sam s. Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 I agree with Tony no big dif. between G.M./Ford handling I've driven both for the past 10 years with OEM type susp. The big thing is what you do with what you got. I do think we should talk about jetting though. On my third engin due to lean melt down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil B. Posted October 31, 2002 Share Posted October 31, 2002 What was the fastest lap time for a Mustang at the October Sears Point event? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony G Posted October 31, 2002 Share Posted October 31, 2002 It was Sam Stowells car at low 2:06 times,but remember the entire timing system was not working well the whole weekend. The first 5 cars at the finish line were less than 1/2 a second apart in best times. Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickS Posted October 31, 2002 Author Share Posted October 31, 2002 2:06 @ Sears is pretty freakin slow. Heck, even my bucket of bolts and ductape was faster than that! I'm going from memory here - I belive that Sam and Ben were in the low 1:56 range on Saturday. Campell and littleton were in the low 1:56 range on Sat as well. Ducharme was the next fastest in the high 1:57 low 1:58 (faster than I was). On Sunday, everyone got faster. Campbell reset the fastest lap with a 1:54.7 and Littleton was in a low 1:55. I think I managed to eek out a low 1:58. Neither Sam nor Ben were running on Sunday, so Ducharme was the front running Mustang and was in front of me with a 1:57 (??). Tony has the #'s from the Oct Sears event, we can look them over next weekend. - Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil B. Posted November 1, 2002 Share Posted November 1, 2002 For the past several years, a 1:56 or 1:57 is normal race pace for a front-running Mustang. The only Mustang I've ever seen run in the 55's was underweight. A 54 is flat out hauling ass. I'd be interested in seeing tire temps from both types of cars after a race. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kincy Posted November 1, 2002 Share Posted November 1, 2002 Has the new paving made the track a bit faster?? Perry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony G Posted November 1, 2002 Share Posted November 1, 2002 Yes Nick, I mean 1:56 not 2:06.I thought you were talking about running it in reverse! I think the track may be a 1/2 second faster than before,because I never ran a 1:55 before..ever.. and all of us were faster than ever before. This next time out should be interesting,and we should have a bit more accuracy in timing since we will be using the AMB system. Neil is right,the times were faster than ever before. Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony G Posted November 5, 2002 Share Posted November 5, 2002 I'm also thinking of setting the weight to a min. of 3,300lbs for the 4th Gen Camaros instead of the current 3,200 lbs.This would be due to a few things ..like better Torque/ even with the Restrictor plate installed with 230 Hp.I think the 5.7 may have more torque,but we can look at the Dyno sheets to compare. Only a thought. Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kincy Posted November 6, 2002 Share Posted November 6, 2002 I think you will find the 4th gen makes less torque at the same hp. It wouldn't be possible to get a 4th gen at 230 hp to the max torque spec of 300. With the stock intake max would be about 280. That extra foot of runner length is very useful to the torque curve. What the 4th gen does have is a bit of an ability to rev but with a restrictor plate it doesn't make any hp when it is up in the rpm band. Short runner good rpm capability lower torque, long runner poor rpm capability but great torque. OTOH, since I haven't been able to get mine below 3500 lbs I guess I couldn't object to much to to 3300 lbs as a minimum wt. Don might however since he is a bit below 3300 lbs. What does yours weigh Tony? PK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony G Posted November 6, 2002 Share Posted November 6, 2002 My car weighs in at 3360.Hp was at 228 and torque was at 296 with the restrictor plate in. I will dyno again after this weekend with and with out the restrictor plate and compare with other CMC cars with the 305. I did not pull away from any cars last time out so I think we are going in the right direction. Thanks for the info, Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kincy Posted November 6, 2002 Share Posted November 6, 2002 Tony, Your torque numbers are surprisingly good for a fourth gen. My car dynoed 235.6 rwhp and only 281 ftlbs of torque. Don, you out there, what is your torque reading? Perry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Pryor1548534703 Posted November 7, 2002 Share Posted November 7, 2002 just dynoed the 4th gen Camaro for CMC next year....248.5 bhp/310 ft/lb torque at the rear...this is with NO restrictor plate and WITH a set of Hooker headers....since I'm running this in SCCA ITE races at Laguna Seca next year (4 of them!) I'm leaving the headers on and the restrictor off and will run the car that way in Super CMC at the Sears NASA CMC races next year...weight of the car full of gas and no driver (usually full of hot air) is 3395#and scheduled to lose 150# this winter...maybe even some off the driver, too...richard 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.