SCORE Class 3 rules opening up

retroblazer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Posts
1,627
Reaction
724
Location
Walnut orchard in the Central Valley, CA
We're still working on details like this item, likewise the +- 2" issue. Should be resolved on Monday. Please don't hesitate to reflect your thoughts with Score. The V8 in a Wrangler has been my personal goal for more than 10 years. Most of us prefer an open engine rule, so that as long as it is a readily available production engine from the same manufacturer.
 

jeepspeedcom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Posts
103
Reaction
199
Location
Orange, Ca.
As written right now the JK wranglers are out of Class 3.. Only 6 cyl , and 2 door is 96" + 2" = 98"(too short). 4 door 117" (too long). However, no problem as SCORE are adopting Jeepspeed Classes. Thank you SCORE. We hope to bring some Jeepspeed teams to BAJA this year.Good luck with class 3 guys hope it works out and the Class gets some new entries. Over and out.
 

Chris_Wilson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2001
Posts
3,298
Reaction
1,358
Location
Gilbert, AZ & San Felipe, Baja
As its written now, I think you can put a mopar V8 in a new Wrangler. We have pushed on SCORE again to drop the +/-2" wheelbase limit. Just make it 108" max, don't care if you shorten or lengthen wheelbase to get there.
If you care about this subject please call SCORE and tell them!
 

retroblazer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Posts
1,627
Reaction
724
Location
Walnut orchard in the Central Valley, CA
OK ....... Unlike the old days, where rules were set upon the publication of an actual rules book, every five or ten years, we now live in a web world where changes and updates can easily be disseminated. The GOOD NEWS is we are not locked yet on the final configuration. The SCORE staff is committed to reactivating the class. They also understand the basic premise for the logic behind the rules changes. It is to get more competitive platforms racing. The fact that there isn't an option to run a V8 powered Jeep Wrangler with coil overs, at the wheel base limit, has been a travesty. The only currently made SUV with largest aftermarket support of any 4wd vehicle made in the World !

The language about updating and backdating didn't make it in. It's a handy way to work around the limitations of leaving the rules about maintaining factory offered drivelines and body combos, but it's not needed if we go with an open engine rule. This gets Jeeps over the threshold, and same with the Toyota FJ with a V8.

The tough part of the staff has been the blending of the new with the old language. Open, but with production roots. Most of us want the engines to be a choice of anything offered by the manufacturer of the vehicle.

Although the rules state that a vehicle frame is sacrosanct, the practical side of racing can't be ignored. If we're trying to get Jeep Wranglers to race, then we have to look at the limitations they face. Besides the engine issue, getting to the 108" wheel base limit is key. There are only two frames that were offered that come close to the limit, and neither of the frames were common. The LJ version of the Wrangler, and a CJ8, had 103.5" +2"= 105.5" It makes sense that a builder could take a commonly available TJ, and stretch it to the LJ length. It also makes sense to be able to do the same with a JK. A 2-door gets lengthened and a 4 gets shortened. But why not let them do it to the 108" limit? And why not let everyone get to the 108"? limit ?

On a personal basis, I have nothing but admiration for people racing EB's. The good news for them is that there are Vintage classes that don't require you to cutup your Bronco to be competitive. Sure, we would like it if you continued to race with us in Class 3, but there is nothing that anyone can do about the sub 100 wheel base disadvantage, but at least you have a choice.
 

Stephen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2003
Posts
232
Reaction
10
Location
Carbondale, CO
Website
www.offroaddesign.com
things to ponder:
how do you keep an uncut frame and still stretch or shorten it? Not being an ass, it's actually tricky to define
Do we still measure engine position from the back of the block when a JK guy swaps a hemi in it? Do we even care about engine position when the wheelbase and drivetrain length do a pretty good job of keeping the engine toward the front anyway?
What regulates what the body looks like with major wheelbase changes? Keeping a somewhat production appearing body should be a priority I think. A stretched EB bedside would be super cool. Kind of tough to build but cool. Same with shortening a tahoe. Where do you get rid of 4" of body and make it look good? How do you regulate what "looks good" means?
Are major suspension type changes OK? IFS in a K5 for example. IFS in a JK? Solid axle in a four runner?
Do we really want to regulate axle housing construction? That may have been an important cost saving measure when an aftermarket housing was a one-off but a decent percentage of JKs on the street have an aftermarket housing of some sort. They're super common now and might be in the same catagory as ditching leaves for coilovers, cost saving in the long run and maybe in the short run too.
Body and frame swaps OK? CJ8 tub on a JK frame? Kind of makes sense since the body length is in the ballpark and you can buy the tubs. K5 body on a tahoe frame? Aftermarket tubs ok? lots of aluminum jeep repro stuff available. probably a re-pop EB tub around too. Probably doesn't matter when we don't require any factory interior sheet metal anyway. But it will come up.
Easy rulebook:
wheelbase 108
track width 86
engine in front of seats. Must match body and frame manufacturer. Forced induction ok?
must drive all 4 wheels
body, frame and suspension types must match (no IFS JK or A-arm bronco)
Body must appear factory. Factory length body in front of doors. Bedsides and top may be modified for length. (insert body mods to fit tires language here)
Frame may be modified for length only. Wheel centerline must align with original frame location +/- 2".

i feel like a late model 4 wheel independent cute-ute of some sort could be built into a super fast car. Do we keep suburu wagons out by requiring a low range transfer case in the original vehicle?
now i need to work.
 

Sreidmx

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2015
Posts
154
Reaction
76
Location
Morongo Valley
Website
www.fortifyoffroad.com
I'd agree with almost everything in your list except the limit to keep suspension concepts, yes an ifs K5 would be ideal because broncos got ttb front ends so that levels that playing field. Basically keep the concept to what was offered on that model, so K5 could be ifs or solid axle, jeeps can run solid or ifs, etc but no I beam chevys or a arm Ford broncos. Keeping is somewhat reasonable. The point here is we can talk about the head in the sky builds and the reality is nobody has build a class 3 in 10 years.. so at best it'll be at least a year before anyone has really exploited the new rules.
 

JDDurfey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Posts
3,280
Reaction
3,916
Location
Stephenville, Texas
I don't see how a Chevy K5 can run A arm IFS and remain 4x4 because they were never built that way from the factory. But I do agree with allowing coil overs instead of springs. If you allow a Chevy Blazer to run A-arms because they are available on pick-ups, then Ford Broncos should be able to do the same.

I have always been a fan of this class and want to see it make a come back, but if the rules are completely rewritten to allow major modifications to the vehicles, then it dilutes the class in my opinion and no longer should be called Class 3, but rather Class 8 4wd.
 

Dirty Harry

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2008
Posts
2,234
Reaction
2,103
Location
Reno, NV
Website
www.harrysituations.com
I don't see how a Chevy K5 can run A arm IFS and remain 4x4 because they were never built that way from the factory. But I do agree with allowing coil overs instead of springs. If you allow a Chevy Blazer to run A-arms because they are available on pick-ups, then Ford Broncos should be able to do the same.

Not a "K5" necessarily but you could get an IFS two door Blazer. Would it have to keep the torsion bar suspension though???


Sent from the RDC Mobile App. Get it for your IOS device today
 

JDDurfey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Posts
3,280
Reaction
3,916
Location
Stephenville, Texas
Not a "K5" necessarily but you could get an IFS two door Blazer. Would it have to keep the torsion bar suspension though???


Sent from the RDC Mobile App. Get it for your IOS device today

I know you could get IFS in a Blazer 2wd. But isn't class 3 a 4wd class? The reason I mentioned a K5 is because that was what was used as an example. Maybe it was just a poor example.

I have absolutely no "dog in this fight" and my opinion matters little. But I thought that Class 3 was a short wheelbase 4x4 class. (Hence, no F-150's in the class) And that production based 4x4 and suspension was one of the big defining factors of the class. Up until now that gave the Broncos an advantage with the TTB over the leaf sprung Chevy and Dodge. I understand and agree with opening up the rules some to allow better suspension, especially with how rough the courses are now, but allowing completely different drive train components is going to far, in my opinion.

If 4x4 is not a requirement, then by all means, run IFS with coil overs and smoke the Broncos TTB.
 

Sreidmx

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2015
Posts
154
Reaction
76
Location
Morongo Valley
Website
www.fortifyoffroad.com
IMG_1556.JPG

@JDDurfey you crack me up, blazers were available with ifs here's a pic of one and why does it matter it was used in the 90s by ? It's limited by the track width and ttb will likely net more wheel travel for less money. Historically there has been 2wd trucks but that was at the approval of the entrants.
Rewriting the rules is the only thing that keeps this class around, if you think I'm wrong then why has nobody been building them? Class 3 is a short wheelbase 4x that's it, where does it say you have to have this or that rule to maintain the true roots? I really do not understand the class 8 comparison, this has been an open production class and still will be, same as class 8 except for the short wheelbase and 4x4 so no I wouldn't consider it swb class 8.. class 8 doesn't need to maintain 4wd..
And just because you slap on ifs doesn't make it a desert monster, it'll have the same issues or more getting that sort of usable travel and staying together. You know what also, us Chevy guys have been loosing to broncos for 12-13 years, yea we need a little movement in the rules to even it out because broncos have enjoyed a massive amount of unfair advantage for too long.
I do have a dog in this fight and do care about the class and will continue to until it does die.
 

JDDurfey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Posts
3,280
Reaction
3,916
Location
Stephenville, Texas
What threw me off was the K5 reference. They didn't make the K5 with IFS 4x4, only a straight axle 4x4.

So will the new rules allow the conversion of a K5 to IFS 4x4 since a later model Blazer is IFS?
 

Bro_Gill

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Posts
14,523
Reaction
9,885
Location
Big Bear, CA
I think you guys are way over thinking this and by doing so, are killing the class before it gets started. Production based 4wds. 110" max wheelbase. Frame/body/engine must be from same manufacturer. Updating/predating allowed WITHIN vehicle class. Spring types open. The idea is to allow the straight axle guys some help with cheaper springs that last longer, not to allow Bill Savage to build a 2 million dollar short wheelbase Nissan and destroy a class.
 

43mod

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Posts
4,076
Reaction
3,532
Location
colusa california
OK real question and reasoning here. I am torn between 78/9 Bronco and 1980 Scout.
Would probably like to run TTB either way. Scout = Stock frame w TTB conversion or no ?
Scout = Nissan dsl originally IH trucks could get a Cummins I believe , No doubt that a Nissan can get a Cummins so can my Scout w Cummins 6BT be C 3 or not ?
My UTV play cage is almost done and I would like to start making a little noise on this project.
 

Bro_Gill

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Posts
14,523
Reaction
9,885
Location
Big Bear, CA
There used to be a breakdown that is very different for the class 3 from today. Used to be stock 4wd (including pickups), then short wheelbase 4wds. Then they combined class 3 and 14 which was the old modified 4wds. I think you guys should roll in that direction. Open the rules a little, allow some wheelbase mods, but don't let folks go crazy so that costs get nuts.
 

Moss2

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Posts
460
Reaction
167
Location
Lincoln, Ca.
The ttb bronco advantage that everybody has been afraid of hasn't materialized in the last 20years. What has there been 3 of them in that time and run about 15 races between them all? Damned unicorns!
 

Dirty Harry

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2008
Posts
2,234
Reaction
2,103
Location
Reno, NV
Website
www.harrysituations.com
OK real question and reasoning here. I am torn between 78/9 Bronco and 1980 Scout.
Would probably like to run TTB either way. Scout = Stock frame w TTB conversion or no ?
Scout = Nissan dsl originally IH trucks could get a Cummins I believe , No doubt that a Nissan can get a Cummins so can my Scout w Cummins 6BT be C 3 or not ?
My UTV play cage is almost done and I would like to start making a little noise on this project.

The way I interpret the rules you could run TTB on a Bronco since it was a factory offering, but not on a Scout.

I think the 6BT would be cool, but I'm not sure what sort of toll it would take to have an engine twice as heavy as an LS over the front axle.


Sent from the RDC Mobile App. Get it for your IOS device today
 
Top