+1 KBD Bumper. I know of a guy that has one, great fit, and about the same weight, maybe 2 lbs heavier than stock.

I would like to see Wossner 10.6 CR pistons allowed. They are relatively cheap and with stock head height they are just .1 over the allowed 10.5 CR. 88 pistons are getting scarce and the Wossners are only $640 with rings. A cut head with the available thicker head gasket could bring the CR down to 10.5.

We already have a Horsepowewr cap and enforcement via Dynos at the track, so any horsepower gain could be tuned out.

I would prefer to see very few if any rules changes.

Wheels are still available and aftermarket options are expensive and rare.

944only shifter is cheap and good, no change needed.

We should be talking to Milledge, Lindsey Racing and others to see about the best way to do piston replacement. I have a sleeved block in my ST5 car. It will make re freshing the engine cheaper.

We have Dyno rules and HP caps so my opinion is we could get rid of alot of engine rules. We could even go to a HP/Weight rule. Helps the low HP cars and then the high HP cars can just add weight.

Yes on the replacement front valance.

Wossner 10.6 CR pistons are chaep and available. SP2 allows 10.6 to 1 A .1 increase in CR is not that significant. Oversizes are also available. A cheap endoscope can be used to check pistons by pulling a spark plug. No head removal necessay.

My take is - pistons are still plentiful. If you allow these 10.6:1 aftermarket pistons, many, many heads will become trash because they're already shaved to increase the compression ratio up to near 10.5:1. MOST guys don't run 88 HC pistons, right?

I don't see any good reason to allow anything but the stock pistons right now. Regarding the comment about what SP2 allows...??? I don't see how it applies. We are 944 Spec. A pure and independent class.

I think it's wise and in keeping with the class philosophy to mandate only stock internals in our engines. It's not just the HP/TQ numbers that count, it's the power curve.

I'm dead set against going to any HP to weight system. And it's not just me. When we had our big Series Director meeting in Sacramento back in 2005-2006, all 5 of us Series Directors agreed on this point with almost no discussion needed and we agreed we would push back against NASA if they tried to take the class that direction. Those systems are more useful for classes that allow different makes and models of cars and even then, there's ALWAYS bitching about not enough or too much weight on this or that car.

If you make your engine legally and meet the 2600 lb rule, we'll have great racing like the class founders intended. It's so SIMPLE. On the other hand, let's say I come across the scales at 2550 on Saturday, do I have to go to the dyno to prove I'm down on HP that day? What about the next day after I change the plugs and go to a lighter weight oil and I'm up 6 HP from yesterday? Do I have to go to scales and dyno again? Scaling everybody at 2600 lbs every time is so quick and simple. No math, no guessing about weight penalties.

I would also not be opposed to moving the battery to passenger footwell. This is a very low cost upgrade that can help reduce costs by requiring a minimum weight battery of say 25 lbs. Or lets say a group 24 battery. This will eliminate the costly low weight batteries from our class. No major advantage is gained by moving it to the footwell. Yes it is lower but will be right under the current location.
Obviously it will require a stout hold down system and a box of some kind.

I think there are plenty of guys running the 10.5 pistons. Even if it is only 30% of the class that is 50 cars. A thicker head gasket solves the problem. As long as the cam is stock the power curve will be the same.

Using an off the shelf item must be considered mandatory. I have two blocks right now that are scored and are currently junk.

Both engines are competitive in this class. A LC engine can easily make the necessary HP.