A Class All Around Mustang Roundup - Closed

[fndrbndr]

What do you mean facetiously?  I'm pretty sure that's entirely accurate.

[chuckrateez]

   I decided to try a few different cars on these tracks just for kicks, and it's really telling at how my times have improved by taking the challenge in the Cobra.  After running all those laps, the Cobra was at or near the top on all 3 tracks, but I dusted off the Dino and immediately knocked off a full second on Tsukuba and got under 57.00 on RAII.  Sebring continues to be a problem for me.   

   Next up: Building up a Ferrari 250GTO and trying it out on these tracks.  I've been having a lot of fun with it as a B700 build, so we'll see what it does with the big boys.

   Anyhow, it's been a lot of fun taking part in my first official MInc. challenge.  It looks like these are going to be my final numbers for the Cobra:

      RAII: 57.674 
      SebringII: 75.218
      Tsukuba: 58.321
      QR: 191.213


      Chuck

[Drift2XL]

No problem Blooze. I've got to try out at least one of these.
I might actually get close to Serial.  

I was busy beating a rented mule ... I mean game.
Mercs 2 is fun but it gets a bit tiring after a while.

[Spiny Anteater]

I finally got some times set in Hop's "torque monster" Mustang GT - it seems my inital impressions were correct as seems to have been consistently a couple of tenths slower than the cammed version. Unfortunately, as my ghosts were somewhat Spirra-like (the cammed version was faster, but I set the time in Test Drive so it didn't ghost) I can't tell where I was losing the time.

Road Atlanta Short: 55.499s
Sebring Short: 72.874s
Tsukuba: 56.228s
Total: 184.601s

So there we are, slower - by about a second overall.

[Snyder005]

I did a quick rerun of the QR tracks:

Mustang Cobra R

Road Atlanta Short: 54.860
Sebring Short: 71.659
Tsukuba: 55.068
181.587

Much more time especially on Tsukuba, just don't have time as of now, with school and all.

[Drift2XL]

I ran through a new Shelby GT 500. I finally got it to not push out as bad as stock. Took some creative tuning.

'07 Shelby GT 500
  55.745 RA
  72.523 Se
  56.150 Ts
184.418

I have started a GT but I won't have time to finish it. I did get into the 55's with it on Tsu. though. And there is still some considerable tweeking to do as well.

Oh well.

I have been thinking of dropping the weight limit on the LMMS cars. If the GT turns out good and some others like the Challenger Concept, new Charger and the Camaro. We might have a rules change. The lower weight would negate the lack of top end for the two Mopars.

[fndrbndr]

It would also increase the number of options for some cars, since more WR options means more options for power.  I'm running about 350-400 on a lot of cars in A, and even less on some.

[Spiny Anteater]

It would also increase the number of options for some cars, since more WR options means more options for power.  I'm running about 350-400 on a lot of cars in A, and even less on some.

Now why am I not surprised you've gone for the low power option

[fndrbndr]

OK, so maybe there's a BIT of a pattern there...

[Blooze]

Okie Dokie... we'll wrap this one up.  It looks as if the Grip Built GT and Cobra R would be someone's best bet for an A Class Mustang. 

It also appears that there is a cutoff (if you will) where building engines for torque gives way to building for RPM and Hp (i.e.; to Cam or not to Cam, aye - there is the rub...)  For a while I am going to use a torque/Hp ratio of 1.0 for the decision making line.  In other words, if the stock engine's T/Hp is 1 or higher, then add the best cam I can.  Less than 1 means the cam parts would be the last option.

Thanks to everyone for their participation!

$

The leaderboard is current with this post.

[Spiny Anteater]

Just to add my take on the "Cam or not to Cam" debate - my preference is to Cam first unless there is some obvious reason not to.

Why? Well, I try to think in terms of "wheel torque" - i.e. how much torque you are putting through the driving wheels. Couple that with the amount of grip and weight and it can give an indication of the potential acceleration of the car - far better in my opinion than using engine power or torque.

Now the one big advantage of the Cams to me is that it almost invariably raises the redline. Granted it also reduces the engine torque, but that raised redline allows you to run a shorter gear. I haven't done the calcs, but I expect that when you take the gearing into account the difference in "wheel torque" between a Cam and a torque build is not too great.

Maybe that's something to look at when I get a minute...