ITR Mustang V8s

[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.

[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

[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.

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.......