Jump to content
wastntim

RCR - engine choice

Recommended Posts

wastntim

Per Al's direction, I have just submitted the following RCR to my director Bob Denton:

 

Bob:

 

Enclosed please find my rule change request for rule 7.11.1 to be proposed to the directors for the upcoming season.

 

1) Robert Salus – Midwest Region, car no. 24, cell 708-306-5807

2) Existing Rule:

 

7.11.1 Any 4.6 Ford, 5.0,(302 Ford or 305 GM), 5.7 liter LT1/LS1 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. Additionally, early GM cars may run any LT-1 from the 93-97 Late GM cars as long as the stock LT1 engine controlling electronics are maintained

 

3) Proposed Rule:

 

7.11.1 Any 4.6 Ford, 5.0,(302 Ford or 305 GM), 5.7 liter LT1 or 5.3 LS series or 5.7 LS1 GM V8 production engine, in OEM stock configuration unless otherwise stated in these rules, in an eligible model car is legal. Cobra R model engines (Ford),and LT4 (GM/Chevrolet) engines or engine components are prohibited. Additionally, the stock engine controlling electronics must be maintained. No special tuning or modification or engine mapping is allowed .

 

4) Allowing this rule change will promote the following:

 

a. Granting car owners more flexibility within the platforms will allow them to modify existing cars with other engines that may be more reliable or have parts more readily accessible. For example, allowing an LS1 in a third gen will give existing third gen owners the opportunity to move to a more reliable and more current LS1. Although LT1’s give third gen owners the opportunity to have the benefit of fuel injection, the limitations of the OBDI computer make diagnosis of engine malfunctions difficult and expensive to diagnose. Instead of having more detailed data from an OBDII computer, LT1 owners are left with gathering limited data and throwing parts to attempt to diagnose problems. LT1 owners are very limited with respect to PCM data information. As far as I am aware, the only real tool to evaluate an OBD1 LT1 is datamaster, which is an expensive tool that can only be run on a laptop. Whereas OBDII LS1 owners have a multitude of options available including simple inexpensive plugs that can work with an app which costs a fraction of what is available to an LT1 owner. The OBDII of the LS1 makes it much easier for owners to find mechanics that can assist in diagnosing engine issues. Finding mechanics that are even willing to look at an OBDI computer can be impossible, even in heavy populated areas such as Chicago, IL. The availability to go to more mechanics means the option of finding more reasonable pricing, thus granting third gen owners the right to run an OBDII LS1 would decrease costs to all existing third gen owners.

b. The ability to utilize more current technology within older platforms within the series promotes safety as it provides racers with more reliable and diagnosable engines, allowing less catastrophic failures.

c. Allowing engine choice flexibility within the different platforms will promote the series in that it will make older generations of vehicles more attractive to potential racers. Individuals who may already own an older generation of a vehicle such as third gen Firebird or Camaro will be less inclined to feel the need to go to a fourth gen simply to have the ability to run the more reliable and diagnosable LS1. Furthermore, allowing use of any engine within the same platform makes our current rules seem much less arbitrary and capricious. For example, why is a LT1 allowed in a third gen but not an LS1. An LT1 was never available in a third gen and neither was an LS1, so why exactly would one be legal and not the other? Furthermore, with our horsepower limitations, how exactly would a third gen have an advantage by being able to run an LS1? It is going to make the same horsepower. It will not have an advantage of an 4th gen already running an LS1. All this rule would do would make the series more flexible to those wanting to keep their older cars but that want to run newer, already legal, technology.

d. Allowing older generations within the same platform to runner newer technology will obviously improve competition. It will enable these older cars to compete with the newer cars which are tending to dominate across the country. As the rules are currently written, it is a clear and obvious disadvantage to run a third gen firebird or Camaro which is why there has been a mass exodus from third gens to fourth gens.

e. Allowing this change will make the rules more clear in that potential racers won’t have to attempt to understand why our rules seem to include unnecessary and illogical “lines in the sandâ€.

 

Thank you,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wastntim

After two season of chasing engine issues on my LT1, I have had it. I have spent four times as much time working on the car as I have spent racing it. The continual and reoccurring issues I have had has tainted my attitude so much, I actually considered selling everything and finding a new hobby, but I have decided to simply make a change. If I cannot modify this car to be reliable, then I will simply build a different car and run in another series. The OBDI computer makes it extremely difficult to diagnose problems and impossible to find someone who can. I live in Chicago and spent a week calling every mechanic I could find and not one would diagnose my OBD1 computer.

 

The simple fact is that this "cost controlling" series has become too "time" expensive to continue in under the current rules. I refuse, as a matter of principle, to sell my car and build a 4th gen. I find it ridiculous that I would need to buy a car that is a few years newer to have the ability to run an engine that is more reliable and that I can find someone to work on it when I have a problem.

 

If the directors cannot begin to work to make all the generations of our cars more equal then they can count on having one less racer in the group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn

OBDII started on the LT1 in 96.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wastntim
OBDII started on the LT1 in 96.

 

Although the information is appreciated, the question remains why LS1 is not available for gen3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BADVENM

I'm probably out of my element here (with GM stuff) but I had asked some of our 4th gen guys (last year) why an LS1 wasnt in the 3rd gens and they said that the 4th gen motor wouldnt simply drop into a 3rd gen, there was quite a bit of modification to the front end of the car (not sure what components had to be removed or altered) to allow the LS1 to drop/fit in. It sounded like it was quite the pain in the butt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PeteL

Timely Post since I just blew up the 305 in my 3rd gen on Friday. Still weighing my options, but a 305 won't be going back in.

 

I don't see a down side to allowing the LS in the 3rd gen for anyone in CMC. If having this choice available helps increase field counts that's good for all of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MHISSTC

On the other side of the pond...

While I like the idea of what you are proposing and my heart really says "why not?", opening up this rule would allow the stuffing a 4.6L modular engine in a fox while also allowing a carbed pushrod 302 in an S197. I salivate at the prospect of doing both because they are equally cool. However, as much fun as it is to think about, neither one is a direct bolt-in affair and there is some amount of parts swapping and massaging to be done to make it happen that also makes these types of swaps "time expensive".

 

But, the sheer coolness of doing it just to say you've done it might attract someone to the series and might keep some folks going in the series.

 

Like you said, with our HP/TQ limits, one engine shouldn't have an advantage over another. With weight differences in the engines, there may be some variations in front/rear weight biases that currently aren't accounted for that may arise from the swap.

 

Does this qualify as the dreaded "rules creep"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
soundguydave1548534741
On the other side of the pond...

While I like the idea of what you are proposing and my heart really says "why not?", opening up this rule would allow the stuffing a 4.6L modular engine in a fox while also allowing a carbed pushrod 302 in an S197. I salivate at the prospect of doing both because they are equally cool. However, as much fun as it is to think about, neither one is a direct bolt-in affair and there is some amount of parts swapping and massaging to be done to make it happen that also makes these types of swaps "time expensive".

I'm with you... "Why not?" I think the final wording would need some work, since there are technically four different 4.6L motors (2-valve, 4-valve NA, 4-valve supercharged, and 3-valve from the S197), but I would have no objection to allowing a 350 LS-1 into any of the F-body chassis. I know for a fact that there are engine swap K-members on the aftermarket that would essentially make this a bolt-in deal, but that would necessitate opening up K-members to replacement, something I don't think would happen, or that we should even necessarily WANT to have happen.

 

Now, how about a 351W into the FOX/SN95??? After all, the smallest legal GM engine still has more cubes than the biggest legal Ford. And the biggest legal GM engine only has an extra 69 cubes over the smallest legal Ford... No replacement for displacement, right?

 

But, the sheer coolness of doing it just to say you've done it might attract someone to the series and might keep some folks going in the series.

 

Like you said, with our HP/TQ limits, one engine shouldn't have an advantage over another. With weight differences in the engines, there may be some variations in front/rear weight biases that currently aren't accounted for that may arise from the swap.

 

Does this qualify as the dreaded "rules creep"?

Of course it would! That's not how it was back when 230HP was a lot, and when our cars were still in production, so it's OBVIOUSLY rules creep!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MHISSTC

Yes, further revision is needed to specify which 4.6L, but I don't even want to venture into the dreamland of allowing a 351W to compete against the 350. That very subject has been raised more than once by folks in the Rocky Mountain Region. It seems fair that similar displacement engines ought to be allowed, but the only CMC type Mustang they were offered in was the '95 Cobra R and those parts are currently specifically prohibited.

 

I don't like the fact that the 5.7L has to be choked down so much to compete and the Ford 351W would likely have to be choked down similarly even though it would be nice to have that fat and flat torque curve. I really like the idea of allowing the 5.3 iron block engine since it is closer in size to the Ford 5.0 and should get rid of the F-body weight penalty. And since we're in dreamland here, I think it would be super cool to totally get rid of the aluminum engine blocks and SOHC/DOHC engines and go totally pushrod engines. All iron blocks, all pushrods, even the Dodge 5.2L and bring the Challenger into the series and make it the modern Trans Am. Back to reality... ...we should probably allow more modern powertrains in the series since that will likely draw more people into the series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
suck fumes1548534743

The 351w was also offered in the 94-98 saleen S351. Those cars aren't listed in the rules so I may have just found your "loophole" haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MHISSTC
The 351w was also offered in the 94-98 saleen S351. Those cars aren't listed in the rules so I may have just found your "loophole" haha

 

Nope. Saleen, Steeda, Roush aren't allowed either.

 

It's also a good idea to steer completely clear of loopholes and gray areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
suck fumes1548534743

I know I was kidding!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom P
Now, how about a 351W into the FOX/SN95??? After all, the smallest legal GM engine still has more cubes than the biggest legal Ford.
I don't like the fact that the 5.7L has to be choked down so much to compete and the Ford 351W would likely have to be choked down similarly even though it would be nice to have that fat and flat torque curve.

I wanted to have a little more fun than always coming in last with CMC so I dropped in a 351W for a few more thrills (now I can finish last in some other class). It's heavily restricted (not for long) by it's current throttle body at 306 rwhp / 351 rwtq.

 

It seems fair that similar displacement engines ought to be allowed, but the only CMC type Mustang they were offered in was the '95 Cobra R and those parts are currently specifically prohibited.

And discontinued by Ford. The lower intake manifold to fit the Cobra upper to the wider valley 351W was discontinued from Ford Racing. If you can find a used one it can be pricey. It basically requires an aftermarket upper and lower intake.

2d4fca90-73c3-45c8-973b-710b2c25ce9b_zpsa6a621ac.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nape1548534725

I'm also interested in doing an LS swap in a 3rd gen. Mainly a junkyard 5.3L motor. Swap on a 4th gen oil pan, intake, and exhaust manifolds. Add a T56 and it should be reliable for ~3-4 seasons.

 

It'll allow you to go racing for less then machine work on a junkyard 305 (if you can find a block without out-of-round bores, been down that road twice with cores for AI engines).

 

I don't think this will be a "class killer". If I was still wanting to build a "to the limit" car it would be a carb car, but being able to jump in and turn the key is starting to sound awful nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D Algozine

Less expensive

More reliable

More widely available

Easier to work on

 

 

Sounds like something that fits in the CMC philosophy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wastntim

If we are truly shooting for parity amongst the platforms as well as the different generations, then how can the directors not allow this change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wastntim
I'm probably out of my element here (with GM stuff) but I had asked some of our 4th gen guys (last year) why an LS1 wasnt in the 3rd gens and they said that the 4th gen motor wouldnt simply drop into a 3rd gen, there was quite a bit of modification to the front end of the car (not sure what components had to be removed or altered) to allow the LS1 to drop/fit in. It sounded like it was quite the pain in the butt.

 

Based upon this article, it doesn't sound bad at all. You can even use the stock K member.

http://www.gmhightechperformance.com/tech/lsx_engine/1008gmhtp_ls1_engine_swap/viewall.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MHISSTC

After looking at that article and the Hawks Third Gen site, a 3rd gen LSx swap doesn't look too hard, but it looks involved with a lot of little things that may add up. It appears Hawks has complete swap kits available, but they aren't on their website yet.

 

So if PeteL wants to swap a 5.3L in his 3rd gen, he probably won't need to cut and weld a notch in the K-member for an AC compressor or have any clearance issues with the stock LSx exhaust manifolds hitting the other AC hardware, but he'll have to massage the back edge of the K-member for oil pan clearance. Everything else needed for the swap seems to be available for purchase for those folks who are weighing the spending time vs. spending money issue. Is a T56 transmission upgrade also required in this swap? From a GM expert, what does the complete parts list look like and how much will it cost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn

One of the reasons the LT1 was made legal was the placement of the motor is same as OEM since the motor mount provisions is the same since the LT1 is a SBC with regards to the block. I am not sure this can be said with the LS1. If the motor is placed rearward or downward then an advantage is created. This will be the biggest hurdle to overcome.

Keep in mind, if the LS1 is allowed in the 3rd gen, the use of aluminum blocks will warrent a 50lb penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn

One of the reasons the LT1 was made legal was the placement of the motor is same as OEM since the motor mount provisions is the same since the LT1 is a SBC with regards to the block. I am not sure this can be said with the LS1. If the motor is placed rearward or downward then an advantage is created. This will be the biggest hurdle to overcome.

Keep in mind, if the LS1 is allowed in the 3rd gen, the use of aluminum blocks will warrent a 50lb penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wastntim

Based upon posts and discussions, we have at least 4 people in the Midwest/Great Lakes alone that would be interested in making the swap to LS1's in their third gens. I have to think that we are not an anomaly here and that there are going to be more people in different regions that are also interested in this project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn

Keep in mind that was the reason for allowing the S197, because guys with them wanted to race with us. Look what that got us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wastntim
Keep in mind that was the reason for allowing the S197, because guys with them wanted to race with us. Look what that got us.

 

I think it is more than a stretch to compare allowing an LS1 in a third gen to allowing in a S197. First, both the third gen and the LS1 are already allowed in under the rules. Only the combination of the two is currently not allowed in the rules. Second, the S197 was a completely new car, with new technology that was untested within the series. This problem exists for neither the third gen nor the LS1. Third, under the horsepower restrictions, the third gens can gain no advantage over the fourth gens or the mustangs.

 

I find it funny that anyone could somehow draw a conclusion that a third gen would somehow have an advantage over other cars or generations by being able to run the same motor that the fourth gens, a car which has arguably better technology and is superior to, already run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ls168camaro

Why stop there? Let me put my ls1 with an astro t5 in a sn99 mustang since there is no disadvantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
suck fumes1548534743

Where the advantage comes into play is where the motor sits in the car. It obviously won't be in the stock location and if you are able to get it there it requires modifying things ,or in the words of a few wise men on here, "cobbling something together to make it legal".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...