HOME FORUM RULES CONTACT
     
   
   

Go Back   CLASS RACER FORUM > Class Racer Forums > Stock and Super Stock
Register Photo Gallery FAQ Community Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-03-2011, 12:04 PM   #21
Billy Nees
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: On a hilltop in Pa.
Posts: 4,485
Likes: 3,587
Liked 7,682 Times in 1,730 Posts
Default Re: 2012 Mustang 5.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeFicacci View Post

Excuse me for being out of touch when I asked if a car that rated at 412 and has a weight of 3670 pounds from the factory is going to be available in the classification guide without some massaging so the general public with $100,000 sitting around can be #1 and pretend like they have a big dick.
Mike, be careful there young man. You're starting to sound like me!
__________________
Billy Nees 1188 STK, SS

I'm not spending 100K to win 2K
Billy Nees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2011, 12:10 PM   #22
Billy Nees
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: On a hilltop in Pa.
Posts: 4,485
Likes: 3,587
Liked 7,682 Times in 1,730 Posts
Default Re: 2012 Mustang 5.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charley Downing View Post
Mike you guys act like this HP game is something new to the sport. Get over it, it has been this way for 50 plus years. NHRA makes the rules NOT ford, gm or any other car company. Sorry your 40 year old combo is no longer one of the faster cars.
Charlie, you could have gotten your point across a whole lot better if you had stopped your comment right there. Mike, his brothers and his dad aren't "pushing the rules" any harder than you, your brother and your dad.
__________________
Billy Nees 1188 STK, SS

I'm not spending 100K to win 2K
Billy Nees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2011, 01:20 PM   #23
Charley Downing
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 761
Likes: 16
Liked 632 Times in 88 Posts
Default Re: 2012 Mustang 5.0

Billy you are correct. Everyone is pushing the rules myself included. This is just NHRA's way of getting back at all the racers that have been pushing the rules. Now all the expensive acid ported covered up stuff is worthless. It's all part of playing the game called STOCK.
__________________
Charley Downing 3548 STK
Charley Downing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2011, 01:36 PM   #24
MikeFicacci
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 241
Likes: 1
Liked 19 Times in 2 Posts
Default Re: 2012 Mustang 5.0

I have no interest in getting into this with you Charley because #1 I have no idea who you are or what you race and #2 think the idea of the new cars has been beat to death. I was simply trying to say that a 2011 5.0 from the factory would make an awesome B/SA car and if I had the money would do it in an instant because it is a 100% factory-built, production vehicle that you can drive off the lot and that's something that I think is worth being proud of at the end of the day. Go ahead, call me an "assclown" for saying so.
__________________
Mike Ficacci Stk 1010
MikeFicacci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2011, 01:48 PM   #25
Charley Downing
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 761
Likes: 16
Liked 632 Times in 88 Posts
Default Re: 2012 Mustang 5.0

Mike your not an A$$clown. You actually go to the race track and race. My point is having it rated at 412hp is way to much. The car would weight 3670 in B/SA and it's still only 302 CI. It's not a good combo at 412 HP.
__________________
Charley Downing 3548 STK

Last edited by Charley Downing; 03-03-2011 at 01:56 PM.
Charley Downing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2011, 02:12 PM   #26
MikeFicacci
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 241
Likes: 1
Liked 19 Times in 2 Posts
Default Re: 2012 Mustang 5.0

The stick is a low 12-second car from the factory. Let's not forget that pre-all this craziness, 10.20's were fast in B/S and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that can't be accomplished with an overhead cam 302 engine. Granted you can't purchase the car, take it to the track and have everyone covered by a half-a-second, but someone who is actually interested in putting in the time and r&d could get that car to fly.

Overhead cams, variable valve timing, lightweight pistons, fully-roller motor, fuel injection? I would love that challenge.
__________________
Mike Ficacci Stk 1010
MikeFicacci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2011, 04:30 PM   #27
ALMACK
VIP Member
 
ALMACK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bardstown, KY
Posts: 1,937
Likes: 131
Liked 369 Times in 127 Posts
Default Re: 2012 Mustang 5.0

Mike:
There is a proposed new 5.0 Coyote class that may very well happen next year within the NMRA. (heads up format of course)

Based very close to Pure Street class build guidelines, I noticed where a Stock Eliminator car could easily fit the rules by swapping in one of those crate engines.

The whole idea centers around Ford's 5.0 Coyote crate engine. Guys could put a stock crate 5.0 into any 1979-2012 Mustang and 79-93 Fox bodies....3100 lbs min.

Anyway, here is a link to the proposal. I sure hope Ford gets on board with this.

http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/sh...d.php?t=332505
__________________
Alan Mackin Stock 3777/ SS 3377
P/SA & SS/PA Fox Thunderbird
I/PS '95 Mustang GT
ALMACK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2011, 05:09 PM   #28
Damn Yankee
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 98
Likes: 3
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: 2012 Mustang 5.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by ALMACK View Post
Mike:
There is a proposed new 5.0 Coyote class that may very well happen next year within the NMRA. (heads up format of course)

Based very close to Pure Street class build guidelines, I noticed where a Stock Eliminator car could easily fit the rules by swapping in one of those crate engines.

The whole idea centers around Ford's 5.0 Coyote crate engine. Guys could put a stock crate 5.0 into any 1979-2012 Mustang and 79-93 Fox bodies....3100 lbs min.

Anyway, here is a link to the proposal. I sure hope Ford gets on board with this.

http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/sh...d.php?t=332505
Alan, I too have followed this thread and there will be strict restrictions with zero tuning or changing of the EFI computer setup, and the engines will be sealed allowing zero changes to anything as well. I dont necessarily have a big problem with this, as it is meant to be a drivers class and you have to invest in your chassis setup. My problem is like anything else with the NMRA or the NMCA thats involves a clutch, and manula transmission. Unless you run Hot Street, or Pro Stock you are restricted to the stock diaphragm style clutch, and no straight cut gears in the transmissions.
Damn Yankee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2011, 05:28 PM   #29
ALMACK
VIP Member
 
ALMACK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bardstown, KY
Posts: 1,937
Likes: 131
Liked 369 Times in 127 Posts
Default Re: 2012 Mustang 5.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damn Yankee View Post
Alan, I too have followed this thread and there will be strict restrictions with zero tuning or changing of the EFI computer setup, and the engines will be sealed allowing zero changes to anything as well. I dont necessarily have a big problem with this, as it is meant to be a drivers class and you have to invest in your chassis setup. My problem is like anything else with the NMRA or the NMCA thats involves a clutch, and manula transmission. Unless you run Hot Street, or Pro Stock you are restricted to the stock diaphragm style clutch, and no straight cut gears in the transmissions.

What caught my interest was the fact that a Stock Eliminator racer that is very savy with chassis set-up knowledge could do well in this proposed class.

There is talk of allowing C-4 transmissions w/brakes but without any weight breaks for the autos.

I mentioned in that thread about re-wording the rule regarding tire diameter limits. I would like to see a 28 in. tall tire max...instead of the 26" rule. Lots of guys can tune a 28" setup well, plus it will give more choices for gear selection.

I have confidence this class will catch on. However, the problem is how do you prevent it from becoming yet another "run-away wallet" class ?
__________________
Alan Mackin Stock 3777/ SS 3377
P/SA & SS/PA Fox Thunderbird
I/PS '95 Mustang GT
ALMACK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2011, 10:43 PM   #30
kdanner
Member
 
kdanner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 221
Likes: 50
Liked 38 Times in 17 Posts
Default Re: 2012 Mustang 5.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeFicacci View Post
What am I missing? The rulebook? The car is available to the public as it sits and goes high-11's with a stick and a little work. Maybe you need NHRA to make up some number so you can run fast. I have no idea but I do know that anyone who is anyone can make this ACTUAL production car run and run well in B.

Excuse me for being out of touch when I asked if a car that rated at 412 and has a weight of 3670 pounds from the factory is going to be available in the classification guide without some massaging so the general public with $100,000 sitting around can be #1 and pretend like they have a big ****.
Mostly agree, don't think it would get to the point that it would "run well", but it could run in B. I have one with an automatic. Right now it is .12 over the B/SA index. It would be 100% stock legal if I took the drag radials off and put slicks on. It is overweight but would start to get close just with all of that 3" exhaust pulled off it. I haven't even put headers on it. It has never even had a valve cover off. I'd guess it might be reasonable to get one to .50 under, may get tough beyond that though. If the Boss ends up in A, I think that would be the better car.
kdanner is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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 On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Class Racer.com. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.