Jump to content
wastntim

RCR - engine choice

Recommended Posts

Glenn
Boudy,

I spent over $3,000 on a complete rebuild last year alone. Not to mention that I had already bought a brand new painless harness over the previous wineter. All of this is not including the $1,000 in parts I've put in during this season trying to fix my issues.

 

So everyone who thinks I am running junkyard crap should ask before they make statements that simply are not true or just keep their opinions to themselves.

 

Also - I saw earlier where you said your issue started at 185 water temp. As we know the PCM uses a different temp sender just for itself (ECT). It could very well be that the ECT sender is seeing a lower temp. Possibly around 165 when your guage sees 185. If I recall, 165 is when the PCM switches from open loop to closed loop. I assume you know what that means. When that happens, it reads sensors it was ignoring up to that point. My bet is one of those sensors is bad. Also - is your car a MAF car?

You also never answered my question about replacing the ECT sender. I know you said you replaced one, but you never said which one since LT1's have two. It matters which one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boudy1548534717
Boudy,

 

Other than the alleged and often repeated rules creep, explain to me the detriment to the series of allowing an ls1 in a third gen please.

 

When a guy has a problem he seeks out the easiest solution, it's simply human nature. However some, usually the old farts, rely on past experience to realize that the easiest and seemingly most obvious solution for some individuals may not be best for the series as a whole.

 

An LS1 on the surface sounds like a very simply and obvious answer to your current problem at hand, here's what past past perspective adds: The LT1 sounds like a no brainer so it's made legal. Guys wanting to take advantage of the new option chose to cut losses on previous investments and opt to make the investment in the newly available LT1. Some endure growing pains but work through them and are pleased with their choice. Others come later and experience similar growing pains and proclaim that the LS1 sounds like a no brainer so it's made legal. Guys wanting to take advantage of the new option chose to cut losses on previous investments and opt to make the investment in the newly available LS1. Meanwhile, guys are still running and very happy with pre LT1 engines showing that each option addition was not as necessary as it appeared at the time but it certainly caused/allow a bunch of guys to spend a bunch of cash.

 

Another example: Shocks - If a single source shock were legal then everyone would run them. With a price rule as we have then a new shock vendor like AST comes to the scene and somebody tries them and claims they're the cat's meow. Soon some guy starts running up front with them, now there are 4 sets in the top five every week because 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place had to go get some. Meanwhile, there are also 4 sets of Bilstiens or Konis on the shelf in their garages because they're no longer the rage. This is not my opinion, it's the long proven history of racing. Win on Sunday, sell on Monday.

 

There are many more examples but if you open your mind to my point you should be able to easily find them yourself and then you'll start sounding like an old fart. It will happen although it may take you a few years. You see the majority of new comers always want the same type of progressive changes which are just so obvious but after a couple years change their tune as they see the way reality responds to rules.

 

Every racer whether he admits it in public or not, and most won't, feels that a certain part or combination of parts is "the way to go." Every parts selection decision is made based on perception of value, quality, and performance. Any parts run by the front runners tend to get points in the performance area, justly deserved or not. So when these parts selections are greater then guys will find and chose combinations that they think is best. If he wins, others spend money to follow suit.

 

I'm trying to get some to understand that adding options for the simplicity of one scenario often creates an adverse and undesired consequence in reality. The more options available in parts sounds great but reality shows that it also causes the series to be more expensive to run.

 

This is the sole reason that the fastest growing series in the country are SPEC series that don't allow many options to exploit in various combinations. I expect we'll see racer draw down to SPEC Iron. Why would a guys mess with $20,000 CMC cars and have to bother finding the perfect combination of all the options when he could build a $20,000 SPEC Iron car with half the head aches our rules are open to?

 

We need to tighten up our series guys so that it continues to offer the greatest attraction against future series designed specifically to take advantage of past series's growing pains.

 

Boudy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
suck fumes1548534743

Spec iron cars cannot be built to the fullest for $20k. No matter what anyone says that's not true.

 

Sorry I know that's off topic but just don't want anyone to think that's a fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boudy1548534717

Some would argue that neither can a fully prepared CMC car. I'm surprised because the implication of your statement is that you're not one of them.

 

Boudy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CMC#11
The point is the world of CMC doesn't revolve around one regions problems.

Yeah, I got that. I was hoping that wasn't the case.

 

I'm sorry if I went overboard about this issue in MW/GL. Not trying to push ANY regional "agenda" that's different than national CMC, just trying to participate in an open discussion about the RCR. If the TX region was having a similar issue, I'd be a part of that discussion too, regardless of how it effects my region. That's part of all the directors jobs.

Todd, the comment regarding CMC doesn't revolve around one regions problems was exactly my point. I'm not trying to be an ass and I can completely understand your frustrations with missing track time, that completely takes the fun out of racing!!!

 

I just relate it to a good buddy of mine who I have known for 15 years who decided to race CMC here in TX with a 4.6l Mustang. From the beginning he had engine / fuel pressure issues that cost him tons of money, track time, etc. He worked on this issue for multiple years and pleaded with the directors to give him the flexibility to fix the problem even though he was the only one with these problems. (Since his 4.6l does not have the possibility of adjusting fuel pressure without converting back to the 96-98 "return style" fuel system, lines, wiring, computer, etc.)

In the end, he fixed the problem with 21 lb injectors from the early 4.6l return-less style fuel system. It was an insanely frustrating issue but in the end it was fixed without having to change CMC rules.

 

I completely understand your frustrations but just don't feel the proper fix to your regions problems is a rules change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CMC#11

A little info on Hallett. It is a very short 1.8 mile track with no long straights to help cool down the motor. There is also LOTS of 3rd gear around 5k that gets things very hot. It was also 95 degrees with high humidity.

 

Lots of cars, not just LT1's, had major overheating issues. The final race of the weekend was a 30-35 minute race (can't remember exactly) and Bryan Curtis (LS1 4th gen) was 1 second behind me almost the entire race. With a little over a lap to go Bryan started backing off b/c his water temp was almost 250 and he didn't want to blow the motor.

 

Any car / any motor can have issues, gotta love racing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CMC#11

Speaking of Hallett, there was another LS1 that had an "issue" of another kind:

 

 

Sorry Leinart...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dustin M.

Well that's odd, of all the videos I've seen and from my own brief experience, these cars seem to handle pretty good in the dirt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Storm trooper
So far I have heard of five different third gen owners that are interested in this rule change.

 

Quite frankly, I think if this change does help the third gens at all, it should be given to them as they are at a disadvantage as far as the track width is concerned. I cannot get to the track widths specified in the rules due to the fact my fenders rub on the tires, even with the lips being rolled. Fourth Gens have wider fenders and, therefore, have an advantage over the third gens.

 

I have a 92 third gen. Running CTW wheels and 1/2 spacer I am at max track width. A little work on fenders but it works.

 

Sean Richardson

Storm Trooper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adam Ginsberg
It seems to me that the difference in race length would explain why many TX guys run LT1s without frequent failures vs. the situation in MW/GL with 35-45 min races.

 

Do you have any idea the ambient temps in the summer in TX??? Over 100, regularly. And we raced/race in those temps. Regularly.

 

CA runs two 20 min sessions (warm up and qual), and a 35-40 minute race. We run at Buttonwillow, Willow Springs and Thunderhill, where the temps get over 100^F, regularly. AAMOF, when we raced at Buttonwillow in 2009, the ambient was 107^, 150^ inside the car. Not one LT1 engine failed. Both radiator caps in my 5.0L failed, making me think I had a HG failure. Two new rad caps later, all was good. I wasn't insisting we change the rules to resolve my engine issues.

 

There is no reason to allow the LS1 in the 3rd Gen as it's well outside what the CMC series is about.

 

Your engine issues are yours, and yours alone. They are not the responsibility of the series, nor the directors. And certainly not a reason to allow an engine swap into a car in which it was never available.

 

...not a valid reason to allow engine swaps into cars that NEVER HAD THAT ENGINE FROM THE FACTORY.

 

It goes completely against the original CMC intent!

 

Yet I still don't understand why installing a 302 in a '99-'04 Mustang using custom engine mounts is currently O.K..

 

I neglected to answer this question - the original thought process was.....since the '99-'04 cars were, essentially, the same chassis as the '94-'98 cars, and the 5.0L came in the '94-'95s, it "made sense" to allow it.

 

At the time, I was in favor of the allowance. Now, a few years down the road, I realize it was a big mistake, as it allowed an engine in a car that didn't come with it from the factory. The chassis is the same, but the outside of the car looks completely different. From a prospective CMC'er, looking from the outside in, I could see it being very confusing.

 

As such, I don't want to make the same mistake again.

 

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?

 

It's not just the fact we can't assess whether it is, or is not, an advantage. Allowing it is a big change to the series. One I do not support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sidney

Not sure which thread to put this so it goes here:

 

I use to spend quite a bit of time over on the A Sedan site preaching the virtues of CMC. Several times I got "CMC rules are too open." What possibly could they be talking about I thought given the "If it doesn't say you can then you can't". Of course I asked and usually got a PM full of where CMC can be too expensive. One example is the cost cap for shocks. One AS driver wrote that this rule is nuts. He runs Penske shocks and can adjust them at the track. With the $600 cap on shocks he said "What's stopping a racer from having a trailer full of $600 shocks to swap out depending on track conditions? Just nuts he said. And he's right. The days of running the same shocks, springs, swaybars and never testing or adjusting is long gone. To think all the drivers in CMC will adhere to the "If if doesn't say you can then you can't" is naive.

 

No one wants CMC to be a Spec Class but at the same time you constantly have to review the rules to ultimately cap the racer with unlimited funds. The engine rules work because the parts are spec'd on one end then the power limits are spec'd on the other end. Rules with bookends are where CMC usually trumps all other classes and especially Spec. Rules with Cost caps per part are fine at one end but leave the other wide open (think trailer full of shocks, wheels,...etc.) Rules with price caps need a limit on sets used per weekend or other bookend rule.

 

Carry on,

 

Sidney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
suck fumes1548534743

How the heck are you going to police the number of shocks etc someone has in their trailer???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
soundguydave1548534741

Add a limit number to the rules, like one set per season, and have the RD stamp the housing. Done. If you have crash damage, or a failure, work with your RD to make a replacement legal. BUT, we don't need to go there.

 

Honestly, given the $ cap we have currently, which does allow double-adjustables, there's no real need to put a piece limit in place, PARTICULARLY since we don't have to do stupid stuff like tearing half the car apart to allow adjustment. Oh, wait, that's springs... The rules prevent the use of remote-reservoir dampers, and that's easy enough to police. With doubles allowed, there's really no incentive to "cheat" by taking advantage of that loophole. That also fits with the series intent to "...experiment with race car setup..." without breaking the bank.

 

With respect to the engine RCR at hand, WHAT THE HELL DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE??? LT-1 or LS-1, from what I hear, the power curves are close enough, and if there's a nose-weight issue, spec a chunk of ballast in both weight and location. If you're really worried about engine placement, spec a location based on specific plug number being no further rearward than the axis of the steering knuckle, and minimum pan rail height above ground. With these chassis getting older, and parts more scarce and expensive, we're going to be seeing more of this type of RCR. Everybody needs to get used to the idea that we can't stop time. AFAIK, Maximum Motorsports has the last remaining OE stock of FOX/SN95 rear upper control arms, and when they're gone, you have ONLY the junkyard as a resource. Is that where we want this series to go? CMC: The American Pickers years...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37Stang
With respect to the engine RCR at hand, WHAT THE HELL DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE??? LT-1 or LS-1, from what I hear, the power curves are close enough, and if there's a nose-weight issue, spec a chunk of ballast in both weight and location. If you're really worried about engine placement, spec a location based on specific plug number being no further rearward than the axis of the steering knuckle, and minimum pan rail height above ground. With these chassis getting older, and parts more scarce and expensive, we're going to be seeing more of this type of RCR. Everybody needs to get used to the idea that we can't stop time. AFAIK, Maximum Motorsports has the last remaining OE stock of FOX/SN95 rear upper control arms, and when they're gone, you have ONLY the junkyard as a resource. Is that where we want this series to go? CMC: The American Pickers years...

 

I have to agree with Dave... If a LS1 HP/TQ curve is roughly the same and the engine is positioned the same - what difference does it make??? So what the LS never came in a third gen F-body... As far as I know, the 5.3, or whatever, never came in a fourth gen. Maybe the reason for asking for the LS swap into the third gen is the wrong reason. Obviously Glen and others have been able to make the LT1 work but if a guy is starting from "scratch" with a V6 third gen why not allow them to put a 5.3 LS in there???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dustin M.
With respect to the engine RCR at hand, WHAT THE HELL DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE??? LT-1 or LS-1, from what I hear, the power curves are close enough, and if there's a nose-weight issue, spec a chunk of ballast in both weight and location. If you're really worried about engine placement, spec a location based on specific plug number being no further rearward than the axis of the steering knuckle, and minimum pan rail height above ground. With these chassis getting older, and parts more scarce and expensive, we're going to be seeing more of this type of RCR. Everybody needs to get used to the idea that we can't stop time. AFAIK, Maximum Motorsports has the last remaining OE stock of FOX/SN95 rear upper control arms, and when they're gone, you have ONLY the junkyard as a resource. Is that where we want this series to go? CMC: The American Pickers years...

 

I have to agree with Dave... If a LS1 HP/TQ curve is roughly the same and the engine is positioned the same - what difference does it make??? So what the LS never came in a third gen F-body... As far as I know, the 5.3, or whatever, never came in a fourth gen. Maybe the reason for asking for the LS swap into the third gen is the wrong reason. Obviously Glen and others have been able to make the LT1 work but if a guy is starting from "scratch" with a V6 third gen why not allow them to put a 5.3 LS in there???

 

In this instance, IMO, any combo of accessories should be permitted as should the truck intake. But who would start with a V6 3rd gen when V6 4th gens fall from the trees?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn

LS1 5.7/5.3 -

 

The 5.3 was not and is not being considered as a complete drop-in from a truck to a car. What is being considered is the 5.3 longblock as a direct replacement for a 5.7 longblock. This swap is a 100% bolt-in. This is not a cost effective option unless you already have a 5.7 LS1 in the car. So when consideration for this addition is being talked about, understand from what perspective it is being viewed. No truck intakes. Wouldn't fit under a 4th gen hood anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37Stang
But who would start with a V6 3rd gen when V6 4th gens fall from the trees?

 

Just using it as an example...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37Stang
LS1 5.7/5.3 -

 

The 5.3 was not and is not being considered as a complete drop-in from a truck to a car. What is being considered is the 5.3 longblock as a direct replacement for a 5.7 longblock. This swap is a 100% bolt-in. This is not a cost effective option unless you already have a 5.7 LS1 in the car. So when consideration for this addition is being talked about, understand from what perspective it is being viewed. No truck intakes. Wouldn't fit under a 4th gen hood anyways.

 

Glenn, I was unaware of the long block only "swap". About the only thing I know of the LS engines is they are more like a small block Ford than the old small block Chevrolets. Anyway, if it is a cost effective swap for the racer then I am all for it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MHISSTC
But who would start with a V6 3rd gen when V6 4th gens fall from the trees?

 

It's done for the same reason a '79 Mustang is chosen over a '04 Mustang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
suck fumes1548534743

And what is that reason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MHISSTC
And what is that reason?

 

 

'cause everything was more awesome in the '80s.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
suck fumes1548534743

Hahaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dustin M.
But who would start with a V6 3rd gen when V6 4th gens fall from the trees?

 

It's done for the same reason a '79 Mustang is chosen over a '04 Mustang.

 

Maybe I'm weird, but I'd take a Fox over a 3rd gen any day of the week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
densmore
But who would start with a V6 3rd gen when V6 4th gens fall from the trees?

 

It's done for the same reason a '79 Mustang is chosen over a '04 Mustang.

 

Maybe I'm weird, but I'd take a Fox over a 3rd gen any day of the week.

 

Yup, you're weird. But the fox does turn unlike the 3rd gen, but you're still weird.

 

Brad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dustin M.
But who would start with a V6 3rd gen when V6 4th gens fall from the trees?

 

It's done for the same reason a '79 Mustang is chosen over a '04 Mustang.

 

Maybe I'm weird, but I'd take a Fox over a 3rd gen any day of the week.

 

Yup, you're weird. But the fox does turn unlike the 3rd gen, but you're still weird.

 

Brad

 

What's really gonna be weird is when that rookie punt blows up in your face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...