The Lindsey part is a little expensive, so I would not require that particular part. Some people do want the Lindsey name, so I would not exclude it.

I would like it to be a modified stock part, but would not be against another after market part if it cost less than the Lindsey modification.

There is a guy in AZ that will modify one for less than Lindsey, but I will have to dig out the specifics. I am tempted to modify one myself (or with my son) so that I am confident of the quality of the work.

By adding two plates on each side to bolt to, it would add weight, as well as the bolts themselves. As the plates would be aluminum, I can't imagine that the added weight would be more than a pound. I would expect that the added weight of the 4 plates and 8 high grade bolts and lock washers and lock nuts would be around 2 pounds.

Again, there would be no need for anyone to do this unless it saves them money in the long run. I have owned this car for over 12 years and have had to pay for way too many alignments!

I have tried by scribing everything multiple times. The camber always seems to change a little. Mostly, the cross member seems to move slightly causing more camber on one side and less on the other.

Please also consider the extra labor time that you are paying for (If you are paying to have this done) to remove the cross member and suspension each time you want to check inside the pan or pull the motor, even if it is only to check the condition of the rod bearings.

To answer the other question, many people out here where we race in very hot conditions almost all of the time, recommend changing rod bearings every 50 race hours. Even with an external oil cooler, I have seen 260 degree oil temps. For us, 50 hours is less than a year with two drivers at every event. I do pay to have a high end race shop do the alignment so a single alignment costs more than even the Lindsey cross member. If we do it ourselves, the mod will cost less than $20.

If there have been failures, it is most likely that they did not use high end bolts with high end lock washers and lock nuts. I would use at least Grade 8 (US) or 12.9 (Metric) bolts and nuts.

Repeat! For those who do not see a cost benefit in doing this, there is no reason to do it as it does not yield a performance benefit. It only decreases cost for anyone who pays for labor on their motor or has to pay for alignments. It also decrease the amount of work that needs to be done for those who do it themselves (no cross member and suspension removal and re-installation). Hence decreasing the cost of racing these beasts - a prime directive of this class.

I thought so, but still can't remember who reported that. Thanks, Jason. Also, please don't quote the reply you're replying to. It makes the thread longer.

I'm proposing nitrous! I already have the switch labelled on the dash, all I need now is the bottle!

Funny Ron...
Hey but seriously, let's really try to be to the point with this year's input/discussion so that guys don't have to go thru 35 pages.
I'm going to go back into this thread in a couple days and delete my own posts that aren't needed.

tcomeau wrote:


It was good talking with you, Tim- thanks for the pistons!

Allowing aftermarket pistons would make it easier to eliminate the (perceived or real) advantage of those that use 88 pistons without forcing those that don't to build engines using possibly dubious quality used pistons and/or buying entire cars like I have, although it is still possible to get them as Tim proved.

However, it seems we could eliminate the HC vs LC debate altogether with some dyno testing of a LC engine with a variable cam gear (I am NOT NOT NOT proposing a variable cam gear be legal, just that it be used for testing to determine how much of a timing change is needed to equalize the engines).

I know there is a lot of speculation in regard to how much difference the current 2 degree key makes, and whether more advance is needed, but I am unaware of any actual testing.

With actual data it is quite possible we could put away the HC vs LC debate forever and, it would follow, any legit reason to want aftermarket pistons.

Obviously, there isn't time to get this done before the rules deadline this year but it could remove an point of contention in following years.

Is dyno testing 2 engines, one a HC engine, the other LC with various timing changes, both in the same chassis, an avenue to put the piston debate to rest?

If so, I can start putting things together to make this happen in a separate thread.

Brian, your passion is wonderful and clearly I am missing something. There should be enough dyno info to know what to do. If the 140 max rule favors the 88 builds, then someone made a mistake when they picked 140 max.

And all of you should think about this... Does it matter if motor A and motor B have different parts, if their torque curves match?

Rules Changes:

Change "11 Power Cap" to "11 Torque Cap"
Remove: "For purposes of these rules “Power” will be defined as (HP
+TQ)/2. The maximum allowed engine power output is 138.0, plus 2.0 to account for dyno variation." and remove "Any car exceeding
this total power output of 140.0,..."
Add: "Torque values cannot exceed the values in the following table at the any of the specified RPM." (Each table includes 15 entries 3800 to 6600 RPM) and add "Any car exceeding any of these maximum values,..."

Modify 11.3.7 to:
THE LIGHTEST SPEC WHEEL (or if you prefer THE COOKIE CUTTER WHEEL) AND DRY WEATHER SPEC TIRE WILL BE USED DURING TESTING. DRIVE tire pressures WILL BE set BY AN OFFICIAL to 30PSI DURING dyno testing.

ADD 11.3.15 Dyno runs will be performed in forth gear.

ADD 11.4 The intent is nationwide torque curve parity, so NASA may adjust the Torque tables and assign different tables to different dynos to account for variations between them. We suggest you bring your local dyno sheets when traveling to other regions to simply the process.

NOTE: The torque tables should be created using the most ubiquitous 944 motor in the US, built and tuned in the car to the current limit of the rules. Surely that 944 Spec is already out there.