Philip Morris working on the no. 26 Chevrolet

CRATE EXPECTATIONS

Pre-packaged power: Drivers examine the pros and cons of the crate engine

JW Martin

Late Model track champion Philip Morris used one to get to victory lane multiple times last year.

Forrest Reynolds had one under the hood when he won his only LMSC contest of the season last year.

This year, every driver that will go to victory lane in the Limited Sportsman division will be powered by one.

Crate engines have become a reliable substitute -and in some cases the standard- engine of choice for many in the garage these days. Since their emergence on the ASA circuit in 1999, the crate motor has risen in prominence to become a competitive alternative to the traditional built motor.

Developed directly by the manufacturer, a crate motor is essentially a sealed engine, designed to save teams time and money. In essence, the beauty of the crate motor lies within its simplicity; no significant amount of added labor is needed to install the engine, and at a cost of $5,000 for 400-plus horsepower, the crate option is significantly cheaper physically and financially as compared to its built predecessor. What’s more, every major racing manufacturer, GM, Ford and Chrysler, all offer crates.

“They’re assembly line built,” explains Randy Merriman, director of competition at Motor Mile Speedway. “They’re not individually built like the built motor is, so the cost is about one-third of what a [built] race engine costs.”

Their superb cost to competitiveness ratio has led Merriman and Motor Mile Speedway to implement a rule change for the Limited Sportsman division this year, mandating every competitor race with a crate motor under the hood. The hope is to lower the amount of money it takes to compete in the division, and to equal the playing field- the keynote theory behind the use of the crate motor.

“We want to try and get some of the cost out of the class,” states Merriman. “Some of them were spending Late Model money to run Limited.”

Roger Parrish Jr., a previous winner in the Limited Sportsman division and previous user of a built motor, echoes the reasoning behind the rule change.

“I’d say [the rule change] equals out [the field]. I understand a lot of people can’t afford to buy a new built motor, but, I mean- I miss [mine], but I guess it makes for closer racing.”

While cutting costs may be the cardinal purpose of the crate engine, an underlying effect of the umbrella rule is the equalization of the field, as noted by another Limited Sportsman driver, Jeff Woodward.

“Last year [the division] ran built engines and it seemed you had the field farther apart. With the crate engines, you seem to have the entire field within two tenths of a second of each other, so I think it leveled the playing field out.”

But while the two drivers agree on the purpose of the crate motor, the pair of veterans had one thing in common; both utilized a built motor before the rule change mandated the switch. Why? While the crate motor has many benefits, better performance isn’t part of the package.

Performance is precisely the reason why most drivers chose not to run crate motors in the Late Model class; a division where the use of a crate motor is only an option –more often than not a back-up option- to the built motor.

“I hate ‘em,” exclaims Tommy Lemons Jr., who currently sits fifth in the LMSC standings.

For the exception of Forrest Reynolds, no driver among the top ten in points has raced a crate motor this season. But while the majority of the division’s top contenders chose not to run crates, many frontrunners in the standings have found reasons to defend their use. Reynolds, who received a fourth place finish after the Star Country 150 with a crate powerplant, explains the advantages and disadvantages behind the use of a crate motor.

“The crate motor is not very good up out of the corner. It’s just real sluggish. But from about half the straightaway down, it really does well- with the way the motor is built it really kicks in.

“Some people say that half-way through the race the crate motor gets hot and doesn’t run as good, [and] some people say it gets better because of the weight…it just depends.”

Reynolds opted for a crate motor in the Star Country event to help out with the rear-end percentage on the car, as well as to benefit from the lower weight that comes with the use of the pre-packaged motor. He isn’t the only driver that has elected to race a crate motor over a built motor, however. A fellow competitor and a five time track champion discusses the logic behind the use of a crate motor versus the tradition built engine.

“The advantage is if the track is fast – if it is nice and cool – then the crate motor will run really good,” explains Philip Morris, who drove a crate-powered Chevrolet to victory more than once in his 2007 championship campaign, which totaled ten wins in all.

“You can keep it wound up, and it’s really hard for anybody to run with you on the long run. It doesn’t make as much torque up off, so it doesn’t abuse the tires. It’s almost like traction control off.”

Morris goes on to elaborate about the downside of the crate motor.

“If the track is treacherous, or slick, then you’re better off with a built motor-something that will get down on the bottom and dig.”

Corroborating Morris’ and Reynolds’ testimony is Davin Scites, who believes the performance value of the crate motor doesn’t depend solely on raw power.

“I think it’s all in how you’ve got your car set up, really.”

But Scites also hit on another key element in the crate versus built debate.

“We’ve got so much invested in these built motors- I mean, they’re taking the crates and getting them worked on, and you have to spend money on [that]. Time you switch over to [crates] you’re really not saving nothing,” explains Scites.

With the absence of the Limited Sportsman rule change in the Late Model division, drivers are free to choose between traditional markets and the Detroit assembly line as to where their power comes from. But with the competition level as high as the costs it takes to be competitive, most teams are finding out that the overall cost to competitiveness ratio doesn’t tilt in favor of the cheaper alternative. Whether the reasoning behind their use is performance, power or prestige, built motors are still the preferred engine in the garage. Yet some top contenders will defend and sometimes depend on the new alternative to get the job done.

“I might have been at a slight disadvantage with it, but it ran pretty good tonight-not bad,” said Forrest Reynolds after his fourth place effort in the Star Country race.

“[It’s] the little crate that could.”