head count for CMC-2 for 2008?

[GlennCMC70]

wondering if we will have enough to make it a legit class for Toyo Bucks for the season Championship for 2008.

i'm sure i'll bounce back and fourth alot.
Bryan Linert for sure.
anyone else?

[jeffburch]

When will the ruleset take into account the cars running 5 liters?

I'm hearing 17" wheels for cmc next year.
Must be an eventual migration of the older stuff to the newer.
:idea: 350 crate motors???
L98's???

jb

[GlennCMC70]

dayum Jeff, thats gotta be some kind of record. not one on topic remark in the very first post!

no plans for 17's in CMC. its been asked for. and its being looked at. no plans to do so.
you think you have problems w/ your T5 now, put a 350 behind it. you will hate it.

[jeffburch]

:D
Sorry.

TKO's legal now btw.
And is is on topic, sorta.
You're asking if any are gonna run CMC2.
I'm just pointing to the lack of ability for 5L cars to do so.
There should be more speculation on how this is gonna go in the future.
Do the 5 liter cars have a place in the future of CMC?

jb

[GlennCMC70]

yes they do from what i can tell. but i think you will have to bump the power some. eventually, it will all be one class. 5 years? 10 years? who knows.

[Al Fernandez]

5 liter cars absolutely positively have a home in CMC. They are the core of the car count, and I dont see that changing any time soon. Check out my post on the CMC National site: http://www.camaromustangchallenge.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2571

[BryanL]

As Glenn said I am for sure on CMC-2.

If someone in a 5.0 still wants to run CMC-2 why isn't it allowed? I know the rules say they can't but shouldn't JB be allowed to run in 2 even with less power?

JB-I would think it would be pretty easy to come up with a crate motor option with all the 350 offerings from GM or as you say L98's. They even make some designated for circle track racing and I believe at different power levels.

Bryan

[jeffburch]

BL, the reason I mention L98 is because of the TPI.
I feel this is the easiest way to do it.
Plus the B4C's had it albeit with an auto trans.
Thus keeping as many stock parts as possible.

Yes, this is exactly my point, why can I not class NOW as 2?
Dunno.

Also, what do you have for sale in a 4G?

thx,
jb

[AI#97]

Yes, this is exactly my point, why can I not class NOW as 2?
Dunno.

Also, what do you have for sale in a 4G?

thx,
jb

What's funny is you can run AIX with a lesser AI car....but CMC-2 won't let a CMC car in? Maybe they are just trying to maintain a separation of the two classes to justify the different engines and parts...?

And yes, whatcha sellin'?! :wink:

[GlennCMC70]

the current problem in the fox and 3rd gens are just not on the eligability list. this was to keep from causing CMC to dry up. eventually it will all be one class again. so the split is temporary. what it will take to get the platforms even is the main reason there is a split now. learn on the CMC-2 cars and not affect the CMC class.
i assure you guys this is getting looked at, its just not known how it will get solved.
i agree w/ Jeff that just allowing the OEM 350 TPI motor would be a good fix for the CMC-2 power levels for the 3rd gen. but they may decide to lower the CMC-2 power levels and this may be a non issue. give it time guys. 2008 will only be the 2nd year of this class. i've already started the ball rolling on getting some 255 17 toyo's to test back to back w/ my 255 16 toyos. once the data proves if there is an advantage one way or another, things will move forward from there.

as Tony said on the National site, none of this will get solved here on the forums. if you have what you think are solutions, email or call him. work as a team and this will move more quickly.

[AI#97]

For you F-body guys...a question. In the 3rd gens that had the TPI 350, were any produced with 5 spds? I have heard numerous people tell me no, however, when my dad and I had a shop back in the mid 90's, we had a customer car come in, a 92 RS convertible that had a 350 TPI-5spd... Was this a customer modification or a rare occurance? I always thought it was a shame that the IROC's had autos... otherwise I would still own one!

[GlennCMC70]

customer modified. no factroy 350/5 speeds.

[Waco Racer]

but they may decide to lower the CMC-2 power levels and this may be a non issue. give it time guys.

Is this a real possibility? I will give it time, I'm just trying to get a feel for the mind-set of the CMC leadership concerning a merger.

[jeffburch]

I'm not really all that interested in the wheel/tire/brake upgrade at this point.
Just like the AI upgrade, I'm not too sure the hit in rolling weight will be where I wanna go.
There I go again, showing my hand.

NE1 know of any differences between the LB9/L98 other than;
Bore

Injectors? 22#
Memcal? Same?
Camshaft? Same.
Factory tubular headers?


I need to revisit thirdgen.org I guess.
What was the rated hp/tq of the L98? 245/345

jb

[Waco Racer]

I need to revisit thirdgen.org I guess.
What was the rated hp/tq of the L98?

jb

1987
225@4400
330@2800
9.3:1 CR

1992
245@4400
345@3200
9.7:1 CR

I believe the TPI manifold, heads, exhaust, block, etc. were different.

[Al Fernandez]

Come on, you're telling me you WANT to run in a class where you're down 30-50hp on purpose instead of running in a class where you're not? Fine by me man! Just out of curiosity, why dont you just declare AI while you're at it?

There is really only one reason why we specifically left the 5liter cars out of CMC2 (and not completely...oops!): they would be woefully down on power, we would NOT have a way of giving them more mower in the short term, and therefore we would inevitably be getting into "car parity" discussions ahead of time. Since we didnt want to rush it, the best answer was simply not let them in. It just makes no sense to stand on the pulpit proclaiming the series is all about equal platforms and have that glaring problem where half the elligible cars allowed in one class have no prayer. The LT1 and 4.6 cars can yank a restrictor and be fine power/weight wise. The 5.0 SN95 was an oversight.

So, Jeff (and anyone else) if you want to run a 5.0/305 in CMC2 I'm sure none of your competitors are going to complain, and we'll waive you in.

[jeffburch]

Never said I wanted to.
My point is the top of page 6 says I can't.

Now, being a typical racer, and a quick one at that, you can probably hear my smart ass response to your question.
Besides, where were the 2 cars at nats?
Oh, they didn't pull their plates and jumped ship because they could?
And the one second "difference" in lap times this past event at BW is the 1st I've ever heard of a 2 car doing better than a legacy.
1 sec? BFD.

Pull all the plates, gimme 245/345 and let's go racin' boys.

Also, isn't Wirtz' car a B4C where he had to source a 305?

jb

[y5e06]

isn't Wirtz' car a B4C where he had to source a 305?

jb
The B4C's came in the same 350/auto & 305/5spd combos as the civis

[Rob Liebbe]

"B4C" - is that the police package code?

or is that Mustangs rarely finish "Before Camaros"

[AI#97]

problem where half the elligible cars allowed in one class have no prayer. The LT1 and 4.6 cars can yank a restrictor and be fine power/weight wise. The 5.0 SN95 was an oversight.
.

Don't know where you guys are getting rwhp and torque figures on the stock 4.6 motors but most bolt on 2V 4.6's without longtubes are only going to make 255 AT THE MOST and roughly 295 tq. 4V's aren't much better and can break 275 hp at the wheels and only about 285 tq and are anemic down low. The LS1 restricted will destroy the 4.6 cars hands down unless the 4.6's have long tubes, cams and ported heads.

I looked at the CMC-2 weight tables and most 4.6's in CMC2 with 255hp and 300tq would weight nearly 3450lbs... don't really see a faster race car there....not to mention the tech shed is going to go nutz trying to follow the hp/tq/weight tables to figure out if a car is legal or not!!! Those tables are crazy!!!

Granted, this is only my $0.02 which doesn't cover inflation....but the rules sets need to become more simple in all classes....trying to satisfy the minority at the expense of the majority....?! :?

[Todd Covini]

....trying to satisfy the minority at the expense of the majority....?! :?

Amen...Hallejuja...Brother, Matt!!! :lol:

[AI#97]

....trying to satisfy the minority at the expense of the majority....?! :?

Amen...Hallejuja...Brother, Matt!!! :lol:

Understand sarcasm much?! :roll:

[GlennCMC70]

I looked at the CMC-2 weight tables and most 4.6's in CMC2 with 255hp and 300tq would weight nearly 3450lbs... don't really see a faster race car there....not to mention the tech shed is going to go nutz trying to follow the hp/tq/weight tables to figure out if a car is legal or not!!! Those tables are crazy!!!

Matt, i think your miss-reading the tables.
i'm looking at the rules now. no cars use table 2 for CMC-2. on table 3, 94-04 4.6 cars making 255/300 (your numbers from above) have a minimum weight of 3150 best i can tell (3200 for DOHC). not sure what year fords use table 4 (05-07?) but they still get 3360 minimum at the 255/300 number you put in your post. thats 100lbs less than your 3450.
the LS1 cars in table 4, have the same 3360 minimum w/ a 280/310 limit (will require a restrictor. that car will not be fast. if it would be, i would already have an LS1 in my CMC car. adding a restrictor kills power everywhere. its going to be good to see what one does on a dyno w/ a 50-55mm hole behind the TB.
as for Tech???? remember those nifty little stickers we put on our windshield? it has the cars minimum weight on it. the tech guys look at it when they weigh each car. its a pass or fail deal. pretty simple and has worked pretty good for 3 years now. they even adopted it for Nationals in 2007.

so Matt, did i mess it up, or did you?

[jeffburch]

I agree with your LS1 comments.
It's pretty tough to look at the table and consider the platform.
The low power of the legacy platforms as well as the high output the LS1/4Vmod cars is quite a range.
Combining them will be some task.

jb

[Al Fernandez]

Combining them will be some task

Quite right! Few easy things are worthwhile though :D

[GlennCMC70]

i will also say, that if the LS1 cars show to not be able to turn the laps the others can, there will be an adjustment. i see it dropping down to 3300 pretty quick and then to 3275 soon after.

[AI#97]

so Matt, did i mess it up, or did you?

I was looking at the tables on my Treo...so I probably got the lines crossed up...

Either way...in my opinion, I think the power outputs of the 4.6 motors are a little over estimated in my experience with them... especially if they can't run programmers or chips... Just FYI.

[mitchntx]

My personal opinion is that an LSx motor just doesn't have the long term reliability of an LT1 motor.

I know Glenn will chime in and say look at me, look at me ... but the bottom line is of the 6 of us who open tracked stock LSx motors, every one of us spun bearings, dropped valves and/or detonated a piston, except for 2 ... and they sold the cars very early on.

The group I drive Vettes with has begun seeing some engine woes as well.

It's too much to ask a hobbyists budget to do a $3000 engine rebuild every year or two. And while we all think of ourselves are real race car drivers, the truth is, few of us have the resources it takes to keep a program like that going.

If we can keep this series affordable, then folks will find a way to come play. If the perception is a lot of time, effort and cashola is required, they will stay away.

[GlennCMC70]

you right Mitch, i disagree w/ your LS1 reliability comment. i've had very good results w/ my 98. i also think that w/ the reduction in power (280hp) it should live a long and happy life the same way the LT1's do, from a lack of reving to the moon.
all the folks we know who have killed LS1's did it on the track and it was likely due to high G oil starving. #5/6 rod bearings always go first.

[AllZWay]

I never had an LS1 engine....but with the abundance of failures... I wouldn't want one.

How many engines did Patterson and Mixon go through in T2... tons of them.

I don't think the LSx is a very reliable engine at all.

[AI#97]

My personal opinion is that an LSx motor just doesn't have the long term reliability of an LT1 motor.

I know Glenn will chime in and say look at me, look at me ... but the bottom line is of the 6 of us who open tracked stock LSx motors, every one of us spun bearings, dropped valves and/or detonated a piston, except for 2 ... and they sold the cars very early on.

The group I drive Vettes with has begun seeing some engine woes as well.

It's too much to ask a hobbyists budget to do a $3000 engine rebuild every year or two. And while we all think of ourselves are real race car drivers, the truth is, few of us have the resources it takes to keep a program like that going.

If we can keep this series affordable, then folks will find a way to come play. If the perception is a lot of time, effort and cashola is required, they will stay away.

I couldn't have said all that better myself Mitch! Spot on!!!

Also, regarding LSx motors....ask Patrick Lindsey about their reliability!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :? :shock: :lol: :lol:

[GlennCMC70]

Lindsey had a lean issue from what i was told.
Mixon and Patterson havent hurt a motor since they met me and Mitch.


i guess i've been lucky w/ that LS1 i have. 7K limiter, stock crank and rods, OEM ported heads. 456rwhp/422rwtq. .600"+ lift cam, 11.5:1 comp ratio. lived a couple years on track and street.

[mitchntx]

Lindsey had a lean issue from what i was told.
Mixon and Patterson havent hurt a motor since they met me and Mitch.


I'll let Bryan chime in on the motor in Mixon's old Camaro.

Mike had to go to Louisiana to find his current motor.
And Seve at Automotive Machine built Mike 2 or 3 when he ran T2.

Your big motor is hardly stock. Can't compare stock with upgraded oiling, ARP fastners, balancing, Fluidampner, etc, etc, etc.

Shall we also discuss the fleet of SLP Camaro track cars Jack had at MSR-C?

[GlennCMC70]

all those things you listed are legal in CMC.

[BryanL]

Yes I want to chime in but backtrack a little.
I like hearing that the ls1 could get a weight break as Glenn says he can run almost the same power with an lt1 but be much lighter. When I bought Mixon's car the CMC-2 tables weren't out yet. Maybe one reason I have an LT-1 6 speed sitting in front of my trailer. We will get to see a dyno soon with mine as I aim to run at the minimum weight power for table 4.
Mitch-I agree I don't want to do a 3k rebuild every year or two. I know you will say the lt-1 will last longer but there isn't a big difference in price as far as a rebuild goes.
I am curious. Were the spun bearings done without an Accusump? Were pistons hurt with tuned PCM's with knock sensors turned off?
I think the restricter could only help the longevity. Have many run the LT-1 without the restricter with good long term reliability?

With my experience obviously I am not defending the LS-1 but comparing a stock ls1 restricted is much different than what Mixon runs. He spins to 7k but a stock ls1 doesn't have much beyond 5k. I would guess he also makes over 150 more hp than my stock ls1.

T2 Ls1's did pop lots of motors until they allowed them to run an Accusump as far as I know. They also allow computer tuning and are probably on the ragged edge, can they also run race gas or a mixture?

As for my motor from Mixon I think i was hurt when I bought it. The bearings were in good shape. Detonation was the problem with busted ringlands which I feel was caused by a tuned computer that had high timing and cut out the knock sensors. As more than one told me a set of forged pistons would fix that problem which leads me to a durability question.

Why can't people run some forged parts in their motor? I don't understand why the rules won't allow someone to build more durability into a motor? Cost really isn't an issue as they are the same price as new stock parts. I don't see a competitive advantage as the dyno is the limiting factor. Though I certainly see opportunity for people to run different cams and ported heads that may make the right power but have a better powerband or raise the powerband some.

Bryan

[AI#97]

The funny thing is you guys are all just a couple baby steps from AI when you take into account all the stuff you are mentioning!!!

Come on over!!!

[mitchntx]

The funny thing is you guys are all just a couple baby steps from AI when you take into account all the stuff you are mentioning!!!


Thank you for perspective.

While all those things are CMC legal and NECESSARY to keep an LSx alive and well, we've all witnessed 90K mile junkyard LT1 pull-outs live a long and healthy life in CMC.

[mitchntx]

I am curious. Were the spun bearings done without an Accusump? Were pistons hurt with tuned PCM's with knock sensors turned off?
I think the restricter could only help the longevity. Have many run the LT-1 without the restricter with good long term reliability?

Bryan

I am comparing stock vs stock ...

Jack popped 3 or 4 LSxs through Tombstone (long, high RPM, left-handers) before GM engineers said overfill it with oil. It's a cheap work-around, for sure. But it doesn't solve the long term problem.

Mine and Chuck's LS1s had mild cams, Katech oil pumps, conservative tunes AND 7qts of oil (5.5 recommended). Both suffered rod bearing failures. Kevin saw similar problems with his. That was the opportunity to mod the crap out of it and he hasn't had a motor live through a weekend yet.

[AllZWay]

The funny thing is you guys are all just a couple baby steps from AI when you take into account all the stuff you are mentioning!!!

Come on over!!!

That is exactly the way I see it also.

[AI#97]

The funny thing is you guys are all just a couple baby steps from AI when you take into account all the stuff you are mentioning!!!


Thank you for perspective.

While all those things are CMC legal and NECESSARY to keep an LSx alive and well, we've all witnessed 90K mile junkyard LT1 pull-outs live a long and healthy life in CMC.

While my comment was a little exaggerated, I am mainly speaking of engine stuff. I am sure there are lots of other items you would have to do to be competitive in AI regarding suspension, brakes and aero but I think the basic idea is there.

Most of the stuff you guys are talking about in both CMC and CMC2 is why I just jumped right on over to AI... :D

[MikeP99Z]

i'm on number 7...

[Waco Racer]

ouch