V6 Mustang Classing?

[PSherm]

Saw a 98 V6 Mustang for sale locally, cheap, thought "I wonder if this would be a possible IT toy, let's see where it's classed"...

Imagine my surprise when I saw it (94-98 V6 Mustang) listed in ITS at 2470lbs! WTF?!

Curb weight is about 3100lbs. HTF are you supposed to remove 600lbs while adding a cage?!

Stock HP is 150. Sure it has some torque, all 215 lb-ft, but it's a 3-valve engine with a crappy intake manifold. Somebody tell me I'm either crazy or wrong (or both!), but I look at it like this:

150hp x 1.25 x 14.5 = 2719 + 50lbs (for torks) = 2769 in ITA

This is a much more realistic weight than 2470. 150 stock HP is not out of line for ITA (Neon DOHC is 150hp). Has this car been looked at before, or run thru ProcessV2?

Thought? Opinions? Am I tilting at windmills?

[bhudson]

Take a look at this thread about Ron Earp's V6 Mustang build:
https://improvedtouring.com...ad.php?t=29254

[JeffYoung]

It's not an A car, trust me.

That car is going to make significant gains in IT trim. 2470 is process weight, but I expect it to make way more than 25%.

My motor (3.5 liters, crappy 2 valve, bad intake) was 133 stock hp. I make 180 whp with an IT build.

[Russ Myers]

My 2001 3.8L conv. is rated at 190 bhp by the book. Believe me, I've thought about one of these things, too.

Russ

[ShelbyRacer]

Also, the DOHC Neon makes VERY little torque (only slightly more than *half* the Mustang), and that stock HP number is, um, optimistic.

[PSherm]

It's not an A car, trust me.

That car is going to make significant gains in IT trim. 2470 is process weight, but I expect it to make way more than 25%.

My motor (3.5 liters, crappy 2 valve, bad intake) was 133 stock hp. I make 180 whp with an IT build.

Do you know its going to make more than 25% for fact? Do you have actual data?

My 2001 3.8L conv. is rated at 190 bhp by the book. Believe me, I've thought about one of these things, too.

Russ

The 94-98 v6 uses different heads and intake than yours. Not a valid data point for comparisons

[Russ Myers]

sorry, I forgot.

Russ

[JeffYoung]

Psherm, I said I expect it to, not guaranteed.

It's 3.8 liters. My motor is 3.5, with lower compression and a marginal intake and cam. It makes 180 whp. I would expect the 3.8 to get close to that.

[Ron Earp]

150hp x 1.25 x 14.5 = 2719 + 50lbs (for torks) = 2769 in ITA

Thought? Opinions? Am I tilting at windmills?

Dual class it up for A if you want, but I'm building one for ITS. Methinks it won't be too welcome in A if you build one that is fully developed.

[Knestis]

Straight power/weight math goes all banana-shaped at the extreme ends of the curve, substantially changing the actual performance on a "typical" race track. That means that those outliers - the really heavy and light (or relatively so) cars in each class are problematic when raced in the real world. They tend to be dogs or overdogs depending on the setting.

For example, if one were only racing at Daytona, the choice from among X cars with exactly the same power/weight ratio would be different than if one were racing at Lime Rock. Arguably, the fewer outliers we have, the more "fair and balanced" the class will be.

That's a long way of saying that a 2800-pound Mustang in A doesn't make any sense if it is closer to the fat part of the curve in S. And we do NOT have any obligation to put any given car where it will pragmatically be most "competitive." That's not a game we want the ITAC to start playing.

K

[ShelbyRacer]

And we do NOT have any obligation to put any given car where it will pragmatically be most "competitive." That's not a game we want the ITAC to start playing.

K

Well said.

[PSherm]

And we do NOT have any obligation to put any given car where it will pragmatically be most "competitive." That's not a game we want the ITAC to start playing.

K

Sorry Kirk, but I do not understand your statement. Isn't this the whole idea behind putting cars in different classes and using "Pv2"? To give them the best opportunity to be competitive? Or am I completely misreading your intent?

I am not advocating for making the Mustang an overdog, but I really don't see the problem with putting it in A, especially at a weight that it can reasonably attain. It has been classed in S at a weight it will never get to and based not on factual power data, but by guessing and fear of the larger displacement. Isn't that what has caused some of the ridiculous weights/classing in the past, and what the ITAC has been moving away from for the last few years? Even if it proves to make more than process power in IT trim, it can be reeled in under the "Not Competition Adjustment performance adjustment" (restrictor and/or weight, or move to S).

I'm really trying to understand the logic behind classing like this. And just for the record, I don't own one of these Mustangs, and couldn't afford to build/field another IT car anyway.

[Knestis]

Important distinction between "give it the opportunity to be competitive" and "put it where people think it will be most competitive." If that makes sense? That's an inherent problem with cars that we called "tweeners" - that didn't fall nicely into the fat part of the curve for a given class, weight-wise. Where (i.e., at what kind of tracks) they will be competitive becomes a big part of the consideration if we start talking about it qualitatively, or based on on-track performance - or anticipations thereof.

K

[Ron Earp]

Kirk's right, the car is a tweener and a judgment call had to be made as to where it would best fit. I feel that a) the factory engine rating is correct, but very conservative; b) while the car can't make the 2470 lbs ITS classification, the car will be competitive in ITS at around 26XX to a low 27XX weight range, a weight which is entirely feasible for the car. I actually think that 25XX might be possible to get to with the best of the best light stuff and a 150 lbs driver.

R

[erlrich]

Important distinction between "give it the opportunity to be competitive" and "put it where people think it will be most competitive." If that makes sense? That's an inherent problem with cars that we called "tweeners" - that didn't fall nicely into the fat part of the curve for a given class, weight-wise. Where (i.e., at what kind of tracks) they will be competitive becomes a big part of the consideration if we start talking about it qualitatively, or based on on-track performance - or anticipations thereof.

K

I get what you're saying, but I think Paul has a valid point; one of the basic tenets of the process is (supposedly) that unless there is solid evidence a car makes more/less than the standard gains it will be processed at the default (25%) gain factor. Now we have folks saying they believe it should make more than the standard gains, and are using that as the basis for leaving it in its current class at a weight that appears to be unobtainable. To me that is a step backwards. If the ITAC all believe the car will make more than the standard gains, it should be classed using the higher factor. If not, then class it using the default factor, and put it in a class where it can make the minimum weight. What's happening now is IMO no better than saying "well, that car did great in XXX, so let's put it in XXX class".

I understand there are problems classing tweeners; it just really bugs me when we class cars at weights they will never be able to get within 100 lbs of.

[Knestis]

What I'm saying is that the ITAC made the decision that it should be a featherweight S car rather than a fat A car, by the Process and practices in place.

That its architecture would make it a massive outlier in A is a post hoc consideration, and NOT a true classification factor, but as a gut check it's at least consistent...

Ron's point about potentially better-than-standard gains is HIS justification for building something that on paper is going to be very hard - potentially impossible - to get to the minimum weight. His calculus says is not a time-waster at a real-world 2600+ pounds. That's Ron, not the ITAC.

K

[PSherm]

What I'm saying is that the ITAC made the decision that it should be a featherweight S car rather than a fat A car, by the Process and practices in place.

That its architecture would make it a massive outlier in A is a post hoc consideration, and NOT a true classification factor, but as a gut check it's at least consistent...

Ron's point about potentially better-than-standard gains is HIS justification for building something that on paper is going to be very hard - potentially impossible - to get to the minimum weight. His calculus says is not a time-waster at a real-world 2600+ pounds. That's Ron, not the ITAC.

K

Thanks Kirk, as always, great insight. And Earl stated my feelings better than I did. That said, with a classification like this, is it the ITAC's philosophy to be conservative? Is this the CRX and BMW saga casting a long shadow?

The one thing that really bugs me about it is that, going strictly by the process, it will be a slow S car, with no way to speed it up since it doesn't make spec weight to begin with. If it were in A, it would easily make weight, and if it were overly competitive, it can be slowed down.

I'm interested to see how Ron's build turns out. I wish him the best, but I will be VERY surprised if his race weight is within 200lbs of spec weight. He's gonna need a lotta ponies...

[billf]

PShermV6 Mustang Classing?
Saw a 98 V6 Mustang for sale locally, cheap, thought "I wonder if this would be a possible IT toy, let's see where it's classed"...

Imagine my surprise when I saw it (94-98 V6 Mustang) listed in ITS at 2470lbs! WTF?!

Curb weight is about 3100lbs. HTF are you supposed to remove 600lbs while adding a cage?!

Stock HP is 150. Sure it has some torque, all 215 lb-ft, but it's a 3-valve engine with a crappy intake manifold. Somebody tell me I'm either crazy or wrong (or both!), but I look at it like this:

150hp x 1.25 x 14.5 = 2719 + 50lbs (for torks) = 2769 in ITA

This is a much more realistic weight than 2470. 150 stock HP is not out of line for ITA (Neon DOHC is 150hp). Has this car been looked at before, or run thru ProcessV2?

Thought? Opinions? Am I tilting at windmills? PShermV6 Mustang Classing?
Saw a 98 V6 Mustang for sale locally, cheap, thought "I wonder if this would be a possible IT toy, let's see where it's classed"...

Imagine my surprise when I saw it (94-98 V6 Mustang) listed in ITS at 2470lbs! WTF?!

Curb weight is about 3100lbs. HTF are you supposed to remove 600lbs while adding a cage?!

Stock HP is 150. Sure it has some torque, all 215 lb-ft, but it's a 3-valve engine with a crappy intake manifold. Somebody tell me I'm either crazy or wrong (or both!), but I look at it like this:

150hp x 1.25 x 14.5 = 2719 + 50lbs (for torks) = 2769 in ITA

This is a much more realistic weight than 2470. 150 stock HP is not out of line for ITA (Neon DOHC is 150hp). Has this car been looked at before, or run thru ProcessV2?

Thought? Opinions? Am I tilting at windmills?
From Psherm,


Paul,

A small correction: Actually, it's a two valve pushrod engine. Ford made a three valve engine in the single cam V8. And, as stated, this version of the 3.8 is different from the 3.8 used in the next iteration of the Mustang (ITR) which is known as the "Split Port" head/manifold design. It also has larger valves and ports.

Your comments about the 600lb weight reduction to reach the process 2470lb does not take into account driver weight which is included in the 2470lb. Therefore, one must add 170lb to the 600lb reduction to make process weight...some one has to drive the thing!!

Large windmills, eh?

Bill

[Russ Myers]

But there is a mistake in the ITR calssification, there wasn't a SOHC V-6 in the SN-95 body Mustang. All V-6's were pushrod motors.

Russ

[Ron Earp]

But there is a mistake in the ITR calssification, there wasn't a SOHC V-6 in the SN-95 body Mustang. All V-6's were pushrod motors.

Russ

I believe they fixed that. I remember writing to have that fixed and also so that the 05+ Mustang that does have the SOHC 4L V6 was correctly classed.

The 05+ Mustang in ITR would be a really interesting choice.