Just repeat after me Tim "NO NEW RULES"
If it aint broke dont fix it!!!!

Solid mounts are of NO interest to me. I am with Tim on this one. I have run a Spec car for 6 years with the same mounts that I initially installed when I first built the car. They are still working well too. Fixing oil leaks can help keep your mounts (and Motor ) working correctly for a longer period of time...

Short shifters burn up syncros too. The PO of my Tacoma had one and it toasted the trans. Furthermore, if they made such a big difference with no down side (except for cost) the factory would have installed them or had them as an Option.

I'll weigh in with two ideas.

I'm in agreement that we should not permit solid trans and motor mounts. It adds cost if you want to build to the limit of the rules and I don't see a huge benefit to the series. However, I would see some benefit to specifically stating that adding 3M Windo Weld or another urethane product to the stock late tranny mount is permitted. I don't think that there is a tangible performance benefit to this (i.e., people who don't do it won't be at a loss). However, permitting this modification has 2 benefits:

1. It spares people from ever having to buy a brand new tranny mount (which now lists for $254 at Pelican!) -- any used mount can be made serviceable for $15-30.

2. It provides some additional protection for CV joints. This mod has been commonly performed on turbos to protect the D/S inner joint from failing. I can attest from my nationals experience with CV joint failures due to defective axles that the left inner on our spec cars gets about twice the pounding of the others. Given the challenges that we are seeing in some areas with CV joint life (new Loebro axles failing, rebuilt axles from Autozone and Rennbay failing), anything that helps CV joint life is a plus in my book.

The second idea I would suggest is also minor, but we might consider stating that Turbo valve springs are permitted. They are ~$80/set cheaper than NA valve springs, at $75/set. I don't believe that there is a performance advantage to using the turbo springs. As the cars age, reusing the 24+ year old valve springs seems unwise to me. However, spending $155 on new valve springs is pretty pricey and I can see why people choose to keep reusing the old ones. Allowing the Turbo valve springs would make this an easier choice, add reliability to the cars, and reduce costs. I don't see much downside.

Neal Agran
Midwest Series Director

Thanks Neal. We do see CV joint, and valve spring failures. The valve spring issue was brought up last year, but we'll look at it again with the numbers you put out there.

I'd like to throw two things out there:

1) The stock plastic ducting to the radiator may be replicated, so long as it serves no other purpose.

-Many of the 25+ year old plastic parts are broken, or missing, and proper ducting of the radiator is critical to adequate cooling. I'd even go so far as to make this an advisory.

2) I'd like to see the section below clarified specifying normally aspirated 8V motors. We all know the intent, but I don't want to give any room to justify the us of turbo componenents, unless specifically allowed.

Guys, we havn't forgotton about this. There's a lot going on behind the scenes about these issues, and also, other long range problems - options related to parts availability, etc. I'll post more when we have put together a proposal/plan.

Just a few follow up questions on Neal's email.
What is the performance advantage of the solid mounts?
For comparison purposes, how much do they cost?
What is the typical life of the stock mounts i.e. how many seasons can I expect to get out of the stock mounts vs. the solid ones?

What is the cost of performing the modification proposed by Neal if a mechanic does it?

Thanks.