Is the 3-Piece Cross Member from Lindsey Racing Legal in 944 SPEC?

It really makes the bottom end maintenance a lot easier.

It currently is not but might be something to consider changing. I'm usually very staunch about new rules, especially those that add cost and the x member aint cheap but it also is not necessary and is not a performance upgrade.Would it make it easier to remove the engine as well I wonder?

I will say that bottom end work for most of us is not an annual or even common thing. Generally it's done every few years and so the cost isn't really justified for the x brace but I know a fab guy(neighbor) who said he could make one for a few dollars so lets propose this idea.

It would make engine removal much easier and faster. Most importantly, it would make rod bearing or even pan gasket maintenance MUCH easier and as you would NOT need an alignment, much cheaper as well.

I am VERY much in favor of the 3 piece cross member.

Chuck

This has been brought up several times in the last few years. I think the biggest concern was from safety and keeping the bolts tight. I have no preference in the matter since its wouldn't be required nor a performance advantage. It was a PITA the one rod bearing job I did on my back on jackstands.

Do you have a 3 piece on that white SP2 car you retired last week end?

Jason,

No 3-piece crossmember on retired car. However, oil pan had developed a crack before Daytona race and had to be repaired. This was a PITA with stock crossmember. I'm building a new SP1 car and thought this would be the perfect time to install 3-piece crossmember. As everyone says, no performance advantage and makes bottom end maintenance a lot faster and easier.

GallitoRojo329 wrote:


I believe it came up as a proposal in the rule change discussion two years ago and was denied on the grounds of safety from some reports of the bolts coming loose on a regular basis. It was also perceived as an added cost so anytime cost is added to the class, it requires extra justification on all aspects.