In message <68.ee2672.25b9fa3a@aol.com>, Nandaholz@aol.com writes:
> http://home4.highway.ne.jp/okuyama/products/nb6,8-3.jpg
> 
> << >--- Eric Moon  wrote:
>  >> Not familiar with NASA rules or classing.
>  >> SCCA rules allow for strut braces that transverse
>  >> the stut mounting points
>  >> ONLY.  In other words, the bracing may not extend
>  >> rearward or forward ---
>  >> to the firewall, etc....
>  >
>  >Unless of course this was a factory item, right?
>  > >>
> 
> How about if the brace was installed but the mounting bolts were removed from
>  
> the rear firewall that attach the back of the brace for added stiffness? This
>  
> would make it essentially a regular brace with the rear angled pieces not 
> functional during an autox and merely cosmetic. I could then add the bolts 
> after the autox for the street and track events where the extra stiffness 
> would be beneficial. Any thoughts, would this be acceptable to the tech 
> inspectors.

Well, for stock classes, it's have to come with that nice strut 
  brace from the factory, of course.  

I just went out to my car and grabbed my 1999 Solo rulebook. I think the
  appropriate rule is in the Street Prepeared Bodywork section, 14.2.C:

  Strut bars are permitted with all types of suspension. Strut bars may
  be mounted only transversely across the car from upper right to upper
  left suspension mounting point and from lower right to lower left
  suspension mounting point, No other configuration is permitted.
  Additional holes may be drilled for mounting bolts. Only bolt-on
  attachment is permitted.

So how would this be interpreted? Well, the tech inspector shouldn't
  care. It's not his job to enforce classification. If I were tech
  inspecting, as long as it wasn't loose I'd ok it.

As far as your competitors go, I'd expect that if you tried the
  "remove the firewall bolts" tactic and placed well at a divis


From:
	catman351@themost.net
Subject:
Re: 351M bellhousing cost?
Date:
	Sun, 2 Jan 2000 00:13:15 -0500


Hi Jack and Co:

As soon as you said all that (regarding the block size, etc), I literally ran
out into the garage to double check the clearances between that 351M and the
351C. Starting from the bottom of both oil pans (both are the same width since
you can use the same oil pans) up to their respective engine mounts...no change
in basic location. I just have to fabricate the upper half to have the 400 rest
on the 351C pads (doesn't look like a problem). The block is indeed wider from
the back buuuut, their seems to be enough clearance for the shift linkage of the
ZF. The wid