And look for another formal update on the project tomorrow.
And look for another formal update on the project tomorrow.
akylekoz said:I have an 09, with with 34k on it for a clean started car. Let me know if you are interested. Has 18x9.5 wheels and fresh Koni yellows also just to get you started. Currently has a Torsen in it but I have the stock LSD.
It's the one in the little picture to the upper left.
Sound like you already found one.
For sale thread to follow?
+1 more for imagining immediately a fox chassis project. 
Had one of these following me just now when I was driving a turbo Miata home from the dyno. They are a handsome car.
I assume the engine to get is the 5.0, not the 4.6? I seem to recall there was a fairly significant performance jump when that came out.
I believe the 4.6 is required for the spec class.
Yep, the stock 4.6L. Engine mods are fairly limited: cold-air intake, chip, exhaust.
The three valve 4.6 is the red headed stepchild, stuck in the middle of the pushrod Windsor and the coyote. The bad rap started with the 96 Mustang two valve 4.6 and could never shake it.
My impression and experience is the three valve is quite durable and sounds pretty good. Max NA is around 400 CHP without getting wild and keeping good street manners.
Early 5.0 Coyote had more issues than the 4.6, according to the interwebs.
Would the SCCA chose a dog for a spec class?
I feel like a company that produces cheap aluminum wings and plywood splitters mightshould build a an Aero setup for these cars, and get them homologated for the class.
I realize there's a "zeigeist" that: Street Cars Don't Have Aero and/or "Spec classes shouldn't open Pand-Aero's Box"
but I think there's options out there now to put a goodly aero kit on these things for ~$1200 that would marry well with all the money spent on suspension and brakes. a straight/flat 3inch plywood splitter and single-element aluminum extrusion foil is really the aero equivalent of "bolt on suspension / intake" parts... and tuning it won't be any harder than messing with some of the suspension adjustability.
I dunno how "legal" this is (and I'm mostly finding images for the Shelby GT500, not the Shelby GT), but the California Special front bumper...
looks like the one to have, from a "front aero" perspective. assuming you can mix/match body panels (which seems like one should be able to, if they're trying to balance the 'base GTs' to match the special models?
In reply to akylekoz :
As long as they're all the same dog, why not choose a dog for a spec class? :) I remember when the 5.0 came out, feeling sorry for those who had just purchased a GT. I seem to recall a jump from the low 300s to 400 hp. I have no idea about durability, I'm just thinking of performance.
In reply to sleepyhead the buffalo :
I'm surprised they're allowing "chips", honestly. I get exhausts because, well, they don't live forever and we want these to roar. But what's the justification for chip tunes?
The SCCA’s reasoning for allowing tunes in Club Spec Mustang:
You may have noticed in the description of the various S197 sub models that there is some difference in power in these cars from the factory. Most of the difference is attributed to the tune. To balance these cars, Club Spec Mustangs may upgrade the tune by a process commonly referred to as an ECU flash. This is a process that reprograms the factory ECU via the OBD2 port. There are a wide variety of these available in the aftermarket and they can also be used to do things like correct the speedometer for tire size.
In reply to David S. Wallens :
Someone's gonna find the combination of reflash and factory motor that makes 15 hp more than the others, and they'll spend a bunch of money to get it. And all of a sudden something like 49-state spec 2009 GTs with the Comfort package in yellow are going to be the car to beat. And do they have to be EO'd tunes, or is there the risk of the tuners getting shut down by the EPA since these are intended to be street cars?
It'll be interesting to see how much power you can eke out of one of these when you tune it to the ragged edge.
Spec E46 addresses that with a spec tune, which seems like it might not be a bad idea here.
in the rules it specificies the intakes have to be CARB approved (thus EO'd?)... so, it looks outwardly like they want it to be EO-approvable.
but looking at what's available from the "main parts source":
https://www.stranoparts.com/partdetails.php?PartID=1860&CategoryID=474&ModelID=59
it doesn't say anything about being EO'd. everyone else can chime in if they think Strano can afford to get something EO'd. I reckon, though, this falls under the similar "limited parameter tweak" allowance that Hondata uses for CARB-legal Flashpro offerings?
In reply to sleepyhead the buffalo :
Strano does not own any EOs in the CARB database.
I hope to see you guys at some tt events in the new CSM.
Keith Tanner said:In reply to sleepyhead the buffalo :
Strano does not own any EOs in the CARB database.
poking around, it looks like he's reselling the SCT X4 device:
https://www.cjponyparts.com/superchips-flashpaq-f5-tuner-mustang/p/SC1845/
he should probably add a "not legal for road-use" caveat similar to the one on cj pony parts?
alternatively, there's the superchip:
https://www.cjponyparts.com/superchips-flashpaq-f5-tuner-mustang/p/SC1845/
which does have a EO (D-330-15). seems like that mightshould be part of the spec?
In reply to sleepyhead the buffalo :
LMR sells a GT/CS kit to adapt a GT, I want one. Parking lot research tells me that some convertibles came with a GT/CS fascia, it's where I first noticed the difference.
https://lmr.com/item/LRS-20049AR-K/california-special-front-bumper-kit-05-09
The CS rear bumper was about triple the price of the GT one when I changed my V6 to dual exhaust. I imagine the same would be true for the front.
This photo I saved was from 2005, and what dreams were made of when these cars first came out.
My V6 saw a day on the track as an experiment. I came away very pleasantly surprised with how good it was. Speed limiter kicked in on the front straight. Brakes did okay with nothing more than a Hawk pad update to the front. Worst part was the leather seat that didn't hold me in place at all. It's a fantastic chassis, way better than the Fox that preceded it. And with the collector pricing of Fox chassis Mustangs now, these are a real bargain. They are at the bottom of the curve like E30s were 20 years ago.
sleepyhead the buffalo said:I feel like a company that produces cheap aluminum wings and plywood splitters mightshould build a an Aero setup for these cars, and get them homologated for the class.
I realize there's a "zeigeist" that: Street Cars Don't Have Aero and/or "Spec classes shouldn't open Pand-Aero's Box"
but I think there's options out there now to put a goodly aero kit on these things for ~$1200 that would marry well with all the money spent on suspension and brakes. a straight/flat 3inch plywood splitter and single-element aluminum extrusion foil is really the aero equivalent of "bolt on suspension / intake" parts... and tuning it won't be any harder than messing with some of the suspension adjustability.
Nine lives already has this. There are are already plenty of optional parts for circuit use than don' do much, if anything, for autocross. I'd guess the pushback would be from the autocrosses if the wing is a meaningful advantage. They are the ones who are usually a lot more concerned about the street carness of it. I hear they are working on a QD splitter mount. The wing probably already comes off with a couple of bolts. Making sure it can come on and off for street use will probably make it more palettable.
The second installment has been posted: How hard could it be to find a used Mustang for sale?
theruleslawyer said:sleepyhead the buffalo said:I feel like a company that produces cheap aluminum wings and plywood splitters mightshould build a an Aero setup for these cars.
[...]
a straight/flat 3inch plywood splitter and single-element aluminum extrusion foil is really the aero equivalent of "bolt on suspension / intake" parts.
Nine lives already has this. There are are already plenty of optional parts for circuit use than don' do much, if anything, for autocross. I'd guess the pushback would be from the autocrosses if the wing is a meaningful advantage. They are the ones who are usually a lot more concerned about the street carness of it. I hear they are working on a QD splitter mount. The wing probably already comes off with a couple of bolts. Making sure it can come on and off for street use will probably make it more palettable.
I've only made a chance to go look at TT Nats video from CSM... haven't had a chance to look at much AutoX video. Although one video I did see had a CSM looping through the timing gates.
So, I think the aero would probably have a benefit even in AutoX. And, yes, there's a couple of QuickConnect options for the front splitter. And I'd guess the rear uprights would be a 8-12 bolt affair to break down off the rear trunk rain rail and into the car? Shouldn't be too hard these days with dakkas/power-ratchets, imho.
Racebrick said:I hope to see you guys at some tt events in the new CSM.
@GRM. This guy might know a little bit about CSM. An interview with him regarding what and how he put his car together would be very interesting.
You'll need to log in to post.
