Go Back   American Sedan Forum > Main American Sedan Categories > American Sedan Rules

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-21-2019, 10:47 AM
jimwheeler jimwheeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 5,255
Default Hot cam for RP cars

letter #25734 recommends a hot cam for the car that won at COTA, broke the lap record at Hallett and placed on the podium at Indy. Write to crbscca.com and comment on whether you think the BoD should approve this. My letter says no way.
wheel
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-21-2019, 12:25 PM
Richard Pryor Richard Pryor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 44
Default Like the song says "money, money, money"

Hi, Jim and everyone,
It seems evident from the direction the new AS hierarchy is taking with the SMG classification and then adding competition adjustments to bring all the OG A Sedans up to their level of competitiveness that you all are in for a long and expensive escalation of the class prep levels.

RP is steadily moving toward full prep if the GM Hot Cam is allowed for the 4th Gen F bodies. Who's next? For those that are Runoffs goal oriented I don't think it's going to be a stable class for the next few years, if ever, and who would want to get into a class with the type of leadership that advocates a constantly moving level of preparation target? And not only ignores the current drivers base desires and input but simply go their own way such as the SMG fiasco.

Personally it doesn't matter. I'm just going to be running San Francisco Region regionals at Laguna Seca and Sears Point. There were 2 other AS cars that raced in the SFR Regionals last year. Three more racers have made plans to run in 2019 in AS. We're all AARP card carrying members with deep pockets but no desire to go to the Runoffs. We're going to race each other and have fun. Let the Runoffs goal oriented drivers have their own fun. Let the SMG/AS cars have the wins and trophies. We'll stick with enjoying each others company on and off the track.

Sorry, once I get typing I have a hard time keeping myself contained to my original subject, which is a reply to Jim's post.

Here's some personal data on the LS1 RP Camaro engine with and without the Hot Cam.

My 1999 RP Camaro has a 2004 crate engine that was just rebuilt to spec. The results at the tuner's shop on his Dynojet was: Max Power 356.29 Max torque 342.83.

A friend has a 2001 Camaro that he open tracks and has considered turning into an AS car. The only internal modification to the LS1 was a Hot Cam install. He runs a cold air box and a cat back system but otherwise his money was spent on the suspension. His results with the same tuner on the same dyno six weeks earlier was Max power: 408.45 and Max torque 389.40. With a better exhaust system look for more hp. If anyone wants to see the dyno sheets I'll be glad to post them as a point of information.

The claims of 40+ rear wheel horsepower seem very accurate, maybe even a bit low depending on the tune.

So let the horsepower and money wars begin. I think maybe we'll just form our own regional AS group in the SFR...call it A Sedan Stock (ASS, as in where the CRB has their head).
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-21-2019, 12:27 PM
Ted Johnson Ted Johnson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 981
Default

Jim

Remember way back before remote canned shocks were legal but all of a sudden made legal because a person in a rule making role already had them and didn't realize they weren't allowed? I wonder if thats what may be going on in this case. And I realize that was not you regarding the shock rule debacle
__________________
.

Last edited by Ted Johnson; 02-21-2019 at 12:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-21-2019, 12:32 PM
jimwheeler jimwheeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 5,255
Default

I remember that. I was the one who brought it up at the tent meeting, Mid O Runoffs. The then Chairman of the CRB had the illegal (according to Sven Pruitt, head of SCCA Tech department) remote reservoir shocks on his car.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-21-2019, 12:49 PM
Ted Johnson Ted Johnson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 981
Default

Did all the podium cars have cam specs checked at the runoffs?
__________________
.

Last edited by Ted Johnson; 02-21-2019 at 01:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-21-2019, 01:27 PM
jimwheeler jimwheeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 5,255
Default

Not sure what the tech'd at Indy or at Sonoma.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-21-2019, 04:24 PM
scottybwhite scottybwhite is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 8
Default

Gee I wonder who's car needed a cam...? Could it be the same CRB member that has been caught lying (to club members, AC's & CRB) AND cheating (at Runoffs) MULTIPLE times...? Oh say it isn't so...

Last edited by scottybwhite; 02-21-2019 at 10:15 PM. Reason: clarification
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-21-2019, 06:09 PM
Richard Pryor Richard Pryor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 44
Default

Kevin Fandozzi would you please explain your thinking on why the 4th Gen RP cars need the GM hot cam? It seems from your results you are already more than competitive as is. The hot cam adds from 40-50 rwhp. Do you really need that? In the interests of data exploration would you please post the dyno results for your car in its current configuration? I can think of no reasons not to do so and several if you don't. Please post them. Thanks.

To reiterate..here are the dyno results for my RP Camaro and a friends with a GM Hot Cam:

My 1999 RP Camaro has a 2004 crate engine that was just rebuilt to spec. The results at the tuner's shop on his Dynojet was: Max Power 356.29 Max torque 342.83.

A friend has a 2001 Camaro that he open tracks and has considered turning into an AS car. The only internal modification to the LS1 was a Hot Cam install. He runs a cold air box and a cat back system but otherwise his money was spent on the suspension. His results with the same tuner on the same dyno six weeks earlier was Max power: 408.45 and Max torque 389.40. With a better exhaust system look for more hp. If anyone wants to see the dyno sheets I'll be glad to post them as a point of information.

The claims of 40+ rear wheel horsepower seem very accurate, maybe even a bit low depending on the tune.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-21-2019, 07:11 PM
scottybwhite scottybwhite is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Pryor View Post
Kevin Fandozzi would you please explain your thinking on why the 4th Gen RP cars need the GM hot cam? It seems from your results you are already more than competitive as is. horsepower seem very accurate, maybe even a bit low depending on the tune.
Don't forget Richard, the RP Gen3 also got a 6060 transmission AND an FP Flywheel & clutch
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-27-2019, 05:40 PM
DHRMX5 DHRMX5 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 65
Default

And the powers that be can't understand why I won't take my RP Coyote to VIR at 354/360.

I'd be satisfied if my restrictor came off and I got the 405/379 the engine makes stock.

I'd even keep my stock trans and flywheel...

As an aside, the restrictor makes the throttle a real POS. It's more of an on/off switch despite tuning.
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 03:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.