Jump to content

New guy needs some splaining on stuff


67Mustang
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hey there, new dummy here.  I kind of asked this stuff in a different thread but realized it was probably more appropriate to start a thread so here is what I posed in the fuel thread:

 

I'm just studying, thinking, etc. 

 

So far I think I understand that... for example.. if a guy has a piece of crap 67 Mustang that it is worth 150 points all day long no matter what v-8 it came with, ie any of the 1967 price list option engine's.. 150 points no matter which one.  Same for rear gears and the trans.  So for 150 points, I start with a 325 horse 390 FE, a close ratio toploader 4 spd and 3.25:1 gears and a limited slip.  I can do the Shelby drop for no points, I can box A arms for no points.  If I modify my strut rods to adjustable with Heims, that's 5 points each even if I do the machine work.  If I put spherical bearings in the A arms, 5pts each or a limited total per corner.  I start with 4 piston K-H front discs, and if I meet the 2X rule, I can easily upgrade to period correct Larger Galaxie front brakes.  I'm stuck with the rear drums unless I can put discs back there under the 2X rule.  Is this read brake part correct, or am I just stuck with drums?

No dog rings in my toploader.  Clutch? is that free, can I go double disc hydraulic or am I stuck with a single plate and the mech linkage.

 

So, my 390 is 10:1 or 10.5:1 (can't remember) so is there a points hit for higher comp pistons or is that just verboten?

Heads, 100 points non OEM.  Can I personally port stock heads for no points?  Is it 100 points whether it is a cast iron428 CJ head or a Blue Thunder AL head?

Cam, 50 points, clear enough.  Carb/Intake.. same same. 

 

Sooo, also, you know you could get the 390 horse 427 in the 68 Cougar.. Same exact platform.. so am I correct in thinking that would also be a no pointer?  A 150 point 427 powered Mustang would sure be fun.  It would stop five minutes at a time a lot, but it would be fun....

 

So it seems like I would be creeping closer and closer to a very similar car to what you might see in SVRA group 6.  At Elkhart, the top Group 6 cars seem to be in the 2:29-2:32 range.  I may not have been comparing the right data, but I thought I was also seeing the winning Chump cars at about 3:00 give or take... Admittedly, that difference is not reasonable  but it is interesting to think about,  It might be faster... but would it be fast enough and would it last long enough to make up for 3-4 extra pit stops.  If nothing else, it would make for a good show.

 

Again, Just thinking out loud

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, 67Mustang said:

So it seems like I would be creeping closer and closer to a very similar car to what you might see in SVRA group 6.  At Elkhart, the top Group 6 cars seem to be in the 2:29-2:32 range.  I may not have been comparing the right data, but I thought I was also seeing the winning Chump cars at about 3:00 give or take... Admittedly, that difference is not reasonable  but it is interesting to think about,  It might be faster... but would it be fast enough and would it last long enough to make up for 3-4 extra pit stops.  If nothing else, it would make for a good show.

ChampCar runs the 'motorcycle bend' on the straight towards Canada Corner, not the 'kink' and as a result, the times are roughly 8 seconds / lap slower when comparing to the 'kink' configuration. To be on the podium at Elkhart in ChampCar, you're going to need to run around 2:51-2:54 for a fast lap and make the minimum number of stops, or be a bit faster while taking an extra stop (or two).

 

Hope to see you at the track someday... if there's any track which favours high power at the expense of handling, it's Road America!!

Edited by enginerd
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are working on a tech series of videos to help new teams. One of the episodes will cover car choice, look for it in a few months. 

 

In the mean time research a ton before starting. If you want to race i think it would be cheaper to gold plate a miata than use a 67 mustang big block. You should be able to get decent disk brakes under 2x rule for the car for all wheels. The car will need tons of work to oiling to keep that engine alive. Spares will not be cheap. It will take alot to make that geometry compete with the good cars. 

 

I have a team i help that runs a 60s 911 in svra vintage. A neon prepped to my specs is faster lap time. You will need to decide how bad you want a slower\harder to do vintage car vs say a thunderbird with explorer 5.0 swap and t5. Spares and replacement\maintenance part cost is a factor for established teams, at least those with normal budget constraints. 

 

We are not a high contact series, but we do have it. Much more than vintage, less than circle track. Contemplate that when picking a car, you will be buying fenders. 

 

If you want a more detailed set lf suggestions pm me. Always glad to talk and help a new team.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guys, I do see what you are saying and certainly don't disagree.  It really is surprising how capable most all recent 20-30 year old designs are compared to 50 year old designs.

At least a part of my interest lies in the fact that I have the rusty piece of crap 67 Mustang sitting already.  I don't have the FE and damn those are expensive to build right.  That in itself makes the whole idea questionable if not laughable. I'm one who tends to pick up parts over time so I have some bits but certainly not all I would need.  I also have a 72 911E and because of that I have accumulated  quite a few extra early engine parts, certainly enough to build an engine with MFI etc.  Right now, for me, that would actually be cheaper than building an FE but I have no intention of cutting my 911 up.  If on the other hand, you know where I can get a 914 roller for cheap... that might be interesting although still  subject to your experience versus the Neon example.  I did see a $2500 85 Mustang lemons car not long ago (roller) I think,.. still with the small tank.  I do have the exploder motor already lol, got that for my 63 Falcon...  Jeeze, I have a bunch of junk sitting around... 

 

I guess to add to your completely appropriate comment "You will need to decide how bad you want a slower\harder to do vintage car" part of the interest in doing the Mustang is the foolish allure of running it in other series, maybe the NASA AIX but specifically SVRA.  That said, I think I am starting to realize at least the SVRA part is a serious pipedream...

 

I suppose I could put the exploder in the mustang... but still have the small tank and a shittier handling car than a fox lol...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, 67Mustang said:

 

Sooo, also, you know you could get the 390 horse 427 in the 68 Cougar.. Same exact platform.. so am I correct in thinking that would also be a no pointer?  A 150 point 427 powered Mustang would sure be fun.  It would stop five minutes at a time a lot, but it would be fun....

 

No, that would be an engine swap. You'd have to stick to a V8 offered to the Mustang (and a standard factory offering at that).

 

Make: Ford
Model: Mustang (8cyl)
Year: Pre-1980
VPi: 150
Car Weight: 2772
Original HP: 325
New HP: 390
Points Added to VPi: 15871
--->NEW VPI: 16021

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if I had the Cougar, the 427 would be ok, right?  It would be no different than the 390 in the Mustang.  It was a normal option and something like 338 were sold..

Similarly, in 68, you could get the 428 in the Mustang so wouldn't that be a straight no pointer for my 67 then?  Those are the exact same platform...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I gotta do some more reading, I guess I don't get what a standard factory offering is referring too or maybe where the line in the sand is.  I'll get the hang of it all in time..  You have to keep in mind that there were a butt ton of options available on cars during that timeframe unlike today...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any V 8 will need the 22 Gal cell to be close to competitive .  The early Stang could be good with a decent small block Ford or Chev, and top loader.  Most of the parts can be bought  for a fair price .     Use the 17 in wheels and 13 in brakes front and Explorer 12 in on the rear .   Reduce the rear spring rates and add an  adjustable track bar. The front needs  the new track rods and the Shelby upper ball joint spacer kit.    Use some 2x4 tube to run under the car and link the front to the rear and be the lower  cage mounts.    Link the cage to the upper front towers of course and weld the crap out of the lower frame sections to the frame tie tubes.    Adding the convertible front frame  panels  could be a good move .

These cars are really weak stock and need the front tied to the rear pretty well .   They can be  really fun to drive  and reasonably durable. 

 

 My  Recently sold Ranger is very similar or better  numbers than the Stang with much better balance and 22 gals of fuel.  Good numbers for a Contender overall. 250 HP or more,22 gals, sub 3000# race ready . Lots of tire .   

Edited by Ogren-Engineering
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback.  I do have the convertible inner rocker boxed tubes and the extra front torque boxes for it.  Did the adjustible strutrod with heim end and boxed the lower arm with a spherical bearing.  It's already adjustible from stock with the eccentric bolt. I will do the upper arm drop 1.75" and shim the upper ball.  I do have the old T/A style Galaxie 12" front brakes and the exploder 12" rears. There are some other tricks but it will still be 50 years behind the pack. It's all just thinking outloud at this point though.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...