ITR Mustang V8s

[Ron Earp]

I was one of the principals behind assembling the ITR class in 2006. As some of you know, I am a huge Ford fan as well. I lobbied for inclusion of select V8 Mustangs into ITR (and some Camaros too) however end the end they were not included because some members felt there would be opposition to them from the higher ups. I'm not that political of an animal myself so I bowed to those more learned in such matters than I.

ITR is doing well though and I think it would be a good time to introduce these cars that will fit into the ITR framework. I am drafting up an ITR inclusion proposal and would like feedback from Ford fans. I would also like to know how many Ford IT racers would be interested in building a ITR Mustang.

Right now the Mustang I think would be a decent fit is the SN95 1994/1995 (Fox 4) 5L with the 215hp 5L V8. This car is the only one of the series which had disc brakes stock (other than the 93 Cobra and SVOs). I do not want to introduce a "mix and match" Mustang as described in a thread about a year ago. We firmly will propose this with 100% IT rules set. We could also consider other Mustangs in the proposal if there is interest, but do not ask to fit a 86 GT with [rear] disc brakes, and so on. This is IT, not AS or NASA American Iron.

For GM fans reading this I would like your help. I don't know so much about the Camaro/Firebirds. I know that some were available with a 305 with a five speed in the 80s and maybe early 90s, before the 4th gen F body. I need more details on these cars, year models they were available, and so forth. The 350 based GM cars are too far outside the ITR performance envelope.

Thanks, and remember the main purpose for this in the Ford forum is to find out how many souls would consider the construction of a Mustang for ITR.

[Knestis]

... We firmly will propose this with 100% IT rules set. We could also consider other Mustangs in the proposal if there is interest, but do not ask to fit a 86 GT with disc brakes, and so on. This is IT, not AS or NASA American Iron. ...[/b]
That's pretty important, seems like. If there are models that fit, they should be in but the trick is going to be keeping the barn door closed once one of these horses is out.

K

[Ron Earp]

That's pretty important, seems like. If there are models that fit, they should be in but the trick is going to be keeping the barn door closed once one of these horses is out.
K
[/b]

I wasn't clear with my description and/or I might be missing what you are saying.

The 1986 Mustang didn't have disc brakes in the rear. But, it is a simple fix and when we last discussed this folks wanted to take parts from one Mustang and put it on another and so forth. That is a distinctly non-IT.

[Knestis]

Oh, no - I'm just agreeing with your point that any additions to the ITR list must follow the first principles of IT (e.g., no mix-and-match or parts off of cars not on the spec line make/model/years). That, and it's probably going to be a challenge that just as soon as the one you describe is listed, someone is going to start lobbying for the next hotter one, then the next, then the next - based on the premise that the "Mustang is already in ITR."

K

[JLawton]

Ron,
I would live to run a Mustang. I had an 87 5.0 way back when and had a blast with it. I would imagine they're cheap to build (relatively speaking), lots of after market, plenty of them out there and lots of younger guys have them that would love to track them.

As long as they are classes right, I think this one car would have a positive impact on ALL of IT.

[Ron Earp]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for the support with the car. The early cars will be a bit problematical as none of them that we can class in ITR had disc brakes in the rear. And, we're not going to violate IT policy and allow a substitution or a "mix and match your Ford" type spec line.

For this reason I've concentrated my efforts on the 1994-1995 Mustang GTs (no Cobras) since they had lower output V8s and had disc brakes in the rear.

I'd have no objection to classing the earlier cars but bear in mind there is no modifier, or not much of one, for rear drum brakes. And, since the early cars can make more slightly more power gains than the later cars it'll put them at a similar, or higher weight than the 1994-1995 cars. A 1985 carbed Mustang GT would be a fun car but with small front brakes, drum rears, it might be difficult to race.

But, if it fits in ITR and folks want it then I think it should be classed. The IT rule set does not guarantee competitiveness of a car.

Ron

[Team SSR]

If a V8 Mustang gets classified in ITR and has any potential at all of being competitive, I will build one.

[Andy Bettencourt]

What weight would people build these at?

3100 is a debatable start for a 215hp car in ITR.

[Ron Earp]

What weight would people build these at?

3100 is a debatable start for a 215hp car in ITR.
[/b]

I think it would be a good idea to leave the weight debate for the proposal thread or the written proposal I'll send the ITAC (should be done by the end of the week). I'd like to just call it "3100 to 3350 lbs". I think that is close enough for people to consider if they would build one or not.
Ron

[shwah]

Why not just class the cars with rear drums? That would just be one of the 'warts' of that particular choice.

...said the guy that knows nothing about Mustangs, but knows a lot of VW racers that prefer rear drums over rear disks.

[JeffYoung]

Shwah, that is our intent.

There has been some opposition to the drum braked Mustangs and Bitchin' Maros though claiming that
"the brakes cain't last!" We thought about avoiding that by just classing the 94/95, but now think that classing the 80s models with drums make sense. Brake management, ducting, etc. can make them work I think. They do, barely, on my car.

[dickita15]

A couple of guys I race with and I have talked about running these if they were classed. With the power limitations of the stock induction I am not sure they would be competitive but they would be cheap (relatively) and fun.
Admittedly we each have projects in progress so it would be a couple of years out.

[Ron Earp]

Hey Dick,

This is how I feel too and thanks for the answer on thread topic. I am trying to gauge "possible support" for the car now, the proposal with the ITAC will iron out the actual classing, weight, and so forth.

Ron

[Knestis]

Shwah, that is our intent.

There has been some opposition to the drum braked Mustangs and Bitchin' Maros though claiming that
"the brakes cain't last!" ...[/b]
But those objections seem to me like either (1) a prelude to requests that they be allowed to run bigger brakes (from the pro-V8 crowd), or (2) a red herring "safety" issues motivated by other objections to their being listed at all, from the anti-V8'ers.

In short - bah!

K

[dickita15]

Kirk, I think it is simpler than that. I do feel secure in the fact that if we add new cars they will have to follow the IT rules set. Sure we have to explain that to non IT marquee fans, but most of us have to manage our brakes. That is part of racing and part of the class.

Interestingly when the ITR proposal was first going around I happened to run into the president of the 928 club and he made the same claim about their cars, that they would be unraceable without brake up grades.

[Ron]

The early V-8 Mustangs (Fox Body) were from1979-1993 they went from little front brakes and drums and carbs to 1987 bigger brakes and FI. Just a bit about drums and Mustangs. Our ITB Mustang is a rear drum car and we just ran the 13 hour VIR race and had no problems with the drums. Granted we crossed the scales at 2650 but I don't see drums as a problem.
Another thing about spec lines, our car is speced from 1979 to 1993. There are so many differences betwwn the years it would make your head spin.

Put the 79 to 93 cars on a seperate spec line and I might give it a try.

[JeffYoung]

I think if most people knew what we actually do on the race track with stock brakes, they would say we were crazy.

I was at a race at CMP this year, in May, which is notoriously hard on brakes. In a train of cars going down the front straight to a hard braking zone, EVERYONE was working the brake pedal with their left foot to check the brakes -- brake lights were winking like a damn Christmas tree. This was Z cars, RXs, Acuras, Hondas, and of course the woefully underbraked TR8.

Dick and Kirk you guys are both right. Any classing is going to be done with stock brakes no matter how much people bitch and complaint about it, and if someone opposes the classing on "safety" grounds given the ducting and other allowances that can be used to make these cars stop, then they are just a ninny!

[JLawton]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for the support with the car. The early cars will be a bit problematical as none of them that we can class in ITR had disc brakes in the rear. And, we're not going to violate IT policy and allow a substitution or a "mix and match your Ford" type spec line.

[/b]

No, no, I'm not too intent on the early V8s, just explaining why I had a place in my heart for Mustangs in general!! :D



But those objections seem to me like either (1) a prelude to requests that they be allowed to run bigger brakes (from the pro-V8 crowd), or (2) a red herring "safety" issues motivated by other objections to their being listed at all, from the anti-V8'ers.

In short - bah!

K
[/b]

I agree. EVERY car has some sort of limitations. If you're that wound up about crappy brakes on a Mustang, don't build one!!

I don't think we should be afraid to class them just because of the drums.

[Ron Earp]

But those objections seem to me like either (1) a prelude to requests that they be allowed to run bigger brakes (from the pro-V8 crowd), or (2) a red herring "safety" issues motivated by other objections to their being listed at all, from the anti-V8'ers.

In short - bah!

K
[/b]

Well, since we are discussing it I'll second Kirk's comment.

I saw a fair amount of this on the initial run through. Comments like "Brakes can't last at a high weight", "the car will race different from other cars in the class", and other red herrings.

If you don't like the weight, don't build one. Don't think the brakes will last, don't build one. Don't like the fact it won't race like a BMW, don't build one.

If the car fits the process it should be in the class. Personally I think if it is Ford racing you are after I think the 3.8L Mustang V6 might make a better race car. But I don't feel either one would be on the short list of "cars to have" in ITR.

But, that wouldn't stop folks that enjoy a V8 race car from building one. And I have to admit it might not stop me due to the familiarity of the car, engine, etc. Not to mention costs - I'm not sure there would be a cheaper car to build and repair (notice I didn't say run, pads and tires might be expensive!).

[rcc85]

I would seriously consider building either a Mustang or a GM F-body. I've had two Camaro street cars including an '88 IROC Z with a TBI 305 that would probably fit the ITR parameters. My original plan was to start in IT and then move to American Sedan but the AS ruleset has gotten out of hand. V8 cars with the IT ruleset would be an affordable way to go faster (and they would sound good, too).

Anyway, here are some GM 305 numbers from 82-88:

1982-3 Carb 8.6:1 CR 145HP@4000 240 lbs/ft @ 2400
1982-3 CFI 9.5:1 CR 165HP@4200 240 lbs/ft @ 2400

1984-7 Carb 8.6:1 CR 150HP@4000 240 lbs/ft @ 2400
1984-6 Carb 9.5:1 CR 165HP@4400 250 lbs/ft @ 2000

1985-8 TPI 9.5:1 CR 190HP@4800 240 lbs/ft @ 3200

1988 EFI 9.3:1 CR 150HP@4000 240 lbs/ft @ 3200

CFI was the "Cross Fire Injection" which I think had two throttle bodies.
TPI was the "Tuned Port Injection"
EFI was the single throttle body

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

[JeffYoung]

Bob, you are precisely the kind of guy we are doing this for. AS is out of hand, these cars do fit in ITR.

All of those numbers look like ITR numbers to me. The torque is high, but look at where. Who races at 2400 rpm!?

These cars have strengths and weaknesses -- bring'em on.

Bob, do you know which years came with a 4/5 speed?

Thanks.

Jeff

[Rabbit07]

I would build one.

[JGriff]

Hi guys,
I think the classification of this Mustang as well as the older F -bodies mentioned in ITR makes perfect sense. ITR already has the newer 3.8L V6 F-bodies classed and I think these engines have a higher horspower rating than some of the old GM V8s. I've got to believe that the weight is pretty close as well. This is a great idea!
Joel

[manny]

i would also like to join in on the v8 mustang for ITR. i drive one in the ITB class and i would love to be able to build one to IT specs and be able to run her in the ITR class. any year V8 mustang would be nice. :023:

[Ron Earp]

Well, we're working on it. I have about 10-12 folks who have posted here, emailed me, or PM'ed me saying they'd be interested in a V8 Mustang or V8 F Body. The proposal is in the works!

[Andy Bettencourt]

The proposal is in hand. It is extremely well thought out and well written. I don't think the cars in it will have a problem getting classed.

If you are someone that WILL BUILD for 2008, drop the CRB a note to that effect.

crb AT scca.com

[erlrich]

I'm a little curious - and guessing you guys have already looked into it - do we know what it is on these cars that kept a 5.0L V-8 from putting out more than 180 - 200 or so HP? My only concern with classing them would be if the HP restriction were something that could be corrected with an IT level build (e.g. emissions, overly restrictive exhaust/intake, ECU tuning, etc.). Not saying they don't belong, just wondering why they DO belong.

Guess I'm also hoping I'm not gonna be sorry I went out and bought a V-6 Camaro :unsure:

[Rabbit07]

They used the same upper intake as the 90- Thunderbirds with a 5.0. Very restictive, but needed for hood clearance.

[Ron Earp]

For the 94/95 5L Mustang it is the following:

*Restrictive intake from the T-bird/Cougar as mentioned
*Extremely poor exhaust port design on the stock iron heads with air casting in head, can't be removed as it is an 1" in
*Undersized MAF hosing, can't be changed
*Relatively small valves and cam, produces great torque, short of hp, can't be changed
*Small ports and port volumes on the heads

I think there are better choices for ITR, for sure. But, I also feel there are enough people that know and love these cars they'd like to race them.

I'm not so certain that I wish to build one, and I don't think you'll be sorry at all with the 3.8L Camaro. That will make a great race car with excellent power/torque at 500lbs lighter than the V8s will have to run. You'll have better brakes too, something that won't be easily managed on the V8 cars with the weight.

If folks would like the opportunity to run the cars then write the letters as he suggested!

Ron

[jhooten]

Searching Craig's list for a 3rd gen Camaro..........

[JeffYoung]

My opinion, limited as it is, after classing the V6 ponys in the first place and then helping Ron with the V8 proposal (Ron was primary author), is that the better brakes and lower weight on the V6s will more than counter the torque advantage the V8s will have. The new V6s make a lot of power, and good torque. They will be good race cars.

[rcc85]

Ron,

What year Mustangs did you include in the proposal?

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

[JeffYoung]

94/95 at about 3150 I think.

89-93 at a higher weight due to increased power potential.

[Chris Wire]

As long as they are classes right, I think this one car would have a positive impact on ALL of IT.
[/b]

I agree, just don't make it AS-lite. I ran AS for years and don't really care for what it turned into.

And don't be afraid to classify the earlier cars w/ the drum brakes. You don't HAVE to have rear discs to run IT. We ran ITGT for many years here in SEDiv with decent success. Same principal. Just make sure the classifications fit the goals laid out for ITR.

I also agree that the cars are out there in huge numbers and have excellent aftermarket support. Both make the car very attractive to Ford fans and non-fans alike. May not be the front-runner in the class, but for people who love to race V8s it would be a hoot.

[Ron Earp]

I agree, just don't make it AS-lite. I ran AS for years and don't really care for what it turned into.

[/b]

Well, if you think it is a good idea please write in support of it. One of the arguments I saw someone bring up against the cars in ITR was "The SCCA already has a place for those cars, AS".

I addressed this in my proposal in case someone brought it up. AS rules are far and away far from IT prep, competition levels smaller, costs higher, and so forth. AS has nothing to do with IT really.

Ron

[Chris Wire]

Well, if you think it is a good idea please write in support of it. One of the arguments I saw someone bring up against the cars in ITR was "The SCCA already has a place for those cars, AS".
[/b]

I don't know about writing in support of it, as I don't plan on building one. From someone who spent the past 6 years building my own car in my garage, I have no interest in doing that again. Even with my fondness for Mustangs. :D

One other item to include in your arguement might be using it as a stepping stone to AS.

ITR pony cars > AS

much like

most of IT cars > Prod

It makes a lot of sense in the broad view. I'm certain that, given the bastardization of what AS used to be, there are guys who would build/race those cars in ITR that might otherwise be turned off from racing AS. I also think that classing the V6 vs V8 cars in the same class at different weights adds to the novelty of it. I mean that as a positive (being a draw), rather than as a negative (being silly).

A little nostalgia below for the Ford guys:

[Ron Earp]

One other item to include in your arguement might be using it as a stepping stone to AS.

ITR pony cars > AS

much like

most of IT cars > Prod

[/b]

That is a good argument, wish I'd thought of that. White suits in Topeka would love it!

It is an argument that I don't buy though (but I'd still use it!). I got the latest issue of Sportscar and had a long chuckle looking at Prod and National class participation numbers nationwide. One, two, three, four, and five car fields on average for a LOT of those national classes. Looked like to me the only thing that approached or eclipsed IT numbers was SM and SPF. Don't think many IT racers go to Prod. I know I don't plan to do that.

Ron

[Limey]

"One of the arguments I saw someone bring up against the cars in ITR was "The SCCA already has a place for those cars, AS".

That is a weak argument......look at the miata, it can run in SM, ITA, and ITS.......