V8 Mustang in ITR

[JeffYoung]

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]

Estimations:

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

Against (again estimates):

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

[Rabbit07]

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]

We hear brakes are "iffy" on the V8s..true?

[zracre]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Brake ducts? What are those?

[lateapex911]

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]

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]

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]

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