Members Al F. Posted December 6, 2015 Members Share Posted December 6, 2015 The rules are published for 2016!!! This year we had a very short list of RCRs, which is actually a good thing. I'll go through them here to add a little explanation to what was decided. RCR #1 Rule 7.6.2 was modified in its wording but not in the impact. We added "or wiper cowl" since that is technically correct for 4th gen GM cars. No brainer this one. RCR #2 This request called for changing the rules such that power below 3,000 RPM would be ignored. This was not approved. Some stout motors make a lot of torque and need to back that off and some times that means losing a couple of Hp. There is no real evidence that this is a competitive disadvantage, and ignoring torque under 3k could very well prove to be a competitive advantage for those same motors. RCR #3 Revising the wording of the rules to enable a bolt in brace between the rear towers is not something we care to add to the rules. Some Mustang owners have put a welded in tube between the two rear main hoop down bars which happen to end right at the rear towers. That is legal, and is governed by NASA rules, not CMC. If your car has a connection between the rear towers that is not integrated into the cage...then start cutting. RCR# 4 Allowing slotted and drilled rotors is approved. These were not allowed for years because back in the day those rotors were expensive and just not needed. Now, slotted rotors are not any more expensive and in a couple of cases much easier to find so it makes sense to allow them. RCR #5 Allowing internally balanced 302s...this is not approved because we did not want to hold up the rules. Let me explain... Its fairly clear in our research that the 302s have a weakness caused by the external balancing setup from Ford. I'm confident that we can figure out how to allow Ford guys to internally balance the engines, and therefore improve reliability, while at the same time not creating an advantage that these engines dont otherwise have now such as substantially lower total mass or lower polar moment in the rotating assembly. We're going to keep working this and when we figure it out we will make a change to the rules. This could be in the next couple of weeks, months, whenever. We wont wait until a year end rules change to put it into effect. Thats it folks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spencer Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 I submitted a RCR for 4.6 throttle bodies & plenums that was not addressed. I followed the RCR submittal process submitting to my regional director Todd Johnson and copied [email protected] on the email. I copied RCR email string with Todd and resent it on 10/7/15, but never got a acknowledgment that you received. I also bumped the thread with original RCR submittal on the forum. I also tried to send you a PM about it, but any PMs I send to you they go straight to my outbox folder and never send. Looks like you never received it still? Did I do something incorrect in the submittal process? Thanks -Spencer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dustin M. Posted December 7, 2015 Members Share Posted December 7, 2015 It sounds like you did everything right Spencer. I don't think plenums are the answer here, I think we need a guinea pig to test a set of cams on a 4.6. As I've said in the past, my friend ran blower cams on his car, which was done before 6000 RPM and made illegal-for-CMC-hp and torque. If the 5.0s can have cams, I don't see why a 4.6 can't either but we'd have to prove it first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spencer Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 The throttle bodies and plenums give the 4.6 guys another option to make more power. I think the dyno results pretty much dictate that. Not sure why it would not be considered as a option. Mike did the guniea pig test last year with detailed dyno results. If we can allow cams I would be open to that as well, just need some change as what we have does not work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Al F. Posted December 17, 2015 Author Members Share Posted December 17, 2015 Not sure why it was dropped from the list but it was. I'm not keen to piece meal solutions. There's a whole list of things we could come up with that would help, might help, should help but wont actually result in no 4.6 driver ever being worried about making the numbers and this one is firmly in that category. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spencer Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Its seems like everyone I talk to about this option has no objection to it. In my book its a no brainer, simple bolt on that allows more power for a 4.6. The only other option I see is allowing cams. What else would you suggest? Im looking for a low buck solution to make my car more competitive in this series. I dont have time or $ for a complete engine teardown. I know I am in the minority running a 4.6 but there should be a solution for us anyway to make up to the min power requirements. Allowing a intake should get a 4.6 at least to min HP requirements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spencer Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Here is some more info that details the gains available with just bolting on a 75mm throttle body & C&L intake plenum. Dyno results with 9.2 HP & 10 TQ increase. http://www.mustangandfords.com/how-to/engine/m5lp-0404-installing-c-and-l-performance-trueflow-intake-plenum/ Current legal bolt-ons for 4.6's include long tube headers, cold air intakes, timing adjusters, underdrive pulleys, aftermarket exhaust systems. The only thing missing from legal standard bolt ons is throttle bodies & intake plenums If all other bolt ons are legal, why cant we get throttle bodies and plenums added to the list? This should get anyone with a 4.6 2V to minimum power requirements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dustin M. Posted February 19, 2016 Members Share Posted February 19, 2016 Not sure why it was dropped from the list but it was. I'm not keen to piece meal solutions. There's a whole list of things we could come up with that would help, might help, should help but wont actually result in no 4.6 driver ever being worried about making the numbers and this one is firmly in that category. What would you call the current solution? They're allowed to run long tubes (5.0 can run shorties), a timing adjuster (5.0 can do this), and underdrive pulleys (everyone can do this). To me that seems like an incomplete piecemeal solution. Perhaps this isn't the one thing that puts everyone over the top, but that one thing may not exist. Piecemeal solution seems like the only way to go unless you want to open up the 5.4L floodgates. There's your one and done. Cams would help too I'm sure of it. I realize we're trying to keep costs down, but you're fighting a losing battle when the smallest motor of all has so little flexibility and the most trouble making power. I mean the 5.0 is allowed to run Cobra/Explorer heads, alphabet cam, and 1.7:1 roller rockers and cranks out 260whp all day. The guys in my region don't seem that shy on torque either. How is that not a piecemeal solution? It certainly seems to work well enough for them. If there's something I'm not seeing, please share. Here is some more info that details the gains available with just bolting on a 75mm throttle body & C&L intake plenum. Dyno results with 9.2 HP & 10 TQ increase. Baby steps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Algozine Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 I know very little about the 4.6, but those are some very solid points. GM, has cubic inches, 302 has more parts to use and the 4.6 , which needs the most help, gets the least. I've scratched my head, and couldn't make sense many times on many issues, and this is another one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spencer Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Thanks for the additional feedback, I think the posts above further back up the statement I made that no one is objecting to this. I am also still scratching my head as to why this is being ignored. I believe a good case was made for this in 2014 when Mike G first brought it up in a RCR with first hand detailed dyno results before and after install. I really can't see any negatives in allowing this, if there is please point them out to me. Only negative I see is frustrating those that run a 4.6, knowing that something simple and cheap is available to make more power, and not having it legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ls168camaro Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Should you guys just be able to put a K&N on it and get 15-30 extra? My point is instead of using some magazine trying to sell something provide us with actual results. I'll use the 5.3 as an example. Instead of using other peoples swaps and dyno's Bob Denton swapped a 5.3 into his race car to get dyno testing and on track testing for a comparison before it was made legal. He did this knowing that it might not be approved and then he would lose out on a ton of time and money. And since you bring up the cubic inches yes it's great that my LS1 can make over the power unrestricted but when restricted it only makes 289 tq which is the same or better than some Mustangs that dominate. When I watch the 4.6 I'm so envious of it's huge power curve and rpm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blk96gt Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 We all already have air intakes on our cars. Someone already did the testing last year or the year before. My issue with it is we only have a data point on one car. I talked to Al last year about me buying one and meeting him at a dyno so we could do some testing, but my motor blew and I just never had a chance. I need to get a hold of him again and see if we can find a date that works for both of us. My concern has been what kind of affect will it have on AFR? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spencer Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Should you guys just be able to put a K&N on it and get 15-30 extra? My point is instead of using some magazine trying to sell something provide us with actual results. I'll use the 5.3 as an example. Instead of using other peoples swaps and dyno's Bob Denton swapped a 5.3 into his race car to get dyno testing and on track testing for a comparison before it was made legal. He did this knowing that it might not be approved and then he would lose out on a ton of time and money.And since you bring up the cubic inches yes it's great that my LS1 can make over the power unrestricted but when restricted it only makes 289 tq which is the same or better than some Mustangs that dominate. When I watch the 4.6 I'm so envious of it's huge power curve and rpm. Yes everyone should already have the CAI as a legal bolt on. And yes Mike Gerowitz (SMike) posted dyno results before and after the plenum/TB install with a similar gain as stated in this magazine example. The mustang and fast fords link was provided to provide more dyno results, even more dyno results are posted here http://www.cnlperformance.com/product-info.php?subid=17&catid=3. Im sure everyone will have different results but in general it looks like a average increase in peak numbers of approximately 10HP & 10 TQ. We have compared the graphs between Mike's modified 4.6 with the intake/TB and a healthy LS1. We found peak HP/TQ at a similar rpm point, and the drop off point in TQ is pretty similar as well. We all already have air intakes on our cars. Someone already did the testing last year or the year before. My issue with it is we only have a data point on one car. I talked to Al last year about me buying one and meeting him at a dyno so we could do some testing, but my motor blew and I just never had a chance. I need to get a hold of him again and see if we can find a date that works for both of us. My concern has been what kind of affect will it have on AFR? We have data on one car that backs up the data provided by other sources like the magazine link provided. What is your concern about AFRs going lean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blk96gt Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 We have data on one car that backs up the data provided by other sources like the magazine link provided. What is your concern about AFRs going lean? My concern is that it could possibly lead to more problems if a car gets leaner by adding this. I'm not saying will be a problem, just something to consider. I talked to Al last night and I'm going to pick a TB/plenum up sometime in the next month or so. What brand and size are we wanting to look at? My plan is to see if I can get at least one of the other two 4.6 cars to give a try in our region. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ls168camaro Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Yeah-better make sure you have a good AFR on the car both on the dyno and on the track. If you need one I can send you mine to use. Interesting that on all the dyno charts they showed there wasn't one that included an A/F ratio. Go to the dyno and test your car as it is then add the parts while the car is on the dyno to test it back to back. If it works then get ready for weight to be added. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blk96gt Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Yeah-better make sure you have a good AFR on the car both on the dyno and on the track. If you need one I can send you mine to use. Interesting that on all the dyno charts they showed there wasn't one that included an A/F ratio. Go to the dyno and test your car as it is then add the parts while the car is on the dyno to test it back to back. If it works then get ready for weight to be added. I have an AFR gauge on my car and always have the dyno put theirs on. The plan is to do a back to back test. Why would I add weight? I'm not going to be racing with it on unless it gets approved, plus my car is already ~3260. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spencer Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 We have data on one car that backs up the data provided by other sources like the magazine link provided. What is your concern about AFRs going lean? My concern is that it could possibly lead to more problems if a car gets leaner by adding this. I'm not saying will be a problem, just something to consider. I talked to Al last night and I'm going to pick a TB/plenum up sometime in the next month or so. What brand and size are we wanting to look at? My plan is to see if I can get at least one of the other two 4.6 cars to give a try in our region. The C&L plenum matched with 75mm throttle body seems to have the best results http://www.americanmuscle.com/cnl-intake-plenum-9604.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMC#11 Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 I would definitely love to look into this more. Look at it this way: Fox/SN95 can throw a large variety of parts on their motor and can make 270-290HP easily. LT1 and LS1 cars have to restrict to get to their numbers, but are usually 270-300 stock. They also have the 5.3L option. SN99 cars with every available mod are around 245-260HP. It makes sense to allow them additional parts to be able to make their 260HP easily, just like everyone else. Also, if we give the SN99 the ability to meet the 260HP number more easily, I don't see any reason extra weight would need to be added. Again, just my gut feelings and definitely something to look into. I think also more research regarding dyno area under the curve is needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suck fumes1548534743 Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 I always thought this was a no brainer back in 2012 when I started asking questions about the motor rules before I built my car but then I got jumped on by the forum mafia saying "That isn't legal!!" Funny how the mood changes haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dustin M. Posted March 14, 2016 Members Share Posted March 14, 2016 I'm glad to see that this appears to be gaining traction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spencer Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 I think the majority support making this legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.