Ford Mustang

[Tim Northcutt]

Originally posted by noise boy 2
I don't know why one would bother with the modular ford motor, as the drawbacks (packaging, high CG) are not nearly made up for by the potential advantages of the DOHC design. For my bucks, I would have a 6 liter LS6 based engine built. Low CG, extremely efficient valvetrain, and a proven track record (haven't seen a lot of C5R engine failures). Robert

I would agree, with you Noise Boy 2....

But you know me....

I'm always stirring up the pot...

and asking "What If".........

It's the best way to learn and to stimulate discussion....

[Bob Riebe]

Tiim:
Your "what if" is kindof Ford's "Oh sh--" as, even though the parts book is full of hi-po parts for the push-rod engines,(the modular has zero or less greater hp potential, than the Windsor and comp.)Ford is forced to try to use the long stroke mod. engine or look like a company that has inferior engines.
The four-valve version suffers a weight penalty when the two extra camshafts are added and the extra valves truly only help at higher rpm's which the long stroke inhibits.

It's not that they cannot get horse-power out of the mod. engine but, it is kind of like a fellow, about 15 years ago who developed an all aluminum version of the Z-11 Chevy (the 427 inch version of the 409) It was what he knew and liked so he kept on developng what he liked even though,, tech. wise, it was some what of a handi-cap.
Ford has a similar handi-cap but not out of love but necessity.
Bob

[gttouring]

Irony of Irony the "Mod" motor is based off of the Stellar Yamaha 3.0L V6 from the S.H.O Taurus
Ford added 1.6 litres and 2 cylinders and found only around 80 extra horses- (remember the SHO had 220 hp and the 4.6 2 valve sohc has 260 and the 4 valve makes from 300 to 320 (cobra) unmolested) too bad as the yamaha version was great revving and a stormer. the architecture is allwrong and there is no excuse for this garbage.
the twin cam design can be slimmed by driving cam #2 by a gear attached to the 1st cam (ala toyota) and shedding some weight- also a hollow cam can be used along with hollow sodium filled valves. with the right work this motor can be quite good, the 5 litre version needs work in the cam and extra weight department i feel, but the Windsor 351 is king as far as i know.
(but wasn't the Cleaveland supposed to be the performance block when it came out?)
I have faith in the Mod motor, after all it has the goods- and the cubes to run with alot lesser stuff...

[Tim Northcutt]

Originally posted by gttouring
Irony of Irony the "Mod" motor is based off of the Stellar Yamaha 3.0L V6 from the S.H.O Taurus
Ford added 1.6 litres and 2 cylinders and found only around 80 extra horses- (remember the SHO had 220 hp and the 4.6 2 valve sohc has 260 and the 4 valve makes from 300 to 320 (cobra) unmolested) too bad as the yamaha version was great revving and a stormer. the architecture is allwrong and there is no excuse for this garbage.
the twin cam design can be slimmed by driving cam #2 by a gear attached to the 1st cam (ala toyota) and shedding some weight- also a hollow cam can be used along with hollow sodium filled valves. with the right work this motor can be quite good, the 5 litre version needs work in the cam and extra weight department i feel, but the Windsor 351 is king as far as i know.
(but wasn't the Cleaveland supposed to be the performance block when it came out?)
I have faith in the Mod motor, after all it has the goods- and the cubes to run with alot lesser stuff...

The Cleveland was the perfomer...but the Windsor provides a lot more versatility for builds to up the power and torque...and it is not as large physically in the area of the heads and valves as the Cleveland ...

at least that's the way I've understood it when others have explained the basic differences in the two to me...

[Bob Riebe]

The original Cleveland block is of different construction than the Windsor.
The Cleveland type cylinder heads(i.e. used on the boss 302 with a Windsor block) will interchange; although the 351 Cleveland heads need minor mods.
The Cleveland block is also about 50 pounds heavier due to integral front cover that is removable on a Windsor.
The Windsor is smaller, front to rear, if I remember correctly.
Bob

[gttouring]

maybe i should move back to the midwest where real gear heads live- maybe i can actually race too. heh heh
bankruptcy looms for this world traveler

[Tim Northcutt]

Originally posted by gttouring
maybe i should move back to the midwest where real gear heads live- maybe i can actually race too. heh heh
bankruptcy looms for this world traveler

From your many psots that I've read, gttouring, somehow I could picture you at Raceway Park or at "The world's fastest Half-Mile" at Winchester ripping hot laps in a USAC Sprinter or a Midget...

We lvoe all of it....open-wheeled, sportscars, you name it...if it's fast and on four wheels we follow it with a passion...

[therealdeal]

my first car was a 1992 ford taurus SHO...... i loved the thing and i still have it but currently its in the shop i have an m3 now...

[paul-collins]

Originally posted by BSchneiderFan
One of the motoring journals - it may have been Autocar - reported that Ford has homologated the new Mustang for the ALMS and the FIA GT Championship.

Back on the first point (as this discussion ended up mostly on the second): FIA documents are only up to April 26, so this story post-dates any confirmation available here.

Grand Am has not updated their eligibility lists for either the Rolex series (GT or SGS) or the Cup, and ACO doesn't seem to publish a list on the web at all.

The Speed World Challenge site lists some VTS, but their regulations are necessarily fluid, so I'm sure the Mustang's acceptance in that series will be in line with the existing Mustang VTS (which I gather you have to ask for, based on that page).

We will see a 2005 Mustang on the track somewhere next year; the question is, where, and how many series?