SN95 Mustang clarifications needed?

[MHISSTC]

Thought the 94-04 cars were all in the same update and backdate boat. It looks as though I am only allowed 98 and back though? Can a director please let me know for sure on this?

 

This is a jump from the original thread since it started to stray from the original question about a fox Mustang bumper cover.

 

Aftermarket and "tuner" body and aero kits are covered elsewhere, so I can avoid that discussion here as well as most of the discussion surrounding the factory built specialty cars like the Cobra, Cobra R, Anniversary Edition, Bullitt, and Mach 1.

 

There are several points of clarification I feel need to be addressed with regard to the SN95 chassis Mustangs. At the crux of the issues is the question, "Do we up/backdate based on chassis layout, body style, powertrain, a combination of two elements, or all three?"

 

Even though the basic SN95 chassis remained fundamentally unchanged from '94-'04, there was a powertrain update that didn't exactly line up with a couple of exterior body updates. I think that is what is leading to different interpretations as to what is allowed to be updated and backdated in the '94-'04 year range.

 

The rounded jellybean exterior styling of the SN95 remained the same from '94-'98, but the 5.0 pushrod engine was carried over from the fox body cars in '94-'95 since the 4.6L V8 modular engine wasn't ready yet. The 4.6L modular engine was introduced in '96 and continued through '04. The external dimensions of this engine were larger than the 5.0 it replaced, so changes were made to the K-member and front suspension pieces to accommodate it. Transmissions were also changed at this time. In '99, the exterior styling of the '94-'98 cars was updated with the "new edge" styling that continued through '04.

 

The question remains: Do we specify an up/backdate cutoff between '95 and '96 when the 5.0 was changed to the 4.6, when the exterior was updated to the "new edge" styling in '99, or do we go with the broader spectrum of allowing up/backdating across the entire spectrum of the SN95 chassis from '94-'04?

 

I think we have two choices. We need to either allow a full spectrum SN95 chassis up/backdate, or we need to make a clear division between the '98 and '99 cars.

 

I see a couple of problems if we allow full spectrum SN95 up/backdates. First, mixing and matching of the pre and post-'99 body parts would look goofy if you could manage it at all. Second, we'd have to allow 5.0L V8 pushrod engines in a body style that only ever had the modular motor installed in them. I'm not as familiar with the GM camp, but I don't think that maintains a consistent line of thought through the CMC series.

 

I think it makes more sense to make a division between the '98 and '99 model years. In doing so, the '94-'98 drivers would be allowed to run either the 5.0L or the 4.6L V8 since they both appeared in that body style of car. The new edge cars would only be allowed to run the 4.6L since the 5.0L never appeared in that body style.

 

Going back to the issue of allowing the Mach 1 front bumper air dam/deflector/spoiler thingy on the '94-'98 cars...

In making the division between the '98 and '99 it never becomes an issue since it was never present on the '94-'98 cars. Instead, it becomes solely an issue of whether or not to allow factory specialty model components like those found on the Mach 1, Cobra R, etc.

[Glenn]

Does the motor mount/k member design prevent some of the update/backdate issue your worried about?

Will a pushrod motor bolt into a '04 chassis w/ OEM motor mounts and k members? If not, then this should limit some of the update/backdate possibilities.

[jdlingle]

To my knowledge Glenn the SN95 cars have the same kmember and motor mounts, but have slightly different exterior styling (quarter panels, bumper). I am basing this off of 98 percent of aftermarket bolt on suspension parts (Maximum Motorsports) are 94-04 specific. The 99 up cars do have different heads though that necessitate different exhaust pickup points, as I found out after trying to bolt up my current x pipe to my new heads after doing a PI swap. I could be wrong but these are the observations I have made during my build.

 

From the Mustang Buyers Guide 1979-2004 (Brad Bowling) the differences introduced in 99 were:

exterior styling

PI heads and intake manifold

coil on plugs instead of coil packs

revised master cylinder

Unspecified suspension geomerty change resulting in 3 ft shorter turning radius (I believe this was the upgraded front control arms)

 

2001-on:

Traction control standard on GT models

 

 

Thats all the info I can locate. Hopefully someone who knows more can lend some more information to this.

[HMark]

Will a pushrod motor bolt into a '04 chassis w/ OEM motor mounts and k members?

 

Yes. The earlier K members bolt in and allow the 5.0 to be bolted in.

 

-Don

[mitchntx1548534714]

And you guys complain that a computer tune is too hard to police.

Good luck with that arguement from this point forward.

 

From a CMC purist standpoint ... if you couldn't walk into a dealership in a given year and drive away with said motor, trans, nose piece, etc configuration on the approved models list, then it shouldn't be CMC legal.

 

There is AI for all the vehicular incest to take place.

[Glenn]

I agree to a point. No carbs past a Fox. But that cat is out of the bag.

 

If the list of differences is correct as posted above, perhaps it really is that easy. We have 20 years of GM platform production (82-02) and it is devided up into 2 eligable manufactures lists. Ford has 25 years of platform production lumped into 1 eligable manufactures list. I see alot of bias towards Ford w/ the whole ruleset. Perhaps that is what is needed to balance the performance envolope. I expect it created alot of loopholes the original rules writers never anticipated.

 

Perhaps it is time to split out the '99 and up cars w/ regards to FI vs carb.

A carb 350/305 (from a 3rd gen GM) will bolt in place of a FI LT1 in a 4th gen GM. Why was this not allowed if a carb 5.0 pushrod motor can be bolted into a 04 Ford?

[Adam Ginsberg]

From a CMC purist standpoint ... if you couldn't walk into a dealership in a given year and drive away with said motor, trans, nose piece, etc configuration on the approved models list, then it shouldn't be CMC legal.

 

And yet, the LT1/T56 combination is permitted in a 3rd Gen chassis. Which, to a certain extent, negates this comment:

 

I see alot of bias towards Ford w/ the whole ruleset.

 

A carb 350/305 (from a 3rd gen GM) will bolt in place of a FI LT1 in a 4th gen GM. Why was this not allowed if a carb 5.0 pushrod motor can be bolted into a 04 Ford?

 

According to Al:

 

For the record, we did evaluate carbed engines in 4th gen F bodies a couple of years ago. Sam Stowell went through the exercise. It isnt easy, there were custom parts involved in making it happen. Air cleaner clerance was a particular problem if I recall. In any case it was determined at the time to not be worth pursuing. Really the only advantage is for those that really really like carburetors to avoid having to deal with FI.

[mitchntx1548534714]

 

And yet, the LT1/T56 combination is permitted in a 3rd Gen chassis.

 

So your preference would be a mountain of aftermarket parts added to a 305 as opposed to a factory issued, known result, tried and tested combo in order to make the new number?

 

My comment and I believe Glenn's too was more to the buffet of blue oval parts now cobbled together to make a bastardized version of a ford motor that was never offered in any platform, much less the apporved models list.

 

And that is now extending to body panels and aero ...

 

And it goes way back.

 

I put pre-emmissions 302 heads (small chamber for a dished piston) on a 79 302 block (flat top pistons with a massive chamber emmissions head) and instantly got 10:1 compression.

 

Neither of those configurations could be driven off the show room floor.

 

Do you really, honestly think CMC was built on this kind of premise?

 

We got folks all over the place now, pointing fingers and whispering behind the work benches. Is that the kind of series you are wanting to foster?

 

Please tell me "It is what it is" and "I don;t get it". That will certainly make the world hold hands and sing

 

[JB]

why not let the racer decide if it is worth the trouble of putting a carb engine in a 4th gen.

 

If we can make it work let the racer worry about how hard it is to build.

 

Same with fords open it up to carb engines.

 

If I had to choose stock FI or carb give me the carb because I can go out and get a v6 chassis cheap and put a carb on it and not have to find/buy a complete stock v8 engine and FI system.

 

The v6 chassis are all over the place and cheap.

[mitchntx1548534714]

why not let the racer decide if it is worth the trouble

 

Rookies

 

There would be mayem, hysteria, chaos, disorder, fracas, havoc, pandemonium and general lack of parental control by the directors.

 

[Al F.]

Scott, we already differentiate between body and non body components and you already cannot mix and match SN95 and SN99, or SN95 and Fox, or Camaro and Trans Am.

 

As for the a 5.0 in an SN99, once the k-member is changed (along with other requisite parts like brake booster etc) from a drivetrain perspective there is no difference. Its the same as putting LS1 body parts on an LT1 car. No, there was never a pushrod SN99, but it was allowed because it is simple, bolt in, and affords inexpensive racing. That is the same logic that drove enabling an LT1 in a 3rd gen.

 

As for revisiting allowing carb engines in 4th gens...someone submit a rules change request with some data and lets get the discussion flowing. Like I said, last time we evaluated this (and it included a fully functioning prototype) the decision was made by those there at the time that it wasnt worth it. The players have changed, and the world has changed, maybe sufficiently enough to change the answer!

[Glenn]

why not let the racer decide if it is worth the trouble

 

Rookies

 

There would be mayem, hysteria, chaos, disorder, fracas, havoc, pandemonium and general lack of parental control by the directors.

 

 

I'm having admin lower your Parental Control level from PG-13 to G. You can't handle this PG-13 stuff anymore.

[mitchntx1548534714]

why not let the racer decide if it is worth the trouble

 

Rookies

 

There would be mayem, hysteria, chaos, disorder, fracas, havoc, pandemonium and general lack of parental control by the directors.

 

 

I'm having admin lower your Parental Control level from PG-13 to G. You can't handle this PG-13 stuff anymore.

 

Bitch ...

[Glenn]

why not let the racer decide if it is worth the trouble

 

Rookies

 

There would be mayem, hysteria, chaos, disorder, fracas, havoc, pandemonium and general lack of parental control by the directors.

 

 

I'm having admin lower your Parental Control level from PG-13 to G. You can't handle this PG-13 stuff anymore.

 

Bitch ...

 

I figured you would be better w/ me doing it rather than Adam doing it.

[HMark]

No, there was never a pushrod SN99, but it was allowed because it is simple, bolt in, and affords inexpensive racing. That is the same logic that drove enabling an LT1 in a 3rd gen.

 

That's exactly why I put a 302 in my 99 mustang. The 302 is ~$2000 fully rebuilt, a 4.6 runs over $5000 plus converting to hydraboost, and in my eyes the 4.6 is a horrible engine.

 

I'm going to have an extra V6 S197 in a few months, I really want a 302 in it just for cost. I'll be submitting that for consideration at the end of the year...

 

-Don

[MHISSTC]

The constructive parts of this discussion have been great.

 

Thanks Al and Don.

 

Cheap and easy was part of the answer I was hoping to find as the reason behind allowing the 5.0 in the '99-'04 Mustang. It makes sense to me from that perspective, but since that era of vehicle never came with a 5.0 from the factory, it wasn't anytning I'd ever even considered doing until I saw Don's car at Nationals. I loved it.

 

Al, from your response on the other related thread, I think I finally realized I've been operating for years under the misunderstanding that the EARLY FORDS category is NOT a listing of four separate distinct subgroups independent of each other based on engines, but is in fact one large group! Holy Crap! That makes a HUGE difference! That makes total sense as to why we can also use the SN95 suspension parts on the foxbodied cars. With this realization, the understanding that section 7.3 Update/Backdate Non-body Components "governs non-body components, which includes engine", and the knowledge that engine swaps within this group amount to a "k-member is changed (along with other requisite parts like brake booster etc)", that means the door is wide open to dropping the 4.6L V8 modular engine into a fox chassis car! I'm willing to bet there is someone out there who prefers the 4.6 over the 5.0 just as much as Don prefers the opposite.

 

Am I right?

 

In addition to not realizing all the EARLY FORDS were lumped into a single classification, one of the problems I was having, and it seems others are having too, is the inconsistency between the "CMC purist" vs. the "do what it takes" perspectives in this series. It seems in some cases the rules, or at least the discussion surrounding and justification given for some of the rules, are structured around the "can't do it 'cause you could never originally buy it that way" philosophy, while others are built around the "cheap and easy trumps all" philosophy.

 

It's also been confusing to me seeing all the discussion surrounding the LS1/LT1/carb/TPI/EFI/305/350 engine allowances/restrictions in the GM platforms when it seems the Ford camp has a general lack of issues surrounding engines. I don't ever remember seeing the Ford 5.0 in the '99-'04 allowance being discussed, and the 'bastardized' modular motor parts combination engines were swiftly cut off at the knees when the discussion came up about those. I don't think Ford drivers are that much more agreeable than GM drivers, so what gives?

 

I understand this is not a spec racing series and it is not a showroom stock racing series. I also understand there are going to be variations and allowances made in the interest of equal racing while still trying to preserve the overall "stock" visual identity of the individual vehicles.

 

It may be an unacheivable and overly idealistic premise, but what I'm trying to get across is it would be nice to have more overriding consistency on how the rules are derived, and if allowances were made for specific reasons, to have those reasons clearly documented within the rules. I think that would lead to a lot less speculation on how the rules were derived and claims that the rules are "more fair" to one platform versus another.

 

I love the 5.0 (carbed or FI) in the '99-'04 cars. And I sure as heck want one of those 5.0 S197 chasssis cars that Don is proposing (although I really don't see that one happening) But, with all that said, Im still going to propose my "more fair" scenario of sub-dividing the EARLY FORDS groups based on the pushrod 5.0 vs the modular 4.6 engine.

 

Make the big break between the '98 and '99 model years with the '79-'93 fox chassis cars using only the 5.0 (carb or fuel injection), the '94-'98 SN95 chassis cars allowed to use either the 5.0 or 4.6 (fuel injected only), and the '99-'04 cars only allowed to use the fuel injected 4.6. That way the "purists" are going to be happy because no car is using an engine or intake configuration that didn't originally come in that chassis, and the "cheap and easy" crowd is going to be happy because they can run a 5.0 in the SN95 chassis with the only concession being that it can't be a carbed 5.0. So if you want to run a carb in CMC, go with a fox, If you want 4.6, go with the later "new edge" SN95. If you want the "best of both worlds", the early SN95s have you covered with either the 4.6 or the 5.0.

[MHISSTC]

Before this is pointed out to me, I realize the CMC Classification table lists the '79-'93 cars with only the 5.0 engine, while the '94-'04 cars are listed with the 5.0, and the SOHC and DOHC versions of the 4.6. I feel this is one of the inconsistencies within the rules that needs to be changed as section 7.3 Update/Backdate Non-body Components indicates I am able to update and backdate any non-body components, which includes the engine, within an eligible manufacturer group and the Eligible Manufacturers/models section specifies the Early Fords as spanning the '79-'04 model years.

[MHISSTC]

This is also where I was confused:

 

7.11 Engine

7.11.1 Any 4.6 2V Ford, 5.0,(302 Ford or 305 GM), 5.7 liter LT1 GM V8 production engine, in OEM stock configuration unless otherwise stated in these rules, that was originally offered in an eligible model car is legal. Cobra R model engines (Ford) and LT4 (GM/Chevrolet) engines or engine components are prohibited.

 

Instead of outlining basic engine eligibility, I always read the above as "Any 4.6 2V or 5.0 OEM stock configuration that was originally offered in an eligible model car" and misinterpreted it as meaning the eligible engine also had to stay in that particular model instead of being allowed across the entire spectrum of Early Fords.

[Glenn]

Realize the "it never came that way from the factory" CMC purist philosophy gave way in 2006 when CMC2 was announced. This change, that was forced upon the CMC leadership from NASA HQ, required the directors to "do what it takes" to make CMC2 happen. Early on (2007 was the first year for CMC2) the HP limit was 280. It was quickly realized that the 3rd gen cars were in real trouble getting to the number w/ the 305 TPI and carb set-up (no 350's since all 350 cars were auto from the OEM). Even the 4th gen LT1's would need mods to get to 280hp. The number was dropped but the 3rd gen still needed a solution. The LT1 was a drop in cheap (cost of a motor) way to get there. We didn't like doing it, but it was just too easy. We still looked for a way to get the 305 there (carb or TPI) and finally found a solution. It cost about what an LT1 swap would cost. We then put the carb 350 option out there cause at that point the "it never came that way from the OEM" was out of the bag. The 350 TPI was legal (test bed car in 2008?) but was quickly removed. The TQ this set-up made was insane (345rwtq?).

 

So understanding the history and why things change is good. There are some inconsistancy's in the philosophy, but w/ good cause. The instrest and longevity of the series is always #1 w/ growth being a close 2nd. Our philosophy of how to get there is - keep it cheap, easy to police (tech) and cheap. Required manchanical apptitude is kept to a minimum as well.

 

Hope this helps.

[Al F.]

Before CMC2 keeping things stock was MUCH easier, and was the right answer so often that folks began to believe that was the goal. I dont believe "stock" was the goal, but I can see how one would think so. Closer to the target is "cheap, reliable, close competition" was and continues to be the goal and it just so happens that "stock" very often was the best answer to achieve that goal.

 

I understand what you're saying Scott, its tough to figure out why a particular rule exists the way it does. Some of these rules have been in place since CMC began with little attention. Some have been changed over and over for one reason or another. The goal, however, hasnt: cheap, reliable, close competiton. Sometimes the best way to achieve that is stock parts only. Sometimes its "do whatever you need to do". Sometimes its allowing a specific part, or a part that meets specific criteria. Some times a rule is applied equally to every platform, and sometimes a rule is purposely advantageous to one platform in order to balance the overall package.

 

We've been pretty good in recent years about posting the rationale for rules changes, something we completely ignored once upon a time. We'll continue to do this (case in point the long post about aero changes and last year's "directors cut" post about the 2011 rules set). I'm not sure an explanation for every rule within the rule book is plausible since an explanation can take up multiple pages...thats what this forum is for.

[MHISSTC]

Once again, thanks for the explanation. It does help and I would agree that the transparency of rules development has been much better.

 

Glenn, I think that is the most consise explanation of the GM CMC powerplant development I've ever seen.

[mitchntx1548534714]

We've been pretty good in recent years about posting the rationale for rules changes, something we completely ignored once upon a time.

 

[bluebandit48]

So can I run the new 05+ 3 valve motor in a sn95 for cmc2?

[MHISSTC]

So can I run the new 05+ 3 valve motor in a sn95 for cmc2?

 

No.

 

The 3-valve qualifies as a Late Ford only.

 

5. ELIGIBLE MANUFACTURERS/MODELS

Manufacturers:

Ford Motor Company (Late Ford)

Eligible Late Ford makes and models:

2005-2010 Ford Mustang GT (CMC2 only)

[bluebandit48]

So that rule says I can only run a 05+ in cmc2? Why wouldn't I be able to upgrade to the 3 valve motor? Say I don't want to modify my 302 instead just put in a new 4.6. I would have to put in a 4.6 2 valve?