ITR Mustang V8s

[Ron]

The early V-8 Mustangs (Fox Body) were from1979-1993 they went from little front brakes and drums and carbs to 1987 bigger brakes and FI. Just a bit about drums and Mustangs. Our ITB Mustang is a rear drum car and we just ran the 13 hour VIR race and had no problems with the drums. Granted we crossed the scales at 2650 but I don't see drums as a problem.
Another thing about spec lines, our car is speced from 1979 to 1993. There are so many differences betwwn the years it would make your head spin.

Put the 79 to 93 cars on a seperate spec line and I might give it a try.

[JeffYoung]

I think if most people knew what we actually do on the race track with stock brakes, they would say we were crazy.

I was at a race at CMP this year, in May, which is notoriously hard on brakes. In a train of cars going down the front straight to a hard braking zone, EVERYONE was working the brake pedal with their left foot to check the brakes -- brake lights were winking like a damn Christmas tree. This was Z cars, RXs, Acuras, Hondas, and of course the woefully underbraked TR8.

Dick and Kirk you guys are both right. Any classing is going to be done with stock brakes no matter how much people bitch and complaint about it, and if someone opposes the classing on "safety" grounds given the ducting and other allowances that can be used to make these cars stop, then they are just a ninny!

[JLawton]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for the support with the car. The early cars will be a bit problematical as none of them that we can class in ITR had disc brakes in the rear. And, we're not going to violate IT policy and allow a substitution or a "mix and match your Ford" type spec line.

[/b]

No, no, I'm not too intent on the early V8s, just explaining why I had a place in my heart for Mustangs in general!!

But those objections seem to me like either (1) a prelude to requests that they be allowed to run bigger brakes (from the pro-V8 crowd), or (2) a red herring "safety" issues motivated by other objections to their being listed at all, from the anti-V8'ers.

In short - bah!

K
[/b]

I agree. EVERY car has some sort of limitations. If you're that wound up about crappy brakes on a Mustang, don't build one!!

I don't think we should be afraid to class them just because of the drums.

[rcc85]

I would seriously consider building either a Mustang or a GM F-body. I've had two Camaro street cars including an '88 IROC Z with a TBI 305 that would probably fit the ITR parameters. My original plan was to start in IT and then move to American Sedan but the AS ruleset has gotten out of hand. V8 cars with the IT ruleset would be an affordable way to go faster (and they would sound good, too).

Anyway, here are some GM 305 numbers from 82-88:

1982-3 Carb 8.6:1 CR 145HP@4000 240 lbs/ft @ 2400
1982-3 CFI 9.5:1 CR 165HP@4200 240 lbs/ft @ 2400

1984-7 Carb 8.6:1 CR 150HP@4000 240 lbs/ft @ 2400
1984-6 Carb 9.5:1 CR 165HP@4400 250 lbs/ft @ 2000

1985-8 TPI 9.5:1 CR 190HP@4800 240 lbs/ft @ 3200

1988 EFI 9.3:1 CR 150HP@4000 240 lbs/ft @ 3200

CFI was the "Cross Fire Injection" which I think had two throttle bodies.
TPI was the "Tuned Port Injection"
EFI was the single throttle body

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

[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.

[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.......