Go Back   American Sedan Forum > Main American Sedan Categories > American Sedan Rules

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-20-2012, 02:36 PM
Scott Schweitzer's Avatar
Scott Schweitzer Scott Schweitzer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Lake Orion, MI
Posts: 133
Default Spec for 2011 - 13 Ford drivetrain only

With the discussion on allowing the 2011 - 13 mustang as a limited prep option, is there also analysis being done to equalize that engines performance if it was put into an existing full prep SN-95 or Fox body?

You end up with a hybrid full prep (16 x 8 wheels, current brake rules, current suspension allowances) chassis with a limited prep (2011-13 spec) engine. I have friends with prod cars and they like this combination in their classes.
__________________
Take care,
Scott Schweitzer
#28 Mustang GLDiv

Last edited by Scott Schweitzer; 08-20-2012 at 02:37 PM. Reason: I type well
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-20-2012, 03:12 PM
PamRichardson PamRichardson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 810
Default FI engine in a Full Prep car

Scott --

Actually, the ASAC is looking at FI engines for Full Prep cars. For Ford, the ASAC is looking at the 5.0L Coyote crate motor, as we have indications those can be bought from Ford with FI and ECU, and an engine mounting system designed by Ford for any of the Mustang chasses.

But, with the new rules, the wheels discussion, and potentially bringing the newer cars into AS, the ASAC has plenty on its plate for the 2013 rule year. The research being done for FI motors for both GM and Ford is something we expect to be complete sometime in 2013, with implementation in 2014.

And yes, any FI motor brought in that has more HP/torque capability than our base car, would have an analysis done to determine weight and restrictors needed to bring the motor/chassis combination in line with the base car.

Pam
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-20-2012, 06:01 PM
Scott Sanda Scott Sanda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 487
Default

Scott,

My personal take is that if an FI LP package is classed for the mustangs, you should be able to drop it into an FP chassis, since there is ZERO difference between FP and LP in the current and proposed rules from a Chassis standpoint.

Keep in mind it would need to be engine, ECU and complete driveline from clutch to diff. No FP tranny, no FP clutch, no FP rear end, etc. Essentially your FP car would be turned into an LP car.

let's not talk about hybrid LP/FP cars yet: LP motor, FP clutch to rear end..... But, damn, my car would be nice if I could put the rockland corvette dog box transaxle in it......

I can see it now: FP = 3300, LP = 3600, LP1(fp light) = 3400, FP1(LP heavy) = 3450...... AS rules would be more confusing than prod rules....
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-20-2012, 10:11 PM
thomas toth thomas toth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 664
Default

Come on....what are you afraid of??? It makes probably 70 HP less than a good LP Mustang. Why do you want to choke them down???? If you can't beat a basically stock suspension T2 2012 Mustang with a stock motor with your crash box, penske shock, solid bushing, aluminum head, jessel rocker, change everything full buggidee 302 do you think maybe something is wrong here??? Where are the evolve or die folks when you need them?????

Tom
#38 Camaro
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-21-2012, 08:07 AM
jkopp's Avatar
jkopp jkopp is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Wellsville, KS
Posts: 1,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas toth View Post
Come on....what are you afraid of??? It makes probably 70 HP less than a good LP Mustang. Why do you want to choke them down???? If you can't beat a basically stock suspension T2 2012 Mustang with a stock motor with your crash box, penske shock, solid bushing, aluminum head, jessel rocker, change everything full buggidee 302 do you think maybe something is wrong here??? Where are the evolve or die folks when you need them?????
Tom, could you elaborate on this? You sorta lost me. (seriously)

TY
JK
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-21-2012, 08:25 AM
jimwheeler jimwheeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 5,240
Default

I do know the T2 Mustang turned 2:27.0 at RA last year.

wheel
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-21-2012, 09:55 AM
Scott Sanda Scott Sanda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 487
Default

At Pocono, a nice HP track

Andrew Aquilante turned 1 1:38.5 and a 1.37.8 in a T2 mustang with the restricter pulled running in T1.

He finished 2nd and 3rd, but was 2nd fastest lap both races by a couple 10ths.

By comparison, Joe Trapani turned a 1:42 and Jerry Post turned a 1:43.6 in race 1 and 2, respectively.

Tom, do you really think the T2 stang has a stock suspension? Look at the spec line. Ford racing parts, all sorts of goodies.

Current T2 stangs with the right driver can turn 27's/28's at Road America, at 3600 pounds. They pull me like I'm not there.

The car belongs in AS as an LP car, but only if it can be choked down effectively. Unrestricted, it makes more HP than a dry sumped LS3.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-21-2012, 10:45 AM
Cheyne Daggett Cheyne Daggett is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Warrenton, VA
Posts: 195
Default

I know the RP Mustang GT 5.0 will need some restrictions due to the rules of AS on chassis. I also know that it may need to be adjusted once the season gets underway. I don't want the car to be a class overdog, but in the right hands (not mine) it should be able to run up front.


Cheyne
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-21-2012, 11:39 AM
Ted Johnson Ted Johnson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 980
Default

Andy turned 2:27's last year and will be coming 80 pounds lighter (with a syncro box as all the full prep cars will be) at this years runoffs correct? And if he runs a dog box this year, won't he be 3425# as opposed to last year he was 3380# with a syncro box? In relation to last year, only a 45 pound penalty for a dog box with all of the cross the board weight reductions? The question is will he be running the dog box? You didn't want to add the 125# to the full prep cars last year, because they were already too heavy (so we were told). So they reduced everybodys weight, made everybody try and find ways to get the cars lighter ($$$) and the "base" car really didn't have to stretch to be allowed to run a dog box. Thats convenient isn't it. So bottom line the "base" cars peak performance has yet to be realized.
__________________
.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-21-2012, 11:47 AM
jkopp's Avatar
jkopp jkopp is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Wellsville, KS
Posts: 1,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Johnson View Post
So bottom line the "base" cars peak performance has yet to be realized.
The good news is that it will be "realized" in only 29 days!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.