2007 rules Power to weight

[nape]

Thats a good idea, but would definately need a lower ratio. 9:1 or less in my opinion. I would suggest 8.75:1. That would be nearly perfect with a 200lb driver. When I ran my car with its original stock bottom end motor I think I was in the 2900 lb range. All steel, glass, etc. No weight reduction other than fiberglass hood. I was well under 300rwhp, but I could easily have tuned the motor for more. In those days however it was not necessary.

 

I know I just posted and I'm trying not to be inflammatory, but this isn't Fox-body Iron, it's American Iron.

 

Was that 2900lbs with driver? If so, that'd be hard for a 3rd gen F-body (or an SN95 for that matter) to hit that number with all the lightweight goodies, let alone with just a fiberglass hood. I'd say with good certainty that we're about 3150lbs +/- 50lbs w/ driver under those same prep levels.

 

We're already working the tires, brakes, and driveline harder. Personally, I don't want to see any more power. Between T5s and 7.5" rear ends, it's already hard on parts.

 

Switching gears, I see the main proponents of this on the board as being carb-favoring Ford guys. From what I've heard from friends about 5.0 Mustang EFI, it's stupid easy to make horsepower with, and the stock computer will compensate quite a bit, unlike my dumb as a box of rocks GM Speed-Density.

 

Instead of everyone else spending money to re-tune and change motors around for a new #, why don't you just go buy an EFI setup with your own money?

 

OK, maybe it wasn't so inflammatory, but I feel better.

[gr42ai]

The whole point of my proposal is to NOT spend 8+ hours on the dyno. This rule would make is easier for everyone, the competitors and officials if there is only one target you need to hit for weight. It is my under standing that a stock LS1 makes about 320hp and 350ftbs, at the current 9.5 and 9.0 rule the weight would be 3087 for hp and 3150 for tq, do you really want to be 73 pounds overweight for the amount of hp you make. Now try it using my suggestion, 320+350=770 335x9.25: 1=3098. Did you really change your car that much?

 

Or you can spend hours on the dyno looking for that 7hp without raising the torque. The point is to not change the car but to change the rules so more cars can be competitive. I have spread sheets with different ratios that I will post. This is NOT a major change to the cars setup just a simplification of the rules.

 

Guy

[Grizlbits]

To back Guy up-

 

I think you are blowing this way out of proportion. Being an AI director and having 15 dyno sheets in my posession, I can tell you that this will help 85% of you. The majority of you are limited by Torque OR HP, but not both. This is allow you to take some weight out and be more competative. I don't understand why you guys are fighting this. Some of you need to get more competative and this will help.

 

It will also draw more people into the series. I hear a lot of you complaining about hitting the dyno numbers and engine combinations. This makes it easier to get to the limit without changing motor pieces. I know some of you have done the work to get both numbers perfect but admit it, it wasn't easy- all of you who did it, 15% of you from what I see.

 

As far as the weight thing with the Cambirds: Copeout. Give me 15 minutes and a plasma cutter and I'll get some weight out. Yeah, you may have to hack the car, but it isn't streetable anyway. Make the commitment to get competative. It is your choice.

[z28racergirl]

. Now try it using my suggestion, 320+350=770 335x9.25: 1=3098. Did you really change your car that much?

Guy

 

But your original suggestion:

Combine the horsepower and torque numbers and divide by two then use this number with whatever ratio 9.0:1, 9.25:1. 9.5:1 to come up with the weight

Example 325hp + 345tq = 670 335 x 9.5:1= 3183

Reason you have only one target number you are trying to achieve, eliminating trying to find that perfect combination of HP and TQ.

 

So which is it? 9.5 or 9.25? The difference, in #29s weight, would be to add 85 pounds. Your original post suggested that I ADD 85 pounds to my car with my current dyno. No Thank You! If you *meant* 9.25 I'm on target.

 

I still stand with the NO changes necessary group, however.

 

Christine

[kurtborton]

While I don't like seeing the rules changing constantly....I do tend to agree with this one.

 

I think this sort of power rule will help eliminate some engine expense. The engine I built for my car wouldn't be competitive in AI under the current rules, but with this new idea it would be. I've got a stock shortblock, a set of ebay aluminum heads, intake and a holley carb. It makes 325 rwhp and 310 rwtq. Not bad numbers for a cheap combination, but being 30-40 down on torque is a killer. With the current rules, I either need to convert to fuel injection or start looking for a 331/347 rotating assembly to find the missing torque. I'm not complaining, and I certainly know how to get the engine to make the numbers it needs to....but this rule would open the door for a lot more engine combinations to be competitive and lower the cost of running an AI car, I'm all for it.

[b_tone]

The engine rules were modified 4 years ago to try to lower the engine costs (that's another discussion) by adding the torque ratio, now it seems that after several people have figured out the correct formula (look to the AI national champ for the answers) there are proposals to change it once again.

 

Leave the rules alone, don't change them. Let the series grow, let the current competitors, and those currently building cars have a steady target of performance. Having a moving target will do no one any good and it will cost more in the long run.

 

It's not rocket science guys, there are several people here that can/have built engines that can get with 25#'s of both ratios, at the same time.

 

The days when a mostly stock or semi stock engine powered AI car can be competitive are long gone. If you want to run at the front it's going to take a bit of effort.

 

Let's not penalize the people that have made the choice to run up there and create a rule that will take nullify all of their effort.

[Sidney]

I also vote for leaving this rule alone. My motor is very close on both ratios and I don't have $2,500 in the thing. I finished 13th in the Nationals having been to Mid-Ohio once two years ago. My car has no aero, and basically stock/Aseden suspension. The motor and ratios are just a small part of the package it takes to win in American Iron and I think the package that Jason Andrews took to the championship should speak volumes on why it should be left alone.

 

Sidney Franklin

AI #64

[racercosmo]

Other people mentioned changing the target ratio. This thread is just about averaging the HP and torque numbers. Currently the Torque ratio is 9.0 to 1, and the HP is 9.5 to 1. If we averaged, it would be 9.25 to 1 I believe. Does that make sense, or am I wrong on this?

[Jeff F]

This thread is just about averaging the HP and torque numbers. Currently the Torque ratio is 9.0 to 1, and the HP is 9.5 to 1. If we averaged, it would be 9.25 to 1 I believe. Does that make sense, or am I wrong on this?

 

From my post on the first page:

There is a big flaw in your proposal. You open the door to building high-revving, high-dollar engines that make big HP and low torque. Let's say you have this 3183lb car with 325HP and 345TQ with an engine that spins 6000, and run 3.55 gears. Now you build an engine for the same 3183lb car that spins to 10,000RPM, and makes 230ft-lb but 438HP. Couple that with a ~5.30 gear and you get the same torque at the rear wheels, higher speeds in each gear, and 100+ more HP. Do the math.

This just opens a big can of worms. DON'T MESS WITH IT.

[D Algozine]

Other people mentioned changing the target ratio. This thread is just about averaging the HP and torque numbers. Currently the Torque ratio is 9.0 to 1, and the HP is 9.5 to 1. If we averaged, it would be 9.25 to 1 I believe. Does that make sense, or am I wrong on this?

 

I have the same question. If I'm reading correctly, the proposal is not to change the ratios, but to average them, which simplifies the entire process for racers and officials. Racers could keep their current set up and remain legal and highly competitive. My consern is that this creates an opening for savy engine builders to find a loop hole, which will reguire another adjustment. I assume officials much smarter than I, will research this and make sure it can't happen.

I agree that too many modifications to the power to weight rule can be difficult for newcomers, but I think this one just makes it easier.

[racercosmo]

This thread is just about averaging the HP and torque numbers. Currently the Torque ratio is 9.0 to 1, and the HP is 9.5 to 1. If we averaged, it would be 9.25 to 1 I believe. Does that make sense, or am I wrong on this?

 

From my post on the first page:

There is a big flaw in your proposal. You open the door to building high-revving, high-dollar engines that make big HP and low torque. Let's say you have this 3183lb car with 325HP and 345TQ with an engine that spins 6000, and run 3.55 gears. Now you build an engine for the same 3183lb car that spins to 10,000RPM, and makes 230ft-lb but 438HP. Couple that with a ~5.30 gear and you get the same torque at the rear wheels, higher speeds in each gear, and 100+ more HP. Do the math.

This just opens a big can of worms. DON'T MESS WITH IT.

Oh shit, here comes the Mythical Class Killer again.

[Sidney]

In essence you are asking to allow the ratios to be changed by using an average. This allows someone to go under the 9.5:1 HP ratio as long as it fits within the "new" combined ratio.

 

Only rules that should even be considered are the ones where a loophole has been discovered. Leave the rules alone!

 

Sidney

AI #64

[onralz]

This was hashed out pretty well in 2003 when the discussion of having a torque rule at all was brought about. I won't waste reading time into details about what was said, I'll just note what to consider.

 

As an example, in 2004 at Mid-Ohio a car got disqualified having approximately 400 rwtq 300 rwhp. He had a 347 with a stock intake. I don't remember the head and cam combination. By running this combo, it would require to have 3238 lb's with driver. So if one didn't have a big stroker motor and ran the same weight, they would need 350 ft lb's and 350 hp to run the same weight. All one has to do is short shift at around 5000 rpm to have an advantage with the 400 rwtq and 300 rwhp scenario.

Ask the CMC guys how many of them run to 6 thousand.

 

As a further example of this, at the nationals, I had to short shift at 4800 because of a miss at top end. My engine was making more torque than horsepower. With utlizing torque only which is a fairly level power band on this engine, I was able to run in the 1;40.5 range with a hurt motor. If I had re-geared the car, there might have been an advantage even with the blown head gasket.

If this is allowed. Someone is going to run very big torque motors just like they were when we didn't have a torque rule or big hp numbers and spin them to higher rpms. I understand the equalizer theory, but if you look at the extreme of what could be done and what has, it isn't going to help level the playing field, or help people build easy combinations. If it isn't going to make it easier on everyone, but it opens up extreme possibilities, I'd say we shouldn't make the change.

Edited October 10, 2006 by Guest

[Red Tornado]

I have changed back to the don't change it vote.

 

Sure it would help with running other series but not changing works fine.

 

I can tune and adjust.

 

If anything I like 9.5 for both trq and rwhp so your not encoruaged to always run a bigger motor.

[trackboss]

One thing that I have noticed over the years running AI is that its almost impossible to get any support from motor builders because of the existing(power) rules. I am not sure, but I think if Guy's proposal was made the rule it would help the competitors get at least some support from thier motor builders instead of having them just look back in disgust and say how much it sucks and if you really want "that" I'll do what I can". I support what Guy is proposing.

 

-V

[b_tone]

One thing that I have noticed over the years running AI is that its almost impossible to get any support from motor builders because of the existing(power) rules. I am not sure, but I think if Guy's proposal was made the rule it would help the competitors get at least some support from thier motor builders instead of having them just look back in disgust and say how much it sucks and if you really want "that" I'll do what I can". I support what Guy is proposing.

 

-V

Can you give us an idea of how much it would cost you guys on the west coast to get an AI engine built, assume the targets are 320hp/340tq and rev to 6.5k (supplying your OEM/current engine as a starting piont.....just out of curiousity.

 

Also, how would this rule change help anyone bring an engine builder on board as a sponsor?

[Jeff F]

One thing that I have noticed over the years running AI is that its almost impossible to get any support from motor builders because of the existing(power) rules. I am not sure, but I think if Guy's proposal was made the rule it would help the competitors get at least some support from thier motor builders instead of having them just look back in disgust and say how much it sucks and if you really want "that" I'll do what I can". I support what Guy is proposing.

That's what I like about AI. You don't need support from engine builders. I have a run-of-the-mill 327" short block with out-of-the box heads, cam, and intake. I had the machine work done and assembled it myself. It will make 330/360 unrestricted, and I run it at 310/330. It's SIX YEARS OLD, has over 2 full seasons of AI racing, and is still going strong. It's not that hard, guys.

[b_tone]

One thing that I have noticed over the years running AI is that its almost impossible to get any support from motor builders because of the existing(power) rules. I am not sure, but I think if Guy's proposal was made the rule it would help the competitors get at least some support from thier motor builders instead of having them just look back in disgust and say how much it sucks and if you really want "that" I'll do what I can". I support what Guy is proposing.

That's what I like about AI. You don't need support from engine builders. I have a run-of-the-mill 327" short block with out-of-the box heads, cam, and intake. I had the machine work done and assembled it myself. It will make 330/360 unrestricted, and I run it at 310/330. It's SIX YEARS OLD, has over 2 full seasons of AI racing, and is still going strong. It's not that hard, guys.

 

Come on now Jeff, play fair...you spent the past 3 years perfecting your area under the curves using your superfancy EEC system and Dyno Daves (?) garage housed dyno right there in Dearborn. Damn you for working the system!!!

 

[gr42ai]

Tone, ten years ago I replaced the motor in my 90lx and I spent over 8k and that was starting with a Keith Kraft $1,300 short block and a set of $1,200 Edelbrock heads. The only thing I kept from the original motor was the ECU, harness, and some sensors.

 

To start from scratch on an injected race motor that will last more then one season is in the 15k to 20k range.

 

The motor I ran at VIR was in that range and was shifted at 6000, except when I went from 4th to 3rd instead of 5th coming on to the front straight during qualifying. Don’t ask what it hit but it did through two rocker arms off, as you know it got fixed and was to run the race.

 

Guy

[z28racergirl]

I'm of the "got no money but wanna race" school. My stock engine (96 LT1) remained stock for a season+. Then I did the LT4 Hot Cam kit ($2,200 parts, don't remember the labor but I could afford it). Then when a cute little screw did a dance thru my intake, heads (yup bounced on both sides) and pistons, did a rebuild. Took it to my local machinist/circle track engine builder, gave him the numbers of what I wanted, and after $4,600 (that's parts and labor) I have a jewel that I can rev to 6200 rpm, and is DEtuned to 331 rwhp and 351 rwtq. We overbuilt it for longevity.

 

It's bored .030 over with the stock heads custom done to match a custom cam, and all the rest of the good stuff that goes into a rebuild. Wouldn't call it a monster, or expensive.

 

Now, I'm lacking in driving skill so I don't win races. I also don't have a shop behind me like Griggs or MM to tune my suspension. However, I did beat Hal Massey at Cal Speedway in March, and he's got a lot more dough and research in his Griggs car than I do in mine. Yeah, it's my only claim to fame, but hey at least I have one.

 

Those are my figures for those who asked, in comparison to Guy's tales of cost woes. Oh yeah, and Chevy LT1's just don't seem to blow up as often as the Ford engines...

 

Christine

 

PS--If I haven't mentioned this already, I vote to not change this rule.

[gr42ai]

Just for reference using Christine's numbers her car would lose 5lbs if Hp and Tq were averaged with a ratio of 9.25

 

Guy

[Jeff F]

To start from scratch on an injected race motor that will last more then one season is in the 15k to 20k range.

Not true. My engine described above (6 years old, 2 years of AI, 6300 RPM) was built from scratch (short of using the existing electronics) for well under 10K. That's with a Sportsman block and forged crank, rods, pistons, etc. Ask anyone in the OH/IN Region, my engine is old, reliable, and competitive. It's never been out of the car since it went in. I change the oil every 2-3 races, and last winter it got treated to a new set of valvesprings. If you can't figure out how to screw together a 320HP engine that lasts, then I feel sorry for you.

 

If you don't want to build it yourself, you can buy a Ford Racing 347 short block with a forged crank for $3,000.

 

Brian - Dyno Dave went out of business. I've done all my recent tuning with the dyno at the track.

[trackboss]

I've seen one of those ford crate engines blow up on the first run. Another similar crate motor didn't last much longer. Maybe a fluke, but I would rather by a motor from an engine builder. I aggree with jeff though that a good motor can be built for under $10k. Air filter to pan. A good clutch setup can run well over $1k. However, one must consider dyno costs as well as time to get everything right to make the numbers. Most of my racing in AI I used my original 30k shortblock with heads, cam, intake and exhaust. No tuning. I ran damn well and is still running around in someone else's car (not AI) Had I spent the money and time to tune it I could have had more power, but in those days I didn't need it. That is an example of a relatively inexpensive motor. I've seen motor costs all accross the board, but I don't think it is necessary to build a super expensive motor for this series at this point. Reliability would be my number one priority.

[nape]

Tone, ten years ago I replaced the motor in my 90lx and I spent over 8k and that was starting with a Keith Kraft $1,300 short block and a set of $1,200 Edelbrock heads. The only thing I kept from the original motor was the ECU, harness, and some sensors.

 

Guy

 

Is that the motor that went with the car? If so, the motor was way overbuilt for AI (IMO, of course) and honestly baffles me why it was an AI motor. For those who want to know the details, here's some info from the old C-C.com FS thread:

 

"· 327 cid Engine produces 416ft-lbs and 430 bhp (flywheel) unrestricted (dyno sheets available) Motor capable of considerably more unrestricted with a cam and upper intake change. Restricted for AI rules it can be easily adjusted to weight and power output as track configuration requires. Restricted horsepower to the ground for AI is usually around 320 rwhp. Can be as high as 370. Scat profiled steel crank and rods zero balanced. Ross custom pistons, Total Seal rings, Standard bore Sportsman Block, TFS heads, hydraulic roller, etc, on and on, all the good stuff put together right. 14.0:1 Compression Ratio"

 

I can't even fathom running race gas to make the horsepower we're making. It's one of the reasons why I didn't think twice about ASedan. The GM guys I run with are still running stock cast cranks, stock rods with ARP bolts, hypereutetic pistons, and IRON GM Vortec heads. They'll run on 93 octane pump and would probably run on 91.

 

To start from scratch on an injected race motor that will last more then one season is in the 15k to 20k range.

 

Any chance you'd be willing to share why? As a GM guy I guess I don't understand why your Ford motors are so expensive. I won't have 15k in my entire car by the time it's finished.

 

Call me clueless, I guess.

[gr42ai]

The Keith Kraft motor broke the crank in a big way a long time ago, the motor listed is the motor I ran for the last half of 03, from Lowes on.

 

The motor that was sold with the car I ran for all of 2002 and the first half of 2003. It was an AS short block with a steel crank after the cast one broke the first race of 2002, it did not hurt anything else. The heads were Edelbrock performer with stud mount rockers that had been milled to raise the compression. This motor made 317hp and 320ftbs.

 

When I say an engine costs between 15k and 20k it is a complete engine including the clutch, pulleys, water pump…just go through a Summit catalog and start adding up the prices, you will hit 10k just in parts.

 

Guy