Factory experimental - Page 12

Bruce Noland · 01-17-2009, 11:33 PM

Gump,

Trying to split hairs are we? I used the word, so I call the definition.

Websters:
Contemporary 1, living or happening in the same period, 2. of about the same age

I guess a 69 Camaro is a contemporary of a Supercharged 2008 Mustang in your world.

Bruce Noland · 01-17-2009, 11:36 PM

Rock,

Confusion?

Bruce Noland · 01-17-2009, 11:44 PM

Gump,
I just saw your post about my Camaro. You really are a mess. I also have a 71 Corvette with a 454. What type of car do you race? And where?

CBS · 01-17-2009, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Noland

Todd,
A friend saw one of these Mustangs at a shop and said it had a different rear set up and he wasn't just talking about the 9" Ford center section.

The Roush site also gives a list of After Market parts that it has for these cars. I'm not sure if all the parts are on these Mustangs but the list is eye popping; including carbon fiber front fenders that weigh 3.5 pounds each.

I believe Roush has this motor listed at 430 Horsepower on it's site but nhra sweetened it even further by rating it at 425.

Roush says this car has an After Market Powertrain. It is Supercharged and makes in excess of 700 Horsepower and yet it is rated at 425 Horsepower. Sounds like the body and the blue oval are the only factory parts on this car. No one has denied the Ford Executives claim for the Horsepower on this motor and yet I wonder how the Ford folks can justify such a gross calculation. Do they really want to come in and dominate a bunch of old cars that badly? It's going to get a lot tougher on Ford and nhra if these Mustangs are as fast as the ford Executives claim. What is so bad about running these cars in A/FX?

The Factory Roush Stage 3 4.6L 3V is rated at 430 by both Roush and NHRA
I believe you're confusing the Roush approval and Ford's Cobra Jet

GUMP · 01-17-2009, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Noland

Gump,
I just saw your post about my Camaro. You really are a mess. I also have a 71 Corvette with a 454. What type of car do you race? And where?

Easy there! I did a quick Google search and the '72 is what came up. I didn't find the Corvette, but, that's why I asked. I have one of the other cars that you love. A 1998 LT1 Firebird. IHRA.

Bruce Noland · 01-18-2009, 12:02 AM

Gump,
I have no problems with the Firebirds.

Rock,
Thanks for the clarification.

GUMP · 01-18-2009, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Noland

71 Corvette to run AA/SA and A/SA with 454 truck motor. We'll see!

Now I understand!! And you said that I'm a mess.....

DK FRAZIER · 01-18-2009, 02:33 AM

Gump ease up a little where's your dog in this hunt? I know several of these guys in AA lots of time and money to get thier cars competitive . supercharged cars have no place in stock .

Evan Smith · 01-18-2009, 08:20 AM

Todd,

I witnessed the cars being built first hand last week in Detroit. The rear suspension is completely bolt in using the factory mounting points. The three control arms (two lower and one upper) are replaced with solid, non-adjustable bars using rubber bushings on both ends of the bottom. There is an adjustable single bar at the top, as per the current NHRA rulebook for Stock rear suspension. There is also a bolt-in rear anti-roll bar.

I can also tell you this has nothing to do with Ford "paying" NHRA to play. I know the people at Ford who worked on this deal and there is no budget for greasing NHRA's pockets. You can believe otherwise, but I know the facts. Also, as for shipping weight, give me a break. How can an LT-1 or LS-1 F-body weight 2,900-3,100 lbs and fit in AA or A when these cars weigh closer to 4,000 lbs. stock? I've drag tested many of these cars in stock trim and most of them are 3,700 or more with a driver. A loaded Trans Am easily will weigh 3,800-plus. Not to mention that a '98 F-body was NEVER available to the public with an LT-1.

Evan

Bruce Noland · 01-18-2009, 09:12 AM

Evan,

Thanks for posting.

No one disputes the horsepower numbers for the Roush After Market and Ford Mustangs. No one disputes the very favoable horsepower factor given to Ford by nhra and no one disputes the performance of these cars. These cars are light years ahead of the cars they have to race and yet they have been placed in the same classes. What is so bad about putting them in a Factory Experimental Class or AAA class? I'm not sure there has ever been a AAA class but it would give these Mustangs a fair class in Stock. A non Mustang racer would enter that class at his or her own peril. A Factory Experimental or AAA class at 9.70 would be fair to all racers. It would give the Mustangs access to the top of the sheet, it would allow them to compete fairly in Stock and none of the racers with old cars would feel like they just got hammered by Ford or nhra. I'm going to write a few folks at Ford and Roush tomorrow and ask them to consider this class for nhra racing. Finally, I know you don't work for Ford and were not involved with the Mustangs entering these classes, however, it's hard for any one to believe that these Mustangs were the first Supercharged cars to get in Stock with out some consideration from Ford. Maybe I'm being a little too cynical about nhra, but, given their track record with us it seems more than plausible.

Lets discuss the pros and cons of running these cars in another high performance class.

01-17-2009, 11:33 PM	#111
Bruce Noland VIP Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,855 Likes: 83 Liked 444 Times in 145 Posts	Re: Factory experimental Gump, Trying to split hairs are we? I used the word, so I call the definition. Websters: Contemporary 1, living or happening in the same period, 2. of about the same age I guess a 69 Camaro is a contemporary of a Supercharged 2008 Mustang in your world. __________________ Bruce Noland 1788 STK

01-17-2009, 11:36 PM	#112
Bruce Noland VIP Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,855 Likes: 83 Liked 444 Times in 145 Posts	Re: Factory experimental Rock, Confusion? __________________ Bruce Noland 1788 STK

01-17-2009, 11:44 PM	#113
Bruce Noland VIP Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,855 Likes: 83 Liked 444 Times in 145 Posts	Re: Factory experimental Gump, I just saw your post about my Camaro. You really are a mess. I also have a 71 Corvette with a 454. What type of car do you race? And where? __________________ Bruce Noland 1788 STK

01-18-2009, 12:02 AM	#116
Bruce Noland VIP Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,855 Likes: 83 Liked 444 Times in 145 Posts	Re: Factory experimental Gump, I have no problems with the Firebirds. Rock, Thanks for the clarification. __________________ Bruce Noland 1788 STK

01-18-2009, 02:33 AM	#118
DK FRAZIER Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Bogart GA Posts: 117 Likes: 2 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Factory experimental Gump ease up a little where's your dog in this hunt? I know several of these guys in AA lots of time and money to get thier cars competitive . supercharged cars have no place in stock . __________________ Doug Frazier D/SA 2038

01-18-2009, 08:20 AM	#119
Evan Smith Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Tampa Posts: 403 Likes: 4 Liked 94 Times in 4 Posts	Re: Factory experimental Todd, I witnessed the cars being built first hand last week in Detroit. The rear suspension is completely bolt in using the factory mounting points. The three control arms (two lower and one upper) are replaced with solid, non-adjustable bars using rubber bushings on both ends of the bottom. There is an adjustable single bar at the top, as per the current NHRA rulebook for Stock rear suspension. There is also a bolt-in rear anti-roll bar. I can also tell you this has nothing to do with Ford "paying" NHRA to play. I know the people at Ford who worked on this deal and there is no budget for greasing NHRA's pockets. You can believe otherwise, but I know the facts. Also, as for shipping weight, give me a break. How can an LT-1 or LS-1 F-body weight 2,900-3,100 lbs and fit in AA or A when these cars weigh closer to 4,000 lbs. stock? I've drag tested many of these cars in stock trim and most of them are 3,700 or more with a driver. A loaded Trans Am easily will weigh 3,800-plus. Not to mention that a '98 F-body was NEVER available to the public with an LT-1. Evan __________________ Evan Smith 1798 STK

01-18-2009, 09:12 AM	#120
Bruce Noland VIP Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,855 Likes: 83 Liked 444 Times in 145 Posts	Re: Factory experimental Evan, Thanks for posting. No one disputes the horsepower numbers for the Roush After Market and Ford Mustangs. No one disputes the very favoable horsepower factor given to Ford by nhra and no one disputes the performance of these cars. These cars are light years ahead of the cars they have to race and yet they have been placed in the same classes. What is so bad about putting them in a Factory Experimental Class or AAA class? I'm not sure there has ever been a AAA class but it would give these Mustangs a fair class in Stock. A non Mustang racer would enter that class at his or her own peril. A Factory Experimental or AAA class at 9.70 would be fair to all racers. It would give the Mustangs access to the top of the sheet, it would allow them to compete fairly in Stock and none of the racers with old cars would feel like they just got hammered by Ford or nhra. I'm going to write a few folks at Ford and Roush tomorrow and ask them to consider this class for nhra racing. Finally, I know you don't work for Ford and were not involved with the Mustangs entering these classes, however, it's hard for any one to believe that these Mustangs were the first Supercharged cars to get in Stock with out some consideration from Ford. Maybe I'm being a little too cynical about nhra, but, given their track record with us it seems more than plausible. Lets discuss the pros and cons of running these cars in another high performance class. __________________ Bruce Noland 1788 STK Last edited by Bruce Noland; 01-18-2009 at 09:21 AM.