Printable View
I know today's the day to beat up on Glenn, but the clock strikes midnight in 3 hours and tomorrow y'all should applaud him for working this so hard. Many of the CMC National Directors (not me of course) have thrown in the towel on this issue after the "decision stick" was taken from us last year on the CMC/CMC2 merger.
Glenn has picked up the ball and is trying to work it further given what we've seen in the past year.
Back in the day, 230/300 was selected I presume as the class max by looking at the max output of the two 5 liter motors at the time.
Hence why Ford fellers have never made the tq number.
Where did the CMC2 numbers of 260/310 come from?
Was it a thought out logical set of numbers?
Where did it come from?
An uncorked LT1?
The LS1 guys gotta be thinking the same thing?
WTF? Where did they get this set of numbers?
jb
Edit:
More to the point, CMC2 numbers seem low to me considering the new cars. IF, the (2) numbers are for an uncorked LT1, well, IMO that's the issue. New cars should be allowed much closer to their rated numbers.
Hell, the 944's have 3 classes. Hondas have what, 4 or 5?
Allow the new cars to equilize closer to their power, keep cmc as it always was.
What does a 3v 4.6 make from the factory?
What does a 2002 LSx F body make.
:roll:
jb
I can speak to anything CMC Classic, but when it comes to CMC-2, Mr. Al Fernandez is going to be your best source for technical info explanations and such.
I agree, big kudos to Glenn!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd Covini
In the end I think we all want to race with the maximum # of people possible all with level platforms. I think that Glenn is going beyond the expectation to make this happen and we will all be better off in the future.
Thanks!!!
if i deleted this kiss ass responce today would you hold it against me tomorrow?Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelmosty
That sucks this is so hard to figure out....maybe they need LS1's and just run AI?!
:P
some good reading.
http://www.highperformancepontiac.co...manifolds.html
I don't get it.
I understand getting to 1 group again.
I understand the reason for "the number" that its one that is attainable and not out of reason for all engine platforms.
I understand that this is gonna screw over a group of current racers
I understand that this is needed to grow the series
What I don't understand, speaking specifically about the GM side of the house, why not allow the LT1/T56 combo be allowed in 3rd gens.
Its a known package, reliable, available & reasonably priced. The T56 gets rid of the T5 issues. I bought a complete 95 LT1/T56 with harness, PCM, and accessories for $1500 and it went in the teal car. Granted, that kind of deal doesn't come along very often, but they can be had. Mike and I have have that kind of combo right now, engine harness, PCM and all that would be very reasonably priced for any of you guys.
Its a simple fix made extremely complicated (once again).
Throwing parts at a 5L TPI is a crap shoot and a potential money pit. If I were faced with this dilema, I'd be sitting out or parting out, too.
I agree with Mitch here.
I understand the problem and the solution is a difficult one. Kudos to those willing to try and work it out. Someone is going to get screwed in the deal since I just don't see an easy way to fix it.
That said...If I was a driver of a thrid gen, I would be really ticked off and would probably have the same attitude as Mr. Burch.
I want us all in one group, but I just don't see how we do it and make it fair.
I'd be game for the OPTION of an LT1/T56 in a 3G wik 4th gen weights. If getting back to one group is a goal, what I don't want to see is the LT1 or a 350 carb'd/TPI being the only option.
I also hope to see the weights for 3G in -2 get dropped back down to 3150 for TPI/carb'd.