Go Back   American Sedan Forum > Misc > Polls

View Poll Results: Should AS Full Preparation cars have a sealed crate engine option?
Yes 19 51.35%
No 18 48.65%
Voters: 37. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 03-31-2013, 11:49 PM
DSeefeldt DSeefeldt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 158
Default Chevy 604 Crate Engine

Pam - Jeff:

I have a couple of questions regarding the 604 crate engine.

1.) Will the oil pan work for road racing?

2.) Has anyone tried to drop one of these into a 3rd gen and 4th gen f-body? Does the oil pan clear the cross member? Once installed, do off the shelf headers fit?

Thanks,

Darryl
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-01-2013, 02:13 AM
DSeefeldt DSeefeldt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 158
Default Chevy Crate Engine

Pam - Jeff:

After rereading the 604 crate engine and oil pan dimensions, I don't think the motor will fit in a 3rd gen f-body with the included pan. The pan is too wide and too long. It will hit the cross member and headers. This is based on my current pan dimensions, header clearance and my calculations. Would an alternate oil pan be allowed or would the motors be purchased through a specific GM dealer that has the motors retrofitted and resealed with a road race oil pan?

Thanks,

Darryl
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-01-2013, 11:05 AM
PamRichardson PamRichardson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 757
Default Oil pan

Darryl --

First, thanks for looking so carefully at the tech manual. The ASAC very much appreciates people reviewing this in its entirety.

Jeff will chime in with a response, I know, because he brought this very problem up at one of our telecons.

I believe he has an answer for an alternate pan and will pass that along. And yes, the alternate pan would be permitted. Can't use it if it doesn't fit!!!

Pam
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-01-2013, 11:22 AM
jimwheeler jimwheeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 5,132
Default

This looks like every other poll in recent memory. Dead heat.

wheel
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-01-2013, 12:38 PM
Scott Sanda Scott Sanda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 451
Default

I kinda hate to suggest this, but can the poll be broken up between drivers who intend to go to the runoffs and those who do not?

It would give a better understanding of where the split is.

For example, if it is runoff/non runoffs, or "top half of the grid" vs "bottom half" perhaps we can taylor things a bit.

Then again, people with and without big budgets have posted both for and against.

Personally, I'm in favor of a different approach: Allowing a modern production FI motor with appropriate restrictor into full prep cars. Yes- probably higher initial cost than a crate, but long term, much, much cheaper. Technically, you could pull a junk yard LS6 or LS3 and have a very strong long lasting motor. There are multiple options out there for wiring harness's. GM even makes one specifically for engine swaps, with just the basic stuff.

With the stock cams and valves limiting the benefit of high rev's, but the reliable power and durability, they would be a good solution.

Fire retardant suit is on, but one ongoing issue SCCA has as a whole is lot's of really old technology which is a detractor for "new blood".

AS is one of the few classes that has a path to fix this, with the RP concept.

Maybe both a crate and an FI option.

In any event Tech is going to need to step up going forward, since there will be a RP car on the podium in the near future, and the motors will need to be teched like showroom stock cars from the intake to the crank.

Sorry for the dissertation, slow day at work today.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-01-2013, 12:45 PM
Dawson Motorsports's Avatar
Dawson Motorsports Dawson Motorsports is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sebring, fl
Posts: 689
Default

Ok, I understand some of the reasoning.

But the waters are really starting to muddy. The more stuff allowed the harder to police/tech. There are issues now that could use guidance.

A plan needs to be made for the long run, not just the next year or so.
I see a need for additional engines, FI, crate, LP, and yes FP.

It's starting to sound like the BOD/CRB class school of thought, just add more.

Chuck
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-02-2013, 02:10 PM
DBailey's Avatar
DBailey DBailey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Northern California
Posts: 116
Default

Chuck has mentioned what I had been thinking lately---Personally I believe the time for crate engines has come and gone (when the engine package was revised). We already have, in this class, a lot of engine combo's, all the engines from 302 to 350 in both Iron and Alum.,LT1, LS1, LS6, LS2, ford cammers, ford 5.0--oh and LS3. Tech can't handle what is already out there.
As Chuck mentions, perhaps we should be looking at the true sprit and future of the class instead of adding more engines. How will a crate engine be tech'ed?
If a different pan is required, the "engine" is no longer sealed. How will they be differentiated from a "heavy" 347 or 350. I've already been told of the "modifications" that are being made be those that re-seal these engines.
I think there are other alternatives available without "muddying" up the class

my 02
Dean
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-02-2013, 03:07 PM
PamRichardson PamRichardson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 757
Default Replies

Thanks to all of you who are replying. I'll let you know when to start sending in letters with your official replies.

The ASAC put this out here truly to follow through on a request from last year and to ask what people think. We are glad to hear all these thoughts.

Just about everything you have mentioned the ASAC has discussed about this topic, but thank you for confirming both sides of the proposal.

Keep your thoughts coming. Thanks, Pam
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-03-2013, 11:40 AM
DSeefeldt DSeefeldt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 158
Default

Here's another thought. Allow the crate engines to fall under the limited prep engine rules. For example, the Chevy 604 crate engine has a very detailed spec sheet. Allow the engine seals to be broken with the same level of prep as a limited prep engine. All internal parts and dimensions must be as listed in the Chevy 604 spec manual. One exception would be the oil pan, pump, pickup and oil pump shaft could be replaced. Other than that, all other parts and dimensions must be within the GM 604 spec manual or as spec'd within the AS rules.

Darryl
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-03-2013, 05:43 PM
PamRichardson PamRichardson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 757
Default Interesting idea...

Darryl --

Interesting idea, to basically allow it for all cars. However, our original request was to look at ideas that could potentially lower FP engine costs.

If I think of it that way, a carbureted spec motor might INCREASE the costs for an LP car?



Pam
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.