V6 Mustang Classing?

[PSherm]

Saw a 98 V6 Mustang for sale locally, cheap, thought "I wonder if this would be a possible IT toy, let's see where it's classed"...

Imagine my surprise when I saw it (94-98 V6 Mustang) listed in ITS at 2470lbs! WTF?!

Curb weight is about 3100lbs. HTF are you supposed to remove 600lbs while adding a cage?!

Stock HP is 150. Sure it has some torque, all 215 lb-ft, but it's a 3-valve engine with a crappy intake manifold. Somebody tell me I'm either crazy or wrong (or both!), but I look at it like this:

150hp x 1.25 x 14.5 = 2719 + 50lbs (for torks) = 2769 in ITA

This is a much more realistic weight than 2470. 150 stock HP is not out of line for ITA (Neon DOHC is 150hp). Has this car been looked at before, or run thru ProcessV2?

Thought? Opinions? Am I tilting at windmills?

[bhudson]

Take a look at this thread about Ron Earp's V6 Mustang build:
http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29254

[JeffYoung]

It's not an A car, trust me.

That car is going to make significant gains in IT trim. 2470 is process weight, but I expect it to make way more than 25%.

My motor (3.5 liters, crappy 2 valve, bad intake) was 133 stock hp. I make 180 whp with an IT build.

[Russ Myers]

My 2001 3.8L conv. is rated at 190 bhp by the book. Believe me, I've thought about one of these things, too.

Russ

[ShelbyRacer]

Also, the DOHC Neon makes VERY little torque (only slightly more than *half* the Mustang), and that stock HP number is, um, optimistic.

[PSherm]

It's not an A car, trust me.

That car is going to make significant gains in IT trim. 2470 is process weight, but I expect it to make way more than 25%.

My motor (3.5 liters, crappy 2 valve, bad intake) was 133 stock hp. I make 180 whp with an IT build.

Do you know its going to make more than 25% for fact? Do you have actual data?




My 2001 3.8L conv. is rated at 190 bhp by the book. Believe me, I've thought about one of these things, too.

Russ

The 94-98 v6 uses different heads and intake than yours. Not a valid data point for comparisons

[Russ Myers]

sorry, I forgot.

Russ

[JeffYoung]

Psherm, I said I expect it to, not guaranteed.

It's 3.8 liters. My motor is 3.5, with lower compression and a marginal intake and cam. It makes 180 whp. I would expect the 3.8 to get close to that.

[Ron Earp]

150hp x 1.25 x 14.5 = 2719 + 50lbs (for torks) = 2769 in ITA

Thought? Opinions? Am I tilting at windmills?


Dual class it up for A if you want, but I'm building one for ITS. Methinks it won't be too welcome in A if you build one that is fully developed.

[Knestis]

Straight power/weight math goes all banana-shaped at the extreme ends of the curve, substantially changing the actual performance on a "typical" race track. That means that those outliers - the really heavy and light (or relatively so) cars in each class are problematic when raced in the real world. They tend to be dogs or overdogs depending on the setting.

For example, if one were only racing at Daytona, the choice from among X cars with exactly the same power/weight ratio would be different than if one were racing at Lime Rock. Arguably, the fewer outliers we have, the more "fair and balanced" the class will be.

That's a long way of saying that a 2800-pound Mustang in A doesn't make any sense if it is closer to the fat part of the curve in S. And we do NOT have any obligation to put any given car where it will pragmatically be most "competitive." That's not a game we want the ITAC to start playing.

K

[ShelbyRacer]

And we do NOT have any obligation to put any given car where it will pragmatically be most "competitive." That's not a game we want the ITAC to start playing.

K

Well said. :023:

[PSherm]

And we do NOT have any obligation to put any given car where it will pragmatically be most "competitive." That's not a game we want the ITAC to start playing.

K

Sorry Kirk, but I do not understand your statement. Isn't this the whole idea behind putting cars in different classes and using "Pv2"? To give them the best opportunity to be competitive? Or am I completely misreading your intent?

I am not advocating for making the Mustang an overdog, but I really don't see the problem with putting it in A, especially at a weight that it can reasonably attain. It has been classed in S at a weight it will never get to and based not on factual power data, but by guessing and fear of the larger displacement. Isn't that what has caused some of the ridiculous weights/classing in the past, and what the ITAC has been moving away from for the last few years? Even if it proves to make more than process power in IT trim, it can be reeled in under the "Not Competition Adjustment performance adjustment" (restrictor and/or weight, or move to S).

I'm really trying to understand the logic behind classing like this. And just for the record, I don't own one of these Mustangs, and couldn't afford to build/field another IT car anyway.

[Knestis]

Important distinction between "give it the opportunity to be competitive" and "put it where people think it will be most competitive." If that makes sense? That's an inherent problem with cars that we called "tweeners" - that didn't fall nicely into the fat part of the curve for a given class, weight-wise. Where (i.e., at what kind of tracks) they will be competitive becomes a big part of the consideration if we start talking about it qualitatively, or based on on-track performance - or anticipations thereof.

K

[Ron Earp]

Kirk's right, the car is a tweener and a judgment call had to be made as to where it would best fit. I feel that a) the factory engine rating is correct, but very conservative; b) while the car can't make the 2470 lbs ITS classification, the car will be competitive in ITS at around 26XX to a low 27XX weight range, a weight which is entirely feasible for the car. I actually think that 25XX might be possible to get to with the best of the best light stuff and a 150 lbs driver.

R

[erlrich]

Important distinction between "give it the opportunity to be competitive" and "put it where people think it will be most competitive." If that makes sense? That's an inherent problem with cars that we called "tweeners" - that didn't fall nicely into the fat part of the curve for a given class, weight-wise. Where (i.e., at what kind of tracks) they will be competitive becomes a big part of the consideration if we start talking about it qualitatively, or based on on-track performance - or anticipations thereof.

K

I get what you're saying, but I think Paul has a valid point; one of the basic tenets of the process is (supposedly) that unless there is solid evidence a car makes more/less than the standard gains it will be processed at the default (25%) gain factor. Now we have folks saying they believe it should make more than the standard gains, and are using that as the basis for leaving it in its current class at a weight that appears to be unobtainable. To me that is a step backwards. If the ITAC all believe the car will make more than the standard gains, it should be classed using the higher factor. If not, then class it using the default factor, and put it in a class where it can make the minimum weight. What's happening now is IMO no better than saying "well, that car did great in XXX, so let's put it in XXX class".

I understand there are problems classing tweeners; it just really bugs me when we class cars at weights they will never be able to get within 100 lbs of.

[Knestis]

What I'm saying is that the ITAC made the decision that it should be a featherweight S car rather than a fat A car, by the Process and practices in place.

That its architecture would make it a massive outlier in A is a post hoc consideration, and NOT a true classification factor, but as a gut check it's at least consistent...

Ron's point about potentially better-than-standard gains is HIS justification for building something that on paper is going to be very hard - potentially impossible - to get to the minimum weight. His calculus says is not a time-waster at a real-world 2600+ pounds. That's Ron, not the ITAC.

K

[PSherm]

What I'm saying is that the ITAC made the decision that it should be a featherweight S car rather than a fat A car, by the Process and practices in place.

That its architecture would make it a massive outlier in A is a post hoc consideration, and NOT a true classification factor, but as a gut check it's at least consistent...

Ron's point about potentially better-than-standard gains is HIS justification for building something that on paper is going to be very hard - potentially impossible - to get to the minimum weight. His calculus says is not a time-waster at a real-world 2600+ pounds. That's Ron, not the ITAC.

K

Thanks Kirk, as always, great insight. And Earl stated my feelings better than I did. That said, with a classification like this, is it the ITAC's philosophy to be conservative? Is this the CRX and BMW saga casting a long shadow?

The one thing that really bugs me about it is that, going strictly by the process, it will be a slow S car, with no way to speed it up since it doesn't make spec weight to begin with. If it were in A, it would easily make weight, and if it were overly competitive, it can be slowed down.

I'm interested to see how Ron's build turns out. I wish him the best, but I will be VERY surprised if his race weight is within 200lbs of spec weight. He's gonna need a lotta ponies...

[billf]

PShermV6 Mustang Classing?
Saw a 98 V6 Mustang for sale locally, cheap, thought "I wonder if this would be a possible IT toy, let's see where it's classed"...

Imagine my surprise when I saw it (94-98 V6 Mustang) listed in ITS at 2470lbs! WTF?!

Curb weight is about 3100lbs. HTF are you supposed to remove 600lbs while adding a cage?!

Stock HP is 150. Sure it has some torque, all 215 lb-ft, but it's a 3-valve engine with a crappy intake manifold. Somebody tell me I'm either crazy or wrong (or both!), but I look at it like this:

150hp x 1.25 x 14.5 = 2719 + 50lbs (for torks) = 2769 in ITA

This is a much more realistic weight than 2470. 150 stock HP is not out of line for ITA (Neon DOHC is 150hp). Has this car been looked at before, or run thru ProcessV2?

Thought? Opinions? Am I tilting at windmills? PShermV6 Mustang Classing?
Saw a 98 V6 Mustang for sale locally, cheap, thought "I wonder if this would be a possible IT toy, let's see where it's classed"...

Imagine my surprise when I saw it (94-98 V6 Mustang) listed in ITS at 2470lbs! WTF?!

Curb weight is about 3100lbs. HTF are you supposed to remove 600lbs while adding a cage?!

Stock HP is 150. Sure it has some torque, all 215 lb-ft, but it's a 3-valve engine with a crappy intake manifold. Somebody tell me I'm either crazy or wrong (or both!), but I look at it like this:

150hp x 1.25 x 14.5 = 2719 + 50lbs (for torks) = 2769 in ITA

This is a much more realistic weight than 2470. 150 stock HP is not out of line for ITA (Neon DOHC is 150hp). Has this car been looked at before, or run thru ProcessV2?

Thought? Opinions? Am I tilting at windmills?
From Psherm,


Paul,

A small correction: Actually, it's a two valve pushrod engine. Ford made a three valve engine in the single cam V8. And, as stated, this version of the 3.8 is different from the 3.8 used in the next iteration of the Mustang (ITR) which is known as the "Split Port" head/manifold design. It also has larger valves and ports.

Your comments about the 600lb weight reduction to reach the process 2470lb does not take into account driver weight which is included in the 2470lb. Therefore, one must add 170lb to the 600lb reduction to make process weight...some one has to drive the thing!!

Large windmills, eh?

Bill

[Russ Myers]

But there is a mistake in the ITR calssification, there wasn't a SOHC V-6 in the SN-95 body Mustang. All V-6's were pushrod motors.

Russ

[Ron Earp]

But there is a mistake in the ITR calssification, there wasn't a SOHC V-6 in the SN-95 body Mustang. All V-6's were pushrod motors.

Russ

I believe they fixed that. I remember writing to have that fixed and also so that the 05+ Mustang that does have the SOHC 4L V6 was correctly classed.

The 05+ Mustang in ITR would be a really interesting choice.

[billf]

Wow...I have been reading past the "OHC". I have missed that quite a few times!!

Bill

[JeffYoung]

Let me clarify a few things about the ITS V6 Mustang.

1. A lot of folks say it cannot make the 2470 race weight. I've been looking at one disassembled in Ron's garage for several months and while it may not make 2470, it can get close I think.

2. No one is classing the car based on "fear of displacement." A past ITAC classed the car using the process in ITS. We now have exactly one IT build that I am aware of and that driver is building it to ITS. We give some weight to that preference over "I was looking at the specs and thought this car was classed wrong....." type speculation.

3. There is no step backward. Nothing has been done differently with this car. It was processed and placed in ITS.

4. All indications I have seen suggest that even if it can only get to 2600 or 2700 lbs race weight the motor will make the power to support that using the Process.

As Kirk notes, the car probably hits the "sweet spot" in ITS once a 90-100% build is done. 2600 to 2700 lbs and 165 to 180 whp.

[billf]

Jeff,

As for clarification, your no. 1 point is your opinion ("I've been looking at one disassembled in Ron's garage for several months and while it may not make 2470, it can get close I think"). Therefore, your clarification is of your opinion.

Also: If the Process is taken at it's numerical values, the weight and Hp figures are to be the balancing point. What I mean is, from my observations it appears that these two, and some subjective evaluations, are used to "equalize" to some degree, the performance levels of various cars in the class. If so, then why allow an unobtainable weight to be used, since you wouldn't allow an inflated Hp rating to be used in the process either?

Without emperical evidence to the contrary, it seems obvious to many on this site, at least, that the weight of 2470lb with driver, is unreasonable since it requires a caged, wet, chassis weight of 2300lb from a street automobile that had a shipping weight of 3050lb (the listed shipping weight of my V6, base '02 Mustang).

If the weight was to be considered to be a valid starting point of the process, then, ideally, we should be allowed some alternative method of actually obtaining that weight, such as fibreglass fenders, etc, until the spec weight is achieved without ballast. I know this will never happen, having years of experience with the SCCA, and IT. But it was a thought.

It hardly seems even-handed (fair) to position a car that is grossly over process weight on the track agains't cars that need ballast (RX7 for one) to make their process weight. Especially since the only way to adjust the classing of the car in that class, is to allow an un-allowed method of weight reduction, or, an un-allowed method of increasing power (light weight panels/intake or camshafts changes).

Incidentally, I applaud one's attempt to take a car like the Mustang into that field of combat with those limitations (Having been there, done that...). My comments are directed at the process, and the way it's applied.

Good racing,

Bill:024:

[JeffYoung]

Actually, it's not entirely my opinion. I've seen the car on the scales and I know what it weighs prior to cage and driver. It can get close. How close is opinion I agree.

I will also say what these guys did with the Mustang was not easy. Took a lot of work. Far more than I see go into most IT builds.

The one guy actually building one of these prefers it (it appears to be a tweener but I am fairly certain that will change once you see what a built 3.8 makes) to be in S. A few other guys think the tweener should have fallen the other direction.

Right now, the fact that the one guy building one to race wants to stay in S is pretty much otucome determinative for me, like it was with other tweeners (say the ITS/A Civic).

[Ron Earp]

The 1994-1998 (formally 1994-1995) Mustang used to be classed in ITS at 3100 lbs (edit to correct from 2850 lbs, checked old data). The initial classification wasn't based on the ITAC process but was classified using the nebulous procedure that involved curb weights, dead chickens, and chanting.

I don't know how long the car was classed at that weight, but sometime around 2007 or 2008, when the current ITAC classification process was solidified and being used, I wrote a letter to the CRB/ITAC to re-evaluate the Mustang classification and to expand the model listing to include up to 1998 Mustangs. The process was applied to the car, based on stock horsepower, and the new weight was obtained. Purely running it through the process at 150hp you get:

150 hp x 1.25 x 12.9 = 2418 lbs. Add 50 lbs for torque (maybe it should be 100 lbs, I don't know), and it comes out to be 2470 lbs.

2470 lbs weight is not obtainable, I 100% agree with that. However, it is possible to get close enough to the minimum weight to be competitive. And, while I'm writing there might be something else to consider.

The Mustang uses a 3.8L two valve V6 rated at 150hp from the factory at 9.0:1 compression. It was built to digest 87 octane gas and as such it has an extremely conservative timing/engine management strategy keep knock at bay since the Ford EEC-V implementation in this car has no knock sensor. The motors respond well to minor changes in timing and fuel delivery. If Ford would have required it to use premium gasoline it would have easily be rated around 160-165hp and with that stock rating I doubt anyone would like to class it in A, that is S territory for sure.

Let us assume for a moment that Ford required the car to use 93 octane gasoline and the car was rated at 163hp. At that stock horsepower the ITS classification would be:

163 hp x 1.25 x 12.9 = 2628 lbs. Add 50 lbs for torque and it comes out to be 2670 lbs. I expect to be within plus or minus 30 lbs of that weight, completed car with driver installed.

So in the end it doesn't bother me that the car can't reach the GCR IT specified weight. There are many cars that can't obtain the minimum weight, or, are suspected of not being able to obtain a minimum weight and are deemed uncompetitive. However, I'm in the middle of an ITS build and if there is a real chance of the car being re-classed in ITA I’d like to know so I can cut my losses; I’m not interested in building an ITA car for the SE.

Ron

[JLawton]

Jeff,

As for clarification, your no. 1 point is your opinion ("I've been looking at one disassembled in Ron's garage for several months and while it may not make 2470, it can get close I think"). Therefore, your clarification is of your opinion.

Also: If the Process is taken at it's numerical values, the weight and Hp figures are to be the balancing point. What I mean is, from my observations it appears that these two, and some subjective evaluations, are used to "equalize" to some degree, the performance levels of various cars in the class. If so, then why allow an unobtainable weight to be used, since you wouldn't allow an inflated Hp rating to be used in the process either?

Without emperical evidence to the contrary, it seems obvious to many on this site, at least, that the weight of 2470lb with driver, is unreasonable since it requires a caged, wet, chassis weight of 2300lb from a street automobile that had a shipping weight of 3050lb (the listed shipping weight of my V6, base '02 Mustang).

If the weight was to be considered to be a valid starting point of the process, then, ideally, we should be allowed some alternative method of actually obtaining that weight, such as fibreglass fenders, etc, until the spec weight is achieved without ballast. I know this will never happen, having years of experience with the SCCA, and IT. But it was a thought.

It hardly seems even-handed (fair) to position a car that is grossly over process weight on the track agains't cars that need ballast (RX7 for one) to make their process weight. Especially since the only way to adjust the classing of the car in that class, is to allow an un-allowed method of weight reduction, or, an un-allowed method of increasing power (light weight panels/intake or camshafts changes).

Incidentally, I applaud one's attempt to take a car like the Mustang into that field of combat with those limitations (Having been there, done that...). My comments are directed at the process, and the way it's applied.

Good racing,

Bill:024:

Bill, I don't think we can reasonably expect that every single car out there be
guaranteed to fit cleanly in an IT class. it ain't gonna happen. i don't think the system has failed, I don't think the Mustang is being screwed and that the ITAC is out to get it or that there was a second shooter................ the car is a tweener, it won't fill cleanly into either class. Can't get light enough for ITS and waaaaay too much horse power for ITA..... at ANY weight.

If still in doubt about the concept, read the first page of the IT rules........... "there is no guarantee of competitivness.........."

I fully understand the passion that people have for certain makes and models. I understand having tried to race an '83 944 with 147HP and I think it was originally classed at 2700 or 2800 pounds. After a couple years of getting my ass kicked I realized I had to leave the emotional attachment to the car behind and move on........

[billf]

I purposely avoided the use of the word "competitiveness", since I totally understand the position of the club and know the statement well...however the concept of "even-handed", or "fair" was used in reference to the use of an unobtainable weight being used for that process with this, or some cars, while others have so much lightness as to require ballast. I had hoped that part was clear.

I'm sure Ron knows how I feel (same as him) about fielding a car agains't the odds, expecially in ITR, where our discussions were. That was the "Been There..." comment.

My interest is in the placement of cars, not the application to this brand. I'm sure that the same problem of unobtainable weight is also applicable to the Camaro, for one.

And we need more domestic participation in IT. This problem certainly doesn't encourage that participation. JLawton just wrote, "After a couple years of getting my ass kicked I realized I had to leave the emotional attachment to the car behind and move on........" Today 12:56 PM

Good racing,

Bill:024:

[Knestis]

... And we need more domestic participation in IT. This problem certainly doesn't encourage that participation.

That's a reasonable thing to hope for but it's outweighed by more pressing priorities for the category. "Give every car an equitable chance to be reasonably competitive" is somewhat more important (hence the Process approach). However, both got trumped by "have a transparent, repeatable process," which was highest on the priority list during the period when this car was re-specified.

K

[Ron Earp]

Bill, I don't think we can reasonably expect that every single car out there be
guaranteed to fit cleanly in an IT class. it ain't gonna happen. i don't think the system has failed

Agreed.

And along those lines there are a lot of cars in the various IT classes that have anomalous classifications and they race fine. As for larger displacement engines in ITA, well, a perfect example of a car that shouldn't be in ITA but drops right in there with The Process is the TR8.

The TR8 has 133 (or 138) stock horsepower from its 3.5L V8. Let's see, we should drop that into ITA at 138 x 1.25 x 14.5 = 2501 lbs, + 50lbs for torque, 2551 lbs. Anyone here want a 3.5L TR8 in ITA?

Another is the 260Z in ITS. 163 stock horsepower. In ITS it should be classed at 163 x 1.25 x 12.5 = 2628 lbs. However, that doesn't work for the 260Z as it can't make any more power than a 240Z (and might make a tiny bit less) and the car is classed in ITS at 2480 lbs, 50 lbs heavier than the 240Z. At 2480 lbs the car is in the ballpark with the other Zs, and other ITS cars, and fits well.

Granted, these are older "legacy" cars in IT, but they are both examples of vehicles that are not so easily pigeonholed within the IT structure.

Ron

[PSherm]

Jeebus, didn't think this would create such a debate. I hadn't read Ron's build thread til after I posed the questions. Didn't even know it was there - I posed my question in the General Discussions. All I really wanted was a reasonable answer from somebody that is on/was on the ITAC to 'splain the classing/weight. Sorry if my "tone" rankled anyone, not trying to be difficult.

Again, good luck to Ron, I hope he proves the car is competitive as classed. Would love to see it so...

[Knestis]

It's not a big deal, Paul. Your questions just get at the heart of some VERY long-running issues and conversations (like a decade now on this board) about first principles of how cars are classified and specified in the ITCS.

K