SN95 Mustang clarifications needed?

[Alien]

Whoever that someone may be, let me know the wording they use so I can subsitute LS1 for 4.6L and ThirdGen for Foxbody in my rules request.

 

 

kthanxbye.

[HMark]

My point about you not driving is to say - race w/in the series for a season before you come in and declair that the rules don't work. They work 100% better now than they did in 2005.

I'm not "declaring" that the rules don't work; I was only stating that the engine and chassis combination requirements/limits are a bit confusing, and again, I'm not the only one who feels this way. I just don't understand why somebody couldn't put a 4.6L into a Fox Mustang and compete with it if they were so inclined, but maybe that's just me.

 

I'd be the only CMC car in Florida anyway, so I'm in no rush to take first place (and last place) in a 1-car class.

 

Mark

 

I agree, because of all the squabbling maybe an engine/chassis list should be made. However I feel that the directors should make a carb'd Ford/Chevy package that is legal in ALL Ford/Chevy platforms. That way non-EFI people are not kept in the old chassis, and to make V6 conversions easier. The prices on V6 chassis fall much faster than V8s.

 

An S197 V6 Mustang is $7-$8k a V8 is $14-$18. I can put a carb'd motor and a T5 in it for alot less than the 7k delta.

 

-Don

[Houstonnw]

 

I agree, because of all the squabbling maybe an engine/chassis list should be made. However I feel that the directors should make a carb'd Ford/Chevy package that is legal in ALL Ford/Chevy platforms. That way non-EFI people are not kept in the old chassis, and to make V6 conversions easier. The prices on V6 chassis fall much faster than V8s.

 

An S197 V6 Mustang is $7-$8k a V8 is $14-$18. I can put a carb'd motor and a T5 in it for alot less than the 7k delta.

 

-Don

 

Keep in mind that certain chassis' and certain engines have weight allowances, either good or bad.

 

Are you sure we can, or want to try to, make corrections for every combination?

 

My LS1 4th Gen Camaro has a minimum weight no matter my HP/TQ numbers. I could argue that is unfair if too many combinations are legal.

[Glenn]

 

I agree, because of all the squabbling maybe an engine/chassis list should be made. However I feel that the directors should make a carb'd Ford/Chevy package that is legal in ALL Ford/Chevy platforms. That way non-EFI people are not kept in the old chassis, and to make V6 conversions easier. The prices on V6 chassis fall much faster than V8s.

 

An S197 V6 Mustang is $7-$8k a V8 is $14-$18. I can put a carb'd motor and a T5 in it for alot less than the 7k delta.

 

-Don

 

Keep in mind that certain chassis' and certain engines have weight allowances, either good or bad.

 

Are you sure we can, or want to try to, make corrections for every combination?

 

My LS1 4th Gen Camaro has a minimum weight no matter my HP/TQ numbers. I could argue that is unfair if too many combinations are legal.

 

Rest assured in knowing the LS1 in a 3rd gen would not be at the current 3rd gen minimum weight. This would apply as needed to any approved combination.

[HMark]

I'm not saying the LS1 belongs in a 3rd gen, or a 4.6 in a Fox.

 

I believe a spec carb 305 should be laid out for the Chevys an a spec carb 302 should be laid out for the Fords (they really already exist...). The chassis combo would then set the weight. That minimizes the number of combinations the directors need to normalize.

 

 

-Don

[MHISSTC]

Did any of this ever get answered for you?

 

Did any of the on topic banter help clear-up why things are the way they are?

 

There has been so much extra banter here that I had to go back through it all and check. I'll say yes on both counts from what has been presented here in addition to what has been sent to me via personal emails.

 

Edit:

A few of the potential early Mustang group splits mentioned above varied slightly. To recap, the most likely splits in the SN95 generation would be between the '95/'96 or the '98/'99 depending upon either driveline or body considerations, or both. The SN99 mentioned above was never an official factory designation, but is a popular moniker that is really the same SN95 chassis with the "new edge" body attached from '99-'04.

 

The way I lean on the potential split(s) depends upon which nuance of series philosophy you care to employ. My personal preference would be a split between '98/'99. To that end, you may see a rules proposal from me later, or you may not, since it really doesn't affect me personally and I don't have anyting to gain or lose from it. I just think some kind of clarification needs to be made for the benefit of the series as a whole as we continue to move forward.

 

For example, beyod the SN95 issues, I really hope Don follows through on his ideas and makes some rule change submissions. *hint*, *hint* The proposition of having two manufacturer spec carbed engines allowed across all generations of each manufacturer's platforms with weight allowances based on the chassis, either makes him the biggest genius, or the cheatin'-est bastard in the series. By proposing to allow the pushrod 302 and T5 in the S197 ('05-'10) Mustang, he's either found the cheapest way for honest hard working Americans to incorporate the newest Mustang body style into the series sooner than normal depreciation would allow, and folk songs should be written about him. Or, he's found a solution to a problem that doesn't exist and he should hang by his fingernails for even suggesting such nonsense.

[Glenn]

Well a carb set-up in a 4th gen requires considerable hacking in order to fit a carb and air cleaner. So I don't see it happening.

 

The cat is already out of the bag, so no going backwards. The Fords have it, and the late GM's don't.

 

http://ls1tech.com/forums/carbureted-lsx-forum/1332865-carbed-ls1tech-rides.html

[MHISSTC]

Well a carb set-up in a 4th gen requires considerable hacking in order to fit a carb and air cleaner. So I don't see it happening.

 

The cat is already out of the bag, so no going backwards. The Fords have it, and the late GM's don't.

 

http://ls1tech.com/forums/carbureted-lsx-forum/1332865-carbed-ls1tech-rides.html

 

Cool. I thought you had indicated previously that fitting an LSx cheaply under the hood was an issue. Is it the hood clearance that is the problem? I saw a lot of single plane hi-rise/air-gap style intakes in the pictures on that website. Does anybody make a low rise dual-plane intake and air cleaner combination that would fit under the hood? After seeing the Mustang with the LSx engine, now I'm wondering how long it will take for someone to argue the merits of putting one of those in a CMC Mustang or a 302 in a F-body because it's "cheaper".

[TurboShortBus]

After seeing the Mustang with the LSx engine, now I'm wondering how long it will take for someone to argue the merits of putting one of those in a CMC Mustang or a 302 in a F-body because it's "cheaper".

I see nothing wrong with the continued ban on brand crossbreeding and other such blasphemy.

 

Mark

[MHISSTC]

I see nothing wrong with the continued ban on brand crossbreeding and other such blasphemy.

 

Mark

 

An LS1 powered bubble hatched/McLaren winged/flared fendered '85 Capri with '93 Mustang GT nose would be awesome!

[Den341548534727]

This has been for the most part very good civil discussion. I hope it stays that way.

 

From the GM side I would like to see the 5.3 L become legal in the fourth gen platform. Here is my argument as to why and my approach is to preserve the series in the long term. The GM platform died in 2002 so it is now 10 years old and viable platforms and engines are going to get harder and harder to find in the next 5 to 10 years. Specifically the LT1 and LS1. The 1998-2002 F-body had the LS1 and that is legal in CMC2 and heavily restricted. The LS1 is a very expensive motor. (At least for my cheap a$$). It is aluminium block and heads. It is very popular for street rodders resto-mods etc. Typical prices here in the Midwest for a LS1 T56 combo is around 4K. This causes the base value of ANY potential LS1 cmc car at around 4K no matter what the body looks like. It also causes salvage yards to sell these engines at a premium.

 

Enter the 5.3. For those not familiar with this engine it is the small block chevy of today. It is the same LS series engine that is the LS1. The 5.3 is powering about 90% of all chevy GMC pickups since around 2000, they are everywhere. Most 5.3 have iron block and aluminium heads. Rated power output is around 310 hp to 325hp for most variants. A little less than the 350hp of the LS1. Belhousings and outer dimensions are the same as the LS1. Some 5.3s have aluminium blocks and some that come in the front wheel drive cars such as the Impala SS do not have the same bellhousing pattern. (So I am told). These engines I would suggest be excluded. The good thing about the 5.3 is that it is Cheep. Very cheep. Good engines can be had for around $600 all day long at local salvage yards higher prices for low milage versions. This engine using the LS engine mounts will go right into the 4th gen fbody. A Fbody oil pan would be needed as well as a Fbody intake manifold. With the iron block variant and less power, the restriction would be much less than the LS1 version which is already legal. The iron block would be less advantageous than the LS1. The advantage is a low cost alternative to the LS1 should someone blow up there LS1 powered car or it gives racers the option of getting a modern engine at a relatively low cost rather than going out and buying a LS1 car. One could buy a 6cyl fourth gen and put together a 5.3 T56 combo and be in business with all bolt on parts. This is no different than taking a 350 out of a chevy truck adding T5 and putting it into a 6 cyl third gen car or taking a 302 out of a F150 adding the spec parts and adding a t5 and putting it into a Fox or SN95. This would not be a extravagant swap or relying on aftermarket parts such as the carburated LS1 swap. This is simply using the 5.3 in place of the currently legal LS1.

I understand the argument of this engine never came in this platform. Yes this is true...sort of. The specific displacement engine did not come in the fourth gen but the LS engine family did come in a fourth gen.

Thoughts, comments?

[raybob92891548534723]

I agree Mr. Denton. The 5.3's are everywhere and very affordable. and they will bolt right into a 98-02 F-body that already had a LS engine.

To tranform one of the 3 kadrillion V6 f-body's GM built you would simply need the LS1 K member, wiring harness, and some other cheaply obtained bits and pieces. I know a guy thats doing it. Tommy Schlender picked up his V6 5 spd Chicken and the LS engine is a weekend project...

Anybody that would hack up a 4th gen to put a Carburated engine in it has got mental issues that I could never understand. If the 5th Gens are never gonna be legal in CMC then the GM racers are gonna be scroungin for LS1's in 5 years or so, because they didn't make a zillion of them.

LS1 Corvette 97 thru 2005ish

LS1 in F-body 98 thru 02

LS1 in GTO 05 only ???

 

after 04 or 05 theres really nada for production LS1's. The General went to the 6 liter's and the LS3 and some LS6's.

There is "some" crate LS1 availability but with the engines popularity among Hot rodders and Drag Racers they should be fairly scarce by

2015 or so..

I'll also submit to the rules Commitee that the LS3's be allowed in all GM platforms and if using the Cast Iron block version there should be no 50# penalty in the 98-02 F-body.

 

I'm not a Ford guy but I beleive that the S197 should also be legal with a 302 T-5. It seems to me that its a more cost effective way of building a Cheap V6 S197. However if thats the case than I'll submit to the rules committee/Directors that the 5th Gen be made legal by 2015 with a weight penalty and restrictor plate.

 

My .02 cents

 

Later Dudes,,,

[Glenn]

I completely agree w/ the allowance of the 5.3 for the reasons posted above. HP/TQ figures would need to be presented for consideration. I would even venture that the weight penalty the LS1 4th gens get would be removedif it had the 5.3 iron block.

 

If I was running AI, I would find a 5.3 aluminum, swap in a 4.8 crank and rods, pop a set of LS2 heads on it, 11:1 comp ratio w/ a .600" lift cam around a 240 durration, nice set of 1.75" longtubes and call it a day. 8K redline and a power band from 3K-7K no problem.

 

Good thoughts on the 5.3 guys.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Guest

[MHISSTC]

Shoot. Now I want a 5.3L powered 4th gen.

Somebody write and submit the rules proposal!

[ls168camaro]

I totally agree with the 5.3 but you should also allow the 4.8 as I think it might make the numbers as well.

I don't see it much different than all the allowed Ford engines allowed in year models that never came from the factory with them. Or all the Ford crossbreeding with Explorer engines, PI heads etc.

[Adam Ginsberg]

It's interesting to see folks wanting more engine choices, when a recent comment was the "bastardized" allowances for the Ford chassis.

[supermac]

It's interesting to see folks wanting more engine choices, when a recent comment was the "bastardized" allowances for the Ford chassis.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander?

[Adam Ginsberg]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander?

 

Not a good perspective for rules.

[supermac]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander?

 

Not a good perspective for rules.

I don't follow your logic? Are the rules biased? I thought the idea was to create equality and in this case, allowing the Chevy guys equal opportunity to get cheap plentiful engines, just like the Ford guys.

I think the powers that be in CMC do a great job of staying on top of equal, close racing.

Why not make it equally affordable for everyone?

[Adam Ginsberg]

I don't follow your logic? Are the rules biased? I thought the idea was to create equality and in this case, allowing the Chevy guys equal opportunity to get cheap plentiful engines, just like the Ford guys.

I think the powers that be in CMC do a great job of staying on top of equal, close racing.

Why not make it equally affordable for everyone?

 

I'm all for affordability.

 

LT1 and LS1 engines have not disappeared. Ford hasn't put a 5.0L engine in a Ford chassis in ~10 years (the 2001 Explorer was the last vehicle), but they are still available.

 

A 10 second search on Ebay nets no less than 15+ LT1 engines for sale. A local search on craigslist netted another 10 LT1 engines. A remanufactured LT1 engine is about the same cost as a remanufactured Ford 5.0L engine - ~$2000-$3000, and they are still plentiful.

 

A used longblock for both Ford and GM ranges from $500-$1500, depending on mileage and condition. The Ford pushrod guys have it a but more difficult, as trying to find a 5.0L engine with GT40/GT40P heads is not the easiest thing to locate. The GM folks need to find an LT1 which makes the power without having to change a bunch of parts.

 

Let's not be Paul Revere just yet.

 

The further down the slope we slip, the more convoluted our rules become, the further we get away from the original CMC roots, and the harder it is for new drivers to come into the series and understand what the hell we're doing.

 

Many of us joined CMC because of the restricted, stock-based ruleset, which helped keep costs down. We are getting so far beyond that, it's hard to recognize our class anymore. A significant amount of that has to do with the CMC2 class, and the goal of merging back into a single class.

 

IMO, there is absolutely no reason to allow 4.8/5.3 GM engines in our class, at least not yet.

[roadracerwhite]

What if I have a 4th gen and I don't particularly care for the LT1 and the optispark, or I found and LS1 car with a blown motor. A replacement 350 for it is at least a grand where as the 5.3 are all over the place for 300-600 bucks.

 

The hot rod industry is cleaning up the supply of any LS1s which are a decent deal as well.

 

I am not sure we are ready to allow the 5.3 just yet, but it is a good idea to look into. less cubic inches and an iron block, so how is it a bad idea again?

 

 

Bryan

[Adam Ginsberg]

What if I have a 4th gen and I don't particularly care for the LT1 and the optispark, or I found and LS1 car with a blown motor. A replacement 350 for it is at least a grand where as the 5.3 are all over the place for 300-600 bucks.

 

What if, what if, what if....what if I got a line on a cheap 95 Cobra R with a 351W in it? Why can't I race that? What if I got ahold of a former drag-race Fox with a 5.4L already in it? Why can't I race that? Damn, my 5.0L isn't making the CMC2 numbers, but I have a small turbo laying around? Why can't I just put that on the car to help make the numbers?

 

There is ALWAYS someone that will say, "But I have this stuff laying around, it won't cost me much to put it in the car and go racing!". There are likely a hundred examples of items in our cars that are MUCH cheaper in the aftermarket than to replace with stock(ish).

 

Not to put too fine a point on it, but.....when a driver makes a chassis choice, he/she takes the good with the bad. Get a proper CMC replacement engine. Or go race in AI.

 

Why did several of the Mid-West AI drivers switch to CMC, Bryan? Because CMC had a restricted ruleset that kept costs down....you, Bob Denton, and Sydney Franklin figured out that AI was very costly, and CMC was a damn good bang for your hard-earned buck.

 

I am not sure we are ready to allow the 5.3 just yet, but it is a good idea to look into. less cubic inches and an iron block, so how is it a bad idea again?

 

As I have already said, our rules are becoming more and more complex and bastardized. Additional engine swaps will make the job of a Series Director considerably more difficult.

[roadracerwhite]

Your exactly right, we came to this class to keep the costs down and to run in a more restricted ruleset. And I hate the what if game too, however, an engine within the same engine family with LESS displacement and has an IRON block, which is more available and cheaper is worth considering.

 

As I have already said, our rules are becoming more and more complex and bastardized. Additional engine swaps will make the job of a Series Director considerably more difficult.

 

And they aren't already?

[MHISSTC]

Instead of keeping with one of the variations of the 'we'll decide what to do with that when the time comes' attitudes I see so much of, I think discussing the 'what ifs' and 'why nots' as a prelude to building a roadmap of where the series is headed in the future is EXACTLY what this series needs more of in order to make it easier for the series directors in the future.

 

Did we learn nothing from the CMC to CMC 1 & 2, back to CMC transition? Lets be proactive instead of reactive.

 

I'd love to know how CMC will evolve once the brand new base V8 Mustangs and Camaros that are making 400+ HP, have 19"+ wheels and 14" brakes will be incorporated into the series. Are we really going to make drivers restrict those engines down to the current allowed power levels and downgrade to 13" brake rotors? Or, are we going to make everyone with obsolete cars upgrade to those specs?

 

Will making a larger number of engine and powertrain combinations make determaination of legality more difficult for the directors? It will if we put the burden of proof solely on the directors. Turn the tables and put the burden of proof on the drivers by requiring more documentation from them.

 

I don't think making the series more difficult to police is a result of just allowing more powertrain combinations either. It's merely a sympton of a series that allows an ever increasing number of generations of cars with the same names into the series. How far and across how many years platform, and body style changes can we successfully stretch the series? Will it ever come time to cut the cord and relegate the fox Mustangs and 3rd gen F-bodies to a vintage series? Will we ever go the route of creating a truely modern Trans Am series by allowing the Challenger to compete also? While I still think the narrow span of only the newest cars allowed by the SCCA in their series' keeps a lot of folks from racing because it's too expensive, I also think there is some merit in making the older cars obsolete from a rules making point of view because you don't have to make allowances for them any more.

[Adam Ginsberg]

Scott - you bring up many salient points.

 

From the birth of CMC2, I always felt there should have been two distinct classes:

 

1. 1979-1995 5.0L Mustangs, 1996-2004 4.6L SOHC Mustangs, 3rd Gen Cam-birds, and LT1 Cam-birds would stay CMC1. No cross-over to CMC2 permitted. Same 230/300 HP/TQ limit, 16" rims/tires, same 12" brakes, etc - the original CMC ruleset.

 

2. 1996-2004 4.6L DOHC Mustangs (NA and stick axle only), 2005-2011 S197 4.6L 3V Mustangs, LS1 Cam-birds in CMC2. No cross-over to CMC1 permitted. 280+/310+ HP/TQ, 17" rims and tires, better brakes, etc.

 

Had that actually been done, we would not have ANY of the bastardized combinations currently in existence, nor would we be looking to add more engine/trans combinations. The higher HP cars would not have to restrict down much, if at all. Additionally, it would have made it easier to bring in the new 400+HP Mustangs and Camaros, although I still strongly believe those cars should be in AI.

 

More than likely, the original CMC1 cars would eventually disappear over time, in a natural progression as drivers look to replace their chassis', and move to a newer car.

 

That horse has left the barn, and there doesn't appear to be any way to get it back into it's stall.

 

The problem, as I see it, is the permutations that can occur once we open Pandora's engine. 4.8L crank, rods, and pistons, 5.3L heads, revving to 8000rpm all day long.....how does the sanctioning body police a combination like that without tearing down the motor? Similar to the ruckus over the early 4.6L non-PI headed engines being allowed to install a set of PI heads, which bumped up the CR significantly. I'm fairly certain that none of us want to go home after a race weekend with their engine in pieces, ala SCCA.

 

Maybe I came across a bit harsh on Bryan's "what if" scenario, but it's a red-flag, if you will, when drivers use that as a reason for a rules change, or to not spend money on class-legal parts.

 

Ford's aren't the only chassis that is allowed a non-stock engine/trans configuration any longer....the 3rd Gen's can now have an LT1/T56 combination. How far do we keep going with these "combinations" before we are so far gone from the original CMC series, that we just move to tube-frame chassis, ZZ4 crate engines, and non-synchro transmissions? Our rulebooks will become so complex, so large, it will be impossible to enforce without requiring teardowns.

 

For clarification - the Ford Explorer 5.0L pushrod shortblock is the exact same 5.0L engine used in MANY chassis - roller cammed, hyper pistons (from ~'93 on up), in many cases, even using the same oil pan. Mustangs, F150's, Explorers, 90's Lincoln's, Mercury's, etc all used the same engine. Explorer heads are GT40P's, intakes are essentially the 93-95 Cobra intake, that look a bit different.

 

GM used the same LT1/5.7L/350ci shortblock in MANY chassis, too - Impala (the mid-90's beasts), RWD Buick Roadmasters (same era as the Impala), Chevy and GMC trucks (90's era as well). Heads/intakes/ECU configurations were different, but that shortblock is damn near the same....though it may be a 4-bolt main. Which, as it turns out, GM did drop into some 4th Gen chassis prior to the LS1 being released.

 

I'm all for "what's the direction of CMC as we move forward?". Maybe saying "we do nothing right now" isn't the right answer. Maybe someone needs to build a 5.3L 4th Gen to see what happens? However, validating that engine...meaning, exactly what parts are inside, the heads, intake, etc, etc, etc, won't be easy from a Series Director perspective for a very simple reason.....we do not have the tools like a pro series to really verify the combination. We may never have those tools.

 

We are an amateur sanctioning body with (for the most part) amateur racers, and don't have the kind of budget needed to truly verify various combinations. To have those kinds of tools, our entry fees would look like a Pro-Series, and the racers budgets would skyrocket due to the cost of teardowns.