cmc38camaro Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 As one would expect this has drawn commentary ranging from great to awful. The timing is unfortunate for some and good for other. Say what you want, but this "heads up" gives us all a chance to prepare for the future. As far as rules changes go, my vote will be to keep the changes to a minimum. I think in terms of almost no changes for LT1 and 4.6L cars. Smaller restrictors on LS1 cars. The change changes in my opinion should be focused on the 5.0 and 3rd gen cars. There have already been some good suggestions on how to make this work, thoughts like allowing 2009 to be a transition year for the 3rd gens and 5.0 Mustangs. Conversations like that should evolve into platform specific special interest groups where we trade information on how we are going to adapt to the new rules. I'm a 3rd gen guy so I will use a couple of example for that platform. 17" wheels with the needed offset don't seem to exist. One approach to this problems is to run big adapter and 4th gen or corvette wheels. Another approach would be to approach wheel manufactures to build a wheel specifically for us. With enough volume and offloading our GTA wheels it may not turn out too expensive. 3rd gen brake upgrades seems pretty straight forward to me, just do a search on upgrading to C5 corvette brakes and you will get an idea of what I'm talking about. That brings me to hubs and bearing, they are marginal on our cars and the 275's will only make that worse. Has anyone tried the Coleman hubs on our cars? The bottom line here is that CMC has been and will continue to be a place where we help each other out off track just to have the opportunity to prove who is the better driver on track. Let me emphasize that point, CMC is going to continue to be about who's the better driver and not about who's car is better. With that in mind let's work together to spec out our soon to be faster cars. Mike CMC Director Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comeback kid Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 I want to give much respect to the National Directors for trying to intergrate the different generations together under one banner, and keeping it within the original idea of keeping it affordable (if there really anyway to do that in racing), and reliable. I can see why they have been a little hesitant to pull the trigger on it by viewing some of the reactions being posted. As some of you know I am in the middle of a CMC build. My Camaro use to run in AI in 2005. It had a LS1 and a six speed in the car before I received it. Needless to say I have been taking out a fair amount of items to make it legal. There are others like me that feel better that now than later, this effort is being done. I am sure there are folks that are in their first and fifth year with the current configuration that are not to happy. Hopefully the changes would really not be too much in work and costs. Some numbers were all ready given for horsepower and torque (260/300). But the weight has not been given as of yet. Until that happens, there is no sense in worrying what you need to do for 2010. The fiqures given at this point are max values at the rear wheels. Do you really need to switch from 16" wheels to 17" wheels on a third gen F-body right away? No. Do you really need to change from 12" front rotors to 13" rotors on a Third gen f-body? Not really. There have been many discussions on this messageboard and among others about the differences between the third and fourth gen f-bodies. Bigger and more is not always better. Mustangs are a different story and I do not have enough knowledge at this point to even discuss what may, or may not be needed. This is getting long and probably off track, so just remember our Directors are not sitting alone somewhere on a mountain top to pass down info when the feel it it on a whim. This subject has been worked on for at least two years that I know of. In the end I think we will all benefit from it. Now about those headers. LOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GT4Point6 Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 We're going to need some serious help as to how we get the SN95 platform to 260hp. Jump up to the 351? CMC is apparently on its way to turning into SCCA, and even worse: AI. Tanks for nuttin'. -chris I know that one or two west coast 5.0L mustangs with cobra engine parts (heads, intake, etc...) run in the 255 rwhp range so it's right on the money with 260 being the max. 4.6l (PI heads) run in the mid 250's. Again, right in the range... Nothing else needed unless you really want to empty your wallet for no reason (if you already have the above 250+ hp). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudy1548534717 Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 We're going to need some serious help as to how we get the SN95 platform to 260hp. Jump up to the 351? CMC is apparently on its way to turning into SCCA, and even worse: AI. Tanks for nuttin'. -chris I know that one or two west coast 5.0L mustangs with cobra engine parts (heads, intake, etc...) run in the 255 rwhp range so it's right on the money with 260 being the max. 4.6l (PI heads) run in the mid 250's. Again, right in the range... Nothing else needed unless you really want to empty your wallet for no reason (if you already have the above 250+ hp). Kevin: I've heard this for years. When 9 of 10 5.0 rebuilds dyno'd in at 210 there was 1 or 2 that hit 230. Now that the average Cobra prepped rebuilds are coming in at 230, there is 1 or 2 at 255. Don't know what's in the gas out there on the west coast but those numbers are far from the norm. If there are any suggestions, my mule is going to the shop next week for a new head gasket and I'd be willing to help experiment and document. rb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffburch Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Would someone just please give me permission to run a 3G in 2? I've pointed this out several times since 2 was conceived. When will a 3G be allowed to run CMC2? Oh, and can I run 16" rubber in '10? jb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Stone1548534713 Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 This is a needed step to get all the cars in the race, and have it be a drivers series not the SCCA. Small car counts suck. I spent the last weekend in traffic the whole time with people racing in another group but just fast enough to be in the way. I think I can get 30 hp out of my 5.0 with a couple of things, not a big deal. Thanks guys for the early warning. I'll look forward to knowing the complete package well ahead of race time, right Tony? We do need to start a good procedure on doing dynos to keep it real. Maybe schedule first race of every season at a dyno track and check everyone's car at the same time, and get a group rate. If someone comes in after that, they have to have the dyno witnessed by a director or another racer from the group, to come in and race for points. This will encourage participation and fairness right from the start of the racing season. Do the other regions have dynos at their tracks? This is the most important step in keeping this fair. Too many different set ups and weights to get it right. Did I hear someone say change weight and restrictor to match tracks. We got to discourage that. You get to pick your set up and stick with it. You shouldn't be able to have two dyno sheets, and change back and forth. Who's got the time and money for all that? Are these guys from American Sedan racing or what? I remember the winning cars all went to the dyno after a big race. What happened to that? That will put the fear of god in you if you're cheating. Let's keep it real, we all know racings not cheap, I just want a fair chance on a tight budget. Bigger brakes, tires and 30 hp is cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powerslide91 Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Making extra power is not an issue to me, we are dealing with SBC and SBF for crying out loud. It can't get much easier. I'm more looking towards the other stuff that now does with extra power and torque. I understand the motivation to get CMC back under one banner. I just don't see the issue with the current racing. Adding power, tires, or brakes will not make the racing closer. In the near term, it will probably just open it up more, hopefully that will be overcome and folks will come back to the same level. I'm also wanting to know about keeping 16" rims.... oh, and get rid of non factory wings while we are rewritting the rules. Ok, sorry for drifting off line there. Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 I realize that this will be painful short term for some but I always believed that consolidation of CMC and CMC2 was inevitable and I think if you go back read some of the original posts when CMC2 was formed, this was strongly hinted at. In the long term, this is very good for the series. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmc35 Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 We're going to need some serious help as to how we get the SN95 platform to 260hp. Jump up to the 351? CMC is apparently on its way to turning into SCCA, and even worse: AI. Tanks for nuttin'. -chris I know that one or two west coast 5.0L mustangs with cobra engine parts (heads, intake, etc...) run in the 255 rwhp range so it's right on the money with 260 being the max. 4.6l (PI heads) run in the mid 250's. Again, right in the range... Nothing else needed unless you really want to empty your wallet for no reason (if you already have the above 250+ hp). Kevin: I've heard this for years. When 9 of 10 5.0 rebuilds dyno'd in at 210 there was 1 or 2 that hit 230. Now that the average Cobra prepped rebuilds are coming in at 230, there is 1 or 2 at 255. Don't know what's in the gas out there on the west coast but those numbers are far from the norm. If there are any suggestions, my mule is going to the shop next week for a new head gasket and I'd be willing to help experiment and document. rb Kevin, My 5.0L engine now has: 65mm throttle body, upgraded air intake, GT40 heads, and 1.7 roller rockers. All of this got it to 223/295. Boudy is correct: we need to focus on the norms, not the outliers. -chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 That brings me to hubs and bearing, they are marginal on our cars and the 275's will only make that worse. Has anyone tried the Coleman hubs on our cars?Mike CMC Director Hmm, not that I'm aware of, maybe go check out the ASedan message boards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Shaw Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 We're going to need some serious help as to how we get the SN95 platform to 260hp. Jump up to the 351? CMC is apparently on its way to turning into SCCA, and even worse: AI. Tanks for nuttin'. -chris I know that one or two west coast 5.0L mustangs with cobra engine parts (heads, intake, etc...) run in the 255 rwhp range so it's right on the money with 260 being the max. 4.6l (PI heads) run in the mid 250's. Again, right in the range... Nothing else needed unless you really want to empty your wallet for no reason (if you already have the above 250+ hp). Kevin: I've heard this for years. When 9 of 10 5.0 rebuilds dyno'd in at 210 there was 1 or 2 that hit 230. Now that the average Cobra prepped rebuilds are coming in at 230, there is 1 or 2 at 255. Don't know what's in the gas out there on the west coast but those numbers are far from the norm. If there are any suggestions, my mule is going to the shop next week for a new head gasket and I'd be willing to help experiment and document. rb Rich V is at 230 with a fresh bottom end, high mileage E7s, 1.7 rockers, cobra intake/throttle body, electric fan and a crank under drive pulley. As soon as you add GT40 heads to this car you are at the 250+ mark. kyle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Shaw Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 We're going to need some serious help as to how we get the SN95 platform to 260hp. Jump up to the 351? CMC is apparently on its way to turning into SCCA, and even worse: AI. Tanks for nuttin'. -chris I know that one or two west coast 5.0L mustangs with cobra engine parts (heads, intake, etc...) run in the 255 rwhp range so it's right on the money with 260 being the max. 4.6l (PI heads) run in the mid 250's. Again, right in the range... Nothing else needed unless you really want to empty your wallet for no reason (if you already have the above 250+ hp). Kevin: I've heard this for years. When 9 of 10 5.0 rebuilds dyno'd in at 210 there was 1 or 2 that hit 230. Now that the average Cobra prepped rebuilds are coming in at 230, there is 1 or 2 at 255. Don't know what's in the gas out there on the west coast but those numbers are far from the norm. If there are any suggestions, my mule is going to the shop next week for a new head gasket and I'd be willing to help experiment and document. rb Kevin, My 5.0L engine now has: 65mm throttle body, upgraded air intake, GT40 heads, and 1.7 roller rockers. All of this got it to 223/295. Boudy is correct: we need to focus on the norms, not the outliers. -chris Chris that stock intake manifold is killing you. Remember ford used the thunderbird intake on your car. A switch to a cobra intake would be a easy 15-20 on your car. kyle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadracerwhite Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 That brings me to hubs and bearing, they are marginal on our cars and the 275's will only make that worse. Has anyone tried the Coleman hubs on our cars? I ran the Baer hubs, 17" wheels, 275's, and the 2" spacers all last year and never had any bearing issues on my 3rd gen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Matt1548534716 Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Let's not get too wrapped up in making changes just to get to the maximum peak numbers. Area under the curve is far more important if the goal is to create a level playing field. I could really care less that I am within 3-5 peak HP with my bone-stock 5.0L compared to a 350 when I'm down 25-35 lb-ft in the mid-range. I've been behind an LT-1 F-body in a corner and watched it pull off the apex like I was chained to a post. The Cobra intake is not a magic bullet. It will hurt the mid-range on a 5.0L, which is why Ford revised the cam for the Cobras, to boost the mid-range torque back up. But these engines still don't make very good mid-range torque, especially compared to a 350. "There is no replacement for displacement." Period, end of story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony G Posted July 9, 2008 Author Share Posted July 9, 2008 Hey J.B. Here are your answers: 1) Yes both the Fox and the 3rd gen will be able to run in CMC2 in 2009. 2)Yes you can run 16's in CMC2 for 2009, 2010 (Which will be CMC, no more CMC2) and beyond, forever. Tony Guaglione Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMC#11 Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 We're going to need some serious help as to how we get the SN95 platform to 260hp. Jump up to the 351? CMC is apparently on its way to turning into SCCA, and even worse: AI. Tanks for nuttin'. -chris I know that one or two west coast 5.0L mustangs with cobra engine parts (heads, intake, etc...) run in the 255 rwhp range so it's right on the money with 260 being the max. 4.6l (PI heads) run in the mid 250's. Again, right in the range... Nothing else needed unless you really want to empty your wallet for no reason (if you already have the above 250+ hp). Kevin: I've heard this for years. When 9 of 10 5.0 rebuilds dyno'd in at 210 there was 1 or 2 that hit 230. Now that the average Cobra prepped rebuilds are coming in at 230, there is 1 or 2 at 255. Don't know what's in the gas out there on the west coast but those numbers are far from the norm. If there are any suggestions, my mule is going to the shop next week for a new head gasket and I'd be willing to help experiment and document. rb Rich V is at 230 with a fresh bottom end, high mileage E7s, 1.7 rockers, cobra intake/throttle body, electric fan and a crank under drive pulley. As soon as you add GT40 heads to this car you are at the 250+ mark. kyle Kyle, This has been mentioned before but, you can't base hp numbers on 1 specific car!! There have been 4 "Cobra" built motors here in the TX region, mine, Boudy, Jerry Jordan, and Mike Bell's old car. Every single one of them made 228 hp (+/- 2) and 278 lb ft. (+/- 2). Maybe we just don't know how to build motors? If Rich has those numbers with his combination then that is great, he got lucky. That is certainly not the "norm" for a 5.0L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nasa-rm Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 I had typed up an elegant post and then chose to delete it..... Give me a week to stew and then I will retype it after I think about the pros/cons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllZWay Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 I feel lucky that I built at LT1 car that can be ran in either class, but I am still not thrilled to see the hp numbers increased along with bigger tires, and brakes. The cost of racing CMC has just increased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMC#11 Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Is there a way we can stay away from 4-piston calipers and 13" rotors? My understanding behind the use of these is b/c the LS1's and S197's were at a bare minimum weight of 3360 lbs. at 280 hp. If the numbers are going to go down to 260 hp I ASSume their weight will drop also. If this is the case, are 4-piston calipers needed? It would be nice to see everyone run 2-piston calipers like we currently do. I know people will say, "you can run 2-piston calipers and still be competitive". I understand this but it would be nice to eliminate something as costly as a 4-piston setup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Ginsberg Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Is there a way we can stay away from 4-piston calipers and 13" rotors? My understanding behind the use of these is b/c the LS1's and S197's were at a bare minimum weight of 3360 lbs. at 280 hp. If the numbers are going to go down to 260 hp I ASSume their weight will drop also. If this is the case, are 4-piston calipers needed? It would be nice to see everyone run 2-piston calipers like we currently do. I know people will say, "you can run 2-piston calipers and still be competitive". I understand this but it would be nice to eliminate something as costly as a 4-piston setup. I'm good with 13" rotors, as there is just about zero cost to do so. However, I agree with Michael on rescinding the 4-piston caliper rule - it was something I was against from the beginning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ST#97 Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 again...you are now adding MORE cars to the list running 275/40/17's....will Toyo be making enough tires to cover CMC/2 and AI...? What I find funny is that CMC is now getting SUPER close to AI. only difference is min weight, front aero and coil overs! Is the secondary goal to merge with AI in 2012?! LOL!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMC#11 Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Is there a way we can stay away from 4-piston calipers and 13" rotors? My understanding behind the use of these is b/c the LS1's and S197's were at a bare minimum weight of 3360 lbs. at 280 hp. If the numbers are going to go down to 260 hp I ASSume their weight will drop also. If this is the case, are 4-piston calipers needed? It would be nice to see everyone run 2-piston calipers like we currently do. I know people will say, "you can run 2-piston calipers and still be competitive". I understand this but it would be nice to eliminate something as costly as a 4-piston setup. I'm good with 13" rotors, as there is just about zero cost to do so. However, I agree with Michael on rescinding the 4-piston caliper rule - it was something I was against from the beginning. I agree w/ the 13" rotors since I believe some of the vehicles came with them. It is my understanding that all available "CMC" vehicles came with a maximum 2-piston calipers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakebit Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 +1 for 13" rotors and 2 piston calipers. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liebbe1548534713 Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 I personally still object to the move to consolidate CMC and CMC2. The "low end" cost of running a "near factory" car with parts I had on-hand was one of the main draws for me to go CMC. Reliability and cost effectiveness was a huge factor for me when commiting to CMC over AI. Now you are saying that I will need to upgrade and/or reconsider several systems on my car to deal with the rigors of more horsepower and added weight. This includes engine, transmission, cooling, brakes, tires, wheels, etc. I don't believe it is as simple as putting in a cam and bolting on headers and a throttle body. That may get you the number on the dyno easy enough, but making it live on the track will be different. The later model CMC2 cars were designed from the factory with these new levels in mind and should already be able to run at that level with relative ease. They have the proper engineering and packaging for the aforementioned vehicle systems. In the end, I still don't see the real need to combine the early cars and the later cars. I've heard some of the arguments from car count to sponsorship considerations. It seems like car count would decrease from the combination by taking away some flexibility in vehicle choice where having both CMC and CMC2 adds flexibility and would increase car count. It seems like you are forcing those with current CMC cars who are currently happy to spend more money to upgrade to CMC2 for no real reason. I'll stop rambling now, but I still don't see the need to combine the early and later cars. The two "generations" of cars are different and can and should be treated differently. Rob Liebbe Texas Region 1989 Mustang - CMC #1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ls168camaro Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 +1 for 13" rotors and 2 piston calipers. John +2 for 2 piston calipers if everyone gets to run at 3200. I don't see the need to have the option to upgrade to a $2,500 set of brakes. Glad to hear that everyone can run CMC2 next year. Now lets see those tables and approved packages to test during 09. I am curious to find out from experienced racers if they see a noticeable difference between 275's and the 16's. 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.