Mustang MPH?

Jeff Lee · 02-25-2009, 04:26 PM

I still can't believe the debate is as much about the HP factor than the fact Ford does not build a Mustang with a supercharged 5.4L engine in it. Shelby does and that is a different manufacturer and what Shelby offers is a much heavier car. This Mustang is a factory built race car not sold for public highways and is therefore a factory produced super stocker by every tradition and past example in NHRA history.
But then again I see the "Thunderbolt" 427 / 425 Fairlane is legal for Stock Eliminator. When did that happen? That's another "off highway use" vehicle. But the Hemi Dart / Barracuda & 1969 AMX SS package are still Superstock only classifications.
I'd just like to see some uniformity...

Dick Butler · 02-25-2009, 04:54 PM

Sorry Jeff,
Most guys posting are afraid of uniformity. If it were offered then the "Money card" would have to be "played" By leaving a NON uniform many get a chance to build Aardvark turbo or FWD unknowns to be #1 qualifier and brag how the car is only $4000 total and they drive it to the track to rub it in. It is claimed to be an entry level racer.They are no less BOGUS than the Ford Mustang everyone wants to excitedly discuss here but it fits the top classes where more dedicated racers reside instead of off on the edge where no one is affected. Believe me if a FWD car ran stock in A/S and ran 1.8 under to qualify # 1 we would hear it on EVERY site about the same issues. Thankfully some still like Class racing Heads up and arent afraid to work , spend and drive hard to win in that arena.
We know from history only classes of ONE car combo are uniform. Now they added the stick and Auto to AH and factor them differently, So much for uniformity in that class now people need to build a Stick to get an edge for now.
I respect racers of ALL cars and combos but the issue is not new with a Supercharged Mustang just a new day.

CrateCamaro · 02-25-2009, 05:17 PM

It don't matter how much bench racing we do on this site, it won't change the fact that the CJ's are running in stock and they are legal. You think for one minute NHRA will change there minds because there has been over 100 hits on this subject and 8000+ views? They don't care. Eventually someone will want to be the big shot and hold it though the lights and go 9.30 at 275mph and it will get hit with HP just like all the other 15000 classes have in stock/superstock. Don't get me wrong, im not for the blower stuff. I can't stand that there is a power adder being used in Stock because its not traditional. But on the other hand we should be happy that one of the big three has created a new age muscle car that does have some heritage. I like the car and think its pretty cool...BUT it should be fuel injected with no power adders. Now...if Chevrolet could only build a car that could run with it we would have a race. Win on sunday, sell on monday.

chris ok · 02-25-2009, 05:31 PM

I watched the nhra sportsman show last night taped from pomona. no sportsman cars but alky. lots of conversation and wasted time that could easily be edited out. not one mention of these historic cars ford built. nhra already does not care.

Bruce Noland · 02-25-2009, 05:39 PM

Let's try to make this as simple as possible.

40 to 50 Horsepower is soft.

100 to 150 Horsepower is grossly under-factored.

Now that hunk of tin doesn't know who made it. But it is a 100 to150 Horsepower under-factored hunk of tin. Comparing the Firebird debacle to this CJ mugging is just plain lame.This car does not belong in regular Stock classes; it's an A-Rod car.

Believe me, we all know that nhra is too pathetic to do anything about this. Most of us are debating this issue because we feel like we are on the right side of history; no matter which side they are on. And some folks are posting snarkie posts because they don't have a car to race or haven't grown up yet or both.

hadtobethere · 02-25-2009, 06:16 PM

LOL.....most don't know what kind of deal did Ford have with NHRA, I don't know, but would bet....something to the effect, 'we need a HP rating favorable to Ford to make these cars the shining star of Stock Eliminator and be able to outrun anything that exists' and in return we will..........

bsa633 · 02-26-2009, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrateCamaro

But on the other hand we should be happy that one of the big three has created a new age muscle car that does have some heritage.

Shouldn't you been able to go to Ford and be able to order one if that's the case?...this is just a kit-car..Nothing like the LT and LS 1's that sold in hundteds of thousands when they came out a bit soft..if these Fords had engines that were ava. and came out a little soft like the LS did i dont think people would/could have such hard feelings about it as they do now...I'm with Jeff on this one...but they should however have an class to race like the 68 Hemi's do...

GUMP · 02-26-2009, 06:55 AM

It really amazes me how one sided some of you guys are about the new cars. As someone who has built several late model cars to run Stock, I can tell you that I would much rather start with a car like the Cobra Jet or the Challenger Super Stock. I have seen both cars and feel that they are perfect to run Stock. I think that it is absolutely great that the factories are even thinking about building cars that can run Stock let alone actually building them. I will agree that the rules have been changed over the years to allow the companies to submit combinations that fit their marketing plans, but isn't that exactly what Stock Eliminator has always been about? It has never been about protecting 40 year old cars. You also need to keep in mind that todays stockers are a whole lot more like an earlier Super Stock car. The current Super Stock cars are more like the early Pro Stocks. So, really these cars are a natural growth of the class.

The Cobra Jet haters are now saying that they are 100-150 factored horse power soft. They are soft for sure, but they have done nothing that suggests that they are that soft. These cars fit the printed rules in every way. Super charged combinations have been legal for Stock since the 1950's. These cars are no different than the ZL1 Camaro that is legal for the same class. They are ringers that had one goal in mind. Good for Ford!

In regards to the LT1 and LS1 HP numbers, you really need to keep in mind that both cars came with really mild camshafts from the factory. The LT1 was 201/208 @ .050" and the LS1 was 198/209 @ .050". The heads on both of these motors are vastly superior to any stock small block casting that came before them. It doesn't take a much to figure out why they run what they run. If you actually were to look up the stock dyno numbers on these cars you would know that they are pretty close to legit.

I really wonder what it took to bring these special cars to market? I will bet that it wasn't easy. Maybe we should let them have the spot light for a while. It might even help Ford sell a few Mustangs. In this economic environment that would probably be good for all of us.

GUMP · 02-26-2009, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bsa633

Shouldn't you been able to go to Ford and be able to order one if that's the case?...this is just a kit-car.

You were able to order them. They were built ready to race. Those are facts that I thought everyone in the discussion understood. I think the debate is more about how they were built and what they mean to the class. I think that eventually AA should become a 7.00 class and all the existing classes should be moved back .50. That would of course mean that 40 year old cars will no longer be the top dogs.

Bruce Noland · 02-26-2009, 09:13 AM

The new CJ is a factory built race car. The kind of car that nhra routinely placed in Factory Experimental when the OEMs were playing before.

The 40 year old cars would no longer be the top dogs if nhra started a new factory Experimental class.

The CJ discussion centers around Horsepower and the abuse of the classification system by nhra. nhra knows what is going on here but they are too hard up to be an honest power broker in this deal. And the Ford engineers think they need to make twice the amount of rated horsepower to dominate. They told me that at SEMA.

A good multiplier for the 396 and 427 motors is 1.45 times the rated Horsepower, by comparison, the new CJ is making use of an 1.8 multiplier. Numbers do not lie. That's the good thing about drag racing, the numbers for this car, will continue to "amaze" the drag racing world and in turn it will prove our point about where it really belongs.

02-25-2009, 04:54 PM	#2
Dick Butler VIP Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Richmond Indiana Posts: 1,196 Likes: 5 Liked 32 Times in 19 Posts	Re: Mustang MPH? Sorry Jeff, Most guys posting are afraid of uniformity. If it were offered then the "Money card" would have to be "played" By leaving a NON uniform many get a chance to build Aardvark turbo or FWD unknowns to be #1 qualifier and brag how the car is only $4000 total and they drive it to the track to rub it in. It is claimed to be an entry level racer.They are no less BOGUS than the Ford Mustang everyone wants to excitedly discuss here but it fits the top classes where more dedicated racers reside instead of off on the edge where no one is affected. Believe me if a FWD car ran stock in A/S and ran 1.8 under to qualify # 1 we would hear it on EVERY site about the same issues. Thankfully some still like Class racing Heads up and arent afraid to work , spend and drive hard to win in that arena. We know from history only classes of ONE car combo are uniform. Now they added the stick and Auto to AH and factor them differently, So much for uniformity in that class now people need to build a Stick to get an edge for now. I respect racers of ALL cars and combos but the issue is not new with a Supercharged Mustang just a new day.

02-25-2009, 05:17 PM	#3
CrateCamaro Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Ontario Canada Posts: 411 Likes: 1 Liked 19 Times in 7 Posts	Re: Mustang MPH? It don't matter how much bench racing we do on this site, it won't change the fact that the CJ's are running in stock and they are legal. You think for one minute NHRA will change there minds because there has been over 100 hits on this subject and 8000+ views? They don't care. Eventually someone will want to be the big shot and hold it though the lights and go 9.30 at 275mph and it will get hit with HP just like all the other 15000 classes have in stock/superstock. Don't get me wrong, im not for the blower stuff. I can't stand that there is a power adder being used in Stock because its not traditional. But on the other hand we should be happy that one of the big three has created a new age muscle car that does have some heritage. I like the car and think its pretty cool...BUT it should be fuel injected with no power adders. Now...if Chevrolet could only build a car that could run with it we would have a race. Win on sunday, sell on monday. __________________ Tony Valerio 1968 Camaro 1700 IHRA H/CM 1701 NHRA SS/?A

02-25-2009, 05:31 PM	#4
chris ok Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Long Island, New york Posts: 592 Likes: 131 Liked 46 Times in 29 Posts	Re: Mustang MPH? I watched the nhra sportsman show last night taped from pomona. no sportsman cars but alky. lots of conversation and wasted time that could easily be edited out. not one mention of these historic cars ford built. nhra already does not care.

02-25-2009, 05:39 PM	#5
Bruce Noland VIP Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,855 Likes: 83 Liked 444 Times in 145 Posts	Re: Mustang MPH? Let's try to make this as simple as possible. 40 to 50 Horsepower is soft. 100 to 150 Horsepower is grossly under-factored. Now that hunk of tin doesn't know who made it. But it is a 100 to150 Horsepower under-factored hunk of tin. Comparing the Firebird debacle to this CJ mugging is just plain lame.This car does not belong in regular Stock classes; it's an A-Rod car. Believe me, we all know that nhra is too pathetic to do anything about this. Most of us are debating this issue because we feel like we are on the right side of history; no matter which side they are on. And some folks are posting snarkie posts because they don't have a car to race or haven't grown up yet or both. __________________ Bruce Noland 1788 STK Last edited by Bruce Noland; 02-25-2009 at 08:37 PM.

02-25-2009, 06:16 PM	#6
hadtobethere Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 243 Likes: 0 Liked 1 Time in 1 Post	Re: Mustang MPH? LOL.....most don't know what kind of deal did Ford have with NHRA, I don't know, but would bet....something to the effect, 'we need a HP rating favorable to Ford to make these cars the shining star of Stock Eliminator and be able to outrun anything that exists' and in return we will..........

02-25-2009, 04:26 PM	#1
Jeff Lee VIP Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Anthem, Arizona Posts: 2,766 Likes: 0 Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts	Re: Mustang MPH? I still can't believe the debate is as much about the HP factor than the fact Ford does not build a Mustang with a supercharged 5.4L engine in it. Shelby does and that is a different manufacturer and what Shelby offers is a much heavier car. This Mustang is a factory built race car not sold for public highways and is therefore a factory produced super stocker by every tradition and past example in NHRA history. But then again I see the "Thunderbolt" 427 / 425 Fairlane is legal for Stock Eliminator. When did that happen? That's another "off highway use" vehicle. But the Hemi Dart / Barracuda & 1969 AMX SS package are still Superstock only classifications. I'd just like to see some uniformity... __________________ Jeff Lee 7494 D/S '70 AMX

02-26-2009, 06:55 AM	#8
GUMP VIP Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Shelby, NC Posts: 1,832 Likes: 2,192 Liked 2,364 Times in 560 Posts	Re: Mustang MPH? It really amazes me how one sided some of you guys are about the new cars. As someone who has built several late model cars to run Stock, I can tell you that I would much rather start with a car like the Cobra Jet or the Challenger Super Stock. I have seen both cars and feel that they are perfect to run Stock. I think that it is absolutely great that the factories are even thinking about building cars that can run Stock let alone actually building them. I will agree that the rules have been changed over the years to allow the companies to submit combinations that fit their marketing plans, but isn't that exactly what Stock Eliminator has always been about? It has never been about protecting 40 year old cars. You also need to keep in mind that todays stockers are a whole lot more like an earlier Super Stock car. The current Super Stock cars are more like the early Pro Stocks. So, really these cars are a natural growth of the class. The Cobra Jet haters are now saying that they are 100-150 factored horse power soft. They are soft for sure, but they have done nothing that suggests that they are that soft. These cars fit the printed rules in every way. Super charged combinations have been legal for Stock since the 1950's. These cars are no different than the ZL1 Camaro that is legal for the same class. They are ringers that had one goal in mind. Good for Ford! In regards to the LT1 and LS1 HP numbers, you really need to keep in mind that both cars came with really mild camshafts from the factory. The LT1 was 201/208 @ .050" and the LS1 was 198/209 @ .050". The heads on both of these motors are vastly superior to any stock small block casting that came before them. It doesn't take a much to figure out why they run what they run. If you actually were to look up the stock dyno numbers on these cars you would know that they are pretty close to legit. I really wonder what it took to bring these special cars to market? I will bet that it wasn't easy. Maybe we should let them have the spot light for a while. It might even help Ford sell a few Mustangs. In this economic environment that would probably be good for all of us. Last edited by GUMP; 02-26-2009 at 07:03 AM.

02-26-2009, 09:13 AM	#10
Bruce Noland VIP Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,855 Likes: 83 Liked 444 Times in 145 Posts	Re: Mustang MPH? The new CJ is a factory built race car. The kind of car that nhra routinely placed in Factory Experimental when the OEMs were playing before. The 40 year old cars would no longer be the top dogs if nhra started a new factory Experimental class. The CJ discussion centers around Horsepower and the abuse of the classification system by nhra. nhra knows what is going on here but they are too hard up to be an honest power broker in this deal. And the Ford engineers think they need to make twice the amount of rated horsepower to dominate. They told me that at SEMA. A good multiplier for the 396 and 427 motors is 1.45 times the rated Horsepower, by comparison, the new CJ is making use of an 1.8 multiplier. Numbers do not lie. That's the good thing about drag racing, the numbers for this car, will continue to "amaze" the drag racing world and in turn it will prove our point about where it really belongs. __________________ Bruce Noland 1788 STK