2013 rules, the Director's Cut

[Burnett]

Glen, I think my point is just that. Something drastic doesnt have to be done. We are so close now, 2012 rules, we just need to fine tune.

 

255's + 200lbs - 20hp? this is still 14.37 P/W. 145lbs more & 20hp less than an LS1.

 

How much of a head start is too much? How many strokes on the golf course?

 

If this all about the championships (last 2), people need to race on the track not from their couch. They may be supprised how close to the front they are if they would come. Changing the rules based on the results of 2 races over 2 years is a knee jerk reaction.

[MHISSTC]

Is it Legal in CMC to use a 5.0 out of an Exploder?

 

Yes, but consider it to be a long block donor and not a complete engine donor. Have you got your hands on some cheap 5.0 Explorer engines? Cash-For-Clunkers took a whole bunch of those evil polluting death-trap rollover Firestone debacle SUVs out of the supply chain that could have kept Mustang owners in cheap V8s donor engines for years.

 

As indicated in the rule excerpt below, the major component differences between the Cobra engines and the Explorer engines are allowed. It's not a plug and play deal though because the accessories and brackets are different, the exhaust manifolds are different, you have to swap in a distributor, change the valve springs, go with the Cobra roller rockers and swap the flexplate for a flywheel.

 

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

[Den341548534727]

Yes, but consider it to be a long block donor and not a complete engine donor

There seems to be some misconseptions about the 5.3. This is exactly the same as the explorer situation. With the truck 5.3 you CANNOT use the 5.3 oil pan or intake or front accessories. It is purely a longblock change over. You still need all the F-body accesories, intake and oil pan from a LS1. The use of a 5.3 is perfect for someone who has a blown up LS1 and does not want to spend the $3300 for a new long block from Summit but rather use one of the literally tens of thousands of 5.3 engines available for around 500 bucks.

[MHISSTC]

I thought I should also mention, all the accessories and exhaust manifolds you take off the Explorer engines are not throw-away items. With the very tight packaging of what is essentially a Cobra engine in an SUV, the engineers did a very good job of fitting everything in very close quarters. Therefore, many of the Ranger and import 4x4 folks looking to convert over to domestic V8 power are in need of those specific items in order to package the 5.0 into small engine bays. Sell that stuff on Ebay or Craigslist to recoup some of your expenses.

[Al F.]

Robin, yes, it looks extreme. When we tried the 235s that looked extreme too, and there were many emails and threads about NASA being off their rocker and not wanting the S197 to compete etc. etc.

 

NASA wants everyone to compete, and we want everyone to feel they are going into a fair gunfight. Right now the S197 drivers feel its impossible. At the end of 2011 every non-S197 driver feelt it impossible. We're closer to where we'll end up.

[raybob92891548534723]

Yes, but consider it to be a long block donor and not a complete engine donor

There seems to be some misconseptions about the 5.3. This is exactly the same as the explorer situation. With the truck 5.3 you CANNOT use the 5.3 oil pan or intake or front accessories. It is purely a longblock change over. You still need all the F-body accesories, intake and oil pan from a LS1. The use of a 5.3 is perfect for someone who has a blown up LS1 and does not want to spend the $3300 for a new long block from Summit but rather use one of the literally tens of thousands of 5.3 engines available for around 500 bucks.

 

Bobby Denton stole my point. The 5.3 is a really cheap alternative to the LS1. As Bob said, the cheap 5.3 out of a Truck, Tahoe or Suburban is the equivalent to the Exploder 5.0....

Adam, I only push this because CMC is supposed to be an affordable V8 class and a $700 5.3 is better than a $3000 LS1 anyway you slice it.

[Adam Ginsberg]

As Bob said, the cheap 5.3 out of a Truck, Tahoe or Suburban is the equivalent to the Exploder 5.0....

 

I'll agree it's close, but not a full equivalent. Simply put - the 5.0L engine from the Explorer is the same engine as found in the 5.0L Mustangs. Block, displacement, crank, rods, pistons, and the now legal GT40P heads.

 

The 5.3L GM engine is not the same as the LS1 found in the Cam/Birds - displacement being the most obvious difference. Hence why I continue to say it's an "engine swap".

 

I don't know enough, yet, about the rest (rods, crank, pistons, etc), but plan on educating myself. Quickly.

 

Adam, I only push this because CMC is supposed to be an affordable V8 class and a $700 5.3 is better than a $3000 LS1 anyway you slice it.

 

Yes, CMC is supposed to be an affordable V8 racing class. However, if a racer chooses to race an LS1-engined GM car, that person has to recognize the risk/reward with his/her choice. If that engine is more expensive to replace/rebuilt/repair than other CMC cars (as you state, but I disagree with), is that really the responsibility of the directors? I don't believe it is.

 

I'm not in favor of making our rulebook even larger, and/or more difficult to enforce than it already is. Another unnecessary (IMO) engine swap will do exactly that.

[cozog1548534733]

We are so close now, 2012 rules, we just need to fine tune.

 

Robin, that is not a true statement. The 200lb adjustment will NOT affect the S197. It was raced, in GL/MW, at 200lbs, sometimes closer to 300lbs, over min for the entire 2012 season. It was confirmed at impound after the races.

 

The difference for 2013 is giving up HP for bigger tires. I am ASSuming that is because the S197 guys didn't like spending $$$ on 235's last year and their complaints were being addressed by NASA by allowing them back on 275's, but at the cost of some HP.

 

You may be right about the amount of HP changed being too much, but there is no way of knowing the performance hit without putting them on track. I have no doubt Al will be watching this very closely and making adjustments as needed.

[mitchntx1548534714]

Yes, CMC is supposed to be an affordable V8 racing class. However, if a racer chooses to race an LS1-engined GM car, that person has to recognize the risk/reward with his/her choice. If that engine is more expensive to replace/rebuilt/repair than other CMC cars (as you state, but I disagree with), is that really the responsibility of the directors? I don't believe it is.

 

Replace the bolded sections with the terms "Ford based 4-link" and "suspension design" respectfully, then repost.

 

How can any one take you seriously when your bias is so obvious?

[raybob92891548534723]

Yes, CMC is supposed to be an affordable V8 racing class. However, if a racer chooses to race an LS1-engined GM car, that person has to recognize the risk/reward with his/her choice. If that engine is more expensive to replace/rebuilt/repair than other CMC cars (as you state, but I disagree with), is that really the responsibility of the directors? I don't believe it is.

 

Replace the bolded sections with the terms "Ford based 4-link" and "suspension design" respectfully, then repost.

 

How can any one take you seriously when your bias is so obvious?

 

I agree with Mitch and the truck 5.3 is an LS1 with an Iron Block and .4 less liters of displacement....

[Adam Ginsberg]

Replace the bolded sections with the terms "Ford based 4-link" and "suspension design" respectfully, then repost.

 

How can any one take you seriously when your bias is so obvious?

 

Mitch, you've made your displeasure with the series abundantly clear, stopped racing, sold your car, yet continue to toss little hand grenades out to stir the pot and see the carnage. You have this unusual perspective that everyone is out to get you, bait you into something, etc.

 

I'm interested in NOT expanding our rulebook, NOT making it hard to tech vehicles, NOT interested in putting more parts into cars that weren't there to begin with, and, NOT interested in our series looking more and more like A-Sedan.

 

Whether you choose to believe that or not is for you to decide, and is your problem to deal with. Your belief that I'm biased, out to get people, and the like goes back to the very first year you started racing CMC in Texas.

[mitchntx1548534714]

Replace the bolded sections with the terms "Ford based 4-link" and "suspension design" respectfully, then repost.

 

How can any one take you seriously when your bias is so obvious?

 

Mitch, you've made your displeasure with the series abundantly clear, stopped racing, sold your car, yet continue to toss little hand grenades out to stir the pot and see the carnage. You have this unusual perspective that everyone is out to get you, bait you into something, etc.

 

I'm interested in NOT expanding our rulebook, NOT making it hard to tech vehicles, NOT interested in putting more parts into cars that weren't there to begin with, and, NOT interested in our series looking more and more like A-Sedan.

 

Whether you choose to believe that or not is for you to decide, and is your problem to deal with. Your belief that I'm biased, out to get people, and the like goes back to the very first year you started racing CMC in Texas.

 

I expected nothing less than a non-answer from you. Standard pat answer from you has always been deflect and divert attention away from the corner you paint yourself into.

 

It's internet 101.

 

I sold my car to seek out an opportunity. Doesn't mean I've turned my back on the series, although the series continues to turn it's back on the racers.

 

And my displeasure is NOT with the series, but you. I have ZERO respect for you. You lost me at Hallett in what, 2008?

 

But back on topic ... explain how this less expensive alternative "engine swap" to a SMALLER displacement and HEAVIER package is a concern?

 

Or is it because of who is advocating it and not so much "for the good of the series"?

 

Your vieled concern over the rulebook is laughable as you have shit on it yourself. So don't even go there.

[raybob92891548534723]

explain how this less expensive alternative "engine swap" to a SMALLER displacement and HEAVIER package is a concern?

 

 

I kinda want answers to this question myself. Start explaining I wanna know..

[ShadowBolt]

Not my fight but.......

If Raybob installed one of these 5.3's would anyone ever even know it? I assume you would have to take the numbers off the block to see what it is. Has that ever been checked.....even at Nationals? The only issue I would think is if the 5.3 being smaller reacts better to the restrictor plate. I know back in the first days of restrictor plate racing in NASCAR Darrell Waltrip was winning a lot. They found he was running a smaller engine than the 358 everyone else was running because the smaller engine made better power restricted than the full size one. The rules were changed so you had to run the whole 358 cu. in.

 

 

JJ

[Glenn]

That is one reason it is being tested first.

The 5.3 is also iron. The 5.7 is aluminum.

[ShadowBolt]

That is one reason it is being tested first.

The 5.3 is also iron. The 5.7 is aluminum.

 

 

and.........that is going to help how? Oh I see what you mean it would be easy to tell.

 

 

JJ

[Steve91T]

There are ton of LT1's out there, but very few from F bodies. The 5.3 truck engine is something I would be very interested in. What is it, 50 pounds heavier?

[D Algozine]

That is one reason it is being tested first.

The 5.3 is also iron. The 5.7 is aluminum.

 

The 5.3 is available in both aluminum and iron.

In regards to JJ's comments about a smaller displacment making more power. It doesn't matter, CMC is HP and TQ limited, NASCAR is not. Make all the power you want, but your set up still needs to fit into the table provided in the rules. The only possible performance issue would be the curves under the limits, which possibly could be better, and should be verified, but I doubt there would be much if any differences.

[camaro_1le]

I was pretty disappointed that the 5.3 was not made an option this year. The funny thing is when they were looking to move the 3rd gen up to CMC2 numbers, I suggested the iron block LS1 motor. Cheap, reliable and plenty of parts.

 

I was told introducing that motor would open up a Pandora's box with the Ford racers wanting truck motors. So I given the LT1 option.

 

On my third LT1 and probably 24th opti, I am just parking the car. I will probably move it to AI one of these days. I have not been able to get my LT1's reliable and the Chinese made Optis have sidelined the car for about 50% of the races. Yes, i know there are people on their original optis. Hats off to them, I am not one. I have to rely upon the Chinese version that are the only options available.

 

Let's put it this way, step one is pull them apart and locktite the screws in. If not, 5 laps in, the screws back out and the rotor comes off. If they can not get the screws in right, I am sure they are wizards with the optical reader...not.

 

It seems a reliable LS motor that weighs the same as the LT1, makes the CMC power, is more reliable and costs 1/3 less would be a slam dunk.

 

If the Ford drivers have the same option or better...get that into the rules.

 

No reason we can not move towards a spec GM and spec Ford motor in the series.

[Adam Ginsberg]

And my displeasure is NOT with the series, but you. I have ZERO respect for you. You lost me at Hallett in what, 2008?

.....

 

Your vieled concern over the rulebook is laughable as you have shit on it yourself. So don't even go there.

 

Ah.....bait, eh, Mitch? Too bad it's spoiled.....it dates back to Father's Day weekend, June 2006.

 

I'm not going down that same old road again, Mitch. Your lack of respect for me, Todd, and NASA, was clear well before Hallett, back to when you first started racing CMC in 2005. You have this consistent perception that people are out to get you in some way, and it simply isn't true. It's a message you've been sending, loud and clear, since AI/CMC started in Texas in 2004.

 

It's rather interesting that you mention my "veiled concern over the rulebook", when you yourself went a bit overboard, demanding a safety waiver during the construction of your car for CCR-required rollbar tube...something we as Series Directors are not permitted to waive, and an area I refuse to provide waivers for (any idea the insurance implications if SD's waive safety requirements?????), yet you vilified me in particular, saying "What I got was general dismissal. Its the reason to this day why I consider you a pompous ass". A waiver on a required safety item? A single rollbar tube at that? Really?

 

Throwing Hallett out there is a convenient attempt to try and illicit some crazy response from me.

 

This time, it's not going to work.

 

Whatever "issues" you have about Hallett are yours, and yours alone. My car was sealed at the track by the NASA Tech Officials, sent to the same dyno it had been on before (Lou Gigliotti's), re-inspected by Kevin Mixon prior to it's runs, and posted near identical numbers (within 1HP, IIRC) as the dyno sheets presented at the event. I left Hallett around 8:30am on Saturday after completing the driver's meeting, so that I could attend to a family emergency back in Dallas. Never even drove the car that weekend - my team mate did, with a pair of 5th places, a 6th, and a ripping 8th. It attended the 2006 Mid-Ohio Nationals 3 months later in the exact same configuration, was scrutinized quite thoroughly at the Nats, and passed there too.

 

It's old, Mitch. Ridiculously old. Toss whatever shit out there you'd like, Mitch, but I'm done discussing it.

 

If folks really are that interested in old history, contact the Race Director who ran that event.....Clifton Winkleman.

[Al F.]

Adam, Mitch, cut it out. You guys dont like each other, we get it. Take it offline or I'll take both of you off this line.

 

The 5.3 is being evaluated in due course. Its painfully long for those wanting to pull the trigger I guess, but its better than jumping off the cliff and then thinking about whether or not we needed a parachute. I'm not worried about peak power, I am worried about area under the curve however. I'm also worried about other details, all of which will need to be flushed out. Patience.

[Glenn]

That is one reason it is being tested first.

The 5.3 is also iron. The 5.7 is aluminum.

 

The 5.3 is available in both aluminum and iron.

In regards to JJ's comments about a smaller displacment making more power. It doesn't matter, CMC is HP and TQ limited, NASCAR is not. Make all the power you want, but your set up still needs to fit into the table provided in the rules. The only possible performance issue would be the curves under the limits, which possibly could be better, and should be verified, but I doubt there would be much if any differences.

 

I don't see the aluminum 5.3 being a cheeper alternative to rebuilding a 5.7. So, while they may make it legal to use, I don't see many picking it due to a limited production run and cost. It will still carry the 50lb penalty the aluminum 5.7 LS1 has.

If it was me, I wouldn't allow the aluminum 5.3.

[ls168camaro]

Yes, first the easy way to tell is most 5.3's are iron but some are aluminum. They also have a big 5.3 as part of the casting instead of 5.7 so easily identifiable.

Everything is interchangeable and the cam that came in the 2001-2002 F-Body's is the same as the truck cam. So, the 5.7 heads, intake, cam, etc would all be the same. The difference is it would have 20 less cubic inches and likely an iron block. It will still need to be restricted. But the big difference is any day of the week I can go find a running short block for $250. But as Adam pointed out a long block version is available for over $3k.

I understand it needs to be evaluated and compared on the dyno. Hopefully they will compare it to every LS1 dyno out there. With the research/experience I have had with the LS motors it is going to be withing the norm of the other dynos. I bet it's closer than the wide variety in the way the LT1 dyno's differently. Meaning there is a big difference in the dyno's of LT1's out there.

It would just be nice to hear from the directors that if everything comes out equal then there is no reason it wouldn't be legal? I know Adam is against it but what about the others.

 

Glenn-why wouldn't you allow the aluminum block? There are more of them available than LS1 blocks. They can also be bored up to a 5.7 if you hurt the motor. You are correct the aluminum 5.3 isn't cheaper to rebuild-the difference is the availability of running motors that could be picked up for under $500 and use the shortblock instead of spending $3k on a rebuild. Just like I sold Proctor the engine he is running for $500 he didn't rebuild it but just dropped it in and won the championship.

 

I hear you Al about Adam fighting with everyone. I thought Mitch's original post was brillaint and right on the money concerning the topic. And like clockwork-Adam instantly comes in for an all out personal assault. Thankfully the rest of the directors don't take everything so personal.

 

92_1le-the fords already have access to an unlimited supply of truck motors that are the same. What's funny is the ford driver's who have whined for years about the advantage of the Chevy 350 now are against a smaller Chevy engine option.

[Waco Racer]

If folks really are that interested in old history, contact the Race Director who ran that event.....Clifton Winkleman.

 

Did anybody get the license plate number of that bus....

[mitchntx1548534714]

Adam, Mitch, cut it out. You guys dont like each other, we get it. Take it offline or I'll take both of you off this line.

 

The 5.3 is being evaluated in due course. Its painfully long for those wanting to pull the trigger I guess, but its better than jumping off the cliff and then thinking about whether or not we needed a parachute. I'm not worried about peak power, I am worried about area under the curve however. I'm also worried about other details, all of which will need to be flushed out. Patience.

 

Well keep him on a leash, then.

 

 

 

How long were 4 piston brakes "evaluated"?

 

More costly status quo as opposed to budget minded change will kill this series. Racers at this level don't have access to unlimited funding.

 

Where I came to a cross-roads is that I had to make a decision ... do I want to just show-up and ride around or do I want to at least have a shot at being competitive?

 

I can show up and ride around at other venues for a LOT less time, effort and budget.

 

I sold out while I could and taking a wait and see position before I decide to move forward or move on.

 

I'm to the point where I don't care who knows it. But there are others, in and out of the Texas region, who are at a similar crossroads.

 

You need to stop the hemorraghing or CMC will continue to be a revolving door. Take care of the racers that made the series great, others will come in due time.