V8 Mustang in ITR

[trueblue]

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.

[Ron Earp]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

http://www.asedan.net/forums/index.php?

[JeffYoung]

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]

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. rock on

[Ron Earp]

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. rock 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]

Cool...lets add it for sure, second round..
of course, we have to get the first round off the ground first, LOL.

[mustanghammer]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Ron Earp]

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]

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!!!

Good racing.

Bill

[Ron Earp]

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!

[planet6racing]

Count me in as one to build an SN95. I'd pounce on that in a heartbeat.

[Ron Earp]

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