PDA

View Full Version : V8 Mustang in ITR



JeffYoung
04-10-2006, 01:35 AM
Gentlemen, working through the potential new cars for ITR, the class to be above S.

How many of you would presently running ITB Mustangs would:

1. Run a Fox bodied, stock 215 hp, V8 Mustang in ITR at say 3300 pounds?

2. Run a Fox bodied 200 hp V6 at a reduced weight in ITR?

Thoughts?

Andy Bettencourt
04-10-2006, 09:32 AM
Estimations:

200hp V6: 2925
215hp V8: 3150
225hp V8: 3300

Against (again estimates):

2750lb 189hp E36 325
3250lb 222hp 300ZX

Rabbit07
04-10-2006, 07:06 PM
Not Me! Mustangs don't like to corner or brake as it is, then add more weight on the front, no way.......
The 2.3 Mustang is not that bad because of it's weight distribution.

lateapex911
04-12-2006, 02:16 PM
We hear brakes are "iffy" on the V8s..true?

zracre
04-12-2006, 04:19 PM
We hear brakes are "iffy" on the V8s..true?
[/b]

like a pinto!!! I had a 1988 and 89 5.0 track cars...set up pretty well but the brakes would go away after abt 5 laps...they could hold up for a race im sure but not at full force...definitely a car you have to budget your brakes thru a race...and expensive to replace everything every weekend...

JeffYoung
04-12-2006, 05:47 PM
Question -- aren't there already several cars in IT where you have to manage the brakes? Mine is certainly one, as are the Z cars......

Ron Earp
04-13-2006, 02:41 PM
Question -- aren't there already several cars in IT where you have to manage the brakes? Mine is certainly one, as are the Z cars......
[/b]

Yes, you'll need to manage brakes, no change there.

And don't compare the eariler fox platform with the 94-95 platform. There is a big difference - one is larger discs up front with better calipers and the other is discs are the rear - no drums as found on all the earlier Fox bodies (except SVO and Cobra Mustangs). This is a tremendous upgrade in comparison to eariler Fox chassis cars.
Ron

planet6racing
04-13-2006, 04:34 PM
I'm really surprised to hear all this about the Mustang brakes. While I probably haven't paid enough attention, I've been at plenty of track days with various Mustangs (stock to GT modified) and have never heard any problem with the brakes.

As for the SN95 cars, I can say that we put a V6 on track at Gingerman with just the stock brakes and tires. The car was driven hard and given no rest (picture chinese fire drill in pits) by experienced drivers and the brakes never faded. They got a little spongy, but no fade... (NMC racing at its finest!)

zracre
04-14-2006, 08:43 AM
I had no problem managing the brakes at track days...only if I upped the pace close to race levels would they go away...and if you are racing real close, thats the last thing you want to fail! My Z car I had to manage the brakes, but the terminal velocity my mustang was capable of taxed the brakes more. The Z car they pretty much would start fading towards the end and were manageable...the Mustang they would fade after a couple of really hot laps...I can imagine my old mustang on S06's modded out with stock calipers and drums? EEEKKKKK

mustanghammer
04-14-2006, 02:37 PM
We hear brakes are "iffy" on the V8s..true?
[/b]

Yes. That is why early on the PBR/Baer brake option was allowed in A Sedan.

While it is true that a good A Sedan car makes 350-400HP the Mustang you are talking about with headers and normal IT tweeks is going to have closer to 250HP and have over 300ftlbs of torque. Stock FOX mustang GT/5.0L brakes are terrible and no amount of brake conservation makes them suitable for regional racing.

Look, I love Mustangs and I raced a FOX mustang in Solo II for 15 years and REALLY, REALLY wanted to road race one. But my personal Solo I experience and what I saw a friend deal with in A Sedan with a FOX mustang convinced me that these things are an expensive disaster on a race track

If you can make this work these cars will be fun to watch and I wish you well but.........I think this is a case where the OEM really under-built certain aspects of a good car.

lateapex911
04-14-2006, 05:40 PM
Well, my questions were just research. The ITR formation commitee was considerint the cars for the class, but wanted to understand their stregnths and weaknesses.

On one hand, it sounds like the motors might be at the leading edge of the performance envelope for the class, while the brakes are basically, inadequate. As there is no provision in IT for individual allowances, it sounds as though those in the know would not choose a Mustang, even if it looked like the motor would be the class of the field. And of course, we can't class a car to be the class of the field, LOL.

An interesting car...possibly too fast in some respects, inferior in others, might not race well with others, and probably misunderstood by those that don't look very closely.

Ron Earp
04-14-2006, 07:10 PM
Jake,

Bear in mind, the emperical data your are getting here is from the Fox platform, not the SN95 (which is the Fox 4, used on 94-2003 cars). These have better brakes than the ones being cited - larger front rotors, better calipers, and discs in the rear- not drums. I recommended the 94-95 cars, not the eariler Fox cars.

Ron

Rabbit07
04-15-2006, 12:11 PM
The 94-95 would be better. I have used a 96 Cobra with PBR fronts with 13" rotors and hawk pads. The Cobra after 10 laps at Mid-O still had brake issues! No where close to my ITB car, which by the way is scary at 110 mph in a brake zone. Keep in mind that even the SN95 car is very front heavy which makes weight transfer under braking a problem. Good luck to anyone who would try it. If you do try it the five link rear suspension is the way to go. I have been kicking around converting mine to EP...

lateapex911
04-15-2006, 03:19 PM
Understood Ron, but I have had guys with '95s tell me the same 5 lap sad tale. It sounds as though these cars would certainly fit the class in terms of lap times, but their raceabilty would be far from the rest of the cars. I'm not afraid of them if we class them properly, but we'd certainly give the process a math workout on these cars.

It would be an intersesting exercise, that's for sure!

Ron Earp
04-15-2006, 07:04 PM
While it is true that a good A Sedan car makes 350-400HP the Mustang you are talking about with headers and normal IT tweeks is going to have closer to 250HP and have over 300ftlbs of torque.[/b]

This was another point that was hard to make stick while discussing it in ITR. Some of the fellows were not familar with the 5.0L motor and didn't understand the 94-95 has a horrible squashed intake as well as bad cam and the infamous E7 heads. It'll have less power than a ITR Z or Supra or BMW 330i, but naturally more torque but not want to rev much beyond 5k. Sure, with bolt ons you can make more power than 250hp, but last I checked different MAFs, tbodies, port work to get around the thermactor ports in the exhaust, and aftermarket intake were illegal in IT. Another issues is that there is definitely V8 phobia going on and I feel it is unwarrented in many cases.

I'd be tempted to build one if it were classed, although it is not my first choice. Mainly I'd be interested because I know a lot about them, they are cheap, and if it didn't work out I could go full tublar front suspension package and have a great track day car on the cheap.

I still think there is hope for the brakes, it'll just take a lot of ducting and management and I bet a ducting is something a lot of folks didn't have on their track day only car. Rabbit07, did you have two ducts for each wheel, one to the caliper and one hat on the rotor? Or, maybe one feeding the middle of the rotor to supply air to the rotor and one to the caliper?

Rabbit07
04-15-2006, 10:46 PM
Brake ducts? What are those? :)

lateapex911
04-16-2006, 02:35 PM
I know, Ron, and the engineer in my (not degreed, LOL) thinks they would be fine in the class, although not a winner.

The politician in me (Again, no degree, just been around long enough to have an idea of the lay of the land) tells me OTHERS (who vote) might balk. Balking is bad.

So, maybe it's a natural second round draft pick!?

Ron Earp
04-16-2006, 03:16 PM
I agree Jake, a car for the next round. I will try to get it in for the second round because I think there is enough interest in it even on this board, which isn't exactly full of V8 loving hombres. As mentioned, it wouldn't be my first pick for winning ITS car, but it'd be a cheap one to build in comparison to some of the others. And, it'd run reasonably well, but I think it'd do just like Jeff's car - have good torque but not enough power to keep from getting passed by the inline and vee sixs on the straights, and give up a lot to the sharp handling and light four pots. R will have some interesting racing!!!!

Ron

trueblue
04-18-2006, 10:18 AM
I would consider converting my car. The brakes would be an issue. On a track like Roebling I think the brakes would hold up ok but a track like Sebring or RA it would be scarry. Give me AS brakes and a stock motor and I would be a happy camper.

Ron Earp
04-18-2006, 01:31 PM
Are you comparing your Fox brakes to the SN95 platform brakes? If so, it isn't a valid comparison since they are vastly different. The only V8 Mustang proposed and considered, at this point, was the 94-95 GT with larger front rotors and four wheel discs. Special allowances for brake setup will be outside IT.

Sure, we could class the 84-93 5.0L cars but all of them are woefully underbraked with small front rotors and small rear drums, at least with the speeds the 5.0L would be capable of.

And one interesting point to note would be tested performance of the 1994 Mustang GT, have a look:

5.0L EFI V-8
215 hp @ 4200 RPM
288 lb-ft @ 3300 RPM
0-60 6.7 sec (lower 6s occasionally reported)
Quarter Mile 15.1 sec (high 14s quoted in some mags)

Actually slower in acceleration in comparison to the Supra, Z, S2000, 330i, Type R, and other cars in R now. I think fears of monster torque and a runaway R car are unfounded.

Ron

trueblue
04-18-2006, 04:08 PM
I would certainly feel better about the 94-95 mustang. The SN95 chassis is a little better than the Fox chassis. Having owned an SN95 I can tell you the brakes are much better but will still fade considerably under race conditions. I would definitely pursue racing a 94-95 Mustang with a "stock" V8. I think it would be a tough reliable and reasonably priced car to maintain. :cavallo:

Ron Earp
04-18-2006, 08:17 PM
I used to own a 1995 GT and while yes, they will fade, I think a lot of others will too in R. I think ducting can go a long way to help them and as far as I know nobody has real life data on THOSE brakes with top prep ducting. The car would be cheap, reliable, and easy to maintain - exactly what you want in an IT car. Competitive - well, I don't think she'll be a front runner but I'd be tempted to build one since I'm a Ford nut.

Ron

Ron
04-18-2006, 09:27 PM
I would build one. Yes brakes would be tough but on our ITB Mustang we have solved the brake problem, lots of proper ducting. We have one that runs to the inside of the rotor with an aluminium flange that forces the air through the vents and another with a hat that sits on top of the rotor blowing on both sides. It works great. We knew when we started to develop the car that brakes would be the big issue and it took a couple of years to solve it but now we can run a hour and a half race at Road Atlanta in late July and not have a problem. We don't even need to "manage the brakes" we just stomp on them. With so many more brake pad options for the 94-95 car I really feel that brakes are not that much of an issue. I have a good friend Dation Brooks that runs one of the fastest AS cars and on his 95 car I am almost certain that he runs the stock cobra brakes on the fronts and rears with real pads and good ducting and has no brake problems. I feel the cars would be cheap to build compared to a BMW or some of the other cars. Just my feeling, I would do it right away.

Ron Sattele

Ron Earp
04-18-2006, 09:55 PM
Interesting.

One of the discussions about the Mustang in ITR was that nobody would build one and people already had AS. Well, here is one guy committed to it which is more than we have for ANY ITR car right now. AS simply isn't subscribed to in most areas and IT holds a larger attraction than AS.

I'll go ahead and throw in - if we can get the 94-95 classed for the second round of classification I'll build one too. So there is two definites for building one of these "tanks". Sorry Jeff, I'll help build you a ITR Z then try to catch you with my Stang.

I bet there will be more Ford lovers that come out to play in IT with one of these.

Ron

trueblue
04-19-2006, 10:06 AM
I would build one if it is approved. I am a devoted Ford nut and I would love to hear that V8 under the hood. Competitive or not it would be more fun for me.

Ron Earp
04-19-2006, 10:43 AM
There we go - three confirmed ITR Mustangs if we can get them in - three more than any other ITR car, so I think that helps out a lot with the "perceived" interest problem in ITR and AS. Is there an AS board we could fly this on?

x-ring
04-19-2006, 12:12 PM
http://www.asedan.net/forums/index.php?

JeffYoung
04-19-2006, 01:02 PM
This is good to hear. We have a commitment for the cars, I'll push hard with the ITAC to get these cars in in the "second wave." I personally think they will be a big boost to ITR as they are cheap and reliable.

Ron
04-19-2006, 05:23 PM
I would not run AS. The cars are just waiting to blow up, its like a production car! Once again my buddy Dayton is always rebuilding motors, transmissions, and rear ends. 400 Hp will do that. At 250 hp things will last much longer. Don't get me wrong things break, but this would be fun. the great thing with the mustang is that go fast stuff is fairly cheap. :035: rock :035: on

Ron Earp
04-19-2006, 08:53 PM
At 250 hp things will last much longer. Don't get me wrong things break, but this would be fun. the great thing with the mustang is that go fast stuff is fairly cheap. :035: rock :035: on
[/b]

One of the issues with getting the car classed is folks don't understand it. They see 5L and run away, and V8 and run away. They miss the fact the cam, heads, and intake on the 94-95 models came from the 5L in the Thunderbird/Cougar and don't flow worth a damn. And in IT trim there is precious little that can be done - you'll have a set you back in the seat torque monster from 2k to 4.5k, then the party is over.

Power will be low compared to the 3L screamers in the class. It'll be a fun driver though, but when the time is right I'll work with some of the folks here that know Ford motors and write a proposal. The car won't upset ITR, but like I thought, it'd bring more people into ITR. And, it will be a cheap car to build and bullet proof - reving to about 5k will be easy on the motor and components, although it might go through some pads. I'm willing to try it though and maybe, just maybe, prove the naysayers wrong on the brakes. Might could be a good point and squirt car at CMP, if it can be taught to turn in crisply since the torque will get it off corners.

lateapex911
04-19-2006, 10:42 PM
Cool...lets add it for sure, second round..
of course, we have to get the first round off the ground first, LOL.

mustanghammer
04-20-2006, 09:59 AM
One of the issues with getting the car classed is folks don't understand it. They see 5L and run away, and V8 and run away. They miss the fact the cam, heads, and intake on the 94-95 models came from the 5L in the Thunderbird/Cougar and don't flow worth a damn. And in IT trim there is precious little that can be done - you'll have a set you back in the seat torque monster from 2k to 4.5k, then the party is over.

Power will be low compared to the 3L screamers in the class. It'll be a fun driver though, but when the time is right I'll work with some of the folks here that know Ford motors and write a proposal. The car won't upset ITR, but like I thought, it'd bring more people into ITR. And, it will be a cheap car to build and bullet proof - reving to about 5k will be easy on the motor and components, although it might go through some pads. I'm willing to try it though and maybe, just maybe, prove the naysayers wrong on the brakes. Might could be a good point and squirt car at CMP, if it can be taught to turn in crisply since the torque will get it off corners.
[/b]


My brake comments were directed more to the Disk-Drum stepup on the FOX Mustang/Capri. The 94-95 cars are better in allot of ways, brakes included.

What about an exception for 79-93 5.0L Mustang/Capri that allows them to use SVO disk brakes. There is nothing exoitic in that setup - all of it was sourced from the RWD Continental for the SVO Mustang. So parts are available in the bone yard or at the local parts store.

This deal sounds interesting and it would be a shame not to let the original 5.0 Mustang play.

BTW, it isn't the HP that kills a 5.0L Ford motor it is the RPM it takes to get the HP!

trueblue
04-20-2006, 08:43 PM
It would be nice to allow the rear disc set up. Front brakes are still an issue with the Fox body though. If I were to build one I would shoot for the 94-95. Five lugs, better brakes, better chassis. I do like the Fox body though. It weighs less and would be cheaper yet.

Ron Earp
04-20-2006, 09:40 PM
The Fox would be cheaper, and lighter, but my dyno man Randy Haywood, who runs Fox bodies in drag racing and hold a few records, indicates getting the SN95 down into the high 2700-2800s is no problem. Since the car will have to weigh more than that to race in ITR then we'll be okay as far as "lightness" of the SN95 is concerned.

Allowing the 7.5" SVO axle (I used to have an 86 SVO) is not so bad since it can be sourced from other Fords as mentioned. But, it does require some hoops to get that approved and since the V8s are not "liked" in IT it presents another barrier. Best to shoot for the SN85 platform since it "fits" with no special allowances and maybe try some others later.

manny
04-23-2006, 10:35 AM
please dont get me wrong for 2 dumb questions but, has a rim size been determined and does this class mean that we keep the stock EFI setup? thanks in advance :023:

Ron Earp
04-23-2006, 07:23 PM
We're looking at around 8.5" so you can squeeze some big rubber on those. And, naturally per IT rules, you must use the stock fuel system. But, that will be fine as far as injectors go, plently there to support power the ITR car can make. The intake, MAF, and tbody will restrict the car but she'd still fit well in R. You can use any Ford tuning on the sotck ECU and you can replace the stock ECU as long as the new ECU fits in the housing. But, with the tunability of the EEC-IV system there is a lot out there you can do with it and not spend $$$$ on a aftermarket system.

R

billf
04-23-2006, 07:31 PM
Just curious...

Would the whole group of Mustangs (Fox and SN95) be listed on the "same line"? That would impact the cars greatly.

I would be temped!!! :happy204:

Good racing.

Bill

Ron Earp
04-23-2006, 10:00 PM
No, I would not be tempted to do that for numerous reasons:

*Cam specs in 85 roller motor (first roller cam year)
*4 bbl carb/manifold in 84-85 motors that could be made to produce a lot of hp over EFI castings
*87-93 EFI intakes that flow much better than 94-95 models
*Drum brakes on everything til 94 except SVO and 93 Fox Cobra
*7.5" / 8.8" diff issues and choices

It'd be possible to mix and match something that would produce a lot of power/torque.

Personally, if that were done, I'd take a 85 cam and intake with knock off 4160 Holley carb, combine with the 94 block and rotating assembly, use some 90-91 pistons, and use the 8.8" rear with front and rear disc brakes from a 94-95 model car and go at it. Probably would use 84-85 head castings too, to avoid the E7s and late models. But, that isn't right and if done would end up getting the Mustang kicked out of R or a SIR.

Just use a 94-95 as a class base and let us go from there.

You're right, it'd impact the cars greatly but remember, there are a lot of Ford nuts out there and you're not the only one to know what parts are needed where! :D

planet6racing
04-24-2006, 12:04 PM
Count me in as one to build an SN95. I'd pounce on that in a heartbeat.

Ron Earp
04-24-2006, 02:58 PM
Now up to four definites on SN95s. Seems the idea of cheap Ford fun is definitely more wanted than AS. Still need to take this over to the AS board, I bet a few of those would go IT if they could race it. But, I think the SCCA's fear of V8s and non-American bias will kill it.

R

andyit28
04-27-2006, 11:33 PM
Iíd like to chime in here on ITR. I started racing 3 years ago. I built a 96 GT up from scratch and started in ITE. Iím getting my butt kicked by Vipers and Vetts but Iím having a ball learning. I for the life of me canít understand why the SCCA has turned its back on a car as popular as the Mustang with a 4.6 Mod motor. My original intention was to end up in AS but I can't bring myself to back date the car 15 years. I mentioned the 4.6 on the AS site and got booed off the site and told to go run AI in NASA.

If you are thinking about the 4.6 as an option for ITR COUNT ME IN!!! There would also be a ton of other too old for T2 and to young and cheap for AS, modern cars, that would fill the field.

As for brakes, there are several cheap options. I run junkyard Cobra brakes in front and stock rear and braking is GREAT. Also the 99 2 piston smaller disks should work fine too. All can be had off of Ebay for under $300.

Thanks Andy ITE 28

Ron Earp
04-28-2006, 09:10 AM
Thanks for the support! Another one!

The 4.6L 96-97 would fit since it is at 225hp, but the later model ones would be over R performance. I seriously think a lot of folks would race the cars, as shown by the support here, but bear in mind it'll be IT rules set all the way - so no Cobra brakes or anything like that. You'll need to make the stockers work with ducting and I think it possible. Pads are free, so figure out how to get larger pads on those things too.

Ron

trueblue
04-28-2006, 09:21 AM
Call me old school but if this could happen I would look for a 5.0. The 4.6 is a great motor and I would not eliminate it as a choice. Doesn't the 4.6 weigh more than the 5.0?