?

 

Al and I compared the dyno curves on our engines recently, his LT1 and my EFI 5.0L, and they were in fact very close in values across both the HP and torque curves, which we attributed to the fact that the LT1 is restricted, which adversely affects its torque curve. But when the restrictors come off to move up to the high HP levels, it may be a very different story and the cubic inches will likely show their potential. At that point, the best way we will have to equalize platforms will be through weight adjustments.

[cmc35]

Not to mention - 331's and 347's are COMPLETELY outside of CMC.

 

Correct, today. We have to keep everything on the table. But please, this should NOT be interpreted to mean that I want to run a 347 or a 351.

 

-chris

[ShadowBolt]

 

Not to mention - 331's and 347's are COMPLETELY outside of CMC.

 

There's no way to make a 302's TQ curve look/act like a 350. As I've said before, the driver needs to learn how to capitalize on what they have, use it to their advantage. That's precisely why various cars are faster on some parts of the track vs. others.

 

Questions from the uneducated.......How do we ever make it close to even at a track like TWS? From the reading I've done the most important turn on a track is the one prior to the longest (or fastest) straight. Is that the place we will get killed (us 302 drivers) or would the 350 have more of an advantage on a tight track like Hallet than they would at TWS or EC? I hope (and assume) that with different weights we can get us all as close to even as possible.

 

 

JJ

[ls168camaro]

I'm looking to hit the dyno soon now that I picked up some smaller restrictors. I am just doublechecking that the numbers I am looking for are 260/300 as Tony said in the beginning or are we going to have a table like table 3 with a little wiggle room for power up or down? I plan to go ahead and get the car to the 2010 numbers.

I am no expert so I don't know how the rest of the guys who already hit close to 230/300 are going to get 30 more hp without an increase in torque. Just checking to see if there is any possibility that the tq # will be 310?

[Tony G]

Bryan,

Table 3 looks like it may stick with the wiggle room and 310Tq

I think it may cap off at 267HP and 310Tq.,but thats not 100% final, but very close so shoot for that if you want.

There will be a few weight changes on certain cars also.

We are working on that right now.

Tony Guaglione

[ls168camaro]

Thanks Tony.

Will 267/310 come with a pretty hefty weight penalty like table 3? I'm already at the Table 4 min of 3,360 and was planning to take the car on a diet.

I will let you know what I make with the different restrictors and lids.

[Dave Schotz]

I am no expert so I don't know how the rest of the guys who already hit close to 230/300 are going to get 30 more hp without an increase in torque. Just checking to see if there is any possibility that the tq # will be 310?

 

This is my concern as well... most seem to already be at (let's call it) 220+HP 290 Tq... if you're to expect 30+ more RWHP... I gotta believe you're going to see more than 10+ RWTQ.

 

It sounds to me more like the announcement just needs to be:

 

For 2010... There is only going to be TABLE 3... if you're on Table 1, 2 or 4... figure out how to get to TABLE 3!

 

Then figure out 17" tires vs. 16" tires... and 4 Piston Brakes... make them worth a weight penalty if necessary... so those who can't get to the minimum weight... can at least have bigger tires... etc...

 

Just a thought.

 

Dave

[Alien]

Then figure out 17" tires vs. 16" tires... and 4 Piston Brakes... make them worth a weight penalty if necessary... so those who can't get to the minimum weight... can at least have bigger tires... etc...

 

Just a thought.

 

Dave

Add to that list 255s vs 275s.

 

It's still two seperate rules changes, as in you have a choice to do neither, one, or both?

From a 16x8 to a 17x9.5 AND 255 max width to a 275 max width?

[mitchntx1548534714]

I made the leap to 17s and haven't felt much difference, except in unsprung weight.

 

The 17" package I use (275/40 shaved to 4/32s on a Camaro SS 10 spokes) is 4-5 lbs heavier per corner than the 16s (255/50 shaved to 4/32s on a 98+ Firebird 5 spoke)

 

If you stack 4 255 16s next to 4 275 17s, the height difference is less than 1"