Does it have a chance? I suspect in IT trim it will have by far the most hp and torque in the field but the brakes and fairmont suspension will be the handicap. I have been pouring over the GCR, comparing AS to IT suspension prep and all I can determine is that a panhard/watts link is okay for IT but I am unsure of a torque arm. I love the idea of a cheap domestic chassis to run but I think it will be a asedan car with crappy brakes, a flexy chassis and missing 100 hp. Anyone see hope for the mustang in ITR?
94-95 Mustang Gt in ITR?
- Thread starter CMurduff
- Start date
There was a lot of conversation about including the Pony cars in the ITR framework and, if I recall correctly, they were not supposed to be on the initial list.
That was primarily (again, my recollection) to avoid complicating the proposal by including a group of cars that are very different than most, or the "mean" car for the formula. Remember that first assumptions were that the class would be substantively identical to the rest of the IT classes and would adhere to a formulaic weight-setting process.
The underlying perception was that, given these principles, an ITR-spec Mustang or Camaro would probably not be competitive. Efforts to equalize them would require compromises to those first principles and would open a huge can of worms.
That they were included in the information coming out of SCCA was evidence that Topeka got 'hold of an early draft version of the proposed car list.
For what it's worth.
K
That was primarily (again, my recollection) to avoid complicating the proposal by including a group of cars that are very different than most, or the "mean" car for the formula. Remember that first assumptions were that the class would be substantively identical to the rest of the IT classes and would adhere to a formulaic weight-setting process.
The underlying perception was that, given these principles, an ITR-spec Mustang or Camaro would probably not be competitive. Efforts to equalize them would require compromises to those first principles and would open a huge can of worms.
That they were included in the information coming out of SCCA was evidence that Topeka got 'hold of an early draft version of the proposed car list.
For what it's worth.
K
JeffYoung
New member
I know this is a bit of thread stealing, but I want to be as clear as I can on how the V8s ended up on the final list.
There was an informal ITR "Ad Hoc" committee that prepared the ITR proposal for submission to the ITAC. The initial list did include the Mustang V8s (SN95s? I think?) and the 928.
Myself and Ron Earp were the main proponents of keeping the V8s on the list. There was legitimate concern about them from a majority of the group, we voted, the majority won and we lost, and we as a group decided to leave them off of the final approved list to be submitted to the ITAC for review and ultimately a recommendation to the CRB and BoD.
What ended up happening was an early draft with the V8s got "loose" and ended up with the ITAC and possibly the CRB (I don't know which). I did not personally provide the early draft up the chain, but I may have caused or contributed to it by not catching the fact that I circulated an early draft amongst the ITR ad hoc group (mistakenly) near the time it was ultimately sent to the ITAC and CRB.
We then asked that the V8s be removed, but heard (from the ITAC) that the CRB was interested in them and wanted them on the list. Ron and I were and are opposed to a statement that the ITR ad hoc endorsed the V8s, because they didn't. They were added back in by folks I don't even know.
I'm not happy they are on there because we as group decided they should be left off for now, but the matter is out of my hands. I don't mean to pull a Pontius Pilate but that is truly what happened.
Back on topic -- Ron (who knows Mustangs as well as anyone I've ever met) thinks the Mustang will have excellent torque, ok hp, decent handling and crappy brakes. He thinks that the Mustang's street cam and low rpm will run out of steam just as the wailing BMW, Toyota and Nissan 3.0 get rolling.
That said, Ron has also concluded, correctly I think, that a Mustang will offer the best bang for the buck in ITR, and will be reliable to boot. We'll see.
Jeff
There was an informal ITR "Ad Hoc" committee that prepared the ITR proposal for submission to the ITAC. The initial list did include the Mustang V8s (SN95s? I think?) and the 928.
Myself and Ron Earp were the main proponents of keeping the V8s on the list. There was legitimate concern about them from a majority of the group, we voted, the majority won and we lost, and we as a group decided to leave them off of the final approved list to be submitted to the ITAC for review and ultimately a recommendation to the CRB and BoD.
What ended up happening was an early draft with the V8s got "loose" and ended up with the ITAC and possibly the CRB (I don't know which). I did not personally provide the early draft up the chain, but I may have caused or contributed to it by not catching the fact that I circulated an early draft amongst the ITR ad hoc group (mistakenly) near the time it was ultimately sent to the ITAC and CRB.
We then asked that the V8s be removed, but heard (from the ITAC) that the CRB was interested in them and wanted them on the list. Ron and I were and are opposed to a statement that the ITR ad hoc endorsed the V8s, because they didn't. They were added back in by folks I don't even know.
I'm not happy they are on there because we as group decided they should be left off for now, but the matter is out of my hands. I don't mean to pull a Pontius Pilate but that is truly what happened.
Back on topic -- Ron (who knows Mustangs as well as anyone I've ever met) thinks the Mustang will have excellent torque, ok hp, decent handling and crappy brakes. He thinks that the Mustang's street cam and low rpm will run out of steam just as the wailing BMW, Toyota and Nissan 3.0 get rolling.
That said, Ron has also concluded, correctly I think, that a Mustang will offer the best bang for the buck in ITR, and will be reliable to boot. We'll see.
Jeff
Ron Earp
Administrator
You need to get out and meet more Ford freaks!
I don't know too much compared to a lot of folks, that is for sure. I know a little about making them fast, or slow as the case may be, and built my own SBs, but like Chevy knowledge, Ford knowledge is vast and deep.I agree it will have boat loads of torque, but, it won't have the most hp in the field.
The 94-95 Mustang has to breathe through the flattened and curved intake that came from the Thunderbird Cougar 5L installation that was short lived, 1991-1993. As I've owned two SN95 Mustnags and one Cougar (1991 XR7 5L, sort of rare) with 5Ls that were extenesively modified I speak from experience here. The throttle body is small, as is the MAF, and NONE of this can be changed in IT prep.
The E7 head castings with the thermactor bumps in the exhaust port impede flow and those cannot be removed. Futhermore, the ports are small, and the intake port volume small. There is a reason why the aftermarket Ford Small Block head selection is so good, and so cheap - everyone buys them and ditches the stock iron heads.
The intake uses a folded runner design that is around 22" long (going from memory here) that gave a increase in volumetric efficieny around 3000 RPM - nice for that torque peak and shove in the back. The lower intake manifold, due to being squashed compared to the standard 5L intake and GT40 intake designs, is not as good either with crimped passages, particularly in the front cylinders. The cam has duration and lift that is geared toward low-end torque and street use. The car lays nice black streaks on the pavement and launches good, but that isn't road racing. Stock, the Mustang GT had performance through the quarter that is on par or worse than the 3L V6s in the class.
All of these pieces, and the cam, are made to produce torque for that fun street launch V8 feel, but, they are not made to produce much hp and I think the party will be over around 5K or so. There will be other cars in ITR with more rear wheel hp and racing at a lighter weight. Mustang are great "tuner" cars and "fiddling with" cars, producing good power - but only when you get to change the things you cannot change in IT - MAF, thottle body, intake, cam, head work, etc. Take all that away and they don't look so attractive from a power production standpoint. Bear in mind AS uses NONE of the pieces you are forced to use in ITR, so AS comparisons in no way approximate ITR hp for this engine.
It has a 8.8" live rear axle with disc brakes, and, on paper they aren't so bad when compared to what some of us race with (Z pilots, TR8s, JHs, and lots of other solid small rotored cars). I wrote something up about swept area on the Mustang brakes months ago and it looks like they could be made to work. Handling will be a mixed bag, but, I'm sure with a lot of prep they can be made to do something fairly decent.
At last count the SN95 GT had more people interested in it than any other ITR car. Ford nuts are Ford nuts, and they'll build them if offered. A 302 is extremely cheap to maintain and build, plus, not revving much will keep it together for a long time.
I agree with Jeff that these were not in the proposal that was done from our side. But, I'll will say I'm happy they are there. The committee, nor I, or Jeff put them there, but I think they will help ITR. They don't need special allowances to be in the class. They fit in the class, went through the process like the other cars, and should be there. They will offer people more choices for cars in the class and they will certainly swell the ranks of ITR.
Ron
New member
I would love to put a 302 in my Fox bodied Mustang. Put some rear disc brakes on and go. THe 8.8 rear will give more options than the 7.5 I run now. We already have a good handling car just give me some more power. Sure brakes will be tough, they are on an ITB car. I hope when they class it that they include the fox cars so I don't have to build a whole new car.
Ron Earp
Administrator
Ron, I hear your pain but I don't think they will go that route. That would require a lot of changes outside the IT ruleset - different axle, different brakes, and different chassis - although there is no benefit to running the older Fox (weight, but you'd be speced in weight to SN95 chassis) the principle would be more changes on the spec lines. It would improve the ranks of ITR, but would require a lot of accomidation and ITR would be best served by trying to avoid that now.
The fastest Mustang I ever owned was my 85 notch with 5L (not quite true, the 86 SVO I had in the 90s on 20+ ls of boost was something else). The 1995 GT was the slowest, as it grew in weight, size, and resistance to modification compared to the eariler cars. The roller cam 85 I had would respond well to all sorts of mods - from intake, carb, cam, exhaust etc. - and, it didn't weigh very much at all. One of those would be a lot of fun as a track car, but still in IT trim would be hampered.
Ron
Look at it this way, my home track would be Waterford Hills. The AS track record is 1:15.849 and the ITS record is 1:16.602. Less than 1 second difference. I understand the difference would be greater on a longer track but I can't imagine more tracks with more AS interest than Waterford. The ITS record is an RX7,BTW, not a BMW that will be moving to ITR. If a big braked, stiff caged Asedan with 375-425 horsepower is only 1 second faster than the top ITS cars, how will the same car with 100 less horsepower and more nose weight and stock brakes supposed to compete in a class above ITS?
In the mustang's favor, I would expect crank horsepower to near 300 or more in IT trim, tens of thousands of junkyard 17X8 wheels (light ones) and cheap crash repairs and maintenance. As far as the lack of upper rpm ability, I can literally build entire limited slip rear axle assemblies in the ratio of my choice for the same price as a ring and pinion or differential for most of the other cars on the list. I am still questioning the wording of the ITCS in regards to traction bars. These cars are utterly undrivable at that level without some sort of torque arm, 5 link etc. I would expect a 5 link is a no-go because you're replacing control arms and some of the torque arms incorporate subframe connectors. As far as the ones that don't , I would imagine they are a go. The flexy shock towers need to addressed. Since these cars already have a factory k-member brace that leaves tower to tower or fire wall to tower. Which do you think would have more benefit?
I agree with the SVO comments, I miss my 86 dearly. If there was a NASA track within 200 miles, I'd make one into an AI car in a minute.
In the mustang's favor, I would expect crank horsepower to near 300 or more in IT trim, tens of thousands of junkyard 17X8 wheels (light ones) and cheap crash repairs and maintenance. As far as the lack of upper rpm ability, I can literally build entire limited slip rear axle assemblies in the ratio of my choice for the same price as a ring and pinion or differential for most of the other cars on the list. I am still questioning the wording of the ITCS in regards to traction bars. These cars are utterly undrivable at that level without some sort of torque arm, 5 link etc. I would expect a 5 link is a no-go because you're replacing control arms and some of the torque arms incorporate subframe connectors. As far as the ones that don't , I would imagine they are a go. The flexy shock towers need to addressed. Since these cars already have a factory k-member brace that leaves tower to tower or fire wall to tower. Which do you think would have more benefit?
I agree with the SVO comments, I miss my 86 dearly. If there was a NASA track within 200 miles, I'd make one into an AI car in a minute.
Ron Earp
Administrator
Your point is exactly what I brought up when people said the cars would run away with ITR and didn't fit into the class. At some tracks the difference between AS and ITS is more pronounced, but in other places it is not. At any rate, I think it definitely supports the car won't be a class killer.
But, I think IT Prep will breed some cars that can run reasonably well. Where there is a will there is a way so to speak. People do amazing things with IT cars in all classes that would have been thought impossible when classes.
The new Mustang that has essentially the same rear suspension, but with the addition of a Panhard rod, is doing quite well on track. I imagine a Panhard rod and a top arm will help quite a bit in getting the rear to track like it should. On the front I bet a firewall to tower brace would help a lot and take advantage of the vertical firewall plane than goes down into the tunnel and is well re-enforced and designed.
Fully adjustable struts, good ones, are available for a fraction of what would be spent on similar parts for other cars. Ditto lots of other parts like headers, and the axle as you've mentioned. Any ratio under the sun is available for an 8.8" and anything can be made cheaply, as well as mony choices for LSDs.
I'd do one, as I promised months ago if classed. Might not be a winner, but it'd keep me on track with a car a know and like, and do so inexpensively (relatively speaking for racing!!!!!!). And I bet it'd be some cars, might not be upfront, but as long as you're racing you're having fun.
Ron
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Well guys, the cars were, as we know, hotly dicussed in the ITR ad hoc commitee stage, and the final vote was to leave them off the list.
Accidently, a list made it out that wasn't completely up to date.
The ITAC discussed it and the majority agreed that for now they should be off the list.
The CRb helps on our calls, and those members in attendence indicated an open mind to the matter. But we don't know about the rest.
I think that for now, they need to be thought of as second wave candidates.
One concern was the fear that if they weren't on the list initially, opposing people could say that there is no precedent for V8s in IT, but thats easily nipped in the bud by a picture of Jeffs car! (TR8)
I'd suggest that we see if ITR flies (and seeing it written up in Fastrack is a pretty good indication that it's a no brainer), and next spring we start a letter writing campaign to the ITAC.
IF the ITAC gets a good input on it, I would think that they would see the light. Some don't like the potential way the cars will race, but I think that makes things interesting.
On edit, I just read Kirks comment and I'm probably missing something as to what he's refering to exactly, but just to be clear:
I am in no way suggesting that any line item or car specific allownaces be made thatare outside the IT category ruleset. If classed the Mustang, et al, races under the same sets of rules as the rest of the category. No crying over things like: "THe brakes are too small and it's a safety issue". Response? Brake earlier. People pass you? Oh well, you chose the car. Horses and courses.
Accidently, a list made it out that wasn't completely up to date.
The ITAC discussed it and the majority agreed that for now they should be off the list.
The CRb helps on our calls, and those members in attendence indicated an open mind to the matter. But we don't know about the rest.
I think that for now, they need to be thought of as second wave candidates.
One concern was the fear that if they weren't on the list initially, opposing people could say that there is no precedent for V8s in IT, but thats easily nipped in the bud by a picture of Jeffs car! (TR8)
I'd suggest that we see if ITR flies (and seeing it written up in Fastrack is a pretty good indication that it's a no brainer), and next spring we start a letter writing campaign to the ITAC.
IF the ITAC gets a good input on it, I would think that they would see the light. Some don't like the potential way the cars will race, but I think that makes things interesting.
On edit, I just read Kirks comment and I'm probably missing something as to what he's refering to exactly, but just to be clear:
I am in no way suggesting that any line item or car specific allownaces be made thatare outside the IT category ruleset. If classed the Mustang, et al, races under the same sets of rules as the rest of the category. No crying over things like: "THe brakes are too small and it's a safety issue". Response? Brake earlier. People pass you? Oh well, you chose the car. Horses and courses.
It's a TINY little sample but the beyond-IT suggestions that we've already had here reinforce my concerns. If I had more faith that the barn doors are fully locked and that the spec-line allowances and competition adjustments (bleah) are securely locked away, I might feel different.
K
K
Ron Earp
Administrator
That is too bad. Doesn't matter if it as 2 cylinders, or 12, if it fits the process and can be reasonably placed in the class then I've always felt they should be classed. I'd understand more if it was an "odd" car that nobody would build, but this car would be built in good numbers to bolster IT. Anyhow, maybe they can be put in next year and folks can build them for 2008.
Best,
Ron
Ron
New member
Hey K I was not looking for any real special rules, the 79 to 95 Mustangs are so similar in every way I was just saying add them to the spec line. In 1987 they started putting the 8.8 rear in it and disc brakes I think were offered on some 1993 cars, at least the SHO mustang had them. Same T-5 gear box. THere are some minor differences, the front lower control arms are longer, but they fit in the eariler car.
I say again I would do the research to find out all the small changes and pass them on to the board, but they are the same car!
I say again I would do the research to find out all the small changes and pass them on to the board, but they are the same car!
Ron Earp
Administrator
But they are not the same in IT racing. Sure, same chassis - a Lincoln MKVII was the same chassis too, and it is a different car. Ditto the mid-80s Thunderbird and Turbocoupes - lengthened chassis but the same underneath. Different car.
The 1993 Mustang Cobra had rear disc brakes, but a different spec engine too and is a different car.
The SVO had rear discs too, on the 7.5" rear end, but a completely different motor. It is a different car.
And the 1994-1995 Cobra Mustang had a hotter engine, better brakes. But it is a different car and not the one we're classing.
If we were allowed to mix and match from all the various designs, sure, one could come up with a hot car but that is not the intent of IT racing or intent of the class. I'm with you on getting some V8 Mustangs in the class, but it has to be in conforming to IT ruleset.
Ron
Well now I'm confused, is the current list on the SCCA website correct? To specify we are taking about 94-95 GT's. I don't think any allowances should be made for a particular car beyond weight adjustments, I was just comparing an IT spec car against an AS spec car. In regards to development, the drag racing guys have been racing this engine/chassis combo in the NHRA stock class since 1978 and there is tons of data developed before the aftermarket made things easier.
As far as leaving them out in the first round, who is the SCCA catering to? While BMWs are quite popular, mustangs and civics must make up at least 45% of the entire auto aftermarket. Look at the wild success of NASA's classes that are tailor made for them, while the SCCA is busy classing nissan maximas and making adjustments in production for sprites, fiats and alfas. Those cars were so unpopular when factory supported, the manufacturers are either out of business or left our market. The success of the American Iron class has grown a booming aftermarket in mustang and f-body suspension pieces that early trans-am and asedan never could. I would be just as happy not having these cars in ITR but rather in a more logical asedan ruleset. The current rules create a lot of needless expense in regards to wheels and brakes and have left the GM cars with underpowed drivetrains.
I am sorry for the rant, but as an outside it is difficult to watch the SCCA moving around the 1275 spridgets when they are missing a great oppportunity.
As far as leaving them out in the first round, who is the SCCA catering to? While BMWs are quite popular, mustangs and civics must make up at least 45% of the entire auto aftermarket. Look at the wild success of NASA's classes that are tailor made for them, while the SCCA is busy classing nissan maximas and making adjustments in production for sprites, fiats and alfas. Those cars were so unpopular when factory supported, the manufacturers are either out of business or left our market. The success of the American Iron class has grown a booming aftermarket in mustang and f-body suspension pieces that early trans-am and asedan never could. I would be just as happy not having these cars in ITR but rather in a more logical asedan ruleset. The current rules create a lot of needless expense in regards to wheels and brakes and have left the GM cars with underpowed drivetrains.
I am sorry for the rant, but as an outside it is difficult to watch the SCCA moving around the 1275 spridgets when they are missing a great oppportunity.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
What is the ITS track record at Mid Ohio?
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
So my point is that the ITS vs. AS times at a track with BOTH handling and power is a beter comparo.
AS at 2005 Runoffs: 1:37.1xx
ITS Track record: 1:43.9xx (Huffmaster)
Almost a 7 second spread.
AS at 2005 Runoffs: 1:37.1xx
ITS Track record: 1:43.9xx (Huffmaster)
Almost a 7 second spread.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Club course uses the chicane so my data is flawed...trying to make an apples to apples...we will.