RCR - engine choice

[Glenn]

The ECT can also fail in way that it isn't reporting temps in a normal range but hasn't really failed. The range for this sensor to show up as a failure in the pcm is way wider than its normal opperating range.

 

It is a $10 part. Mine will get replaced often.

 

Oh by the way, I replace that as well. It made no difference.

 

From the factory there are two. One in the driver side head and one in the water pump. Each one does something different. Which one did you change?

[Glenn]

After twenty minutes, the car will not go above 4,500 rpm in any gear. Generally, I would guess that it goes down to about 200hp or less.

 

Is it getting really hot? Sounds like limp mode. Not sure OBD-I cars had this though.

 

Sounds like an ICM.

 

https://www.google.com/#q=95+camaro+obd1+scanner

 

http://www.camaroz28.com/forums/lt1-based-engine-tech-9/1995-obd1-scanner-issue-330313/

 

http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=163733

 

http://www.automotiveforums.com/t900449-discuss95_camaro_obd_i_with_obd_ii_connector.html

 

[wastntim]

Is it getting really hot? Sounds like limp mode. Not sure OBD-I cars had this though.

 

On Monday the water temp was 185 degrees when it happened. I initially thought it was overheating so I installed a better radiator but to no avail.

[wastntim]

It likely will not be allowed unless a few issues are resolved. The number 1 issue (I see) is engine placement. Until we can be sure it isn't lowered or moved rearward, it isn't going to get approved.

 

Other than engine placement, what other issues are there? I want to know so we can see if we can address them all at once instead of piecemeal.

[wastntim]

Racers asked for the LT1 to be allowed. A few directors thought it would be a great idea, saying they had folks ready to jump to do it. From what I've seen, not that many took the leap. Now, it's in our rulebook, and taking it out (if it's ever decided to do so....no one has submitted an RCR to do that....yet) will be difficult.

 

This is a perfect example of one reason why the LT1 maybe should not have been permitted in the 3rd Gen. Yet, I recall racers saying it was a great idea, insisted it would help the class, would bail CMC if it wasn't allowed.....and now we are left with the aftermath.

 

The differing opinions about the direction of CMC seems to be the biggest problem the class faces. There seems to be two distinct groups. Those that feel that CMC has been butchered by letting in big brakes and going to 260hp and those who feel that the class should adopt new rules to make the cars more reliable and easier to maintain and adjust. For the most part, it appears that the original CMCer's are opposed to change and the newer members want the class to be adapted to be more attractive to others.

 

Although I am against the idea in principle, it appears that multiple classes of CMC should be considered. This way the die-hards that are devout to the origins of the class can go back to the small brakes and 16" tires and the newer members of CMC can work with the rules to make more reliable and durable cars to drive without falling into the perils of the cash dependent AI.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Guest

[Dustin M.]

I disagree with multiple CMC classes, then you'll have multiple scarcely populated classes instead of a single larger one. You can't please everyone, so everyone is going to have to give a little.

[wastntim]

I disagree with multiple CMC classes, then you'll have multiple scarcely populated classes instead of a single larger one. You can't please everyone, so everyone is going to have to give a little.

 

Although it may not be best in the short run, it may give the directors a better understanding of the will of the majority. If a majority of the racers decided to go back to 230hp and 16"tires, then it's clear that the direction of the class should be back to its roots. However, if the majority favor modifications that make the cars more durable, reliable and fun to drive, then we know what the direction of CMC should be.

 

As it has been pointed out recently, NASA is a business and the directors of CMC should be working to grow that business. That means that they should be adopting rules that will attract new members, even if that means it moves away from its origins because if we simply latch onto what CMC was when it started without regard to the will of the racers, then the class will ultimately fail as we fail to bring in new members.

[Adam Ginsberg]

That means that they should be adopting rules that will attract new members, even if that means it moves away from its origins because if we simply latch onto what CMC was when it started without regard to the will of the racers, then the class will ultimately fail as we fail to bring in new members.

 

FFR learned the lesson about "regarding the will of the racers". That class is all but completely dead. The "will of the racers" wanted to make more HP, so they permitted a host of engine changes. Major engine changes.

 

It lead to drivers spending allot of money on engine parts. Then, it lead to a host of blown up engines. That lead to the class disappearing in just one or two very short years.

 

While the directors may disagree on various aspects of the rules, and RCR's (as will the racers), we all agree on one very important aspect of our position - doing our best to not only represent the racers, but to represent the class and not see it disappear because we went "overboard".

[wastntim]

That means that they should be adopting rules that will attract new members, even if that means it moves away from its origins because if we simply latch onto what CMC was when it started without regard to the will of the racers, then the class will ultimately fail as we fail to bring in new members.

 

FFR learned the lesson about "regarding the will of the racers". That class is all but completely dead. The "will of the racers" wanted to make more HP, so they permitted a host of engine changes. Major engine changes.

 

It lead to drivers spending allot of money on engine parts. Then, it lead to a host of blown up engines. That lead to the class disappearing in just one or two very short years.

 

While the directors may disagree on various aspects of the rules, and RCR's (as will the racers), we all agree on one very important aspect of our position - doing our best to not only represent the racers, but to represent the class and not see it disappear because we went "overboard".

 

I agree about not going overboard, but with this proposed RCR, we are not requiring anybody to change, we are merely giving more flexibility to the racers to put their car together under the rules. These options will still be constrained by the same hp and tq requirements. As far as the LS1 is concerned, it is already being raced in the series, just not in a third gen. The question is how is a third gen running an LS1 going to have some major advantage over a fourth gen that already can run an LS1?

[D Algozine]

As mentioned earlier, I believe there is a fundamental difference in the view of the series. For a lack of better of terms, the" purest view" is to remain true to the originality of the series and essentially "as stock" as possible. The "other group", not having the history of others, looks at the rule set without the nostalgic back ground, and mainly has the view of the current status. An example in this engine situation, is that the "other group" is not concerned with which engine came from the factory in which car. Only that the LS engine is very reliable and widely available, just as the LT1 likely was viewed when it was permitted in the 3rd Gen years ago. Except with the perspective of time, the LT1 (mainly the Opti spark and associated wiring) has proven to be less reliable then anticipated, especially when having the comparison of the newer and more reliable LS engines.

So the real question is....does it matter ? And it apparently depends on your perspective.

What is the up side ? ............. insert your list here.......................

What is the down side? ................ insert your list here...................

 

I don't want to put words in others mouth, but my feeling is that those "other group" racers are not as concerned if the cars came from the factory with coilovers, real race car brakes, or adjustable springs or which engine, or which stock bars, or even the dreaded diff cover plug (yes that's right,....I said it). We....I mean "those guys" just want to build and race a sensible , relatively inexpensive V8 RACE car.(is that an oxymoron ?)

These are not easy decisions, and they need to be debated. More CMC racers should chime in on there point of view on some of these proposed changes. If not hear/publically (which can get goofy) , then definitely let their regional guy know their thoughts and opinions.

[roadracerwhite]

That means that they should be adopting rules that will attract new members, even if that means it moves away from its origins because if we simply latch onto what CMC was when it started without regard to the will of the racers, then the class will ultimately fail as we fail to bring in new members.

 

FFR learned the lesson about "regarding the will of the racers". That class is all but completely dead. The "will of the racers" wanted to make more HP, so they permitted a host of engine changes. Major engine changes.

 

It lead to drivers spending allot of money on engine parts. Then, it lead to a host of blown up engines. That lead to the class disappearing in just one or two very short years.

 

While the directors may disagree on various aspects of the rules, and RCR's (as will the racers), we all agree on one very important aspect of our position - doing our best to not only represent the racers, but to represent the class and not see it disappear because we went "overboard".

 

FFR is a pretty poor example. With the exception of a few racers in our regions they show up pretty sporadic at best. Why don't we look at SCCA's Asedan. Personally I like to look at them as how not to do things. Here we have a class who has been around forever and had a lot of rules creep. In fact you would be hard pressed to find a more screwed up rulebook. They had 36 cars at the runoffs this year at Road America, we can't even break into the double digits the past few years.

 

I am with Robert, maybe CMC should bring back CMC1 circa 2006. Then those who want the good old days would have it, no big brakes, 16in tires, 230 hp and best of all no rules creep.

[roadracerwhite]

As mentioned earlier, I believe there is a fundamental difference in the view of the series. For a lack of better of terms, the" purest view" is to remain true to the originality of the series and essentially "as stock" as possible. The "other group", not having the history of others, looks at the rule set without the nostalgic back ground, and mainly has the view of the current status. An example in this engine situation, is that the "other group" is not concerned with which engine came from the factory in which car. Only that the LS engine is very reliable and widely available, just as the LT1 likely was viewed when it was permitted in the 3rd Gen years ago. Except with the perspective of time, the LT1 (mainly the Opti spark and associated wiring) has proven to be less reliable then anticipated, especially when having the comparison of the newer and more reliable LS engines.

So the real question is....does it matter ? And it apparently depends on your perspective.

What is the up side ? ............. insert your list here.......................

What is the down side? ................ insert your list here...................

 

I don't want to put words in others mouth, but my feeling is that those "other group" racers are not as concerned if the cars came from the factory with coilovers, real race car brakes, or adjustable springs or which engine, or which stock bars, or even the dreaded diff cover plug (yes that's right,....I said it). We....I mean "those guys" just want to build and race a sensible , relatively inexpensive V8 RACE car.(is that an oxymoron ?)

These are not easy decisions, and they need to be debated. More CMC racers should chime in on there point of view on some of these proposed changes. If not hear/publically (which can get goofy) , then definitely let their regional guy know their thoughts and opinions.

 

Well said.

[Al F.]

I, for one, appreciate the fact that different drivers have different opinions. Directors too! I'm perfectly comfortable with anyone disagreeing as long as they keep things (mostly) civil.

 

CMC is not at a crossroads now, its been in that situation since I first started racing in it in 2001. Every year there are ideas on how to try to make things cheaper/easier/faster/more reliable and pressure back for various reasons including the ability to enforce compliance without Spec Miata style teardowns, originality, freedom of choice, unintended consequences, whatever. On top of that we get the occasional mandate from HQ like "give the S197 a place to run"

 

Ultimately there is no "right" answer, just the best we can do given the limited and imperfect information we have.

 

For the record, I believe splitting up CMC is the worst possible path forward. Car count is king and critical mass is very difficult to obtain. NASA's history is filled with really bitchin classes that were killed because they couldnt get or maintain critical mass. You cant please everyone, but cutting the field in half will please no one.

[wastntim]

For the record, I believe splitting up CMC is the worst possible path forward. Car count is king and critical mass is very difficult to obtain. NASA's history is filled with really bitchin classes that were killed because they couldnt get or maintain critical mass. You cant please everyone, but cutting the field in half will please no one.

 

Obtaining and Maintaining critical mass is paramount, but to do that, we need to have a set of rules that allows for guys to keep their cars in one piece, that are fun to drive and easy to maintain. This may mean that we need to look a little less at where CMC came from and instead focus on where we are headed.

 

Although I am no expert on the fields across the country, I know in the Midwest and Great Lakes we have had very good growth over the past few years going from car fields of 4 to fields of 11 or 12 with more cars being built. That means that most of our drivers are new to CMC. I think most of our drivers have come to the class because they want to drive V8's in a cool car that is relatively economical. I can also tell you that everyone in our regions is looking for their cars to be more reliable and durable.

 

How is the class furthered by maintaining a rule set which results in cars which are constantly breaking down due to component failures? Who wants to run in a class where finding parts is like a treasure hunt, looking through salvage yards for the mystical 21mm rear sway bar? How does the class attract more racers when a third of the field is sitting in the paddock during a race due to one failure or another? Who wants to spend their hard earned money and, even more importantly, their valuable time constantly repairing a car that handles like a piece of junk on the track?

 

I can tell you I don't and I think I can speak for most of our region in saying that they don't either.

[Dustin M.]

Here's something for the old timers who yearn for 230hp and stock suspension to consider: look at the street going variants of these cars today. The trickle-down engine swaps of today are far better than they were in yesteryear. IMO people mod cars more heavily now than they did before. The aftermarket has exploded, and as soon as a new model hits the showroom you've already got longtubes, full exhaust systems, often times cams and such to choose from. Hell the C7 vette already has longtubes and a tune offered (though apparently the software used was similar to Cadillac's, so it wasn't reinventing the wheel). Point is, it's more common for a street car to have a non-stock and decent suspension on it than it was back in the day when air shocks and cherry bombs were the cool thing to have. IMO this is the mindset of the new guys you have coming into this sport. When I read the rules and their intent, I think this class is damn close to where it needs to be, I think the only thing that shouldn't have been allowed is the big brakes and I hope we can all agree on allowing adjustable perches in. As much as I'd love to race a 400+ hp Camaro, I really don't want to have to worry about blowing up engines, namely valvetrain letting go. I think the 260whp target is right on, the GMs choke down for it and the 5.0 Explorer engine needs very little to make the numbers. The PI 4.6 guys don't try that hard either to make the numbers. As far as swapping motors back and forth, if it doesn't offer a competitive advantage, i.e. less weight over the front end, I say more power to you. It's your money and if it's that big a pain in the ass, not everyone is going to jump in and want to do it. Is the intent of CMC to allow engines swapped everywhere? I don't think so, but if it offers no competitive advantage and someone wants to put in the time and money, why stop them? Seems like it's one of those things where everyone is happy.

[CMC#11]

I disagree with multiple CMC classes, then you'll have multiple scarcely populated classes instead of a single larger one. You can't please everyone, so everyone is going to have to give a little.

 

Although it may not be best in the short run, it may give the directors a better understanding of the will of the majority. If a majority of the racers decided to go back to 230hp and 16"tires, then it's clear that the direction of the class should be back to its roots. However, if the majority favor modifications that make the cars more durable, reliable and fun to drive, then we know what the direction of CMC should be.

 

As it has been pointed out recently, NASA is a business and the directors of CMC should be working to grow that business. That means that they should be adopting rules that will attract new members, even if that means it moves away from its origins because if we simply latch onto what CMC was when it started without regard to the will of the racers, then the class will ultimately fail as we fail to bring in new members.

That very thing did happen around 2007/2008 with the split of CMC1 (230 hp) and CMC2 (260 hp / 17 wheels, etc). After a few years the majority of drivers had switched over to CMC2 and it was determined that 260 hp / 17 wheels, etc was the future so CMC1 went away and everyone was back together racing in 1 class, CMC.

[wastntim]

That very thing did happen around 2007/2008 with the split of CMC1 (230 hp) and CMC2 (260 hp / 17 wheels, etc). After a few years the majority of drivers had switched over to CMC2 and it was determined that 260 hp / 17 wheels, etc was the future so CMC1 went away and everyone was back together racing in 1 class, CMC.

 

I recognize this but just as the South will never die, there are certain individuals who still are very bitter that there beloved CMC was butchered and they were forced to run under the "new" CMC2 rules. They yearn for the good old days when life was simpler and milk was delivered to your door every morning.

 

I believe, however, that times are a changin and those darn kids want all kinds of new fangled things on their race cars like adjustable spring perches and fuel injection (that works). The problem is the kids don't run the show and we have to wait until enough of those youngsters are in control to make changes.

 

I joke of course because life just gets too serious sometimes and because its better than getting frustrated again. I spent enough time bewildered by my #$%ing car that never would run longer than 20 minutes and that I could not find someone to pay to fix it.

[roadracerwhite]

I disagree with multiple CMC classes, then you'll have multiple scarcely populated classes instead of a single larger one. You can't please everyone, so everyone is going to have to give a little.

 

Although it may not be best in the short run, it may give the directors a better understanding of the will of the majority. If a majority of the racers decided to go back to 230hp and 16"tires, then it's clear that the direction of the class should be back to its roots. However, if the majority favor modifications that make the cars more durable, reliable and fun to drive, then we know what the direction of CMC should be.

 

As it has been pointed out recently, NASA is a business and the directors of CMC should be working to grow that business. That means that they should be adopting rules that will attract new members, even if that means it moves away from its origins because if we simply latch onto what CMC was when it started without regard to the will of the racers, then the class will ultimately fail as we fail to bring in new members.

That very thing did happen around 2007/2008 with the split of CMC1 (230 hp) and CMC2 (260 hp / 17 wheels, etc). After a few years the majority of drivers had switched over to CMC2 and it was determined that 260 hp / 17 wheels, etc was the future so CMC1 went away and everyone was back together racing in 1 class, CMC.

 

It wasn't determined, there was all of 3 cars running in CMC1 trim at the time. Maybe it should be brought back as a Texas only option.

[wastntim]

It wasn't determined, there was all of 3 cars running in CMC1 trim at the time. Maybe it should be brought back as a Texas only option.

 

Sounds like a plan that has real merit!

[Glenn]

So you guys stated that it is the old timers that want the old CMC a d the new guys want a new version of the current CMC.

What happens when you guys have been around a long time and see how easy it is to change this into something you never intended? Do you think we just might feel this way because we were you at one time and we see the train wreck coming?

For every change allowed, there is a new guy who wants to know why the line was drawn where it is and not just a little bit further in the direction they want. Retaining veteran directors who have seen the change over a long period of time will significantly contribute to the stability of the class.

I ask you what is more fun than racing a modified car? Racing one that is a little less modifed with a bunch of other less modified cars. Car count is king. Getting a rule change cause you think your right isn't king. Don't make the series what you want it to be, make it what everyone wants it to be.

[Dustin M.]

Glenn isn't that why they want everyone's feedback, not just us newcomers? There's 2 sides to the coin, sometimes you see/saw things we haven't yet. There's always a rhyme to the reason, sometimes we just can't see it.

[Glenn]

Thing is none of the current new guys know that we are where we are due to a compromise of what the new guys want vs what the old guys wanted to keep. One the new guys become old guys they likely regret the changes they pushed. But then it is too late and the cat cannot be put back in the bag. I feel that guys should race for 3 or more years before RCR's should be accepted.

A 1 season racer likely hasn't seen a y change in the class but a 10 season guy has. The 1 season guy says "It is just a small change." And the 10 season guys says "Yep, and it is a very long ways from where we started."

 

Food for thought.

Will you be the guy who regrets the very change you asked for?

[Dustin M.]

Well I'm not asking for any yet, though I do hope the spring perches are allowed. I think I'm kind of spoiled though, because I bought a pre-sorted car and that has probably tainted my view of what should/shouldn't be allowed as I haven't dumped umpteen thousands into this thing to get it to where it is.

[Glenn]

Thing is none of the current new guys know that we are where we are due to a compromise of what the new guys want vs what the old guys wanted to keep. One the new guys become old guys they likely regret the changes they pushed. But then it is too late and the cat cannot be put back in the bag. I feel that guys should race for 3 or more years before RCR's should be accepted.

A 1 season racer likely hasn't seen a y change in the class but a 10 season guy has. The 1 season guy says "It is just a small change." And the 10 season guys says "Yep, and it is a very long ways from where we started."

 

Food for thought.

Will you be the guy who regrets the very change you asked for?

[Dustin M.]

Well, is it bad to progress from where CMC started? Does AI have this creep too? As these cars age, their parts stop falling from trees which drives changes like the sways and flywheels. It seems to me that allowing ease of adjustment of suspension and high quality dampers that exceed the quality of what you'd run on the street seem very in line with a race car, however getting away from what I perceive as the original intent of CMC which was something along the lines of running drop springs and Koni Yellows? Newer Camaros and Mustangs keep popping out, so will this class die as it's populated by such old cars? I hope not. When I was growing up, these cars were brand spanking new, so even when they're 20 years old they don't feel old to me. I really think you've got something though, making us wait a few seasons before changing what's also well established. On the flip side, does that turn away possible newcomers? Such a fine line to have to walk. Perhaps that's a sign of the times, a lot of young'ins seem to feel more entitled than they did in years past. Or maybe I'm thinking too much again.

 

I think instead of backing off, I'll just caveat everything with I'm new.