PaulCG Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Ford Mustang V8 ('79-'93 <226 hp) I assume this means LESS THAN 226 HP. Many stock cars would be more than this. Many of the mods listed would increase horsepower. I assume that's a given. I'm doing a lot of assuming here so someone straighten me out before I make an a** outta the ME in assume. Is the MAF part of the Modification of the "OEM air box, air filter location, air piping to the turbo/supercharger/throttle body/carburetor for 1 point." ? Another ? Polyurethane swaybar bushings and/or end links are assesed 2 points? Add, replace, remove, or modify anti-roll bars ("sway" bars- front, rear, or both - may have spherical joints and polyurethane bushings on the end links) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulCG Posted February 14, 2006 Author Share Posted February 14, 2006 Man, nobody wants to touch this, must be a REALLY stupid newbie retard question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted February 14, 2006 National Staff Share Posted February 14, 2006 Funny Paul. They aren't that bad. Yes, the Mustang hp in that class is for less than 226 hp stock. You may add any number of modifications that will increase the hp from there, and be assessed modification points. No, changing the MAF will alter sensor inputs, so it will require an additional +1 on an NA car, and +2 on a forced induction car. Polyurethane swaybar bushings and/or end links are assesed 2 points? No. The sway bars are assessed 2 points, and you can have the spherical joints or poly bushings on the end links for free. You would still need to take the extra point (or points if they are metallic) for additional replacement bushing for other areas like control arms, trailing arms, strut rods, etc. If you do not change the sway bars, but change the end-link bushings or sway bar bushings, you will need to take the +1 point for non-metallic suspension bushings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulCG Posted February 14, 2006 Author Share Posted February 14, 2006 MAF using SAME sensor, just larger tube. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted February 14, 2006 National Staff Share Posted February 14, 2006 Larger tube means incorrect reading, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulCG Posted February 14, 2006 Author Share Posted February 14, 2006 Actually, I phrased that incorrectly. Same sensor and sample tube, larger bore. Concerning suspension Other than "somewhat" vague references I don't see a Watts-Link or the (Evolution Motorsport)Tri-Link covered in the TT rules. I thought I'd seen them in another series' rules however I can't find them now. Would the Watts-Link be assesed same as Panhard Bar and the Tri-Link assessed as: 12) Relocation of suspension mounting points +12"(which it actually doesn't) 15) Changing the orientation or design of an OEM mounting point or pick-up point of a control arm for a panhard bar or trailing arms +1 24) Non-OEM control arms (for stiffness only, no change in suspension mount or pick-up points from stock) +1 A combination of above, not covered, or disallowed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted February 14, 2006 National Staff Share Posted February 14, 2006 If the bore of the MAF is a different size, won't there be a larger volume of air moving past the sensor than the sensor "senses"? If so, then the MAF input to the ECU is altered, and it's +1 extra for a N.A. car. You saw the reference to Watts link in the PT rules, and/or in the addendum to the TT rules http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=7534&sid=7b6a4f83b9b2e90cd323d039a6bd3436 Added Watts link is +4 Changing from a four link to a three link suspension is relocating the suspension mounting points +12. See the clarifications on the same page listed above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulCG Posted February 15, 2006 Author Share Posted February 15, 2006 Thanks for the guidance, you've been extremely helpful. I'm gonna 'go figure" somemore. 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.