Sleeving: not an issue for me, as there are plenty of good blocks in sunny Socal where a lot of these cars were sold, but I recognize that not all racers source their engines from here, so I am open to dans solution of a spec “kit” for that purpose.

Wheels: again, being in SoCal has its benefits, but also it’s detractors. I have personally looked at two sets of phonies going for $800 and $1000 that were warped. The higher prices are coming from the VW crowd and for some reason, lately they have been buying them up and driving prices up. A more attractive wheel, in late offset that weighs no less than a cookie cutter would be optimum on a lot of cars, but I think it should be available in both offsets.

Short shifter. I don’t see the need or how this rule negatively impacts anyone. No change.

I like Tim’s idea of a spec CC plate. We are running the RE. Could do the two brand option we currently use for shocks.

Here’s where I get yelled at,
Why not spec a rear coil over kit? Make it an option, spec a spring rate that matches the stiffest torsion bar.

That’s my two cents. I know I’m new to the series, and I love the purity of racing in this class, but these are the things we are having issues with and imagine others may be as well.

I will be addressing the caster camber plate issue. I considered only allowing a few brands too, but realized there are actually several available. For example, Ugly Betty came with some E-bay ones which are available for around $100. If I mandate that everyone run the GCs, will I be forcing everyone to update or spend money they havent already?
I was considering making it more general- like saying "any camber plate may be used so long as it doesnt adjust anything besides camber. The top of the strut location may not exceed the limit of the strut hole in the body." or something to that nature.

Did someone say aftermarket wheels??? Head to the 2016 rule change thread if you care to read pages and pages of drivel regarding the proposal at that time.

www.944spec.org/944SPEC/forum/rules-chan...ge-requests-for-2016

Jongbloed Racing Wheels was all prepared to make the below wheel in a 15x7 at a minimum weight to match the OEM cookie and late version phone dial.

philstireservice.com/shop/jrw-series-500-porsche-944/

I am a million percent in favor of a spec aftermarket piston. Indifferent about sleeving blocks but for ease of compliance and cost control, makes more sense based on what I know to require blocks to remain stock and allow the option of an aftermarket piston that works with stock alusil bores. Maybe even go so far as to spec rings to cut down on work when ordering parts.

Leave the shifter verbiage alone. The Only944 parts are the best, cheapest solution on the market and supports an awesome vendor that is in business because he loves 944s.

I run the style of camber plates that exceed the strut hole. Are you saying potentially switch to the flat style?

Fine with current shifter rules. Indifferent about sleeving. I like the idea of new pistons but would like to see research/data. I think the low CR and high CR engines already have different torque curves.

My concern honestly wasnt with pistons. These seem to have a ton of life. The bores however dont seem to stand up as well. After talking with a couple of machine shops, they agreed that installing a steel sleeve into the aluminum bores and using the original pistons wouldnt be an issue.

tcomeau wrote:


This, please.