ENGINE MASTERS

Does anyone have ANY IDEA of when the 2009 rules will be published? There are all sorts of rumors about unlimited bore / stroke, solid rollers, EFI, multiple carbs, 3-Valve Modulars, etc. etc. etc, but some official rules would be VERY HELPFUL to potential competitors.

It was announced at the EMC kickoff meeting at PRI that the 2009 rules would be posted on the website by January 1, 2009. It is now Jan 8th, and as far as I can tell:    
-------  no rules, just an application blank. Somehow I can't picture very many applications being submitted in the absence of WRITTEN RULES.

I have emailed the Source-Interlink Media (SIM) honchos several times asking for either a link to the rules, or for some idea of when they will be available.   The resounding silence is deafening.

Maybe they're planning on making it as difficult to find the rules as it is to find a copy of the current issue of Engine Masters mag.  

As far as I know they are still being ironed out, but they should be released very soon.  

The rules have been released use the link below to view them!

http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/challenge/0901em_2009_engine_masters_challenge/index.html  

INCOHERENT ENGINE MASTERS 2009 RULES

(I POSTED THIS SEVERAL TIMES AND IT KEEPS BEING REMOVED. NOW, THE DINKS HAVE DELETED MY ACCOUNT. Apparently the dimbulbs at PHR / EMC can't formulate a coherent response, so they just DELETE the post, PROVING THE POINT I MAKE BELOW.)

This post has been edited by Johnny Hunkins. I am the sole dink who is deleting your posts and who is banning you (epi_engineering, aka Jack Kane). Your new alias, gzorgnbltz, is being banned as well. All future posts you make that are derogatory without being constructive will be deleted, too. As long as you continue a program of inflammatory dialog on our site, I will continue to ban and/or delete all your future activity, too.

Until you understand the spirit, cameraderie, and intent of the Engine Masters Challenge, you are not welcome here. Everybody else "gets it," but you.  

Coming to someone's website and calling them a bunch of idiots is generally cause for dismissal.  If you feel you are unwelcome then why the hell do you keep posting the same crap?

First, in your letter I'm sure you are referring to Ed Zinke, not Mr. Zinky.  If you want to be anal about your questions you might want to research your answers.  BTW, Ed is one of the nicest, MOST FAIR guys you will meet and as I have seen does everything in his power to make sure all competitors are treated equally.  When they had to boot someone last year for a minor rules infraction it was not to keep the "Kaase - Bischoff - Massengill oligopoly" intact (keep in mind they also booted Judson's second entry for arriving late through no fault of their own), it was to enforce the rules with equality.  I saw him pretty torn up after the fact.  
On to your rant.
1-RTFI.  “Please list your preliminary choice of manufacturer for each of the following categories. Also include part numbers and/or product types or styles if available. Your responses will be evaluated and used in determining your eligibility to participate in the 2009 Engine Masters Challenge”  It seems pretty evident that the parts and combination you choose to submit with your application can be changed.
For the cylinder head choice, this rule is clearly in place to verify the legality of your cylinder head choice.  As a participant, I would certainly not be happy if I worked all the way through summer and fall only to realize that my heads were illegal.  I appreciate the fact that they have incorporated this rule to verify that I am not wasting my time.
2-“With regard to the specific meaning of   ‘…generally available for purchase…’ :
(a) Does the fact that a part has been publicly announced prior to 3/31 satisfy the definition of COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE, and if so, does a website announcement of the availability of the part qualify?
(b) If I place an order for a part which has been announced prior to 3/31, and pay for the part prior to 3/31, but the part is not deliverable until sometime later (July, for example), and I have documentation of the transaction, does that satisfy the definition of COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE?”
Answer: “Contestants may be required to provide proof of purchase and/or undisputable proof of availability on any contested engine component(s) or face possible disqualification from the competition.”

3- Regarding displacement, I’m a little surprised that as anal as you appear to be your main question was how far down from the top of the cylinder the bore would be measured.  Their rules indicate “Bore is measured at top of cylinder. Bore and stroke are measured to the third decimal place, i.e.
0.001. Cubic inches are calculated to one (1) decimal place i.e. 350.0. Any part of a
cubic inch is rounded up to the next highest inch (i.e. 301.2 = 302) for the purpose of
claimed cubic inch of engine as used in scoring.”
You are worried about cylinder wear?  How many thousands of pulls will you be making?  I’d be much more concerned with accuracy of measuring devices, temperature of engine block and measuring device and whether or not we could require a torque plate to be used in measurement.  In the end you are responsible for claiming a cubic inch number and if you are worried that it will be close then err on the conservative side or risk disqualification.

4- Regarding allowable machine work on the engine block you asked “Question:
Please specify which, if any, of the abovementioned (and any other) machining and preparation operations are allowable on the block.”  Are you retarded or just can’t pull your head out from the sand? This is about building engines and machining operations are essential to that process.  They know this.  “The 2009 Engine Masters Rules Document provides guidelines and minimum standards for the configuration and operation of engines to be entered into the
Engine Masters Challenge competition.  As a general rule, unless optional equipment
or a modification is specifically permitted by this Rules Document or by subsequent addendums to this Rules Document, it is prohibited.”  “Non-OEM bore/stroke
combinations are allowed.”  If you are really unsure then once you receive your application acceptance letter, ask if you are allowed to perform a modification.

4- Don’t know why you listed 4 twice but you did.  You wrote “The wording  "…any commercially available crankshaft…" plus the rule that any bore and stroke are allowed, appears to permit the use of a billet crank which conforms to the stated journal diameter restrictions, but which differs from the OEM configuration in all other ways.” The crank rules do not specify that a ‘flat plane’ or any alternate firing order crank is illegal so go for it.  If you are serious about a 180 degree crank though (and I can’t see why as it has been proven over and again that they don’t provide an advantage over ‘standard’ cranks) you might ask the rules committee for a specific ruling on the crank design you plan to run.
5-The rules state that “Any valve seat size and/or valve size is acceptable”.  Do you seriously have a question as to what material you are allowed to use for a seat or guide or are you just repeating your rant about the original problem you have with “As a general rule, unless optional equipment or a modification is specifically permitted by this Rules Document or by subsequent addendums to this Rules Document, it is prohibited”?

6- Hey this may be a valid question!  “Question: Is it allowable to machine material off the surfaces of the intake manifold which sandwich the intake manifold gaskets between the manifold and the cylinder heads?”  When you get your acceptance letter and send in your question let us know the answer.
7- “That sentence is unclear in the following ways: (a) the wording "...as well as..." suggests that there are TWO circuits, one of which is 12-volts, unswitched and unfused, and the other is of unspecified voltage, but switched and fused for 20 amps.”  You are just being anal here.  There is one power source for ignition and as listed under the water pump section, one power source for a water pump
8- RTFI – “The throttle body must be mounted centrally in the
conventional four-barrel location, forward facing or sideways facing. The throttle
body must mount directly to the intake manifold with no more than 1.25-inches
combined gasket and/or spacer thickness between the intake manifold and throttle body.”  Also “"Relocation of the fuel injection point from the OEM or Aftermarket provisions is prohibited." Means you gotta use the provisions that are incorporated into the manifold as manufactured and the throttle body can be mounted in one of the three mentioned ways based on intake manifold design.  Pretty clear to me at least.
9- “Knock (detonation) sensors are prohibited”  That means you can’t use them.  Pretty self explanatory there.
I guess I could go on but I have to get to work.  My point here is that you need to use something that we refer to as common sense before blasting off on a tirade about how lame the PHR folks are, especially if you have plans to enter their competition.  You have a couple of valid questions mixed in with the rest of the crap but most of them have to deal with your problem of the ‘specifically permitted/prohibited’ sentence at the beginning of the rules.  I’m sure you’ve got tons of war stories about how your engine beat Ed Pink’s or whomever’s but take a minute and step out of your ‘arrogance on high’ world and step into reality for a minute.  

ouch    

What the heck is going on?

           Joe C  

Everything's cool, Joe. Remember when Clinton was being impeached, and he asked the special prosecutor, "What is the definition of 'is'"?

It's like that, except this fellow is the Clinton of engines. (Drum roll here.)  

ok i got a build you guys could try how about making as much power on 87 octane oh and you cant use any thermal barrier coatings you guys want normal people to be able to build these kinda motors right i would like to see that dont care about cubic inches or flat or roller cams just want a best bang for the buck build i know its been done before i cant remember whos mag it was but they made 500 hp on 87 octane but they used all those thermal coatings to make it work and i know those are expensive oh and i would like to see the build sheets on some of these so called " pump gas motors " so one could build the same motor ive been looking at your mag for some time but ive never seen a build sheet just how they got there maybe some of us readers would like to throw together one of his own "engine masters motors"    

Every article on the Engine Masters engines has a spec sheet with all the pertinant info.  If there is something missing that you want to know about a specific combo, I'm sure whoever built the engine would be happy to answer.  Just post a question and we'll round up the builder.  

What's up with the EMC? Word on the street is that most of the BIG guys are not coming and that there has been some BIG sponsors have backed out?
Who's left.... looking at the sponsors page there is some missing elements....

Bob  

sorry to say it but i agree with falcon67.
 

i would love to go to a roller solid but here in australia. minimum for a cheap ass cam by itself your looking at $1000.
roller followers $800 +
and so on .  ass eating shops love marking up  prices for performance stuff like that over here. plus taxes. import duties aand so on. we get royaly molested by our suppliers down here.   we would like to be able to afford cams  etc that would make that extra  il stretch it to maybe 40 hp but its just out of our reach. some people do our best with what we can afford. and still have a house, wife, kids etc to fit in next to our hobby of rpm based pleasures.  

This post from australia offers an interesting point...to an engine tinkerer who has machining ability/expertise, any theory article is welcome--he can attempt to angle mill a head, port, etc rather than go buy something new.  Will he match the new head exactly? No...but what he's doing is better than nothing.

On the other hand is the gal who has a credit card and a catalog...and a Chevy.  She can buy what she wants, and its easier for her to bolt together something, than to try to modify an old fuelie head to go w/ her used Vortec manifold, to feed her welded stroker crank with 2" pre-'68 connecting rod bearing sizes, etc.

Running two contests if of course, expensive...too bad we can't have the "average" rebuilders do their thing, with accurate price lists and dyno results, and then have them get published to compare to the big shots, with their price lists and dyno results.

and of course, have it w/out all the flame wars the Internet breeds....

As for the roller lifter controversy...really, what do rollers do besides add weight?  they reduce friction, and allow for steeper ramps. Friction reduction isn't going to be really done another way except perhaps some coating on the bottom of the lifter, but snapping the valves open sooner...that can get replicated by some lifter designs, but not fully. Or it can be compensated for by someone who understands cam design.

In other words, just because someone got a roller cam to work with a certain head port...surely someone can do a rough estimate of how to get a mushroom lifter, or some other type, to work a similar effect as a roller cam would provide.  It won't be THAT far off.  So, the lessons learned still can be used in a regular solid or hydraulic engine....IMHO.