reenmachine said:Absolutely. However, if I go with a traditional 5.0 intake system, will I be able to find a good brace that fits?
reenmachine said:Absolutely. However, if I go with a traditional 5.0 intake system, will I be able to find a good brace that fits?
I absolutely agree, and a '67-'68 isn't cheaper, better, or more reliable. But it is a vintage Mustang, and that's what I like. I'm not building it to be the fastest or most optimal car on the track, but to be a kick-ass track car with the character only an early model can provide (IMHO).1970fastback said:I've never posted here before, but I felt compelled to chime in, as I've read almost every Reenmachine post that have been posted, and I've come to admire his approach quite a bit.
A very good friend of mine and I have done quite a lot of field research on getting together a fun and optimal vintage mustang race car together. He did about 8 years of SCCA autocrossing and 4 years of Open track at Sebring, etc. in Central Florida. Recently, we spent a year getting a plan together to heavily modify and set up a 69 fastback for use as a more serious car that could be used in the same events you guys are talking about here.
The result: we scrapped the idea in favor of a 2004 body in white.
The reasons were many, but I'll list a few of the most important here:
1. No need to do body / rust repair mods just to get the body to the point where it's a good candidate.
2. Cheaper mods available, overall.
3. FAR better aerodynamics.
4. Far better steering geometry built right in.
5. Not that it's a huge concern for Reen, but IRS is made for these, and hence a bolt in affair.
The list goes on and on.. I mean, making a classic Mustang into a racecar has the advantage of being unique, certainly.. I've gone out to Autocrossing and had a blast in my 70 'back.. But for some serious racing, I don't see where it's any cheaper / better / more reliable doing it with a 60s car over the newer ones..
Just my 2 cents.
mdjay said:The M+ version is from Maier! It's posted like they're different
Jimmys66 said:Not to overstate the obvious, we all know that mustangs are notorious for being front heavy.
This doesn't seem like a bad place to overbuild and to rebalance some front to back weight.
So, with no A/C compressor, lights, P/S pump, bumper, battery, etc. up front and a heavy cage which is by nature biased rearward I bet we could get a good balance.Bullitt said:not necessarily true... my '67 fastback is 53/47 (with driver). full interior with aluminum heads, radiator, AC, aluminum driveshaft, battery in the trunk, and versailles 9".
they're balanced a lot better than the newer fox-style cars (a fox coupe is 60/40 stock with driver).
Reenmachine - i saw your post earlier about the 3-link being time consuming... not really, you can buy all the brackets, upper link and so forth from a number of circle track places. only "tough" part is deciding where to put your front mount and then making a sheetmetal cover or whatever you want inside to cover the assembly. super simple and VERY effective.
reenmachine said:Yeah, that's pretty much the Factory Five roadster approach. I do like the idea of the 8.8 rear end -- it may be a good middle ground between the 8" and 9". I know DVS is working on a kit to put the 8.8 in early Mustangs much like their IRS kit. That could be an option.
I was talking about swapping in the 8.8 including the multi-link suspension as well. Regardless, if leaf springs turn out to be the way to go, the 8.8 is probably the right choice anyway.66Runt said:FWIW,
Really isn't much to putting an 8.8 into the 67-68. I just finished building one for my '66. It's the perfect width for a 67-68 stock out of the Fox body. Seriously, 3 hours with an axle swap, if you keep the drums (and that includes two diaper changes).
If you go to North Racecar's web site, they've got the complete setup for doing the Cobra brakes, including proper axles to make the rotors Hub-centric. Probably the easiest thing you'll do in the whole project.
Run a rearend girdle, and that rear will handle anything you'll throw at it, in a roadracer.
Figure an additional 4 hours to do the complete North Racecar setup, you'll need to weld up a couple of brackets to the tubes to secure the brake hoses from each caliper and tweeking of the brake hose bracket that goes to the body.
Scott
reenmachine said:So, with no A/C compressor, lights, P/S pump, bumper, battery, etc. up front and a heavy cage which is by nature biased rearward I bet we could get a good balance.
I'm interested in learning more about the 3-link setup. Have any good references on the subject?
Bullitt said:not necessarily true... my '67 fastback is 53/47 (with driver). full interior with aluminum heads, radiator, AC, aluminum driveshaft, battery in the trunk, and versailles 9".
they're balanced a lot better than the newer fox-style cars (a fox coupe is 60/40 stock with driver).
Is it better to have the car lighter or better balanced? A couple hundred pounds would be detrimental. But say adding 75 for a heavier rear or is it just better to have less unsprung weight?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?