RCR - engine choice

[nape1548534725]

Does AI have this creep too?

 

Only when Ford Racing releases a new part that doesn't currently fit the rules or someone asks our National Director to allow something and he's in a "Yeah, sure" kind of mood.

[D Algozine]

Does AI have this creep too?

 

Only when Ford Racing releases a new part that doesn't currently fit the rules or someone asks our National Director to allow something and he's in a "Yeah, sure" kind of mood.

 

TJ, How dare you say such damning things Are you trying to get this thread shut down.....because it can happen....buddy (pulling my pants up high and smirking)

 

Supercharged, the answer is yes, Only some of the changes occurred overnight, mid-season and without much discussion (sounds like how the S197 was pushed into CMC,...... notice a pattern?, but I digress) . And TJ comments although sarcastic, are pretty accurate.

There have been a handful of us that have jumped ship and left AI.

To clarify, we (AI transfers) don't want to see the changes that occurred in AI, occur in CMC.

But here is a very important distinction between what happened with AI and what is being requested of CMC. To my knowledge, no one is looking for a performance advantage , or pushing a particular car (Ford Racing) regarding the RCR's that have been requested. The main point of nearly all of the RCR's is make it easier and more reliable. NOT more expensive and more exclusive.

[wastntim]

I think what needs to be remembered is that this particular RCR is not asking for a new engine to be allowed in the class, but merely to allow the already approved engines to be run in older cars. Furthermore, it is not a requirement. All it is doing is giving racers options on how to get to the power requirements that are more reliable and easier to fix and maintain.

[FBody383]

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.

How much would you like and what's your address, there's a price for everything.

 

I don't know if you really think folks are bitter or just have a different opinion.

 

Some of this may be the definition of change:

- OEM swaybars are "unobtanium," is it ok to allow aftermarket in stock sizes? Any size? (back to the setup of a race car thinking)

- Generally you can already run any spring rate/length - coilovers? adjustable perches? (all in the name of setup)

- Big brakes

- Wings

- Engines - in use test of the 5.3 on track (Franken-car motor swaps, in the name of race car?)

 

For arguments sake:

CMC - see the rules from 2006

CMC Plus - 2013 rules plus open swaybars, 5.3 motor, maybe adjustable spring perches

CMC New Guard - ???

 

So if I call one bookend original "CMC plus" - what's the MOST the new guard is asking for, the other bookend?

 

Isn't the answer in the middle?

 

PS - would you like whole, skim, 2% in plain, chocolate or strawberry?

[Dustin M.]

All it is doing is giving racers options on how to get to the power requirements that are more reliable and easier to fix and maintain.

 

This to me is highly subjective. I can build a spec carb'd 350 for a 3rd gen and expect it to be stone dead reliable. IMO an LT1 is extremely reliable at stock RPMs, opti notwithstanding. I don't think reliability or ease of maintenance is a valid argument because a properly built anything is going to be reliable. If you're going to argue the cheapness of the 5.3 swap, you're totally ignoring the fact that it requires LS1 accessories, so the validity of the argument for the 5.3 seems best rooted as a cheap, highly available replacement for a blown up pre-existing LS1.

 

Caveat: I'm new.

[Boudy1548534717]

I keep reading this narrative that so-called 'old timers' are after some warm fuzzy over nostalgia or some sort of CMC purist vibe while the so-called 'new guys' are after what's best for the series. REALLY!?!

 

Just look at an old timers take on some of the issues used to support this assumption in this thread alone:

 

- Old timers think big brakes have a higher up-front cost while benefiting from a lower running/maintenance cost. Meanwhile the performance aspect puts additional wear and tear on other areas of the drive train of these 25 year old junkers. Not good for newcomers to the series and not good for reliability of drive trains. Cool for new guys to brag to about though. When OEM calipers were the only option, the average racer enjoyed a lesser expensive series. So yeah, I think OEM brakes are in the best interest of the series.

 

- Old timers think that 260 HP vs 230 HP is very expensive to make with some of the motors in our series while the performance aspect puts addition wear and tear on the rest of the entire car. It's upwards of an additional $2500 on my 302. (The one and only engine option for my car, BTW) Not good for newcomers to the series, not good for reliability of drive trains. Cool for new guys to post dyno sheets though. When 230 HP was the limit, the majority of racers enjoyed a lesser expensive series. So yeah, I believe lower HP levels are in the best interest of CMC.

 

- I don't see a difference in 16" vs 17" wheels regarding entry or operating cost I so don't care. 17" wheels are cooler so new guys win this one.

 

- Old timers think that more options leads to additional areas to be exploited by rules creepers looking to find themselves an advantage. This causes the average racer to spend more money for the latest go-fast parts. It's not a front runner or back marker trait, the majority of racers of all levels tend to gravitate to what is winning. So yeah, I believe fewer options provide better competition and lower cost for the average racer. Wait, that's the spirit of CMC. Tadaaah...

 

Any well built engine option in our series will operate just as reliably and last just as long as any other. When the options are fewer, the majority of racers enjoy a lesser expensive series. So yeah, I believe opening up the rules to allow engine swaps outside of factory offerings goes against the spirit of CMC because the spirit of CMC is to keep competition tight and cost down.

 

You have to be able to see that changing rules to allow new options is in most cases more expensive. A few extra bucks to install a non-standard engine, a few extra bucks for lightweight wheels w/spacers, a few extra bucks for brakes, a few extra bucks for aftermarket hubs, a few extra bucks for non-standard gears, a few extra bucks for HD transmissions, a few extra bucks for higher HP, a few extra bucks for coil-overs, a few extra bucks for ... It never ends. The options racers scream are logical and needed are the options that turn the average $8,000 CMC car into the average $20,000 CMC car in just a few years but the screamers claim they are looking out for the interest of the series, sorry but the looking out part is a bit short sighted IMO.

 

Boudy

[cozog1548534733]

I don't know if you really think folks are bitter or just have a different opinion.

 

Let me shed some light on the difference...

 

Difference of opinion: 2 people have different opinions on a particular subject/change, but are willing to discuss it and reach a negotiated agreement the best helps the CMC series.

 

Bitter attitudes: People who have knee jerk reactions to any non-OEM changes in CMC and automatically say "NO!" to all of those RCRs. No rational discussion is possible with them because they are still bitter about being forced to create CMC2, use LT1 in 3rd gen, allow S197, etc., and have no interest in even talking about moving the CMC series forward... only about how to cling to the past.

 

 

Let's take a look at the INTENT of the CMC series as stated in the rules (bolded for emphasis):

"2. INTENT

The intent of the Camaro Mustang Challenge (CMC) racing series is to provide National Auto Sport Association (NASA) members a racing series featuring production American pony cars. Modifications will be limited to those necessary to promote safety, close competition, and flexibility to enable drivers to learn and experiment with the principles of race car setup within boundaries intended to limit expenses, thereby providing the drivers with fun, exciting, and challenging yet approachable racing."

 

Absolutely nothing in this statement says keeping the cars as close to OEM as possible. It does use words like "limit expense", "safety", "close competition" and "flexibility". IMHO, "limit expense" and "flexibility" is exactly what allowing non-OEM engines, sway bars, brakes, spring perches, etc. is supposed to be doing. "Close competition" means having an insane amount of fun doing something very few others can do, hopefully making friends in the paddock and becoming part of the CMC family. But doing it "safely" so everyone can return and compete at the next event.

 

If it were possible, I'd gladly race a 3rd gen 305 TPI as that's what I owned in the 90's. That would be a dream come true! But times have changed and the world has moved forward. On paper, the LT1/6-speed seemed like a great fit. No engine or tranny mod needed. Put a cage in and go! But, as many LT1 owners have discovered, the engine was not designed to be run at 5k+ rpm all day long. Just within GL/MW regions, we have multiple optispark failures, blown motors and failed head gaskets, resulting in ruined weekends, costly repairs and extremely frustrated racers. Not to mention all the other "little" things this engine is known for (PS pump, overheating, failed alternators) that add up to it's owner spending WAY too much time fixing the car instead of learning to drive faster (reference "close competition").

 

The LS a bulletproof monster compared to the LT1. Right out of the box, it's reliability is far superior to the LT1. It's overbuilt for CMC power levels requiring a bit of restriction, further lengthening the life of the engine. Not to mention the lack of LT1 failure prone parts (see above). There's already well designed kits for swapping into a 3rd gen, making it available to all GM platforms. How nice would it be to have a paddock full of LS engines, making it easy for "the new guy" to get help from other LS racers with any questions they might have or spare parts they may need.

 

A 5.3 LS was campaigned in a 4th gen successfully all last year without any major issues. Straight from the junkyard for $700. Slapped in and ran.

 

The LS1/5.3 in a 3rd gen will "limit expense" and be easier to maintain, allowing the racer to concentrate more on improving their driving skills leading to more "close competition". This "flexibility" will help grow the series by giving potential racers more engine/chassis combos to choose from.

 

Of course this is all just my opinion. I would love to hear a dissenting voice, but only if you don't use the "didn't come from the factory" argument. And if engine placement is the argument, measurements of stock locations can be taken to ensure proper placement.

 

So as not to fill up the forum by reposting the above message, I would make the same argument for the other RCRs of flywheels, 4th gen hubs, sway bars, adjustable spring perches and T5 upgrades.... If it makes life easier for the racer, will "limit expense" and ultimately lead to more "close competition", it should be done.

[Adam Ginsberg]

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?

 

I really wish I had more time to elaborate on some of my thoughts and insight of racing CMC and being CMC director for 11 years, but this time of year is particularly busy for me.....I've been on the road for work every week since August, and I'll be on the road every week until my holiday vacation in December.

 

In a nutshell - we do not know how, or if, an LS1 will or won't be an advantage in the 3rd Gen. We have no way, currently, to verify it. Along that same vein, you have no ability to tell the Series that it is, or isn't, a competitive advantage. It's your opinion, and nothing more.

 

My preference has always been to err on the side of caution when it comes to making major changes to CMC. You may not agree with my perspective, and that is 100% within your prerogative, but allowing this is, IMO, a MAJOR change to the series (along with some, but not all of the RCRs).

 

FFR is a pretty poor example. With the exception of a few racers in our regions they show up pretty sporadic at best.

 

IMO, it's not a poor example. At least, not from the perspective of the CA region. We had decent FFR car counts (8-10 cars, regularly) when I came out here in 2008. There is not a single FFR racing in SoCal any longer. I haven't looked at the FFR Nats car count in a few years, so I won't speculate there. The reality is.....they allowed major engine changes, it went badly, and they are left with a class that doesn't exist. If you think we're not headed down that very road, then I don't believe you're looking at things clearly. Just my opinion that you may or may not agree with.

 

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.

 

Brian - I agree 100% about looking at A/S as OUR example (either good or bad). Since I started racing CMC in 2003, I've been shouting as loudly as possible to the rest of the directors that we are headed into A/S territory with each significant cost-increasing, outside the intent of CMC, change. Big brakes was one area I fought, vehemently, against for CMC2, as I KNEW eventually, CMC2 and CMC1 would merge, so the big brakes would simply be CMC legal. I was told over and over that we're not headed down the A/S path, that big brakes "was a racers choice, and no one had to buy them", that they wouldn't actually be part of CMC1....all of which turned out NOT to be true.

 

Astute racers will note my car had StopTechs.....once the cat was out of the bag, I recognized that big brakes were a competitive advantage. As such, I wasn't going to fight an uphill battle with drivers that had already made the jump.

 

The other reality with this is....Robert's perspective is coming from one of frustration due to problems with his car. Those problems are not the responsibility of the Series, nor the Directors. Changing the rules will not fix his problems. He admits to not being an expert on the CMC fields across the country, but the directors are certainly in a better position to understand the CMC fields across the country, and better positioned to understand the needs of the class, long term. Especially directors who have been racing CMC for many years.

 

I'd love to continue this discussion, but I've simply run out of time, and have to head to the airport to catch a flight home.....then catch another flight to OH for next week, then NJ the week after that, etc, etc, etc.

[cozog1548534733]

- Old timers think big brakes have a higher up-front cost while benefiting from a lower running/maintenance cost. Meanwhile the performance aspect puts additional wear and tear on other areas of the drive train of these 25 year old junkers. Not good for newcomers to the series and not good for reliability of drive trains. Cool for new guys to brag to about though. When OEM calipers were the only option, the average racer enjoyed a lesser expensive series. So yeah, I think OEM brakes are in the best interest of the series.

 

Actually, they want to remove the big brake option all together. It's the more progressive thinking racers that like the option. My Wilwoods were paid for in the pad cost savings in just one season and will continue to save me money for the life of the car. $800 for the calipers, but my pads went from $225 to $125 a set and they are 60% thicker, lasting longer.

 

- Old timers think that 260 HP vs 230 HP is very expensive to make with some of the motors in our series while the performance aspect puts addition wear and tear on the rest of the entire car. It's upwards of an additional $2500 on my 302. (The one and only engine option for my car, BTW) Not good for newcomers to the series, not good for reliability of drive trains. Cool for new guys to post dyno sheets though. When 230 HP was the limit, the majority of racers enjoyed a lesser expensive series. So yeah, I believe lower HP levels are in the best interest of CMC.

I suggest you make an RCR for it. I'm all in favor of making things cheaper and easier for the racers. I'm not sure about implementing that change, but it's worth discussing.

 

- I don't see a difference in 16" vs 17" wheels regarding entry or operating cost I so don't care. 17" wheels are cooler so new guys win this one.

No, they are not "cooler". I could be wrong, but I think 17" are allowed because of the big brakes and the potential lack of 16" Toyo's.

 

- Old timers think that more options leads to additional areas to be exploited by rules creepers looking to find themselves an advantage. This causes the average racer to spend more money for the latest go-fast parts. It's not a front runner or back marker trait, the majority of racers of all levels tend to gravitate to what is winning. So yeah, I believe fewer options provide better competition and lower cost for the average racer. Wait, that's the spirit of CMC. Tadaaah...

Can you explain an example of what you are talking about? Sway bars, spring perches, flywheels... or maybe something else.

 

Any well built engine option in our series will operate just as reliably and last just as long as any other. When the options are fewer, the majority of racers enjoy a lesser expensive series. So yeah, I believe opening up the rules to allow engine swaps outside of factory offerings goes against the spirit of CMC because the spirit of CMC is to keep competition tight and cost down.

Please explain how hanging on to engine options that are more costly and frustrating creates more competition? When you have a couple competitors sidelined on Sat morning with engine problems, isn't that bad for competition? Especially when there's a new option that could inexpensively eliminate those troubles...

 

You have to be able to see that changing rules to allow new options is in most cases more expensive. A few extra bucks to install a non-standard engine, a few extra bucks for lightweight wheels w/spacers, a few extra bucks for brakes, a few extra bucks for aftermarket hubs, a few extra bucks for non-standard gears, a few extra bucks for HD transmissions, a few extra bucks for higher HP, a few extra bucks for coil-overs, a few extra bucks for ... It never ends. The options racers scream are logical and needed are the options that turn the average $8,000 CMC car into the average $20,000 CMC car in just a few years but the screamers claim they are looking out for the interest of the series, sorry but the looking out part is a bit short sighted IMO.

I think your blanket statement is incorrect. Please give an example of this. I'll note RCR #9. Allowing the non-OEM part will SAVE the racer money. So will readily available non-OEM sway bars, and T5 modifications, and aftermarket 4th gen hubs and adjustable spring perches. These are ALL ideas from "new" people and will be saving money.

[FBody383]

Difference of opinion: 2 people have different opinions on a particular subject/change, but are willing to discuss it and reach a negotiated agreement the best helps the CMC series.

 

Bitter attitudes: People who have knee jerk reactions to any non-OEM changes in CMC and automatically say "NO!" to all of those RCRs. No rational discussion is possible with them because they are still bitter about being forced to create CMC2, use LT1 in 3rd gen, allow S197, etc., and have no interest in even talking about moving the CMC series forward... only about how to cling to the past.

All good here.

 

Let's take a look at the INTENT of the CMC series as stated in the rules (bolded for emphasis):

"2. INTENT

...Modifications will be limited to those necessary to promote safety, close competition, and flexibility to enable drivers to learn and experiment with the principles of race car setup within boundaries...

I guess my perspective is here... I perceive yours is more from the "flexibility," race car development, etc. aspects.

 

A 5.3 LS was campaigned in a 4th gen successfully all last year without any major issues. Straight from the junkyard for $700. Slapped in and ran.

And Texas has had several podium guys do the same with LT1s; I don't have any explanation for the differnence in experiences.

 

RCRs of flywheels, 4th gen hubs, sway bars, adjustable spring perches and T5 upgrades....

I submitted the hub RCR, agree on swaybars, T5 upgrades, might be pursuaded on spring perches.

 

Of course this is all just my opinion.

And mine; I'll ask it again - in your opinion, what is the far end, the other bookend where CMC should stop?

[Dustin M.]

 

- Old timers think that 260 HP vs 230 HP is very expensive to make with some of the motors in our series while the performance aspect puts addition wear and tear on the rest of the entire car. It's upwards of an additional $2500 on my 302. (The one and only engine option for my car, BTW) Not good for newcomers to the series, not good for reliability of drive trains. Cool for new guys to post dyno sheets though. When 230 HP was the limit, the majority of racers enjoyed a lesser expensive series. So yeah, I believe lower HP levels are in the best interest of CMC.

 

Boudy

 

So junkyard Explorer engines are $2,500? If you're blowing that much to make 260whp, you're doing it wrong. I'm quite familiar with the EFI 5.0s and I can tell you for a fact it doesn't cost that much. If a junkyard 5.3 is good enough, so is a junkyard 5.0. I don't mean to come off like a dick, but sometimes these posts seem biased to defend the OP's position.

 

FFR is a pretty poor example. With the exception of a few racers in our regions they show up pretty sporadic at best.

 

IMO, it's not a poor example. At least, not from the perspective of the CA region. We had decent FFR car counts (8-10 cars, regularly) when I came out here in 2008. There is not a single FFR racing in SoCal any longer. I haven't looked at the FFR Nats car count in a few years, so I won't speculate there. The reality is.....they allowed major engine changes, it went badly, and they are left with a class that doesn't exist. If you think we're not headed down that very road, then I don't believe you're looking at things clearly. Just my opinion that you may or may not agree with.

 

 

You're ignoring one huge, glaring fact: the engines and mods that were allowed in FFR are of the variety that sacrifice reliability. That's not what these guys are asking for, what they're asking for increases reliability.

[D Algozine]

I keep reading this narrative that so-called 'old timers' are after some warm fuzzy over nostalgia or some sort of CMC purist vibe while the so-called 'new guys' are after what's best for the series. REALLY!?!

 

Just look at an old timers take on some of the issues used to support this assumption in this thread alone:

 

- Old timers think big brakes have a higher up-front cost while benefiting from a lower running/maintenance cost. Meanwhile the performance aspect puts additional wear and tear on other areas of the drive train of these 25 year old junkers. Not good for newcomers to the series and not good for reliability of drive trains. Cool for new guys to brag to about though. When OEM calipers were the only option, the average racer enjoyed a lesser expensive series. So yeah, I think OEM brakes are in the best interest of the series.

 

- Old timers think that 260 HP vs 230 HP is very expensive to make with some of the motors in our series while the performance aspect puts addition wear and tear on the rest of the entire car. It's upwards of an additional $2500 on my 302. (The one and only engine option for my car, BTW) Not good for newcomers to the series, not good for reliability of drive trains. Cool for new guys to post dyno sheets though. When 230 HP was the limit, the majority of racers enjoyed a lesser expensive series. So yeah, I believe lower HP levels are in the best interest of CMC.

 

- I don't see a difference in 16" vs 17" wheels regarding entry or operating cost I so don't care. 17" wheels are cooler so new guys win this one.

 

- Old timers think that more options leads to additional areas to be exploited by rules creepers looking to find themselves an advantage. This causes the average racer to spend more money for the latest go-fast parts. It's not a front runner or back marker trait, the majority of racers of all levels tend to gravitate to what is winning. So yeah, I believe fewer options provide better competition and lower cost for the average racer. Wait, that's the spirit of CMC. Tadaaah...

 

Any well built engine option in our series will operate just as reliably and last just as long as any other. When the options are fewer, the majority of racers enjoy a lesser expensive series. So yeah, I believe opening up the rules to allow engine swaps outside of factory offerings goes against the spirit of CMC because the spirit of CMC is to keep competition tight and cost down.

 

You have to be able to see that changing rules to allow new options is in most cases more expensive. A few extra bucks to install a non-standard engine, a few extra bucks for lightweight wheels w/spacers, a few extra bucks for brakes, a few extra bucks for aftermarket hubs, a few extra bucks for non-standard gears, a few extra bucks for HD transmissions, a few extra bucks for higher HP, a few extra bucks for coil-overs, a few extra bucks for ... It never ends. The options racers scream are logical and needed are the options that turn the average $8,000 CMC car into the average $20,000 CMC car in just a few years but the screamers claim they are looking out for the interest of the series, sorry but the looking out part is a bit short sighted IMO.

 

Boudy

 

Some of us have come to the class after the 260 hp, brake upgrade and 17" wheels modifications. It gets brought up pretty regularly, and I understand why. But as I have said, we are HERE NOW. That's all I know. Besides hasn't that been explained about a dozen times......newer cars entering the series, Higher stock HP, better stock brakes, making it equal....etc.

Speaking for myself only, I would likely not have made the switch from AI if it was still 230 hp, and stock brakes.

I personally understand your point, and I'm pretty sure, most others do, but I can't imagine its ever going back.

 

Side note: I don't agree with this statement," big brakes puts additional wear and tear on other areas of the drive train of these 25 year old junkers."

Larger brakes don't stop the car any faster then a stock LS1 or Cobra brakes. The stock brakes will infact lock up the tires just as fast as big brakes. However bigger brakes will stop just as good for a longer time period, they are more predictable, more reliable, safer and likely cost "about" the same or less in the long run. don't want them, don't use them.

Ever run a 40 minute race at Road America in a 3400+ pound car with LS1 or Cobra brakes? it gets pretty dicey toward the end.

 

I don't see anyone pushing for more "go fast" or "go faster" parts. Your statements about "a few extra bucks here and there" sounds good, but its not based on facts. Nearly all of the items listed, "could" cost less in the long run, and certainly don't cost "more" in the long run. Remember to some of us, time is money. Besides they are all optional with no performance advantage, ....with the expectation of the "custom wheels". I'll leave that one alone. All the other items offer no performance advantage.

[cozog1548534733]

A 5.3 LS was campaigned in a 4th gen successfully all last year without any major issues. Straight from the junkyard for $700. Slapped in and ran.

And Texas has had several podium guys do the same with LT1s; I don't have any explanation for the differnence in experiences.

I'm not suggesting the LT1's can't be competitive and make podiums consistantly. Kent Owens does that regularly in our region. What I am saying is that the time/money/effort to keep the car going strong is far more than required to keep the same car with LS power going.

 

Of course this is all just my opinion.

And mine; I'll ask it again - in your opinion, what is the far end, the other bookend where CMC should stop?

I would hope we very soon get to the point where annual rules changes are minor maintenance items, not big overhauling changes. I think it's pretty close to being there. Outside of the engine swap discusson, most things seem to have been sorted out. I think the only thing that may continue to haunt us is the declining availability of OEM parts or when OEM parts can't be sustained in a race environment. Things that worry me are OEM items like steering knuckles, control arms, etc. are no longer avail from the mfr, becoming scarce at the junk yard and OEM equivalent parts are just foreign made junk. 4th gen hubs are a good example.

[CMC#11]

Todd, just my opinion and I think what some others are summarizing is that racing and reliability is a lot of dumb luck.

Sure, building the motor correctly, having working components, and being lucky is what matters.

 

I have raced for 8 years missing 2 out of 49 events. I have been fortunate that my original 302 lasted 5 1/2 years before the balancer let go and snapped the crank. My new motor has been rock solid for 2 1/2 years so far.

My brother races AI and for those that know him, know he clearly is much smarter than me regarding engines, but has had countless issues with his motor over his years of racing. It has nothing to do with lack of prep or knowledge, but just plain crappy dumb luck.

 

For every guy that says his 4.6l, LT1, or any other engine is the problem, there are a dozen others that would say they love their engine and haven't had any issues.

[Glenn]

I'm not suggesting the LT1's can't be competitive and make podiums consistantly. Kent Owens does that regularly in our region. What I am saying is that the time/money/effort to keep the car going strong is far more than required to keep the same car with LS power going.

 

This just is not a factual statement. My LT1 has run very well for a very long time. Many of them have.

[soundguydave1548534741]

 

This just is not a factual statement. My LT1 has run very well for a very long time. Many of them have.

 

The small change to 17's is all it took to cause me to go from racing 6-7 weekends a year to 3.

 

Kent runs (or tries to) all the events in both Midwest and Great Lakes. Big difference between running 3 weekends and 10+. I think it was two years ago he went through three (or was it four?) engines in a single season. Just sayin'

[suck fumes1548534743]

Were they rebuilt "new" engines or 100k mi Junkers? Big difference. Don't expect an old motor with 20 yr old bearings to last in a race.

[roadracerwhite]

 

This just is not a factual statement. My LT1 has run very well for a very long time. Many of them have.

 

The small change to 17's is all it took to cause me to go from racing 6-7 weekends a year to 3.

 

Kent runs (or tries to) all the events in both Midwest and Great Lakes. Big difference between running 3 weekends and 10+. I think it was two years ago he went through three (or was it four?) engines in a single season. Just sayin'

 

 

Our races are almost all 45 min long and not 20 as well.

[cozog1548534733]

This just is not a factual statement. My LT1 has run very well for a very long time. Many of them have.

 

Glenn,

Maybe it's a regional thing? Of the 4 LT1 racers in MW/GL that regularly run, 3 have consistently had their weekends cut short by LT1 failures and issues. I bought my car with a reman. Jasper engine with only 1k mi on it. Thought it was a great idea. That engine lasted 6 events before blowing (broken rod). I then bought a professionally built LT1 from Kent Owens. First event... the opti dies, 2 events after that the opti dies and finally 2 events after that another dead opti. Plus it's now missing out on one cylinder. That doesn't include the 2 alternators I've had to buy because they keep burning out. The other racers have had similar experiences of dead optis and blown head gaskets at the track. Heck, in the season finally at Road America 2011 had Robert and Kent BOTH with blown head gaskets on Fri. (It was a beautiful thing, however, to watch the entire CMC paddock chip in and get both racers running for Sat/Sun).

 

I've really only seen 1 out of 4 in our regions that hasn't had major failures at the track. His engine never get hot (with stock radiator) and seems to run great. He's podiumed a few times too.

 

Maybe it's luck of the draw with LT1s. I don't know. What I do know is that the failure rate of LT1s in our regions is simply unacceptable.

Edited October 18, 2013 by Guest

[cozog1548534733]

For every guy that says his 4.6l, LT1, or any other engine is the problem, there are a dozen others that would say they love their engine and haven't had any issues.

 

We're only talking about LT1s, not 4.6 or 5.0 or 350.

 

And that statement is not correct in these parts, i regards to LT1s. The ratio would be the exact opposite.

[Glenn]

 

This just is not a factual statement. My LT1 has run very well for a very long time. Many of them have.

 

The small change to 17's is all it took to cause me to go from racing 6-7 weekends a year to 3.

 

Kent runs (or tries to) all the events in both Midwest and Great Lakes. Big difference between running 3 weekends and 10+. I think it was two years ago he went through three (or was it four?) engines in a single season. Just sayin'

 

If your going try and pull random comments made during other threads that are completely off topic, then sure..... your just sayin'..... you don't have the facts.

The facts are:

80k motor from the junk yard ran all of 05 and 06. 06 included 3rd at Nats.

Rebuilt for 07. Ran all of 07 to include Nats.

New main/rod bearings (nothing failed) due to concerns of random 0 oil pressure reading due to a faulty oil cooler for 08. Ran all of 08. Ran Nats in 08 as well.

Ran all of 09 to includes Nats.

Ran half of 10-13. Also have a 10, 8, 6 hour enduros on the same motor that was put in in 08.

I replaced the cap and rotor once in 06 cause I got the opti wet washing the car. Figured while I was cleaning it out, may as well replace the 80k ones. Head gaskets in 10 cause I constantly overheated it in impound cause I didn't run fans on the car. Opti this year fornwhat turned out to be a bad temp sender.

 

From what I can tell, LT1's are plenty durable. Mine has more track time than any LS1 in the NASA Texas region.

[cozog1548534733]

From what I can tell, my LT1 is plenty durable. Mine has more track time than any LS1 in the NASA Texas region.

 

Corrected that for you.

 

Not true for most LT1 racers in our regions.

[Glenn]

So are the LT1's there or LS1's here not being cared for properly? Perhaps it is a lack of knowlege of the "care and feeding" of the LT1 from your area. Each motor has it's do's and don't's.

[Glenn]

Double post.

Edited October 18, 2013 by Guest

[cozog1548534733]

So are the LT1's there or LS1's here not being cared for properly? Perhaps it is a lack of knowlege of the "care and feeding" of the LT1 from your area. Each motor has it's do's and don't's.

 

You may have a point, but from what I know, regular maintenance is performed by all the LT1 drivers. Is there some things outside of fluid changes, belt, plugs, etc. you think is needed for LT1s?