94-95 Mustang Gt in ITR?

[xr4racer]

Andy,. Mid Ohio club course AS record Tom Sloe 7/30/2005 1:39.348

Matt Miller

[Ron Earp]

Club course uses the chicane so my data is flawed..
[/b]

Oops. Didn't know that. Well, apples to apples doesn't stop most comparisons, especially when certain brands are involved!

[tderonne]

Check out some NASA times for a CMC Mustang at Mid-Ohio. 1:45.x, pro course, I believe. Very much like the car that is being proposed here. Pretty darn stock. A CMC car doesn't get quite as much suspension, but has the right engine and brakes.

[JeffYoung]

I take that as a good sign. If a "near stock" 94-95 Mustang runs 1:45, or close to S pole times, then an R 94-95 Mustang should be faster and hopefully in the ITR hunt.

[lateapex911]

Actually, it's apples to oranges.

ITA - 1:43.388, 7/31/2005. Joe Moser, CRX Si

Lap record, itA, CLUB course, (correct?) Set last year.

The Mustang time of 1:45 is the "pro" course, which is shorter/faster.

So the time should be significantly faster than ITA.

Again, it's not apples to apples though.

[Ron Earp]

Actually, it's apples to oranges.

ITA - 1:43.388, 7/31/2005. Joe Moser, CRX Si

Lap record, itA, CLUB course, (correct?) Set last year.

The Mustang time of 1:45 is the "pro" course, which is shorter/faster.

So the time should be significantly faster than ITA.

Again, it's not apples to apples though.
[/b]

I don't think it is a matter of comparing on track times to justify the car. The car fits the process, that is known, and could be in ITR now if not for "V8 Stigma" that lurks within some within the SCCA. Anyhow, mote point now. Most important is to get ITR going. The V8 is out for 2007 and maybe can be added in for 2008 if voted in.

[lateapex911]

Most important is to get ITR going. The V8 is out for 2007 and maybe can be added in for 2008 if voted in.
[/b]

Exactomuundo! And hey, maybe we shoulf create a precedence by moving the TR8 up, eh?? That would open the door...

yeah...note to self,,,write a letter to the ITAC..

kidding, Jeff!

[Ron Earp]

Exactomuundo! And hey, maybe we shoulf create a precedence by moving the TR8 up, eh?? That would open the door...

[/b]

Orrrrrrrr, if some of the naysayers are right and the Mustang can't race in ITR competitively, we can move it to S!

R

[Knestis]

I don't think it is a matter of comparing on track times to justify the car. The car fits the process, that is known, and could be in ITR now if not for "V8 Stigma" that lurks within some within the SCCA. Anyhow, mote point now. Most important is to get ITR going. The V8 is out for 2007 and maybe can be added in for 2008 if voted in.
[/b]

As a naysayer (NAY, I tell you!) there's no stigma on my part. I was opposed to the inclusiom of the pony cars in ITR for more complex reasons:

1. Concern that their presence would put initial approval at risk - That has been completely obliterated. In fact, to my personal surprise, it sounds like the inclusion of the 'merican iron has increased enthusiasm among the decision makers, if reports are accurate.

2. Concern that application of the same formulaic approach to weight specification would be thrown out of whack by a very different set of basic parameters - Rememember that we were just coming to understand how the higher-powered FWD cars were responding fundamentally differently to the specification process. This leads me to...

3. HUGE concern that injection of a whole 'nother set of parameters would result in additional diddling with the formula - Any time this happens, we run the risk of screwing up. Misses are not easily undone, so finally...

4. Increasing temptation to cross the line and Productionize the category, one little creep at a time. Specific make/model allowances are just a small step away if there are only TWO significant models (Mustang, Camaro for example) that are out of line. YES - I know I'm paranoid but the fact that fear of something borders on the irrational is not enough to keep that which is feared from coming to pass.

Kirk (who is going to keep beating this drum, just in case someone somewhere is listening)

[Ron Earp]

As a naysayer (NAY, I tell you!) there's no stigma on my part. I was opposed to the inclusiom of the pony cars in ITR for more complex reasons:

1. Concern that their presence would put initial approval at risk - That has been completely obliterated. In fact, to my personal surprise, it sounds like the inclusion of the 'merican iron has increased enthusiasm among the decision makers, if reports are accurate.
[/b]

That has been taken care of as you mention - they are out of the proposal so not worth discussing right now I suppose. But they should increase enthusiasm - it'll bring a lot of people into IT that would not normally be there. Those " 'merican iron" folks as you say.

2. Concern that application of the same formulaic approach to weight specification would be thrown out of whack by a very different set of basic parameters - Rememember that we were just coming to understand how the higher-powered FWD cars were responding fundamentally differently to the specification process. This leads me to...
[/b]

They fit in fine, there is no voodoo here. They were looked at extensively and very realisticaly. If there are still real concerns about them, then class them 100 lbs heavier than process weight. Or 150lbs heavier. You'll still have people wanting to build them - there are more "Ford Freaks" than single mark import groupies. But that might be a problem for the demographics of IT racing, I don't know. You know those Blue Oval types are not as sophisticated as the BMW, VW, Honda, etc crowds. :P

3. HUGE concern that injection of a whole 'nother set of parameters would result in additional diddling with the formula - Any time this happens, we run the risk of screwing up. Misses are not easily undone, so finally...
[/b]

We've got performance adjustments, and, with the attention that ITR is getting I don't think you'll see any gross mis-classifications. Lots of folks watching ITR. Look at the discussion of 25lbs on the BMWs. See 2) above - class them heavy if there is fear. Folks will still come.

4. Increasing temptation to cross the line and Productionize the category, one little creep at a time. Specific make/model allowances are just a small step away if there are only TWO significant models (Mustang, Camaro for example) that are out of line. YES - I know I'm paranoid but the fact that fear of something borders on the irrational is not enough to keep that which is feared from coming to pass.
[/b]

Heard that and I am with you. I don't agree with the crew that wants to mix and match from Fox body cars all across the Ford line. It is not needed. And, not talking about those GM F Bodies, this IS a Ford thread in the Ford forum.

Ron

[dickita15]

I was one of those that thought we should not put V8’s in ITR but that was strictly for political reasons. I was worried that having a pony car listed would be another reason for people to hate ITR.
Fast forward to now and it looks like ITR is getting a very warm reception. The CRB guys I spoke to loved the ITR concept and thought it made sense. Very little resistance.

Now the mustang shows up as a possible in fastrack and lots of people are showing interest. My friends are all over this. I guess I hang with a cheap crowd. They understand that this would not be an easy car to win with but are still very interested. The rule set in A Sedan turns them off this they want to try.

So I guess if the only reason not to put the Mustang in ITR was political maybe it should be included.

[lateapex911]

I confess, I lean towards giving it serious consideration.......

But:

- We THINK that the political resistance we suspected that might be attached to V8s isn't there. But we don't know for certain.

- I would want to see the evidence of what the subject motors would do in IT trim, or have very good empirical data about it.

- Some concern themselves with "the way the car races", and object to cars that race differently in the same class. On the other hand, I'm sure that if the shoe is on the other foot, the same objections arise. To me, one of the joys of a non spec class is the battle between the Davids and the Goliaths. On some tracks, the cards play into Davids hands...on others, it's reversed. To me, that makes it interesting.

I've heard complaits about how, "It will suck being behind the tanks in the corners...you know how frustrating it is when you're behind some guy who's not in your class and turns slower laps but you can't get around him?". To that I say...what if he's IN your class?? Now it matters...be shrewd, think your way by. That's racing. Strategy and cunning can rule the day.

The key, in my mind will be balancing the strengths and weaknesses so that the cars have a fair chance at some tracks, just like any other car.

The process exists with it's adders and subractors for just such a reason: to give the folks classing the cars the necesary flexibility to balance the parameters of disimilar physical layouts.

Why is this any different?

[Ron Earp]

Hi Jake,

As I've stated from the beginning, I don't think this should be any different. It's a car, it has an internal combustion engine, and we can class it correctly if we wish.

Data will be easy to come from on this motor. If anything, a Mustang is probably one of the most dynoed cars out there, or at least in the top five. While I've not built an IT trim 5L, I've built other 5L motors with good components and we're not going to break out of IT trim envelope with the motor. Got a nice 535hp SB stroker in the garage right now actually, but it doesn't share a thing with an IT build, including block.

Question - do we need IT trim build numbers before we class it? If so, why this car and not some of the others, like the 3L Supra, 3L BMW, etc? We don't have a fantastic idea of what the Z32 and Supra will do in IT trim, but I dare say it'll be really strong and both will make much better power and be better race cars.

Stock the 5L motor from the 94-95 would make around 185-190 rwhp on a Dynojet, mine was definitely in the middle of that range. I'd say about the same as a 3L six from the top tier 3Ls in the class. Torque is higher than a 3L six, but rev range on the Ford is much smaller than the 3L motors, probably by over 2500 RPM, and I bet the end result of area under the curve will go to the sixes or be about equal.

Anyhow, I'll dig up some Dynojet plot from our local Ford shop, and ask around on some of the Ford forums.

Jeff had a Daytona report - really fast! The track that is. He met an AS racer down there, explained ITR to him, and he said he'd be all over an ITR Mustang in a heartbeat and knew some others in AS would too. They are sort of tired of breaking things in their 400 (crank) hp AS cars and more competition is welcome. The AS racer's words, I'm sure debatable, but there is preceived interest in the car and the interest is strong. FL region seems to have a "speed is king" flavor.

R