SN95 Mustang clarifications needed?

[JoeK]

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

 

This is where I would like to see it.

 

Are we really supposed to see 20 year old cars "up" build to today's standards, or take a new car and downgrade it to the level back in the 90's?

 

I would like to see a CMC3, or CMC4. A place for the new S197 Mustangs, and 5th Gen Camaros, and even the Challenger to race at without a resistor plate the size of a straw. And still maintain the Race on Sunday, Sell on Monday mentaility.

 

I see your point of putting the 400+hp cars in AI, but then it turn into a BIG budget, weight/hp class. Opposed to a CMC3 where it would still be more of a spec class on OEM'ish parts. And then still be a battle of pony cars from the factory.

 

But then without booting out the 3rd gens and Foxes. Unfortunately they're not ready for Vintage racing yet.

 

...In the end, it really does seem like the merger of CMC1 and CMC2, and a span of around 32 years of cars in one class, one set of rules, becomes futile. For proof, start reading at post #1.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Guest

[K Shaw]

I like the idea of a vintage CMC class. Make it just fox chassis fords and third gen cambirds.

 

But then I am a fox and 3rd gen guy. Hey I am a kid of the 80s I cant help iit.

 

If the fox or 3rd gens become obsulete I just wont race.

 

Nothing against CMC, NASA or the diirectors I just want to run what I want to run and not the newest greatest most competitive car out there.

 

kyle

[CMC#11]

I think we all agree that CMC is for budget minded individuals that want to race on an equal playing field.

There is nothing budget about buying a 30k new Mustang or Camaro and then spending more $$ to turn it into a race car. Guys that want to do this already are leaning towards AI b/c they have the money to do so.

Even the S197 has been out for 6 years and it is a much larger investment to build into a CMC car.

 

Until you can buy a driving street car for $5-10k and then turn it into a CMC car I don't feel we have much to worry about.

[Glenn]

I don't like Adams idea of trapping my LT1 CMC car in a class w/ no place to move as the class evolves w/out a motor swap when the one I have makes the power needed. I'm glad we had the forward thinking of "a path forward".

 

I also don't ever see the 5th gen Camaro's making it into CMC. No solid rear axel is a major problem. I can see the addidtion of new modle years added to the CMC rules pretty much come to a stop at this point.

 

Trucks never came w/ the LT1. Buicks and the like did, but only the short block (less the cam) is the same. LT1 F-bodies never came w/ 4 bolt mains from the OEM. The C4 did. The only LT1 F-bodies to have a 4 bolt main block was the ones converted to LT4 (C4 Grans Sport motor) by SLP (not an OEM). I think only less than 100 were made ('96 SS LT4's)

[ls168camaro]

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.

 

I'm confused-hasnt Pandora's box already been opened for the Ford engines? How does the sanctioning body currently police the Ford combinations right now? Dyno? I'm aware that a dyno sheet will provide quite a bit of proof if my LS motor doesn't make peak power till 8k. But there isn't a stock LS setup that is going to rev to 8k. Glenn was talking only about an AI combination.

It would be nice if GM's used the same 5.7 shortblock in all the other trucks, cars, like Ford.

The LT1's don't have good options because they weren't put in many chassis as Glenn states. Just ask them how tough it is to find a clean set of stock/unported heads that aren't warped.

The only legal LS option came in Camaro's from 98-02 so the production numbers are pretty low. Rebuilds are over $3k (ask me how I know) and a new one is over $5k.

You are right that we don't have the tools to police it in the LS motors just like the Ford's I would assume? That just means that I could do it anyway without much fear of getting caught much like a B303 cam back in the day when they weren't legal.

The way to police it is on the dyno and if somone turns in a dyno with an LS motor going above 6,000 then you will know something is going on.

I mean the 5.3 is, as Adam says "damn near the same" as my 5.7 LS1. The only real difference is the cubic inches and intake/tuning which of course would be changed. Some of them even have the same camshaft. I'm actually thinking of swapping my current 98 model cam for the truck cam that came in the 2002 Camaro's to help out my torque.

We aren't talking about some one off "what if I bought a camaro that had a 405 hp Z06 motor swapped in and I bought it for a song" We are talking about the 5.3 being a viable alternative that could provide a cheap, plentiful engine option to lots of racers that is damn near the same as the 5.7 LS. This would even be easier/cheaper than me buying the cheap aluminum 5.3 and have it bored out so I could put the rest of my 5.7 equipment in it.

 

I propose that the next person to blow a LS motor be allowed to drop in a 5.3 replacement as a test mule to be put on the dyno and raced to see how it compares?

[Glenn]

Adam, my 8K example was an AI set-up.

I would think the 5.3 would be a great alternative. Use the truck PCM since it is set-up for the 5.3 CI needs (not sure on the rev limit). The 5.7 F-body PCM will work though. It removes the need for the penalty weight the LS1 4th gens carry since it was only there due to it having an aluminum block. It woulds also stop some of the Ford guys from complaining about the 350 being unfair. Not that is has proven to be an advantage once restricted. The 5.3 would likely not need to be restricted and if so, not much.

 

The first step would be to get some dyno numbers of one thru a T-56 and a 10 bolt to see what the curve looks like compaired to a 5.7.

[Adam Ginsberg]

I'm confused-hasnt Pandora's box already been opened for the Ford engines? How does the sanctioning body currently police the Ford combinations right now? Dyno?

 

You might remember there was a reason the Ford 5.0L engine was permitted to make changes - so they could get to the CMC2 numbers that the LT1's and LS1's can make so easily. In normal CMC1 trim, none of those parts were legal, and weren't necessary to make the 230/300 numbers.

 

At this point in time, we use a dyno sheet, and at the Nats, a whistler to verify compression.

 

I'm aware that a dyno sheet will provide quite a bit of proof if my LS motor doesn't make peak power till 8k. But there isn't a stock LS setup that is going to rev to 8k. Glenn was talking only about an AI combination.

 

I recognize Glenn was talking about an AI motor. My point was the mixing and matching of parts could lead to some potential problems. Especially since we don't need to go with the the 5.3L engine, at least, not yet.

 

I mean the 5.3 is, as Adam says "damn near the same" as my 5.7 LS1.

 

Ah, I'm not sure where you got your ideas, but I never said the 5.3 is "damn near the same" as the 5.7. Recheck your facts.

 

I propose that the next person to blow a LS motor be allowed to drop in a 5.3 replacement as a test mule to be put on the dyno and raced to see how it compares?

 

The idea sounds great....same suggestion I made a bit earlier in this thread. However, I neglected to mention an important point.....all of the costs would come out of the competitors pocket

 

It sounds so simple. In reality, it's not. A racer would have to buy the 5.3, install it, document the installation, and perform the dyno runs - all out of their pocket.

 

As Dave Schotz about being the guinea pig for an engine combo, then having it deemed no longer legal for competition.

 

I would think the 5.3 would be a great alternative. Use the truck PCM since it is set-up for the 5.3 CI needs (not sure on the rev limit). The 5.7 F-body PCM will work though.

 

Further bastardization. IMO, not a good idea.

 

It removes the need for the penalty weight the LS1 4th gens carry since it was only there due to it having an aluminum block. It woulds also stop some of the Ford guys from complaining about the 350 being unfair. Not that is has proven to be an advantage once restricted. The 5.3 would likely not need to be restricted and if so, not much.

 

The weight penalty for the 4th Gen is not just for the AL engine, it's also there due to the better suspension setup. It's there for parity.

[Alien]

You might remember there was a reason the Ford 5.0L engine was permitted to make changes ...

I think they are refering to the 4.6L combinations. I don't think anyone has any real beaf with the 5.0L modifications.

 

It removes the need for the penalty weight the LS1 4th gens carry

The weight penalty for the 4th Gen is not just for the AL engine, it's also there due to the better suspension setup. It's there for parity.

 

"LS1 vehicles add 50lbs to weights below"

He was refering to the +50lbs the LS1 cars carry over the LT1 cars, not vs the Fords.

[Glenn]

It removes the need for the penalty weight the LS1 4th gens carry since it was only there due to it having an aluminum block. It woulds also stop some of the Ford guys from complaining about the 350 being unfair. Not that is has proven to be an advantage once restricted. The 5.3 would likely not need to be restricted and if so, not much.

 

The weight penalty for the 4th Gen is not just for the AL engine, it's also there due to the better suspension setup. It's there for parity.

 

Read a little more carefully. I said penalty weight for the LS1 4th gen, not penalty weight for just the 4th gen. As you know the LS1 engined 4th gens carry an extra amount just for the aluminum engine since it is 75 lbs lighter than the LT1. If we didn't do this, All 4th gen guys would switch to the LS1. We all have wanted a series where we could set the weight for each platform to the same. It reduces the variables. We can't always get there, thus the 3100 lb Fox, 3250 for the LS1 and 2005 Ford's, and 3150 for the 94-98 Fords.

[ls168camaro]

As usual Gary is correct. I don't know the Ford's well but my understanding is that they are allowed head/block swaps that result in greatly increased compression than anything that ever came from the factory.

 

Adam-with regards to the 5.0 stuff-are the Explorer heads/intakes legal? Also, I was just borrowing your quote "damn near the same".

[TurboShortBus]

As usual Gary is correct. I don't know the Ford's well but my understanding is that they are allowed head/block swaps that result in greatly increased compression than anything that ever came from the factory.

The statement about greatly increased compression ratios when swapping OEM heads only applies to the 4.6L Fords, not the 5.0L pushrod Fords. Differentiating between them in these discussions will avoid confusion.

 

Adam-with regards to the 5.0 stuff-are the Explorer heads/intakes legal?

This is already covered in the current 2011 rules for CMC2:

 

8.5.3 Ford 5.0 cars may use Explorer/Mountaineer GT40P heads and intake manifolds.

 

Mark

[cmc79]

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

 

This is where I would like to see it.

 

I would like to see a CMC3, or CMC4. A place for the new S197 Mustangs, and 5th Gen Camaros...

 

This idea has been mentioned in the past. I would like to see it given some serious thought.

CMC1 - 230/300

CMC2 - what it is now.. or maybe even a little more power

CMC3 - new Camaro and Mustang

 

If this structure was available (and there was no plan to get rid of), I wonder how many would have stayed in CMC1. I would have and still would if rule changes were made before I spend the money to make more power.

 

I bet in a few short years someone will want to race the newer body styles with minimal mods (CMC style), instead of going to AI.

Then we'll be right back in the same boat of bringing the existing cars up to the new cars.

 

Honda Challenge seems to do well in other parts of the country with the H1-H5 system. 26 HC drivers at Nat's in three classes. 14 CMC in two classes with one class going to be cancelled.

[Glenn]

5.2 cars per class (5 classes) seems pretty weak. I'm not saying CMC1 should go away, but using HC's classes of H1-H5 as an example of success is a poor example.

[GT4Point6]

As usual Gary is correct. I don't know the Ford's well but my understanding is that they are allowed head/block swaps that result in greatly increased compression than anything that ever came from the factory.

 

Depends on where you get your info from. The 4.6 PI motors were already 9.5-9.7:1 and the head swap takes them to 10.25-10.5:1 from the info I've seen on the net. I wouldn't classify that as "greatly" in any fashion. Keep in mind this is on the smallest ci engine in the class, 281 ci, so a 1 point CP increase at best on that small of motor doens't net nearly as much as say a 350 ci engine would from the same bump (25% larger motor).

 

Also keep in mind that since CMC is a no-tear-down series, it's really, really, really hard to tell is someone put in pistons to up the CP a point or two in any motor. Some run race gas, why? Even at 10.5 to one, 91 is sufficient. But yet many run high octane race fuel.

 

We are also allowed to run Ford 5.0 in the 99-04 body style, that also never came from the factory that way so the SN95, as a whole, is grouped toghether even with different motors, bodies, drivetrain, track width, etc...

 

Rant over...

 

5.2 cars per class (5 classes) seems pretty weak. I'm not saying CMC1 should go away, but using HC's classes of H1-H5 as an example of success is a poor example.

 

I thought this was a done deal for 2012, one class. Did that change?

[cmc79]

5.2 cars per class (5 classes) seems pretty weak. I'm not saying CMC1 should go away, but using HC's classes of H1-H5 as an example of success is a poor example.

 

How is success a poor example?

If it failed it would be a poor example.

[TurboShortBus]

Down here, 5 cars per race class (that isn't Spec Miata) would be pretty phenomenal. Not all regions have 20+ CMC cars showing up, so I don't think the comparisons should be based on a typical weekend in Texas.

 

Mark

[roadracerwhite]

Also keep in mind that since CMC is a no-tear-down series, it's really, really, really hard to tell is someone put in pistons to up the CP a point or two in any motor. Some run race gas, why? Even at 10.5 to one, 91 is sufficient. But yet many run high octane race fuel.

 

Read the rules again. That was taken out a couple years ago.

 

3.10 Inspection and Testing

NASA tech inspectors and CMC Officials have the right to inspect anything in sight at any time the vehicle is at the track. NASA tech inspectors and CMC Officials have the right to request disassembly or any other procedure required to verify vehicle compliance with these rules including a dynamometer re-certification. The CMC Official may require that a CMC Official or designee be present for any dynamometer re-certification.

[Glenn]

5.2 cars per class (5 classes) seems pretty weak. I'm not saying CMC1 should go away, but using HC's classes of H1-H5 as an example of success is a poor example.

 

I thought this was a done deal for 2012, one class. Did that change?

 

No it did not.

[Glenn]

5.2 cars per class (5 classes) seems pretty weak. I'm not saying CMC1 should go away, but using HC's classes of H1-H5 as an example of success is a poor example.

 

How is success a poor example?

If it failed it would be a poor example.

 

I don't consider that class a success. You seem to. As I said, 5.2 car per class does not eqaul success to me. HC is also only big on the west coast if I recall.

23 cars in CMC at the 2006 Nats is a success. For 2012, I hope we can equal that.

[Glenn]

Down here, 5 cars per race class (that isn't Spec Miata) would be pretty phenomenal. Not all regions have 20+ CMC cars showing up, so I don't think the comparisons should be based on a typical weekend in Texas.

 

Mark

 

It wasn't, it was based on a Nationals weekend. A weekend in which I've attended 4 out of the 5 events held (w/ a car no less).

[Glenn]

Also keep in mind that since CMC is a no-tear-down series, it's really, really, really hard to tell is someone put in pistons to up the CP a point or two in any motor. Some run race gas, why? Even at 10.5 to one, 91 is sufficient. But yet many run high octane race fuel.

 

Read the rules again. That was taken out a couple years ago.

 

3.10 Inspection and Testing

NASA tech inspectors and CMC Officials have the right to inspect anything in sight at any time the vehicle is at the track. NASA tech inspectors and CMC Officials have the right to request disassembly or any other procedure required to verify vehicle compliance with these rules including a dynamometer re-certification. The CMC Official may require that a CMC Official or designee be present for any dynamometer re-certification.

 

I'm pretty sure Nationals Tech has checked comp ratio and CI's in the past. It was done w/out a teardown.

[TurboShortBus]

Down here, 5 cars per race class (that isn't Spec Miata) would be pretty phenomenal. Not all regions have 20+ CMC cars showing up, so I don't think the comparisons should be based on a typical weekend in Texas.

 

Mark

 

It wasn't, it was based on a Nationals weekend. A weekend in which I've attended 4 out of the 5 events held (w/ a car no less).

We probably can't compare participation at Nationals to weekend events, either.

 

Mark

[Glenn]

Down here, 5 cars per race class (that isn't Spec Miata) would be pretty phenomenal. Not all regions have 20+ CMC cars showing up, so I don't think the comparisons should be based on a typical weekend in Texas.

 

Mark

 

It wasn't, it was based on a Nationals weekend. A weekend in which I've attended 4 out of the 5 events held (w/ a car no less).

We probably can't compare participation at Nationals to weekend events, either.

 

Mark

 

I'm not sure where weekend event comparisons where made. It is something you must have assumed I did, when I didn't and you keep pointing it out.

[TurboShortBus]

My mistake, Almighty One. The first comment about turnout was apparently about Nationals.

 

As for my comments, just getting 5 cars in a class down here at a normal weekend event (excluding Spec Miata or Spec E30) would be spectacular, as we are apparently a relatively small region. Even 1 CMC car down here would be an improvement.

 

Mark

[Glenn]

Someone has to be first, why not you? It takes alot to get a region off the ground. Adam Ginsburg and Todd Covini were the ones who did it here.

 

Don't fault the series for lack of regional participation or growth. Texas is not the only region w/ good car count. Cali had great car counts prior to the NorCal/SoCal split. Not a CMC Series decision. But those two regions are paying the price for it w/ regards to car count. GL's is growing by leaps and bounds. SE and Mid Atlantic seem to be doing well aslo. Texas has its moments, but only as of late. We have a spit series for the rest of the year. Starting in 2012 I expect to see the fun factor go way back up - directly related to car count - as a result of one CMC class.

 

What is the point....

Build your car, and run. 1 car leads to 2 cars. 2 cars leads to 4 cars, 4 cars leads to 10 cars. In 2004, Texas was 3-4 cars (I think). In 2005 we had 15. In 2007 we had like 20. 2010 we had like 34. I have no idea where we are now (edit -31). In 2012, I expect 30+ possibly 40 points collecting drivers. Drivers not split between two classes.

 

What was the topic again..... ?