EMC 2016

[gmrocket]

Remember we want minimal changes to the class to allow what is already built to be able to compete in 2017 & tighten up the competition.

so no new different entries need apply because you'll be accepting this years entries guaranteed first? unless im not understanding it

[Adger Smith]

I don't believe that is the case. The choice of the entries is above my pay grade & I have no input on choice of the engine combinations they want to write about.
Remember, This is a photo shoot for TEN where content for articles is gathered and a competition happens to be part of it.
I'm the lowly guy doing the rules and Tech.
What I am working for is no major rules changes so competitors who didn't or couldn't complete their entry this year and those that withdrew, or even the guys that made it, would not be delegated non competitive engines and have to spend mega bucks to meet the changing 2017 rules.
I'm not the final decision maker.
What I talk about on these boards is used to build rules for the EMC that I submit to TEN.
What I submit is subject to change and interpretation by the management of TEN.
I am trying to get information and be the voice for the competitors.

[Walter R. Malik]

I don't believe that is the case. The choice of the entries is above my pay grade & I have no input on choice of the engine combinations they want to write about.
Remember, This is a photo shoot for TEN where content for articles is gathered and a competition happens to be part of it.
I'm the lowly guy doing the rules and Tech.
What I am working for is no major rules changes so competitors who didn't or couldn't complete their entry this year and those that withdrew, or even the guys that made it, would not be delegated non competitive engines and have to spend mega bucks to meet the changing 2017 rules.
I'm not the final decision maker.
What I talk about on these boards is used to build rules for the EMC that I submit to TEN.
What I submit is subject to change and interpretation by the management of TEN.
I am trying to get information and be the voice for the competitors.

The temp issue is a viable one as I witnessed this myself but, with all the other happenings taking place, I never mentioned it when witnessing it the next day.

Also, about the solid flat tappet lifters ... what purpose is having a "spec" hydraulic roller lifter if the internals can be modified ?
It must simply be "spec" so a sponsor can claim their lifters to be inside all the engines so, those flat tappets would also be of the same brand.
The flat tappet solid lifter certainly offers no competitive advantage and is almost equal if a valve lift rule is in place; say something street realistic like .720"; not the .875" you now can get.

The external oil pump can be added to any engine if the competitor desires; (another sponsor is now invited).

AND, I just think it would be cool to see some Tri-Power set-ups allowed to be running; (Almost every O.E.M. brand had one).

[manyponies]

The BB class had a spread of only 98 pts. top to bottom. It also had variety. Not all BBC's.
We are looking at changing a few of the rules to tighten it up a little for next year.
I've been ask to put a few options out there. I'm thinking head and intake carb area.
Joe didn't run as much compression as he could have so compression is not an area to balance the field.
Let's hear what the brain trust of Speed Talk has to say, And I mean you too, Barry R.
On the technical side of EMC I think we had a very nice program this year, despite the computer glitches and a couple of other distractions.
As of now I see Vintage and BB spec class being in Next years program.
There might be some big changes in Small Block class.
PRI will let the cat out of the bag on the rules.
They will not be a final draft, but they will be a good solid outline of what will be happening.
Looking forward to next year.

I have a few thoughts which I let be known there however, they seemed to fall upon deaf ears.
Keep a lot of those "spec" class rules which tend to level the playing field.
1. While every brand can have their "spec" head ... allow any valve size which can be fitted using the as manufactured valve seat inserts within that head in question as long as the stem diameter size remains.
2. Better clarify the oil pan rules.
3. Allow flat tappet solid lifters as well as hydraulic roller lifters with a valve lift spec.
4. O.E.M Production engine blocks only.
5. Allow gear camshaft drives ... as long as they fit within an O.E.M. front cover.
6. Allow single stage external wet sump oil pumps.
7. Allow larger carburetion with 2-plane, 180 degree intake manifolds such as some kind of Tri-Power set up.

I have a bunch more but, they would all rely on what other class rules are already there.

I like the external oil pump....... but there are many more real world street engines cruising with aftermarket blocks than there are with external belt driven oil pumps.

Below is the introduction to what I feel was the best EMC I competed in over the years....2006

[i]Announcing The 2006 Engine Masters Challenge

With the 2006 Engine Masters Challenge, we mark the fifth anniversary of what has become a definitive showcase of engine building skill. This year’s competition will be the first in which the field is open to both big- and small-block traditional domestic V-8 engines, with the criteria being a maximum displacement of 434 cubic inches. Which will have an edge? That’s anyone’s guess at this point. We have builders convinced the advantage lies in the larger, more open architecture of the big-blocks, while others feel the edge is in the lighter internal assemblies and compact structure of the small-blocks. It’s just a matter of time until we find out who’s right on this long-standing debate.
[/i]
With one displacement there was one class. A displacement easily obtainable by all builders of very different engines makes and types. There was lots of unique ideas presented by the builders. With one displacement the competition was much easier to relate to the reader. The average reader has only a hand full of questions about an engine.
..... What size?
.....how much power?
.....what do the heads flow?
.....cam specs?
......how much does it cost?

All but the last are easily explained to the reader in a one displacement class . Factoring is like bracket racing.........Take a newby to a drag race and try to explain why the faster car lost in just a few minutes.....good luck with that.
There was much more suspense to the readers and bench racing among the competitors because many more ways to accomplish the same goal were presented at one time.

Readers want to see who makes the most power with the same size engine..... back then we spoke more about power, torque , and the hit than factored points......550 ft pounds was better that 540... easy to see..... Even spectating at the event you could watch the needle move on the screen and tell if if was a good pull, factoring makes that pointless too......................KISS principal.


If you want to shake it up ........two displacements, one with a fixed nitrous jet size at the smaller cubic inch , but competing against the NA larger cubic inch engines in one class.

[Adger Smith]

I'm not sure why the Block rule is there.
That input comes from the 2016 winner of the Small Block class. Scott Main. He is also a long time participant in EMC. Congrats Champ & Thanks for the input.

[manyponies]

Early rules for 2016 allowed aftermarket blocks.

302 - ENGINE BLOCK
Any domestic OEM passenger car block of an eligible engine type, or commercially available cast iron or cast aluminum aftermarket OEM replacement engine block permitted. Engine block must retain OEM cylinder bore spacing and OEM block angle. Lifter bores may be bushed. The responsibility for adapting to the SUPERFLOW/DTS dyno cart is that of the participant.

Were they later not allowed?

[Walter R. Malik]

Early rules for 2016 allowed aftermarket blocks.

302 - ENGINE BLOCK
Any domestic OEM passenger car block of an eligible engine type, or commercially available cast iron or cast aluminum aftermarket OEM replacement engine block permitted. Engine block must retain OEM cylinder bore spacing and OEM block angle. Lifter bores may be bushed. The responsibility for adapting to the SUPERFLOW/DTS dyno cart is that of the participant.

Were they later not allowed?

Mark ... I suspect you have a slight conflict of interest with a stock block rule being that you are an "aftermarket block supplier".
Aftermarket blocks ARE allowed in other classes; I am of the opinion they should not be part of a "spec" class, is all.

Would a rule allowing that aftermarket block push you a bit to become a sponsor...?

[manyponies]

Early rules for 2016 allowed aftermarket blocks.

302 - ENGINE BLOCK
Any domestic OEM passenger car block of an eligible engine type, or commercially available cast iron or cast aluminum aftermarket OEM replacement engine block permitted. Engine block must retain OEM cylinder bore spacing and OEM block angle. Lifter bores may be bushed. The responsibility for adapting to the SUPERFLOW/DTS dyno cart is that of the participant.

Were they later not allowed?

Mark ... I suspect you have a slight conflict of interest with the stock block rule being that you are an "aftermarket block supplier".
Aftermarket blocks ARE allowed in other classes; I am of the opinion they should not be part of a "spec" class is all.

Would a rule allowing that aftermarket block push you a bit to become a sponsor...?

I would not exactly call it a conflict of interest. but I cannot argue that from a manufacturers point of view that you want your product to be able to be used in as many venues as possible. My point is that many street engine bought from catalogs, web sites ect. use aftermarket blocks. Its becoming mainstream in the aftermarket crate engine business. If you want to "sell " a competition to the masses you have to market to them. As Adger said, the competition that we take so seriously is nothing more than a photo shoot for TEN. Its marketing nothing more nothing less.

The spec class is basically a crate engine class. Modifying what can be easily be purchased as a crate engine. If these engines are predominately built from aftermarket blocks they should be allowed in the class ( blocks) as they would or could be purchased. Long gone are the days of mass marketed crate engines with " seasoned blocks".

To answer you last question ....It might. ..... I have paid the money and been a sponsor only to have my product outlawed by the rules the following year. I will say that it would take more than making my product allowed by the rules to become a sponsor again. I have been complaining on this forum since February about the lack of attention that TEN gives this competition. With the coverage that the event has gotten , contestants not identified or kept up to date and what seems to be a total lack of respect for the contestants and interested public....... I cannot justify the ROI . There are better places to spend my money. TEN basically makes its money by advertising product, yet they failed miserably at advertising their own, The EMC. No one would buy a engine from a builder whom they see sitting on the side of the road every day with engine troubles, why would I buy promotion from a promotion company who has event promotion troubles.

[kid7755]

Thanks, Randy. Mucho appreciated. The comments are not on deaf ears, atleast I'm not deaf.. After some real issues with the administration of the rules I have been ask to help. There will be only 2 others & they are not editor's or writers involved with Hot Rod. Another change will be when th Q&A comes on line for 2017 All Questions & Answers will be posted for public vewing. Thank you for your input. I was thinking about the valve change in the Spec classes. How about all engines can use up to the valve size of the biggest legal head, any engine in competition?? IE: a BBC has 2.19/1.88 as the largest valve size. Barry's FE can up size his 2.09 intakes to any size that he can get in the head up to 2.19. (same rule on exaust) I can't police the seat specs or it would be extremely hard to do. I would go for letting down sizing of Ex be done the same way. Smallest valve of any legal head listed. Still no welding or Epoxy.
I agree on the pans. No fabricated Aluminum or Full Length Box pans. Is that OK for a start?

For what it's worth. I think your valve size idea is a good one. Seems fair to me and makes sense.

Oh. And also I think it would be cool to allow the dominators in the Spec class too.

C. Henderson

[Walter R. Malik]

Mark ... I suspect you have a slight conflict of interest with the stock block rule being that you are an "aftermarket block supplier".
Aftermarket blocks ARE allowed in other classes; I am of the opinion they should not be part of a "spec" class is all.

Would a rule allowing that aftermarket block push you a bit to become a sponsor...?

I would not exactly call it a conflict of interest. but I cannot argue that from a manufacturers point of view that you want your product to be able to be used in as many venues as possible. My point is that many street engine bought from catalogs, web sites ect. use aftermarket blocks. Its becoming mainstream in the aftermarket crate engine business. If you want to "sell " a competition to the masses you have to market to them. As Adger said, the competition that we take so seriously is nothing more than a photo shoot for TEN. Its marketing nothing more nothing less.

The spec class is basically a crate engine class. Modifying what can be easily be purchased as a crate engine. If these engines are predominately built from aftermarket blocks they should be allowed in the class ( blocks) as they would or could be purchased. Long gone are the days of mass marketed crate engines with " seasoned blocks".

To answer you last question ....It might. ..... I have paid the money and been a sponsor only to have my product outlawed by the rules the following year. I will say that it would take more than making my product allowed by the rules to become a sponsor again. I have been complaining on this forum since February about the lack of attention that TEN gives this competition. With the coverage that the event has gotten , contestants not identified or kept up to date and what seems to be a total lack of respect for the contestants and interested public....... I cannot justify the ROI . There are better places to spend my money. TEN basically makes its money by advertising product, yet they failed miserably at advertising their own, The EMC. No one would buy a engine from a builder whom they see sitting on the side of the road every day with engine troubles, why would I buy promotion from a promotion company who has event promotion troubles.

I will yield to the thought that we all can agree to disagree on some things however, you are preaching to the choir with most of what you say about the past 2 Engine Masters Competitions.
You are not the only potential or actual sponsor who thinks exactly the same way. I have picnic'd or lunched with a few owners of some present sponsor companies and they presented the same questions in front of anybody there who was listening. But, I have been told by someone at TEN that sponsorship money is not a problem for future competitions. Someone is not being totally transparent here so, I tend to believe those few who are investing THEIR money and would even be satisfied with a minor ROI.


Yes Adger, that valve diameter rule would be a lot more equal for everyone; presently, it is not.

[gmrocket]

is there any possible way to see the dyno sheets for the 5 small block entries?

[gmrocket]

Mark ... I suspect you have a slight conflict of interest with the stock block rule being that you are an "aftermarket block supplier".
Aftermarket blocks ARE allowed in other classes; I am of the opinion they should not be part of a "spec" class is all.

Would a rule allowing that aftermarket block push you a bit to become a sponsor...?

I would not exactly call it a conflict of interest. but I cannot argue that from a manufacturers point of view that you want your product to be able to be used in as many venues as possible. My point is that many street engine bought from catalogs, web sites ect. use aftermarket blocks. Its becoming mainstream in the aftermarket crate engine business. If you want to "sell " a competition to the masses you have to market to them. As Adger said, the competition that we take so seriously is nothing more than a photo shoot for TEN. Its marketing nothing more nothing less.

The spec class is basically a crate engine class. Modifying what can be easily be purchased as a crate engine. If these engines are predominately built from aftermarket blocks they should be allowed in the class ( blocks) as they would or could be purchased. Long gone are the days of mass marketed crate engines with " seasoned blocks".

To answer you last question ....It might. ..... I have paid the money and been a sponsor only to have my product outlawed by the rules the following year. I will say that it would take more than making my product allowed by the rules to become a sponsor again. I have been complaining on this forum since February about the lack of attention that TEN gives this competition. With the coverage that the event has gotten , contestants not identified or kept up to date and what seems to be a total lack of respect for the contestants and interested public....... I cannot justify the ROI . There are better places to spend my money. TEN basically makes its money by advertising product, yet they failed miserably at advertising their own, The EMC. No one would buy a engine from a builder whom they see sitting on the side of the road every day with engine troubles, why would I buy promotion from a promotion company who has event promotion troubles.

I will yield to the thought that we all can agree to disagree on some things however, you are preaching to the choir with most of what you say about the past 2 Engine Masters Competitions.
You are not the only potential or actual sponsor who thinks exactly the same way. I have picnic'd or lunched with a few owners of some present sponsor companies and they presented the same questions in front of anybody there who was listening. But, I have been told by someone at TEN that sponsorship money is not a problem for future competitions. Someone is not being totally transparent here so, I tend to believe those few who are investing THEIR money and would even be satisfied with a minor ROI.


Yes Adger, that valve diameter rule would be a lot more equal for everyone; presently, it is not.

how would that valve rule benefit everyone? its only a benefit to those heads for engines that came with quite bit bigger valve...those that didnt, its not. if thats a new rule, builders would just look through the catalogue and pick the head with biggest valve...no matter what engine its on...

[Adger Smith]

No they wouldn't just pick through the book for the biggest head. It is a spec head and intake and Dist class. only specific part number heads intake and Dist allowed. I think it would even the potential flow from engine families that have small valve spec Edelbrock heads.

[RAMM]

is there any possible way to see the dyno sheets for the 5 small block entries?

Chris Henderson may be able to help out on this one. Maybe Greg Finnican too as he is a member here as well. J.Rob

[manyponies]

I think evening out the playing field with intake valve size is a great idea. Some platforms may still not be able to take full advantage if the rule did not allow moving the guide or seat, but allowing the possibility is a big step forward.


how would that valve rule benefit everyone? its only a benefit to those heads for engines that came with quite bit bigger valve...those that didnt, its not. if thats a new rule, builders would just look through the catalogue and pick the head with biggest valve...no matter what engine its on...

No sure but that sounds backwards.... the way the rule is now you would pick the head with the biggest valve if you had no concern of engine type you want to build.