2014 RCR #2 LS in third gens

Questions and answers about CMC and NASA rules

Moderator: Al Fernandez

Glenn
Posts: 2672
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 3:53 pm
Location: Ft. Worth

Postby Glenn » Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:40 am

JB went to 2 Nats. 2nd at the first one and won the 2nd. He was very fast.
Him and Wirtz would still be winning today in 3rd gens no doubt in my mind.
Texas Region AI/CMC Series Director
Inferior Driver, Superior Platform…. since 2005.

BryanL
Posts: 270
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:12 am

Postby BryanL » Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:50 am

Smike wrote:
BryanL wrote:7.11.1 Any 4.6 Ford, 5.0,(302 Ford or 305 GM), 5.7 liter LT1/LS1 GM V8 production engine, in OEM stock configuration unless otherwise stated in these rules, that was originally offered in an eligible model car is legal. Cobra R model engines (Ford) and LT4 (GM/Chevrolet) engines or engine components are prohibited. Additionally, early GM cars may run any LT-1 from the 93-97 Late GM cars as long as the stock LT1 engine controlling electronics are maintained.

Carb of traditional SBC was never offered in a 4th Gen so it isn't legal.


By that ruling a carb motor was never offered in the 94-04. So no Ford can run the carb spec motor?

It's otherwise stated. A 5.0 liter engine was in a 94 up Stang at some point and since the 5.0 Ford has a spec carb option it is legal.

Smike
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:10 am

Postby Smike » Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:53 am

BryanL wrote:
Smike wrote:
BryanL wrote:7.11.1 Any 4.6 Ford, 5.0,(302 Ford or 305 GM), 5.7 liter LT1/LS1 GM V8 production engine, in OEM stock configuration unless otherwise stated in these rules, that was originally offered in an eligible model car is legal. Cobra R model engines (Ford) and LT4 (GM/Chevrolet) engines or engine components are prohibited. Additionally, early GM cars may run any LT-1 from the 93-97 Late GM cars as long as the stock LT1 engine controlling electronics are maintained.

Carb of traditional SBC was never offered in a 4th Gen so it isn't legal.


By that ruling a carb motor was never offered in the 94-04. So no Ford can run the carb spec motor?

It's otherwise stated. A 5.0 liter engine was in a 94 up Stang at some point and since the 5.0 Ford has a spec carb option it is legal.


And a 350 = 5.7l, so can be carb'd too?

Den34
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 6:54 pm
Location: Eureka IL

Postby Den34 » Wed Sep 17, 2014 1:42 pm

I suppose I better chime in here as I helped Robert put the LS engine in his car for this past season to see how it would work.
First off I really don’t feel like this combo is a class killer. The LS engine is lighter than the LT1 that was previously in the car. We corner weighted the car before pulling out the LT1 and compared it to the corner weight after we put in the LS engine and the weights changed very little. Not enough to worry about. Unfortunately I cannot find the actual numbers but it can be replicated. We did add sub frame connectors at the same time the swap was being done so that influenced the weights as well. For this past season Robert ran at the minimum weight of a LS 4th gen of 3300 pounds. So the car had almost the same corner weights (within 20 pounds as before) and made the same power as before but now carried about 75 pounds more weight than before. Comparing the same car on the same track and same driver from September 2013 race at Autoban to September 2014 Robert ran about 3.5 tenths faster on his fast lap than last year. However we had great conditions this past week and everyone ran a little faster than before as a new track record was set that weekend by 4 tenths of a second over the previous one.
The hawks thirdgen mounts were used and this put the engine in the exact location so the transmission did not move. The plane of the bell housing is in the exact location as the LT1 or SBC. The LS engine is about 1 inch shorter than the LT1 or a SBC. The LS is missing the part of the casting on the rear of the block that sort of forms the beginnings of a bell housing on the back of a SBC (Small Block Chevy for those of you in Rio Linda). It is flush on a LS1. One could argue that the engine sits further back in the chassis but it is because the engine is 1 inch shorter in length so the crank flange is essentially in the same location as all other engines.
The K member was notched but this was not entirely needed. You could clearance with a hammer but it was easier to cut with a grinder and weld in some metal to get more clearance. This was the ONLY major modification. The F body manifolds, intake, front pulleys etc fit like it was meant to be in the car. It was a VERY easy swap.

Bryan L wrote It's inevitable that racers will gravitate towards newer cars. (just look at how many SI cars were at Nats). How many people show up for a DE weekend in an 88 Iroc compared to a new 5.0?
I think Bryan hit it on the head with this and this is precisely why we need to do this. It is MY opinion that we need to keep the cars viable. If we do not let modern engines in the older platforms we will wither on the vine. This goes for the fords as well. When you have 260 HP and 3200 or 3300 pounds what difference does it make how you got there. The cars are going to perform relatively the same. If something is not aligned, tweaks can be made get things in line.
Bob
Bob Denton
CMC #67
2000 Pontiac Firebird
Midwest Region Series Director

ShadowBolt
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 10:23 am
Location: Georgetown, TX

Postby ShadowBolt » Wed Sep 17, 2014 2:31 pm

I agree with your last statement Bob. Besides the third gen is a way better looking car IMHO.

JJ

Glenn
Posts: 2672
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 3:53 pm
Location: Ft. Worth

Postby Glenn » Wed Sep 17, 2014 3:47 pm

Well if we are going to allow the LS in the 3rd gen, we may as well allow a carb in the 4th gen put both platforms on the same line with regards to update/backdate.
Texas Region AI/CMC Series Director

Inferior Driver, Superior Platform…. since 2005.

Smike
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:10 am

Postby Smike » Thu Sep 18, 2014 3:16 am

Bryan L wrote It's inevitable that racers will gravitate towards newer cars. (just look at how many SI cars were at Nats). How many people show up for a DE weekend in an 88 Iroc compared to a new 5.0?


Kinda of expensive and goes against keeping this simple, no?

And what about the Foxes and SN95/99s Fords?

5.4L v8?
5.0 Coyote?
Crate motors?

User avatar
wastntim
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:07 pm

Postby wastntim » Thu Sep 18, 2014 5:22 am

As Bob indicated, I did put the LS1 in my 3rd gen this year. The Hawks engine mounts were $90. The car is running a ls1 t56 exactly the same as a fourth gen. The cost was no more than putting an Lt1 in the car. I saw no noticeable increase in the performance of the car as compared to switching to 17s the previous year, which instantly increased my performance. Any speed increase I did have was likely a result of running RR's. We raced at Autobahn a couple of weeks ago, and I finished exactly where I usually finish, which is behind all of the fourth gens.

I cornerweighted the car but since I had to carry additional weight, all of the corner weights went up, so there was no benefit. I also have traqmate data which would show that despite running RR's, I showed no noticeable increase from last year.

The main reason I wanted to do this was that I had already invested a lot of money into this car. Between differentials, fuel cell, putting together a really nice dash and lots of other little things, I did not want to walk away from those things. Plus working in a third gen engine compartment is much easier for us "bigger boned" folks, not to mention that I think the car looks pretty great. Had I not already spent so much money and time on my third gen, based upon the finishing order I see in our region, I would have simply done a 4th gen. We have added several new race cars in the last few years, all of which are fourth gens. Between the plastic fenders and doors, coil over shocks and their ability to run a wider track width along with running the LS1, there is no reason to choose a third gen, except if you like the look and want an engine bay that is easier to work in.

In my opinion, CMC has two options. Either we can allow the older cars to update for easier part sourcing with more reliability or we can choose to stand pat and effectively eliminate third gens from the class altogether.
Robert #24
NASA Midwest - CMC2
HeavyImpactMotorsports@gmail.com
Sponsor: Cassidy Tire/Tiresdirect.net & CTW Motorsports

Smike
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:10 am

Postby Smike » Thu Sep 18, 2014 5:49 am

wastntim wrote:In my opinion, CMC has two options. Either we can allow the older cars to update for easier part sourcing with more reliability or we can choose to stand pat and effectively eliminate third gens (and other platforms) from the class altogether.


Rob - this is a statement I agree with. How do we manage from a complete portfolio standpoint (Ford and GM)? Manage vitality? Costs?

Is adding a new motor the right route?

To the HPDE question - we typically see newer cars. Nature of HPDE - drive what you have. How many drive 10-20 year old cars compared to 10-5yo cars?

blk96gt
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:23 am
Location: Houston, Tx

Postby blk96gt » Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:19 am

Smike wrote:To the HPDE question - we typically see newer cars. Nature of HPDE - drive what you have. How many drive 10-20 year old cars compared to 10-5yo cars?


Excellent point. Rather than trying to get them to build a newer $25,000+ Mustang/Camaro into a race car, explain to them that they can build a pretty awesome CMC car from scratch for the cost of their street car, likely with some left over for a trailer. Maintenance, parts availability and costs will likely be lower as well. I started DE's with a 2011 Camaro SS, and realized it would take more money than I wanted to spend to turn it into a TT car, much less a race car.

I do a lot of DE's outside of NASA, and I always have folks coming and asking about the car. Most of them balk initially at the horsepower and allowed mods, but once you explain to them the nature of class racing (versus being a DE superstar), they start to see the appeal. Don't think any of the ones I've talked to have ever followed up and actually got into CMC, but at least the seed has been planted.

Along the same vein, I think a great way to help promote CMC and get some attention is to get a group of CMC guys together and run a DE or two every year. Let people see the fun and camaraderie that we have, as well as the potential of a CMC car, outside of a NASA event.

On topic, I agree with all the previous posts that like this rule. The more options that are available engine wise for each platform, the better IMO. As stated by someone earlier, who cares how you get the power as long as you're getting it. You can argue about rule creep and the spirit of CMC all day long, but with the addition of 30 more RWHP, big brakes, larger wheels/tires, $2000 shocks, etc. the whole slap a cage in a car and race an almost stock car went out the window. Sure you can do it now, but you'll never run at the front (at least with a 4.6 or 5.0 Mustang).

User avatar
Al Fernandez
Posts: 1961
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 10:03 pm
Location: Magnolia, Tx

Postby Al Fernandez » Thu Sep 18, 2014 5:36 pm

The carbed 350 in a 4th gen has pretty serious fitment issues under a stock hood.

Thanks guys for the install on the test car. I like the fact that the trans mount can be used to validate the motor isnt any farther rearward than expected.
Al Fernandez
CMC Chief National Director

nape
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 7:50 pm
Location: In the garage

Postby nape » Sun Sep 21, 2014 7:58 pm

Al Fernandez wrote:The carbed 350 in a 4th gen has pretty serious fitment issues under a stock hood.


THe hood isn't the worst part. You end up having to do a cowl/wiper bucket-ectomy to get the air cleaner and distributor in there. :lol:

As someone who's seen Robert's car in person with the swap, it's a clean looking swap. It's no harder than LS swapping an LT1 car.
TJ Bain
Midwest AI #134
Midwest CMC #66

cobrad
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:45 am
Location: Colorado -Rocky Mountain Region

LS in a 3rd gen?

Postby cobrad » Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:21 pm

LS in a 3rd gen? Didn't we discuss this at length last year? I didn't like it then and don't really care for it now, I would base this only on the fact that the car never came this way. I can live with the LS in place of the LT in the 4th gen. I can have a early 90s camaro and switch noses and call it a later 90 with an LS. Who's gonna know, is it an advantage, well maybe since I wouldn't have to deal with the opti.

Brad

User avatar
wastntim
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:07 pm

Re: LS in a 3rd gen?

Postby wastntim » Wed Oct 15, 2014 7:34 am

cobrad wrote:LS in a 3rd gen? Didn't we discuss this at length last year? I didn't like it then and don't really care for it now, I would base this only on the fact that the car never came this way. I can live with the LS in place of the LT in the 4th gen. I can have a early 90s camaro and switch noses and call it a later 90 with an LS. Who's gonna know, is it an advantage, well maybe since I wouldn't have to deal with the opti.

Brad


A LS1 never came in a 3rd gen but neither did a LT1 but an LT1 was allowed. The thought process was that it provided a more reliable option than the TPI and it was, but as you already mentioned, it's opti is not. We have the option of running an LS1 in a third gen with little to no modification, while providing no performance advantage but giving additional reliability.

How could the series be hurt by making the cars more reliable and using more current parts and pieces that are more readily available?
Robert #24

NASA Midwest - CMC2

HeavyImpactMotorsports@gmail.com

Sponsor: Cassidy Tire/Tiresdirect.net & CTW Motorsports


Return to “Rules Questions/Answers”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest