Landracing Forum
Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => SCTA Rule Questions => Topic started by: SteveD on October 18, 2007, 02:23:06 AM
-
What is the fastest anybody may recall a Mustang 94-98 Vintage has gone? We know we have the power but no to sure about aerodynamics? Can anybody help? We would like to see 300mph. Any suggestios or comments would be appreciated. We set the C/PS record at the WF's with a 2003 Cobra and the car felt rock solid with all stock body panels and wings. I have built 2 record cars and want to do one for myself. It will be an old drag car converted for LSR.......................Thanks
SteveD
in Houston TX.
-
What is the fastest anybody may recall a Mustang 94-98 Vintage has gone? We know we have the power but no to sure about aerodynamics? Can anybody help? We would like to see 300mph. Any suggestios or comments would be appreciated. We set the C/PS record at the WF's with a 2003 Cobra and the car felt rock solid with all stock body panels and wings. I have built 2 record cars and want to do one for myself. It will be an old drag car converted for LSR.......................Thanks
SteveD
in Houston TX.
Congrats on the 213 record. To see if you have the HP take the HP it took you to run the 213 and multiply that by 2.8 to see how much HP it would take to run that same car 300.
Someone else can probably tell you, but Cook ran a Ford, but I can't remember if it was a mustang or not that ran in the 290's. As I remember though the motor was a mopar or an after market copy of a Hemi.
Don't forget that you are also going to need way more weight than you probably are running now.
Good luck,
Sum
-
Sumner, Mike Cooks car was a Ford Thunderbird, about a 1986 model, not sure on that, it was on some of the posters. Cya
-
Sumner, Mike Cooks car was a Ford Thunderbird, about a 1986 model, not sure on that, it was on some of the posters. Cya
I knew it was an animal of some sort, bird, horse.................
Sum
-
There might be a reason no one has tried to go 300 mph in a '94 Mustang. On the other hand tell a racer he can't do something and stand back! I seem to remember what they said about a stock bodied car going 300 mph in '82 or so....
Good Luck!
-
Took a bit of effort to get that firebird folling that fast.
Off the top of your head does any know if you can draw out the wheelbase for a Production car to keep it stable at speed or are your stuck with the short wheelbase?
-
Production class cars must remain siloutte stock. That means the wheel base can not be stretched. How about Gas Coupe or Altered class with that Mustang? That's how Mike and the Kugel Family did it. (on the surface)
DW
-
Production class cars must remain siloutte stock. That means the wheel base can not be stretched. How about Gas Coupe or Altered class with that Mustang? That's how Mike and the Kugel Family did it. (on the surface)
DW
Mike clear this up, but didn't you guys run Gas Coupe and then just tape the turn signal lights and maybe part of the grill to move to Altered??
Also let's not forget John Rains 297.663 2006 D/PS record that was set at World of Speed. Pretty impressive. Does anyone know the speeds on his two runs and the exit speeds??
c ya,
Sum
-
I remember reading in one of the aerodynamic sites that they did some aero tweaks to keep the car stable. Something like the air dam configuration.
Maybe mike will chime in.
-
Production class cars must remain siloutte stock. That means the wheel base can not be stretched. How about Gas Coupe or Altered class with that Mustang? That's how Mike and the Kugel Family did it. (on the surface)
DW
Mike clear this up, but didn't you guys run Gas Coupe and then just tape the turn signal lights and maybe part of the grill to move to Altered??
Also let's not forget John Rains 297.663 2006 D/PS record that was set at World of Speed. Pretty impressive. Does anyone know the speeds on his two runs and the exit speeds??
c ya,
Sum
Let me start by saying that IMO the gen III F-body Firebird/Camaro is one of the best balanced & has the best factory aero package of any production sedan with the Firebird having a better factory rear spoiler than the Camaro if you are running gas coupe. Some other cars might have a better c/d but it takes a total package to run fast at the salt.
Next I would like to point out that several Firebirds have exceeded 300 mph either in the mile or terminal speed. Of course that includes Kugel & LeFevers, Lindsley & Leggett, John Rains, and in a gen IV Firebird of MacDonald & Pitts.
Now the aero information. Most of this is in print if you look for it but the stock c/d for a '82-'92 Firebird is .32, lowering the car and removing the side mirrors and detailing the trim reduces that to about .28. It takes about 600 hp to go 200 mph in this car (roughly) so cube the power to double the speed. We ran the car in Gas Coupe and Altered by covering head/parking lights or grill openings just as many others have before us. The rear spoiler produces about 800 lbs. of downforce to offset the 400 lbs. of lift at 200 mph. The other things you need to consider are total and front to rear weight distribution, caster, steering ratio, shock valving, spring rates, exhaust system exit, and a few dozens of other things.
The GM F-body cars also have a wheelbase advantage over the Fox body Mustang but not by much, but if you look at the overall length you'll see how it might be easier to balance the F-body, and it's the little things that make a record setter.
So much to tell but hard to put it all down in print.
We never had our car in the tunnel but we did have access to data, this has been around if you paid attention to what some others before us did. Dave & Lionel are working at a slight disavantage as the gen IV cars are not as good as the gen III cars to the tune of about 300 hp @ 300 mph.
-
Thanks for all the kind words. We had 800hp to run 213mph and I'm thinging another 1000rwhp should do it. We are going to keep it a small block. I saw many cars that had 671 's sticking out of the hood in 69 camaros and they were in inpound alot.......a magazineen car especially. I really want those guys! we will bring several different front ends and would like to run several different classes. My shop builds Mustangs, I can't use a Camaro body even if it's better areodynamically. I guess we will see how far it we can go with the 95 Stang chassis. I have seen plenty of drag pieces but nothing geared to the salt flats.......that may be telling me something but I'm hard headed. Any help would be appreciated. What is the stock Chassis record?
SteveD
in Houston
-
Thanks for all the kind words. We had 800hp to run 213mph and I'm thinging another 1000rwhp should do it. We are going to keep it a small block. I saw many cars that had 671 's sticking out of the hood in 69 camaros and they were in inpound alot.......a magazineen car especially. I really want those guys! we will bring several different front ends and would like to run several different classes. My shop builds Mustangs, I can't use a Camaro body even if it's better areodynamically. I guess we will see how far it we can go with the 95 Stang chassis. I have seen plenty of drag pieces but nothing geared to the salt flats.......that may be telling me something but I'm hard headed. Any help would be appreciated. What is the stock Chassis record?
SteveD
in Houston
Steve I think you'll find that John Rains holds the production speed record @ 297 mph with a 303 terminal speed.
As to you ability to make 1800 hp, I'm sure you can but....
can it run 10 miles @ WOT?
Good Luck, enjoy your project.
-
It takes about 600 hp to go 200 mph in this car (roughly) so cube the power to double the speed.
If I took that literally that would mean you'd need 216 million horsepower to go 400. Better turn the boost way up.We had 800hp to run 213mph and I'm thinging another 1000rwhp should do it.
Maybe not. As Sum points out, it might take over 2200 hp.
-
Thanks for all the kind words. We had 800hp to run 213mph and I'm thinking another 1000rwhp should do it. We are going to keep it a small block. I saw many cars that had 671 's sticking out of the hood in 69 camaros and they were in impound alot.......a magazineen car especially. I really want those guys! we will bring several different front ends and would like to run several different classes. My shop builds Mustangs, I can't use a Camaro body even if it's better aerodynamically. I guess we will see how far it we can go with the 95 Stang chassis. I have seen plenty of drag pieces but nothing geared to the salt flats.......that may be telling me something but I'm hard headed. Any help would be appreciated. What is the stock Chassis record?
SteveD
in Houston
Let's play with some numbers and remember that these are just numbers based on a bunch of guesses.
Above you mention 800 HP to run 213 and below that talk about 1000 RWHP. I'm assuming the 800 wasn't RWHP.
Using the spreadsheets on my site:
http://purplesagetradingpost.com/sumner/bvillecar/bville-spreadsheet-index.html
If I say your car currently has a Cd of .35 and a frontal area (at it's widest point) of 27 sq. ft. I figure (using the Drag Force-HP-Thrust-Weight spreadsheet) that it would take 623 RWHP to run 213 mph. That might be realistic as that is 79% of what is your crank HP if the 800 was crank HP. Also you would need 2200 lbs. down-force on the rear axle for traction for a .5 coefficient of traction for the salt.
Now using those Cd and Area numbers to run 300 mph with the car unchanged would take 1740 RWHP and 4400 lbs. on the rear axle for a .5 coefficient of traction for the salt.
--------------------------------------------------
Now let's say you can lower the Cd to .30.
To run the 213 mph you would need 534 RWHP and 1900 lbs. on the rear axle.
To run 300 mph you would need 1492 RWHP and 3700 lbs. on the rear axle.
----------------------------------------------
Some things to consider here and you might already be aware of them.
The importance of and relationship of the Center of Gravity ( CG ) and Center of Pressure ( CP ) to one another:
http://purplesagetradingpost.com/sumner/bvillecar/bville%20-%20LSR%20Thoughts-4.html
Thrust and it's relation to weight (down force) on the drive wheels:
http://purplesagetradingpost.com/sumner/bvillecar/bville%20-%20LSR%20Thoughts-3.html
Gearing has to be dead on at these speeds with a realistic gear that will just run the required speed at the rpm where you have the HP to achieve that speed:
http://purplesagetradingpost.com/sumner/bvillecar/bville%20-%20LSR%20Thoughts-5.html
...........and like Mike said a dozen other things that have to be right on when you are shooting for a goal like you have set. I don't mean to be pessimistic, but a 5 year plan would probably be a realistic minimum for the goal of running 300 mph in almost any type car. You start running in the mid 200's and everything has to be right, track, car, crew, weather, time of day you run, etc..
Mike let loose with some really invaluable info in his post. Thanks Mike, I almost always learn something from what you have to say.
Good luck and if I can help let me know (and I'm a Chevy guy),
Sum
-
Your gonna need a lot of ponnies to get that pony over 300.
-
I can come up with the HP and if we don't do it we will turn up the boost and hope for the best. It can't be any less aerodynamic than some of the cars running 6-71 type blower but our turbo should be alot more effeciant and better inthe earo dept. Yes I know the trans am is a better body but I will try it anyway. I don't want to do a Ford motor in a GM body...it's against my nature. I'm more worried about the down force on the rear end and making it stick..............Later
-
............. It can't be any less aerodynamic than some of the cars running 6-71 type blower but our turbo should be a lot more efficient and better in the aero dept. ......................
But are any of them running anywhere near 300??
................... I'm more worried about the down force on the rear end and making it stick..............Later
Yep lots of weight. You will probably have to be 6000 lbs. or more. The more HP the more weight you are going to have to have, so a car that needs 1800 HP to run 300 is going to need more weight than one that needs 1400 to run 300.
Good luck,
Sum
-
The Camaro had a 14-71 blower sticking out of the hood and 555 inches to be a AA. Tougher to do in a Mustang of that vintage. Actually if you look vehicles with under 500 inches seem to fair better. Giant blowers and giant hood scoops make for bad coefficient of drag. Ask the guys who take them off. Notice the Rains and Kugal cars have no protrusions sticking out of the hood. That you tell you something along with the cubic inches used....Good Luck
-
Just curious why would you put such a big blower through the hood. Wouldn’t a twin turbo set up be more efficient and more aerodynamic? They can get over a 1000HP out of a small Honda engine with a single turbo, so a big AA motor should be well above that.
-
Just curious why would you put such a big blower through the hood. Wouldn’t a twin turbo set up be more efficient and more aerodynamic? They can get over a 1000HP out of a small Honda engine with a single turbo, so a big AA motor should be well above that.
(http://purplesagetradingpost.com/sumner/hooley/2006S-4.jpg)
Agreed, but which one looks meaner??? Some guys will give up getting a record for nostalgia's sake. We were lucky enough to get a record with a roots blower, since that was what Hooley was going to run, but a turbo car will have it someday or one with a screw blower,
Sum
-
As I remember, the 14-71 was put on because Dave had it. Yeah, it looked awesome, but it was so big that Tonya was concerned about driving the car. If she drove the #1 course -- where turn out to the right is okay (left is "I need help") -- she wouldn't be able to see where she was going 'cvause the blower was in the way.
Also the combination made too damn much horsepower -- the car wouldn't hook up. That's why K & D and crew removed the blower and installed the bottle. I don't remember if the Camaro set a record with the blower, though, but might have.
They were pitted about two cars from us -- and spent most of SpeedWeek wrenching. Where's the fun in that? I mean, SpeedWeek is for visiting with other racers, right?