Why you don't let a CMC driver drive an AI car...

[marshall_mosty]

Why you don't let a CMC driver who is used to a 230 HP CMC car with Tremec 3550 and a high engagement point clutch drive a 300 HP AI car with a stock T-5 and a low engagement point.

I just rebuilt 3rd after the tranny failure at TWS in August. New cluster and 3rd gear were installed. I ran approx 1 1/2 hours worth of track time before the CMC "yahoo" turns two laps at 75% pace... :shock:

I guess I need an upgraded gearset to last the 4 hour enduro in April. 8)


Just ribbin' ya Michael. Nuttin' but lub for ya Bubba.

http://www.mustangmods.com/ims/u/1280/3889/215246.jpg

[jeffburch]

T5= timebomb
tick tock BOOM

He's got a better tranny than you! :roll:
jb

[y5e06]

JB Weld and it should be good.
You guys have plenty of that, right?

[donovan]

T5= timebomb
tick tock BOOM

He's got a better tranny than you! :roll:
jb

Astro Performance A-5 upgrade...
330HP - 350TQ and still ticking...

[marshall_mosty]

I'm going to go with the Z-spec upgrade for this next round. $500 for the cluster and 2nd, 3rd, 4th.

$1100 for the A-1 kit is a little tough to swallow right now. However, as I get closer to the March event, I may dive off the deep end anyway.

I'd go Tremec, but the 5th gears are too expensive and the whole clutch disc and bellhousing puts the tranny at close to $2K for the whole meal deal.

I guess time will tell if I made a good choice... (transmission selection that is) 8)

[RichardP]

I'm going to go with the Z-spec upgrade for this next round. $500 for the cluster and 2nd, 3rd, 4th.

Are you trying to make a standard production box into a Z? Make sure you are getting compatible parts. If you have a 3.35 box you are putting a 2.95 cluster into, you are going to need to replace more than that. Don't forget about the change in fifth gear ratio, also.



$1100 for the A-1 kit is a little tough to swallow right now.


It will look pretty good if you only get another 1.5 hours before the new one blows up. The "Z" isn't really any stronger than a production box. The increased torque "rating" of the box is just the numerical leverage difference between the 3.35 and the 2.95 first gear ratios. Since third gear (not first) is the one that blows up in our application, that's pretty irrelevant.

Third gear likes to go in the T5 because it's located in the middle of the main shaft. The natural opposing force of the meshing gears flexes the main shaft until only the tips of the teeth are contacting. That's not their strong point, btw...


That said, the T5 in my car has a staggering amount of track time on it, some of it behind some pretty stout power plants. I don't really know why some of you have so many problems with your T5's? Even with the amount of time I have on my box, I wouldn't spend any money rebuilding it to stock specs when it does finally go...


Richard P.

[AI#97]

3550's are CMC legal? I guess I do need to go re-read those rules some time!

Marshall, I would cruise around on DFWstangs and look for a used tremec from someone that has gone Auto for a drag car. I found my T56 (03 Cobra with 3k miles on it) for $1000 and after selling my stock T45 for $400 to offset the shifter, cross member and driveshaft yoke swap...I have right at $950 in it and it's been bullet proof for 3 years of abuse! Granted, it weighs a metric ton but the gear spacing is VERY nice and it has all stock parts in it and has been proven strong behind motors in excess of 800hp!

[jeffburch]

That proves it right there.
You've never seen the rules. :?
I'm eyeballing a TKO600 at the moment.
Regardless of the 30# hit. (which is out weighed by the peace of mind that it's overkill)
Yes, i's legal aswell. :)
jb

[Adam Ginsberg]

3550's are CMC legal? I guess I do need to go re-read those rules some time!

Yep - the original 3550's, and now the TKO is legal for CMC. The 3550 was permitted about ~2 years ago for the Bondurant cars. However, that trans hasn't been available new for awhile, so they've allowed the TKO as well as of the '08 ruleset.

At CMC power levels, they are overkill. Not to mention, the cost and weight penalties.

[BryanL]

Marshall its just another example of those Mustang CMC drivers taking dueces in everyones transmissions of the cars they drive. Maybe the T5 is a decent box but those guys just break them no matter if its a T5 in a AI car or a T56 in a CMC Firebird.

Bryan

[donovan]

I'm going to go with the Z-spec upgrade for this next round. $500 for the cluster and 2nd, 3rd, 4th.

Are you trying to make a standard production box into a Z? Make sure you are getting compatible parts. If you have a 3.35 box you are putting a 2.95 cluster into, you are going to need to replace more than that. Don't forget about the change in fifth gear ratio, also.



$1100 for the A-1 kit is a little tough to swallow right now.


It will look pretty good if you only get another 1.5 hours before the new one blows up. The "Z" isn't really any stronger than a production box. The increased torque "rating" of the box is just the numerical leverage difference between the 3.35 and the 2.95 first gear ratios. Since third gear (not first) is the one that blows up in our application, that's pretty irrelevant.

Third gear likes to go in the T5 because it's located in the middle of the main shaft. The natural opposing force of the meshing gears flexes the main shaft until only the tips of the teeth are contacting. That's not their strong point, btw...


That said, the T5 in my car has a staggering amount of track time on it, some of it behind some pretty stout power plants. I don't really know why some of you have so many problems with your T5's? Even with the amount of time I have on my box, I wouldn't spend any money rebuilding it to stock specs when it does finally go...


Richard P.

I may have figured out why I blew up two third gears in six months... When I was rebuilding the last one with the A-5 kit I spent a littlle more time on the rebuild and reading the specs... there is a difference in the preload in the bearings and shims if you are using new bearings... I had been installing new bearings with the specs of re-using old bearings... thus leaving the assembly a little sloppy when the bearings get some use...

Maybe... Maybe not... so far the A-5 is working out for me.

Marshall, What Richard said, the input shaft and mainshaft are different in the T5 and T5Z... the T5 uses neddle bearings and the T5Z uses a Set-1 tapper bearing between the two shafts and the are not interchangeable.

And the A-5 kit is only made for a T5 not a T5Z becuase the upgraded input shaft in the kit is made for needle bearings only, no tapper bearing option.

DD

[donovan]

Why you don't let a CMC driver who is used to a 230 HP CMC car with Tremec 3550 and a high engagement point clutch drive a 300 HP AI car with a stock T-5 and a low engagement point.

I just rebuilt 3rd after the tranny failure at TWS in August. New cluster and 3rd gear were installed. I ran approx 1 1/2 hours worth of track time before the CMC "yahoo" turns two laps at 75% pace... :shock:



Where did you get the parts?

The last set I got from Liberty were really nice and still have all there teeth... I went thru two 3rd gear sets from Hanlon...

[AI#97]

That proves it right there.
You've never seen the rules. :?
I'm eyeballing a TKO600 at the moment.
Regardless of the 30# hit. (which is out weighed by the peace of mind that it's overkill)
Yes, i's legal aswell. :)
jb

Read them at work today... what happened to all the language regarding "Cobra Parts"...?

I also looked at them and it said NOTHING about using the stock intake on a 2V mod motor...or any motor for that matter... ONLY motors it said anything regarding intakes are the "spec" carb'd motors. I also think the setup to have would be a 99+ mustang with a 2V motor... granted it says you CAN'T change the ignition "curves" on a distributor...but without a dist on the car, I could change the timing curve in the computer and I doubt there is a tech inspector that could verify it without LOTS of electronic equipment.

There is also NOTHING that states the stock compression is to be kept...but allowing a 0.060 over bore on a mod motor with stock dish pistons gives a huge bump in compression!

I realize that the CMC rules say that if they don't say you can, then you can't....but it would be so easy to get away with stuff it's not funny! :shock:

The only real problem I see is that on a 99+ mustang, you would have to leave the cats on the car to stay under 230/300!

I guess the biggest issue I have with those rules is my desire to do things when I am not specifically told I can't!!! Guess it's the AI mentality soaking through!!! :lol: :lol:

[GlennCMC70]

its a thing called integrity. if you dont have any, you dont belong.
if you are really serious bout CMC and want to talk, call me and i'll spend some time going over the rules w/ you.

[michaelmosty]

I don't see the big problem, that gear should buff out.

[mitchntx]

There is also NOTHING that states the stock compression is to be kept...but allowing a 0.060 over bore on a mod motor with stock dish pistons gives a huge bump in compression!


Oh, but it does ...

8.16. Engine Balancing / Rebuilding
Engine balancing is allowed. Lightening of parts beyond the minimum required to balance is prohibited. Boring/honing is allowed up to 0.060 over. Head/block milling is allowed but only as far as required to square/clean the surface area. Compression ratio must remain within stock tolerances for the make/model/year of the engine.

and

7.7.4 Tolerances
Unless otherwise specified, all published measurements infer a tolerance of + / - one-half of the last specified decimal place. All rounding will be done to the nearest decimal place that is specified in these rules. In a case where a measurement falls exactly on the halfway mark it shall be rounded up or down in favor of the competitor.


So, a motor that has a factory stated 9.5:1 CR is allowed 9.75:1 max.

[marshall_mosty]

Where did you get the parts?

The last set I got from Liberty were really nice and still have all there teeth... I went thru two 3rd gear sets from Hanlon...

I had the 3rd left over from a spare stock tranny. The cluster was a used unit in good shape that I picked up...

I'm thinking about the A-5 kit with the upgraded mainshaft. That way, I can "hope" a bit longer than just rebuilding the current gearset.

[AI#97]

its a thing called integrity. if you dont have any, you dont belong.
if you are really serious bout CMC and want to talk, call me and i'll spend some time going over the rules w/ you.

Not looking at CMC any more but I do like some of the rules writing in CMC and wish they would apply the same "intent" over in the AI group. Primarily, I like the idea of the 6 directors keeping things in check. Right now in AI, seems like JWL is just figuring out ways to make the racers poor and boost his own ego by bringing in flashy new cars.

oh well...it is what it is!

[AI#97]

So, a motor that has a factory stated 9.5:1 CR is allowed 9.75:1 max.

10-4, missed that....but, what equipment have they got to measure it...and have they ever measured a stocker to compare to? How do you account for a tighter piston/ring clearance compared to a 100k mile motor during a compression or leak down test? I understand the concept...but how would one police it without question? :? Too much circumstantial evidence in my opinion! :lol:

[RichardP]

I'm thinking about the A-5 kit with the upgraded mainshaft.

I wouldn't really worry too much about the upgraded mainshaft. It's got a stiffness problem, not a strength problem. Upgrading the material makes it stronger but doesn't make it stiffer. Stiffness is mostly a geometry thing and there isn't really a way to make it larger in diameter...


Richard P.

[GlennCMC70]

its been checked at nats.

[mitchntx]

So, a motor that has a factory stated 9.5:1 CR is allowed 9.75:1 max.

10-4, missed that....but, what equipment have they got to measure it...and have they ever measured a stocker to compare to? How do you account for a tighter piston/ring clearance compared to a 100k mile motor during a compression or leak down test? I understand the concept...but how would one police it without question? :? Too much circumstantial evidence in my opinion! :lol:

A motor significantly DOWN on compression is not likely to launch away from a motor that is significantly UP on compression.

LOL ... I find it ironic that I, of all people, am engaged in a conversation like this. Suffice it to say, Matt ... you are not breaking new territory here. ;)

[AI#97]

LOL ... I find it ironic that I, of all people, am engaged in a conversation like this. Suffice it to say, Matt ... you are not breaking new territory here. ;)

Haha!!! Just trying to figure out how guys cheat that is all! ;) I am sure there are tons of people out there that have forgotten more about bending the rules than I could ever dream of knowing!!! :lol:

[ShadowBolt]

I was told once by a very well know national racer that there are only two kinds of racers......cheaters and losers! I don't know how to cheat but I know my car has been looked at many times since Eric won so much. I bet there are fifteen dyno sheets in the binder I got with the car.

CMC 17 has a T-5 should I be looking for something else?

JJ

[Adam Ginsberg]

CMC 17 has a T-5 should I be looking for something else?

If it's working well, not grinding or making any funny noises...leave it alone. Change the fluid a few times throughout the season.

[jeffburch]

its been checked at nats.

Yup.
jb

[jeffburch]

I was told once by a very well know national racer that there are only two kinds of racers......cheaters and losers!
JJ

Sounds like someone giving soundbites or selling books.

jb

[donovan]

Keep your mainshaft. note that the 5th gear is going to be different... than your current one... you will need one for a T5Z.

DD

[Wirtz]

7.7.4 Tolerances
Unless otherwise specified, all published measurements infer a tolerance of + / - one-half of the last specified decimal place. All rounding will be done to the nearest decimal place that is specified in these rules. In a case where a measurement falls exactly on the halfway mark it shall be rounded up or down in favor of the competitor.

So, a motor that has a factory stated 9.5:1 CR is allowed 9.75:1 max.

So I have this makes me wounder a bit. Would that mean a car with a factory spec ratio of 9.2:1 can have a max compression of 9.3? But if a spec is 8.9:1, then you can max at 9.35?

What do you do if the factory book specs compression at 9:1?

Jeff

[GlennCMC70]

good question Jeff. i'll get an email to Tony on this. somethings not right.

[Wirtz]

Thanks Glenn. The CR rules have always bugged me. Seems like with the fairly limited number of engines for the series, we could have a more explicit rule for something so important.

Jeff

[GlennCMC70]

you are right.
any sugestions for how to word it?
limit it to .25:1 over stock? x% increase over stock?

[RichardP]

7.7.4 Tolerances
Unless otherwise specified, all published measurements infer a tolerance of + / - one-half of the last specified decimal place. All rounding will be done to the nearest decimal place that is specified in these rules. In a case where a measurement falls exactly on the halfway mark it shall be rounded up or down in favor of the competitor.

So, a motor that has a factory stated 9.5:1 CR is allowed 9.75:1 max.

So I have this makes me wounder a bit. Would that mean a car with a factory spec ratio of 9.2:1 can have a max compression of 9.3? But if a spec is 8.9:1, then you can max at 9.35?

What do you do if the factory book specs compression at 9:1?

Jeff


???
I don't believe you guys are intrepreting the wording of the rule correctly. It's supposed to be the standard rounding type stuff.

In your examples, the last listed digit is in the "tens" place. So your tolerance is half of that or +/- 0.05

If you have a standard compression ratio of 9.2:1, the allowed range of compression ratios is 9.15 to 9.25.


Richard P.

[Wirtz]

In your examples, the last listed digit is in the "tens" place. So your tolerance is half of that or +/- 0.05

If you have a standard compression ratio of 9.2:1, the allowed range of compression ratios is 9.15 to 9.25.


So that is how I read the rules when I built my first engine. It is a grey area, but technically you still have an issue if the offical documentation shows only a full number like 9:1. Would that mean you have +/-0.5 point of compression tolerance?

So you could say that 9:1 is the same as 9.0:1, in which case the tolerance is still +/-0.05. But then if the factory book said my ratio was 9.25:1, I only get +/-0.005? Does not compute. So again to my point, why is something so important so vauge?

I'm willing to bet that if the CMC rule book changed tomorrow to read stock CR +/- 0.05, a number of people would suddenly have a problem that needed to be fixed.... but maybe that is a different discussion.

I have not run the math, someone would need to compile it. But it seems like the bores our engines use are fairly limited, and since overall displacement is fairly close, the change in CR for a change in bore should be something that can be calculated and I would think it fairly close in number across the range of 305 and LT1 Chebbies, and 302 and whatever mod motors are allowed. Even if the answer is slightly different between engines, it could be speced easy enough in the rule book.

Jeff

[GlennCMC70]

7.7.4 Tolerances
Unless otherwise specified, all published measurements infer a tolerance of + / - one-half of the last specified decimal place. All rounding will be done to the nearest decimal place that is specified in these rules. In a case where a measurement falls exactly on the halfway mark it shall be rounded up or down in favor of the competitor.

10.5:1
the last specified decimal place is the .5 in 10.5:1.
+/- of .5 is .25, right?
all rounding will be done to the nearest decimal place that is specified in these rules. since 10.5 is specified and i'm allowed a 10.75 limit the rounding part in these rules allows me a 10.8:1 limit.

thats how i currently read the rules. i have asked for clarification on this.

[mitchntx]

If you have a standard compression ratio of 9.2:1, the allowed range of compression ratios is 9.15 to 9.25.


Richard P.

I installed an 80,000 mile salvage motor in my car at the beginning of 05. I now have 3 racing seasons on it, plus God knows how many track days.

For argument's sake, let's say the old girl is getting tired and is burning some oil. It also has a little blow-by, all symptoms of a well used motor.

Plug in the whistler and low and behold, my 10.5:1 stock motor is now 9.5:1 in the cylinder checked.

Am I now forced to rebuild or replace the motor to one of stock spec/tolerance?

[GlennCMC70]

try as i may, i cant get a clear answer on this from ANY of the regional or National Directors.
rebuild at your own risk.
wanna get this fixed? email Tony, Todd, Al, and ask for a clarification.
also, from the muddled responce i got 7.7.4 does not apply to 8.16.
stock comp ratio means stock comp ratio and no "range" is allowed.

[mitchntx]

So a low compression motor, if discovered, will require a rebuild?

:shock:

[RichardP]

So a low compression motor, if discovered, will require a rebuild?

:shock:


Technically, the compression ratio is the ratio between the volume of the cylinder when the piston is at the bottom of its stroke, and the volume when the piston is at the top of its stroke. Mathematically, it is not affected by the cam timing or the health of the motor.

It is also not measured with a “compression gauge” screwed into the spark plug hole.


Richard P.

[GlennCMC70]

no answer for you Mitch.
why rebuild your own motor, you should by nothing but new OEM replacements from GM.

[AI#97]

So a low compression motor, if discovered, will require a rebuild?

:shock:


Technically, the compression ratio is the ratio between the volume of the cylinder when the piston is at the bottom of its stroke, and the volume when the piston is at the top of its stroke. Mathematically, it is not affected by the cam timing or the health of the motor.

It is also not measured with a “compression gauge” screwed into the spark plug hole.


Richard P.

True, but that would require tear down, complicated measuring instruments and operators who know how to use them!!!

I would say that if the "field test" is going to be a compression guage...develop a reliable/repeatable test. Cold engine, compression gauge and a max compression reading after so many revolutions from the #1 cylinder ONLY! Say that 5.0L's have a max pressure of 155psi, LT1's have 170psi and mods at about 160psi.

I could then go to ANY CMC car in the US and verify compression in the same time it takes to pull a plug....no tear down required. Granted this plan has flaws...but something I see as an issue...

LT1...350 cubes, 10.75:1 compression...
302...302 cubes, 9.25:1 compression...

Guess that's why the F-bod is dominating CMC...SLA, torque arm, BIG area under the power curve? Guess I now see those whiner's points!! lol!!!

Now to throw further mud into the river... My STATIC compression ratio on my car is 11:1. the dynamic ratio due to cam timing is ONLY 9.4:1...

There are so many factors involved in policing the rules I guess just being a little lax has worked to date...?

[GlennCMC70]

your quoted comp ratios are not correct.
50lbs Matt, 50lbs.
no for motor i've seen makes peak TQ at 2K. where is peak TQ on a Fox CMC car?

[mitchntx]

So a low compression motor, if discovered, will require a rebuild?

:shock:


Technically, the compression ratio is the ratio between the volume of the cylinder when the piston is at the bottom of its stroke, and the volume when the piston is at the top of its stroke. Mathematically, it is not affected by the cam timing or the health of the motor.

It is also not measured with a “compression gauge” screwed into the spark plug hole.


Richard P.

Technically, I understand that.

Realistically, if there is a broken ring, bad valve seat, worn cylinder walls, leak down will affect that volume.

[RichardP]

You're reaching pretty far, Mitch.

What happened to your new "web persona" that you mentioned here:
http://www.aicmctexas.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1589


Was that a New Year's resolution you proclaimed on the forth of January only to completely fall off by the 9th day of the year??? :D


Richard P.

[RichardP]

I would say that if the "field test" is going to be a compression guage...develop a reliable/repeatable test. Cold engine, compression gauge and a max compression reading after so many revolutions from the #1 cylinder ONLY!


A compression gauge is in no way a reliable or repeatable test for engine compression ratio.

You also have a bit to learn about cheating/catching cheaters. If you tell everyone that you are only going to check cylinder number 1, you will have a lot of motors that will pass only if you check cylinder number 1. :roll:


Maybe we could dyno the cars to get away from all of these subtle little nuances that aren't realistic to check without tearing down the motor...


Richard P.

[AI#97]

your quoted comp ratios are not correct.
50lbs Matt, 50lbs.
no for motor i've seen makes peak TQ at 2K. where is peak TQ on a Fox CMC car?

Was just using numbers from this thread....

50lbs...? for what? When I do a compression test on my stock Mod motors, i see about 155psi peak.

Peak torque on E7 headed foxes is about 3800 and becomes anemic after that.

Quit typing shorthand!!! :lol:

[AI#97]

You also have a bit to learn about cheating/catching cheaters. If you tell everyone that you are only going to check cylinder number 1, you will have a lot of motors that will pass only if you check cylinder number 1. :roll:


Maybe we could dyno the cars to get away from all of these subtle little nuances that aren't realistic to check without tearing down the motor...


Richard P.

And my sarcastic point has been made... If someone wanted to go to the trouble of building a motor like that, and deal with the problems, go ahead...but you will also know that the rear cylinders on foxes are usually air starved anyway... Point being, there is no easy and or cheap way of policing it, so let the guys be competitive and build what they want...

Why don't you guys in CMC just rely on the 230/300 number on the dyno and be done with it...? CMC needs some new life in it before it becomes stagnant! :wink: :lol:

[GlennCMC70]

50lbs is the minimum weight difference between the 4th gens and the rest of the field.
if you just put a HP/TQ limit on the class, there will be AI motors in there making 230/300 numbers from 2K to 6K that cost $20K to build. someone will do it and it will be a class killer.

[mitchntx]

You're reaching pretty far, Mitch.

What happened to your new "web persona" that you mentioned here:
http://www.aicmctexas.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1589


Was that a New Year's resolution you proclaimed on the forth of January only to completely fall off by the 9th day of the year??? :D


Richard P.

I do apologize, Richard.

I assure you my intent was NOT to create mayhem, just trying to make it understandable to the common man. ;)

I have a reputation that I must over come. .... baby steps

[AI#97]

50lbs is the minimum weight difference between the 4th gens and the rest of the field.
if you just put a HP/TQ limit on the class, there will be AI motors in there making 230/300 numbers from 2K to 6K that cost $20K to build. someone will do it and it will be a class killer.

so...that's racing! there is always someone who is going to outspend you...and it doesn't necessarily mean they will be fast!

I guess I am just a little bitter about the AI rules getting a little out of hand and that is flowing over to my attempt to understand CMC from the outside. I apologize...

Personally, IMHO, I think both series need to concentrate on getting car counts up. which in my eyes is keeping things simple and CHEAP! Maybe we are the anomoly in NASA that hasn't seen the growth other regions have had. I am looking forward to 08' to see how we have grown compared to 07 and 06.

[GlennCMC70]

lets see if i can keep up......
$20K CMC motors = thats racing.
AI rules getting out of hand (i read as costing more money) = poor series managment.
increased car counts will be derived by keeping it cheap you say. thats why CMC doesnt allow any motor under the 230/300 limit.

you realize i have $850 in my motor (junk yard pull) that i ran in all of 2005 and 2006 and Round 1 of 2007 (and a National event too) and in 2007 i had the long block rebuilt for $1700. i dont see how much cheaper it can get.

[AllZWay]

For the record... My motor is out of a wrecked car that I bought with 165k miles on the odometer for a grand total of $1200.

I don't know the history of the car or motor.....but all I have done so far is replace the valve springs.

[marshall_mosty]

What happened to the "Marshall's brother broke his tranny" thread... I can't find it.

8)

[AI#97]

lets see if i can keep up......
$20K CMC motors = thats racing. I am sure SOMEONE will eventually be willing to do that.
AI rules getting out of hand (i read as costing more money) = poor series managment. You bet! They don't know how to say NO to rising costs...AI is rapidly becoming AIX. CMC2 will soon be the old AI IMHO
increased car counts will be derived by keeping it cheap you say. thats why CMC doesnt allow any motor under the 230/300 limit. Lost me here? "over 230/300" maybe?

you realize i have $850 in my motor (junk yard pull) that i ran in all of 2005 and 2006 and Round 1 of 2007 (and a National event too) and in 2007 i had the long block rebuilt for $1700. i dont see how much cheaper it can get.

I never said spending money equates to being fast...nor did I say YOU were fast you cheap bastage!! :twisted: :lol:

Ultimately my point is CMC is being run well, and kept cheap even though there are REAL opportunities to cheat nearly unchecked. AI on the otherhand is being turned into World Challenge level cost wise as the rules continue to be "opened up" to items that will give unfair advantages to a minority that can/will spend the funds and has lost the middle of the road "faster economy group" where AIX was the deep pocket class. This is LIKELY alienating the guys who just want to come out and have fun and run midpack or on the bottom of the podium...I am sure you would agree?

Marshall, it's your own fault for posting about your brother not being able to drive and breaking your transmission....IN THE ENGINE FORUM!! :lol:

Let's all save this crap for the banquet!

[marshall_mosty]

Marshall, it's your own fault for posting about your brother not being able to drive and breaking your transmission....IN THE ENGINE FORUM!! :lol:



Matt,
I didn't see a "Transmission" forum, and figured it didn't belong in the suspension section... :D

See you goobers at the banquet.