LG Motorsports LS 2 engine ready to Road race.
03-16-2005, 11:20 AM
#22
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: DFW, Texas
Posts: 709
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AdioSS
um, I'm willing to bet that Lou didn't start out with an assembly line Z06 
I'm betting he just swapped the newer body panels to his old chassis.
I'm betting he just swapped the newer body panels to his old chassis.
03-16-2005, 12:58 PM
#23
Originally Posted by Glenn98ZM6
they built a new chassis for the new body. he still has the C5 complete and now the C6.
http://www.davidfarmerracing.com/C6.html has a write up on his C6 construction. Looks like David will be racing after a year off
I don't doubt LG has the C5 from last year complete but I would be curious how the C6 started off life.
Last edited by 93Polo; 03-16-2005 at 01:35 PM.
03-16-2005, 01:22 PM
#24
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dallas-freakin'-Texas
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The C6 started off as a factory frame and a pile of tubing. Not a C6 Z06 frame, 'cause it's difficult to weld steel to aluminum, if you know what I mean.
03-17-2005, 02:31 PM
#25
Launching!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NC
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
actually, we are all starting with C5 STEEL frames. Other than the front of the frame being 3" longer (C5 longer than C6), they are identical. Why spend $45k when you can get a wrecked C5 for around $4k????
GM wouldn't sell me a C6 frame, but maybe Lou got a special deal. Who knows!?
anyway, thanks for visitin my site. Look for new photos by the weekend.
http://www.DavidFarmerRacing.com/
GM wouldn't sell me a C6 frame, but maybe Lou got a special deal. Who knows!?
anyway, thanks for visitin my site. Look for new photos by the weekend.
http://www.DavidFarmerRacing.com/
03-17-2005, 09:43 PM
#26
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chattanooga
Posts: 576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LG Motorsports
Our C6 Z06 is on it's way to Sebring.
** All GM cars must also run the GM performance Cylinder heads(Lingenfelter heads) which are really bad for power, Plus they crack at #1 and #8 cylinders after just 4 races.
** All GM cars must also run the GM performance Cylinder heads(Lingenfelter heads) which are really bad for power, Plus they crack at #1 and #8 cylinders after just 4 races.
03-20-2005, 10:06 AM
#27
FormerVendor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Dallas/Wylie Texas
Posts: 654
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brent,
The LPE heads cracked again.
The rules mandate that we use the Lingenfelter heads and I cracked another one just above the intake port where they port it too thin.
I was pushing the car trying to stay in the top 5. the AXA porsche with Liddell driving got a bad start but passed all the top 10 cars with ease to work his way up to 3rd. Of the $40,000 in purse the Vipers in the top ten got $20,000 of it.
At Laguna in 04 the Viper set the fastest lap even while carrying a total of 450 pounds more than the fast Corvettes. So SCCA decided to add 150 pounds to the Corvette compared to our weight at the last race. Whereas the Viper which was the fastest car on the track lost 250 pounds compared to their weight at Laguna.
So the weight swing is a grand total of 400 pounds in favor of the Viper??? Did anyone really think that the Viper was going to lose the race??
How did the SCCA justify this? They said that our 6 liter LS2 engine was larger than our old 5.7 LS6 which would make too much hp and the Viper had to run shorty headers which take away 20 hp.
Then on the restrictor size, we are now restricted to a 67.9mm throttle body plate while the Viper gets a 15% larger opening compared to the Corvette for their throttle body.
Then we were beat up and restricted by SCCA on our C6 Z06 bodywork while at the same time they were allowing a new nose, hood and larger wing for the Vipers. The Viper has 972 sq in of louvers while the C6 can only have 288 sq in of louvers. The louvers help reduce lift and can provide down force as well. The Viper louvers were an elaborate array that created a tremendous amount of down force.
The SCCA used a computer modeling program to try to determine what power could be extracted from each brand. This is all well and good but they totally ignored the real world results from Laguna that showed how fast the Viper really was.
Maybe their modeling didn't understand what a 500 cu in V10 can do compared to a 366 cu in Corvette LS2.
It is sad that the SCCA will not listen to this kind of logic. They are talking about adding 50 pounds to the Viper but ignore the fact that with 400 pounds they were still the fastest car on the track at the last race of 2004 and would still have been the fastest car with the shorty headers.
All this while they won't let us run the 7 liter engine.
PS, the fastest Corvette on the track was a rookie in a C5 at a 213.9. The Sandbagging Viper had only a 214.0 to take the win. In 2004, we qualified at a 210.1 for the outside pole and we are now 3 seconds slower from their restrictions on our car.
Oh, And SCCA has told us that our hood is not going to be legal and we must now close off 30% of our hood louvers!!!
Thanks
Lou G
The LPE heads cracked again.
The rules mandate that we use the Lingenfelter heads and I cracked another one just above the intake port where they port it too thin.
I was pushing the car trying to stay in the top 5. the AXA porsche with Liddell driving got a bad start but passed all the top 10 cars with ease to work his way up to 3rd. Of the $40,000 in purse the Vipers in the top ten got $20,000 of it.
At Laguna in 04 the Viper set the fastest lap even while carrying a total of 450 pounds more than the fast Corvettes. So SCCA decided to add 150 pounds to the Corvette compared to our weight at the last race. Whereas the Viper which was the fastest car on the track lost 250 pounds compared to their weight at Laguna.
So the weight swing is a grand total of 400 pounds in favor of the Viper??? Did anyone really think that the Viper was going to lose the race??
How did the SCCA justify this? They said that our 6 liter LS2 engine was larger than our old 5.7 LS6 which would make too much hp and the Viper had to run shorty headers which take away 20 hp.
Then on the restrictor size, we are now restricted to a 67.9mm throttle body plate while the Viper gets a 15% larger opening compared to the Corvette for their throttle body.
Then we were beat up and restricted by SCCA on our C6 Z06 bodywork while at the same time they were allowing a new nose, hood and larger wing for the Vipers. The Viper has 972 sq in of louvers while the C6 can only have 288 sq in of louvers. The louvers help reduce lift and can provide down force as well. The Viper louvers were an elaborate array that created a tremendous amount of down force.
The SCCA used a computer modeling program to try to determine what power could be extracted from each brand. This is all well and good but they totally ignored the real world results from Laguna that showed how fast the Viper really was.
Maybe their modeling didn't understand what a 500 cu in V10 can do compared to a 366 cu in Corvette LS2.
It is sad that the SCCA will not listen to this kind of logic. They are talking about adding 50 pounds to the Viper but ignore the fact that with 400 pounds they were still the fastest car on the track at the last race of 2004 and would still have been the fastest car with the shorty headers.
All this while they won't let us run the 7 liter engine.
PS, the fastest Corvette on the track was a rookie in a C5 at a 213.9. The Sandbagging Viper had only a 214.0 to take the win. In 2004, we qualified at a 210.1 for the outside pole and we are now 3 seconds slower from their restrictions on our car.
Oh, And SCCA has told us that our hood is not going to be legal and we must now close off 30% of our hood louvers!!!
Thanks
Lou G
Last edited by LG Motorsports; 03-20-2005 at 10:12 AM.
03-20-2005, 10:40 AM
#28
I imagine Dodge feeds them a ton of sponsorship money as to why they seem to have the "breaks" that they do and the SCCA officials can't see past the green. I call them a undisputed unfair advantage.
03-20-2005, 10:53 AM
#29
Launching!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: McKinney
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LG Motorsports
Brent,
The LPE heads cracked again.
The rules mandate that we use the Lingenfelter heads and I cracked another one just above the intake port where they port it too thin.
I was pushing the car trying to stay in the top 5. the AXA porsche with Liddell driving got a bad start but passed all the top 10 cars with ease to work his way up to 3rd. Of the $40,000 in purse the Vipers in the top ten got $20,000 of it.
At Laguna in 04 the Viper set the fastest lap even while carrying a total of 450 pounds more than the fast Corvettes. So SCCA decided to add 150 pounds to the Corvette compared to our weight at the last race. Whereas the Viper which was the fastest car on the track lost 250 pounds compared to their weight at Laguna.
So the weight swing is a grand total of 400 pounds in favor of the Viper??? Did anyone really think that the Viper was going to lose the race??
How did the SCCA justify this? They said that our 6 liter LS2 engine was larger than our old 5.7 LS6 which would make too much hp and the Viper had to run shorty headers which take away 20 hp.
Then on the restrictor size, we are now restricted to a 67.9mm throttle body plate while the Viper gets a 15% larger opening compared to the Corvette for their throttle body.
Then we were beat up and restricted by SCCA on our C6 Z06 bodywork while at the same time they were allowing a new nose, hood and larger wing for the Vipers. The Viper has 972 sq in of louvers while the C6 can only have 288 sq in of louvers. The louvers help reduce lift and can provide down force as well. The Viper louvers were an elaborate array that created a tremendous amount of down force.
The SCCA used a computer modeling program to try to determine what power could be extracted from each brand. This is all well and good but they totally ignored the real world results from Laguna that showed how fast the Viper really was.
Maybe their modeling didn't understand what a 500 cu in V10 can do compared to a 366 cu in Corvette LS2.
It is sad that the SCCA will not listen to this kind of logic. They are talking about adding 50 pounds to the Viper but ignore the fact that with 400 pounds they were still the fastest car on the track at the last race of 2004 and would still have been the fastest car with the shorty headers.
All this while they won't let us run the 7 liter engine.
PS, the fastest Corvette on the track was a rookie in a C5 at a 213.9. The Sandbagging Viper had only a 214.0 to take the win. In 2004, we qualified at a 210.1 for the outside pole and we are now 3 seconds slower from their restrictions on our car.
Oh, And SCCA has told us that our hood is not going to be legal and we must now close off 30% of our hood louvers!!!
Thanks
Lou G
The LPE heads cracked again.
The rules mandate that we use the Lingenfelter heads and I cracked another one just above the intake port where they port it too thin.
I was pushing the car trying to stay in the top 5. the AXA porsche with Liddell driving got a bad start but passed all the top 10 cars with ease to work his way up to 3rd. Of the $40,000 in purse the Vipers in the top ten got $20,000 of it.
At Laguna in 04 the Viper set the fastest lap even while carrying a total of 450 pounds more than the fast Corvettes. So SCCA decided to add 150 pounds to the Corvette compared to our weight at the last race. Whereas the Viper which was the fastest car on the track lost 250 pounds compared to their weight at Laguna.
So the weight swing is a grand total of 400 pounds in favor of the Viper??? Did anyone really think that the Viper was going to lose the race??
How did the SCCA justify this? They said that our 6 liter LS2 engine was larger than our old 5.7 LS6 which would make too much hp and the Viper had to run shorty headers which take away 20 hp.
Then on the restrictor size, we are now restricted to a 67.9mm throttle body plate while the Viper gets a 15% larger opening compared to the Corvette for their throttle body.
Then we were beat up and restricted by SCCA on our C6 Z06 bodywork while at the same time they were allowing a new nose, hood and larger wing for the Vipers. The Viper has 972 sq in of louvers while the C6 can only have 288 sq in of louvers. The louvers help reduce lift and can provide down force as well. The Viper louvers were an elaborate array that created a tremendous amount of down force.
The SCCA used a computer modeling program to try to determine what power could be extracted from each brand. This is all well and good but they totally ignored the real world results from Laguna that showed how fast the Viper really was.
Maybe their modeling didn't understand what a 500 cu in V10 can do compared to a 366 cu in Corvette LS2.
It is sad that the SCCA will not listen to this kind of logic. They are talking about adding 50 pounds to the Viper but ignore the fact that with 400 pounds they were still the fastest car on the track at the last race of 2004 and would still have been the fastest car with the shorty headers.
All this while they won't let us run the 7 liter engine.
PS, the fastest Corvette on the track was a rookie in a C5 at a 213.9. The Sandbagging Viper had only a 214.0 to take the win. In 2004, we qualified at a 210.1 for the outside pole and we are now 3 seconds slower from their restrictions on our car.
Oh, And SCCA has told us that our hood is not going to be legal and we must now close off 30% of our hood louvers!!!
Thanks
Lou G
Sucks to hear about all the restictions on the Vette and I can't believe you all aren't able to run the 7.0.
My wife and I were there at Sebring and stopped by to chat(think I talked with Louis). Don't let your bad luck at Sebring keep you from coming back next year.
If those heads would have held up, you easily would have given them a run!
Best looking Vette out there in my opinion!
Derek
03-21-2005, 12:17 AM
#30
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dallas-freakin'-Texas
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man, Lou... that's rough. I was telling someone the other day that if they're going to make everyone run a spec head, just make 'em all run the AFR's and be done with it. They are commercially available to anyone with a telephone or a mail box, and have thicker decks, etc... for reliability.
I really think that someone at Dodge is spending some time on their knees... (just my opinion)
I really think that someone at Dodge is spending some time on their knees... (just my opinion)
03-21-2005, 11:04 AM
#33
FormerVendor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Dallas/Wylie Texas
Posts: 654
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks guys.
Yes we are running Stoptech 6 piston brakes and we do sell them.
The heads will now be welded prior to installation from the day they are new. if this happens again I am not sure what we can do about it.
We run the engine up to 7400 rpms and in their defense, these heads were never meant to do that.
See you at St Petersburg in 2 weeks for the second race.
Thanks
Lou G
Yes we are running Stoptech 6 piston brakes and we do sell them.
The heads will now be welded prior to installation from the day they are new. if this happens again I am not sure what we can do about it.
We run the engine up to 7400 rpms and in their defense, these heads were never meant to do that.
See you at St Petersburg in 2 weeks for the second race.
Thanks
Lou G
03-22-2005, 08:58 AM
#35
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by triumphman
The c-6 is getting screwed by the scca hopefully after the sebring results they will get a clue..
03-22-2005, 10:01 AM
#36
Originally Posted by C5Corvette
the SCCA has always beed determined to eliminate competitors and spectators at all costs.
03-22-2005, 10:26 AM
#37
10 Second Club + 14 Second Truck Club
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Ne Pa
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SCCA racing has gone down the ******* in my opinion in the last 5 years. Trans-Am has gone from the most competitive racing series in the US to dogshit.
04-09-2005, 03:52 AM
#38
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I agree. The SCCA has been decline for a long time, and their policies are long overdue for revision. From the list alone that Lou mentioned, one would think that someone is getting bribed or paidoff to set those stringent restrictions against the C6 and then allowing the viper to engineer more downforce than the C6.
04-20-2005, 09:27 PM
#40
Launching!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NC
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
for anyone intersted, I posted some new shots of my C6 build yesterday. Drivetrain is assembled and basically ready to plop into the chassis.
http://www.DavidFarmerRacing.com/
http://www.DavidFarmerRacing.com/