mzgoodman Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 (edited) 1985 RX7 with Ford 5.0 conversion. This car won a ChumpCar race overall as a rotary, and it's way faster as a V8. Race-built Mustang powertain in a 2200 lb. package...you do the math! GSL-SE suspension, RX-7 Turbo2 brakes, Ford 8-inch rear end, T5 gearbox, radios, 22-gallon Fuel Safe cell, HD light bar, removable wheel, SPA fire system. Lots of spares..wheels, pads, etc...even body parts. Built this car to win overall in ChumpCar, and it's got the speed to do it. It's been a couple of years since we built the car, so I admit I'm not current on ChumpCar rules, but at the time of the build, I went to a lot of trouble to use the correct parts to keep the car under 500 points...no penalty laps. Unfortunately, I moved to Nashville right as the car was finished, and had to leave it behind, so the car is just sitting in Portland waiting for a new team. At least $13K invested....sell for $8500. Call Mark @ 503 784-1878. Edited October 17, 2017 by mzgoodman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wvumtnbkr Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 Sounds like a cool car. The fuel cell would need some changing to be within 2 gallons of stock. I bet this thing flys! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mzgoodman Posted October 17, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 It's got 2 1-gallon displacement blocks in the cell to make it legal. They could be removed to race in a different series that doesn't have the restriction. I actually only got to shake the car down once and it is stupid fast. Unfortunately, I moved accross the country and I have no shop or crew here to support the car, so it needs to find a new home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDChristianson Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 Whats the stock hp on the 5.0? What's it from? How many points does the swap calculator give it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron_e Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 Mark does a quality build but with the new swap calculator it would be an EC car. The Mustang engine was 225 hp stock. If you call it a GSL in stock configuration the engine swap alone adds over 1100 points. If you call it a stock GSL-SE the engine swap alone adds over 360 points. Might be able to get close with the GSL-SE but engine swaped car works out to 562 points. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDChristianson Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 2 minutes ago, Ron_e said: Mark does a quality build but with the new swap calculator it would be an EC car. The Mustang engine was 225 hp stock. If you call it a GSL in stock configuration the engine swap alone adds over 1100 points. If you call it a stock GSL-SE the engine swap alone adds over 360 points. Might be able to get close with the GSL-SE but engine swaped car works out to 562 points. It would have to be serious fun to drive. Looks like you can go to about 200hp on the calculator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorman Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 2 hours ago, Ron_e said: Mark does a quality build but with the new swap calculator it would be an EC car. The Mustang engine was 225 hp stock. If you call it a GSL in stock configuration the engine swap alone adds over 1100 points. If you call it a stock GSL-SE the engine swap alone adds over 360 points. Might be able to get close with the GSL-SE but engine swaped car works out to 562 points. I haven't spent much time looking at swaps over the last 3 years, but have been looking more at them since we are going to be adding a 2nd car to our team. I was also heavily into Mustangs for about 20-years from my first '88 5.0 notch to my last, a '13 GT500 (2 actually). Sooo...that being said, the '85 GSL-SE 13B was a 146 hp car. Using the swap value from the lowest 5.0 EFI rating (200 hp for the '86 cars, first year of the 5.0 EFI from the 85 1/2 carb cars), I get 284 points. Even using the 215 hp rating of the '94-'95 SN95 cars for the swap value, it's 400 points. These are both, of course, the same basic engine as the '87-'93 5.0 EFI . Obviously '89 and up cars are mass air vs. SD, SN95 cars have different intakes, etc. but a 5.0 is a 5.0. There is some latitude with ratings that can benefit this car and keep it out of EC based on the engine swap alone. It looks to me like he could take 284 VPI for the swap, 25 on the T5, 25 on the 8.8" and 25 on the axles and be at 359 points. S. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorman Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 And going the other way, you could put this car at almost 1000 VPI using the swap value from a 240 hp '94-'95 Cobra engine, lol. S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron_e Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Snorman said: I haven't spent much time looking at swaps over the last 3 years, but have been looking more at them since we are going to be adding a 2nd car to our team. I was also heavily into Mustangs for about 20-years from my first '88 5.0 notch to my last, a '13 GT500 (2 actually). Sooo...that being said, the '85 GSL-SE 13B was a 146 hp car. Using the swap value from the lowest 5.0 EFI rating (200 hp for the '86 cars, first year of the 5.0 EFI from the 85 1/2 carb cars), I get 284 points. Even using the 215 hp rating of the '94-'95 SN95 cars for the swap value, it's 400 points. These are both, of course, the same basic engine as the '87-'93 5.0 EFI . Obviously '89 and up cars are mass air vs. SD, SN95 cars have different intakes, etc. but a 5.0 is a 5.0. There is some latitude with ratings that can benefit this car and keep it out of EC based on the engine swap alone. It looks to me like he could take 284 VPI for the swap, 25 on the T5, 25 on the 8.8" and 25 on the axles and be at 359 points. S. The GSL-SE starting hp is 135 but no matter, 135 or 146, the start hp is not used in the calculations. If you want to claim the 86 engine swap then you will also have to chase down one year only E6 heads, the E7's were used 87-95. Pulling a valve cover will confirm E6 vs E7. The 94-95 could be used and is a valid point. Depends which intake is used, would have to use the 94-95 intake, not a problem as many were replaced. Thanks for the correction, I did not think of that. Edited October 17, 2017 by Ron_e Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron_e Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 Actually the 93's were also de-rated to 215 so you could use the 87-93 intake. 400 would be the correct starting value with E7 heads. Now how about some details (or not) on the "race-built Mustang engine"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron_e Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 1 hour ago, Snorman said: And going the other way, you could put this car at almost 1000 VPI using the swap value from a 240 hp '94-'95 Cobra engine, lol. S. The Cobra engine has different heads, ratio rockers, and intake so it rightly is higher hp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorman Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 To me, I think it's really, really splitting hairs regarding E6 vs. E7TE heads but is is valid. However, I forgot that in '93 Ford re-rated the 5.0 cars to 205 hp for that one year before going to 215 for the SN95 cars. So yes, he can claim the '87-'93 engine at 205 hp for 310 VPI, ad the trans, diff and axles and he's at 385 VPI. And the '94-"95 cars also had E7TE heads and those intakes are readily available. He could also speak with Tech about the possibility of using the Explorer/Mountaineer engine for swap value with the GT40P heads and staggered port intake (at least equivalent of a GT40). The Explorer was rated at 210 hp. S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorman Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 15 minutes ago, Ron_e said: Actually the 93's were also de-rated to 215 so you could use the 87-93 intake. 400 would be the correct starting value with E7 heads. Now how about some details (or not) on the "race-built Mustang engine"? The '93 was 205 hp. The '94-'95 cars were 215 hp. Then things got bleak in '96 with the gutless 4.6 SOHC. The only bright spot was the 4.6 DOHC, but I wouldn't consider running one of those in Chump for various reasons. The VPI jump from '95 to '96 is inexplicable unless you consider the Cobra, because it was the same car, but with the crappy 4.6 SOHC and junk T45 trans. S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron_e Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 There was a reason for the 86-87 jump from 200 to 225 hp. Yes, correct on the 1993 being 205... darn memory. 310 it is to start plus trans plus diff. The diff is an 8.8 so 25 points but why are you adding in axles for another 25? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorman Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 29 minutes ago, Ron_e said: The Cobra engine has different heads, ratio rockers, and intake so it rightly is higher hp. Yep, GT40 heads and the bespoke Cobra intake along with aluminum Cranes. The '94-'95 Cobras also had a factory oil cooler. The '86 5.0 had flat top pistons and the smaller valve heads. I also think they had a smaller throttle body. To me, the best 5.0 EFI variant would be the '89-'91 mass air, forged piston cars (from a swap perspective). S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mzgoodman Posted October 17, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 (edited) I'd have to go back to my notes, but we used an Explorer engine for the lower swap value. Then, we took it apart and put it back together right replacing all the wear parts like valve springs, etc. I do remember that I was talking to tech all the way through to ensure I ended up with a 500-point car. GT-40 or GT40p heads...have to go back to my notes and look, but I think GT-40p. Edited October 17, 2017 by mzgoodman 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mzgoodman Posted October 17, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 (edited) I also have another RX7 shell, fully caged, that I'll throw in......rare no sunroof car...lighter and stiffer. Edited October 17, 2017 by mzgoodman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorman Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 1 hour ago, mzgoodman said: I'd have to go back to my notes, but we used an Explorer engine for the lower swap value. Then, we took it apart and put it back together right replacing all the wear parts like valve springs, etc. I do remember that I was talking to tech all the way through to ensure I ended up with a 500-point car. GT-40 or GT40p heads...have to go back to my notes and look, but I think GT-40p. Awesome. So this is a sub-500 point car that is not in EC correct? S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technical Advisory Committee Ray Franck Posted October 17, 2017 Technical Advisory Committee Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 I would contact Phil as I think this was built before the new swap formula ,old went by $$$ values and new has the horsepower calculator , that I think we have been using for about 2 years .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorman Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 4 minutes ago, okkustom said: I would contact Phil as I think this was built before the new swap formula ,old went by $$$ values and new has the horsepower calculator , that I think we have been using for about 2 years .. I'd put a new log book in the car and use the above info. If he's running a 210 hp Explorer engine it's going to be a 348 point VPI assuming they treat that swap as they would with the other 5.0 variants and there is no reason they shouldn't. S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mzgoodman Posted October 17, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 I apologize for being ignorant of the new rules...yes, this was built under the "cost-based" rule set and was definitely a sub-500 point car....I suppose I should invest the time to learn the new rule set so I can talk about it more knowledgably. We spent about a year buliding this car and optimizing everything possible while still staying under the 500-point threshold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wvumtnbkr Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 8 hours ago, mzgoodman said: It's got 2 1-gallon displacement blocks in the cell to make it legal. They could be removed to race in a different series that doesn't have the restriction. I actually only got to shake the car down once and it is stupid fast. Unfortunately, I moved accross the country and I have no shop or crew here to support the car, so it needs to find a new home. Not gonna cut it. I believe stock tank size was 16 or so gallons. I don't believe it fits the current rules regarding fuel cell size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mzgoodman Posted October 17, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 Stock was 16.9....I just looked back at my emails from 2011 when I installed the cell and was told that it would be legal for me to put in 2 displacement blocks. Maybe the rule has changed, but I have it in writing from several CC officials that I was legal at the time. If legal capacity is less now, a couple more blocks could be in order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technical Advisory Committee Ray Franck Posted October 17, 2017 Technical Advisory Committee Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 Sounds like a great build and should be fast . Sure you don't want to race it here in the east ? What you need is a very knowledgeable and responsible teammate some one with shop space that could care for your baby . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mzgoodman Posted October 17, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 (edited) Yeah...I put a lot into it. We raced the very first CC race in Portland in '09 and came second and we were hooked. Spent the next few years running two cars and plotting about building the "ultimate" sub-500 point car. Now, "ultimate" is different for different people, but for us, 220lb or so and 250 hp with big brakes, RWD and 2 hours of range sounded like a winning combo. So, we spent a year building this car until life intervened and I moved. Just don't have the shop, time, drivers, crew, rig and averything else I'd need to run this car back east. I've already gone back to the dark side and am running SRF in SCCA Club Racing, from whence I came. I can run that car all by myself. BTW, I just took a look at the 2018 rules (about time...thanks for not beating up on me) and I am confident the car is still under 500 points. And yes, I'm pretty sure we've got a" bit" more hp than stock. You can do wonders with a month of time, several donor engines and the right tools. Edited October 17, 2017 by mzgoodman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.