bifs66

Joey also has the pole for the Xfinity race today; and Brad Keselowski has the truck race pole. The Ford drivers are making for a very interesting racing season. Here's hoping the Roush group can get going this year. OOPS: update.. upon further review, NASCAR determined that Keselowski's lap didn't count and he didn't make the pole.

I 'd like to thank Blueovalnews for including this new forum category for discussing Ford's participation in motorsports. I don't remember when Ford powered racers won all four classes of races at Daytona (IMSA/Tudor, Trucks, Xfinity, and Sprint Cup). If this success continues at Atlanta; I too can see a "rules change" happening.

When I became aware that motorsports existed in some form or another, the Ford flathead V8, with few exceptions, was pretty dominant. When the OHV V-8s came on the scene, the Flathead was history. There were no "adjustments" to ensure that the Flathead remained competitive. Within the ranks of the OHVs, the Chrysler and SBC ascended to the top based on their performance potential. There were no "ajustments" to keep the others (as in Y-block) competitive. Ultimately, the SBC went into most all forms of motorsports. We Ford fans bided our time waiting for Ford to wake up and produce a small block competitive product. The answer cam with the 221,260,289, 302 series; and ultimately the 351C. All of a sudden, sanctioning bodies started adding weight, making adjustments, banning Cleveland heads, etc...seemingly to keep the SBC out front. When Ford ran the little pushrod Indy V-8 in 1963, it had to compete on equal terms with the Offys. Later the rules were changed to allow more displacement for pushrod engines. With the introduction of the new Ford GT, there has been much discussion and hand wringing over the engine choice. In today's motorsports world, with diverse designs brought to a common denominator through rules, determining the technically superior product is a mystery.

What do you mean by BS? Didn't the V6 run at race speeds for 24 hrs? Didn't the engine run without problems? Isn't this engine configuration being groomed for an LeMans effort? Didn't the car win? Those facts appear true to me. However, if you mean the BS is because IMSA "equalizes" various car/engine configurations by restricting power, adding weight, etc. then I agree with you. I would prefer a series with minimum weight; and run whatever engine type you want, as long as it uses your current stock block and heads. \?

Apparently that V-6 Eco Boost is both powerful and durable. IMO, they went just fast enough to win. If they had showed too much speed, IMSA would probably try to slow them down (in the interest of competition). This race was good preparation for the future Le Mans effort.

I would hope that an engine intended for Ford's GT, or any racing endeavor would be developed in-house. As a Ford enthusiast since the early '60s, I've seen too much credit/publicity go to Cosworth rather than Ford itself for the money invested. People still confuse the in-house developed Indy Ford V-8 with the later "Cosworth" Indy V-8 (even though the Cosworth cam covers sometimes say FORD). Additionally, writers often refer all those '60s F-1 wins as "Cosworth powered" with no mention of Ford's involvement.

The '61 Dodge was also quite strange looking. I always wondered what got into Mopar design that year. Though still a little odd, I actually liked the '62 models; particularly the plain bodied 413 powered drag cars. As far as Lexus and Infinity go, I think their grill design was inspired by the mouth of the Predator alien.

Welcome back to the Ford side of NASCAR Mark. I can reapply one of those old #6 Mark Martin decals to my F-150 that I removed some years ago.

I agree that a return to "stock" car configurations would be a start in the right direction. However, as soon as the stock Ford engine proved more capable than the stock GM engine; or the Ford body was more aero than the GM body, NASCAR would immediately make rule changes in the interest of competition. If the opposite were true, the Ford teams would just have to work harder.

"I would contend that it may have been damaged by a curb strike or some other event a few weeks or months earlier that did not cause the tire to fail immediately, but instead created what is known as a "pinch break" on the inner bladder (liner) of the tire carcass. in the event of a pinch break, air will slowly leak from the tire cavity into the carcass and start to separate the materials and create an "egg" or "bump" on the side of the tire...if ignored long enough..usually a month or two...the tire will eventually peel apart and fail...if this occurs at highway speeds, the results would be catastrophic." Sorry, but there was no evidence of a curb strike; nor any bulge on the sidewall. A layer containing the tread itself began to separate for about 25% of the circumference of the tire. Ford eventually replaced all his tires under the recall. Initially, the recall involved only 15" tires; but later they replaced the 16" Firestones on my '97 F-150 too.

My son had a Ranger pickup that was well maintained, and never hauled anything larger than a suitcase in the bed. Several months prior to the Explorer/Firestone problem going public, his rear Firestone tire began to delaminate which was very noticeable when driving. We replaced the tire before it went completely and found out later about their problem.

We've been buying new vehicles for fifty years now, and our 2011 Edge has been the best one ever.

Let's see....Model year 1965 + 50 yrs. = model year 2015. It seems model years can be released pretty much any time. It just so happened that Ford released the 1965 Mustang in April 1964 and is celebrating on that date fifty years later. It may have been different if they had designated the Mustang to be a 1964 1/2 car (like they officially did with the 1963 Fastback Galaxies and Falcons being designated 1963 1/2 models). Having closely followed the Mustang development; and been an original purchaser of a 1965 Mustang; I don't remember a single reference to the Mustang being a 1964 1/2 during those years. In Fact, Ford emphasized the idea that it was a 1965 model. I believe that the Mustang restoration movement many years later coined the 1964 1/2 notion to distinguish the technical differences between the early 65's and the later 65's.

I was one of those who were excited over the appearance of the Mustang I. Of course back then, any information, pictures, etc. of automobiles; and coverage of motorsports was gained largely through magazines. I still have a basement full of file cabinets filled with car magazines dating back to the mid fifties. If there was an article about a Ford, or a Ford on the cover, I bought it. There was a lot of print about the Mustang I; and I was hoping for the production car to be closer to it. When the Mustang II prototype was revealed; it was a little disappointing to see the departure from the two-seat sports car layout. However, that did not stop me from eventually ordering a 65 Fastback GT.

Ever since the mid 50's, GM has pretty much monopolized many forms of motor sports. In my opinion, it goes all the way back to the 1957 AMA ban (a ban GM advocated) on factory horse power and participation in auto racing. Ford and Chrysler observed the spirit of the ban while GM built cars with 4spds, fuel injection, multiple carbs, performance gearing, etc. It wasn't until 1960 that Ford began to somewhat fight back; but by that time, GM was entrenched in sanctioned motor sports. Once that happened, the majority GM participants tended to exert influence over the rules makers to favor GM products. It costs time and money to switch components; so you lobby the rules makers to keep what you have competitive. Thus, you saw displacement rules made around GM engine sizes; exclusion of some competitor's engines, weight added to competitor's cars, etc. For example, didn't the now defunct ASA organization (not sure if the name is correct) require GM engines in it's race cars even if the car bodies represented Ford or Chrysler products? These methods have helped insure GM dominance that exists through today. Interestingly, the whole time GM was supporting and dominating racing during the 50's and 60's; they claimed that they weren't involved. During the economic crisis when GM had to be bailed out; it seemed that they would have had to curtail their involvement in motorsports; but it appears the exact opposite happened.

"Ford did not lead a single lap. I repeat...not one single lap" ....... Chances are the Fords would not have led a lap of that race regardless of Toyota's participation. I've been rooting for Ford victories in all forms of motorsports since the early sixties; however, if Toyota's engineers/teams can build a more powerful 358 cu in pushrod engine and a better chassis under the regulations, then they should reap the rewards. I thought the basic idea was to build a better racecar and win races....not have NASCAR bring everyone down to the weakest team. IMO, there should be no need to "dyno" anyone's engines....just set the basic specs and let innovation produce the most HP.

I ordered my black 1985 Mustang GT with some specific items and waited eight weeks for delivery. When the car came in, the dealer said there was a price increase that I must pay to get the car. Back then, the Fox Mustangs were just coming into their own, and the salesman told me that customers were lined up asking about the car as it was being unloaded from the delivery truck. There would be no problem if I didn't want the car. I huffed and puffed; but paid the difference. We still have it; and has only been driven sparingly since 1987.

Just to complement the above 0-60 times with additional information, I referenced my library of car magazines and found the following from several issues of vintage CarLife: 1963 Plymouth Sport Fury 330HP 8.0 secs. 1963 Pontiac GP 315HP 9.5 secs. 1964 Corvette 375HP 6.3 secs. 1964 AC Cobra 271HP 5.7 secs. 1964 Olds 442 310HP 7.4 secs. Note that these tests were performed in '63/'64 when the cars were new. I am somewhat skeptical of testing forty year old cars that are supposedly original.

The slow motion view of the crash clearly shows the leading edge of the concrete wall penetrating almost completely through the car body. I don't believe Mark would have escaped serious injury or worse had the impact been a foot further forward.

I couldn't believe the assessment of the Edge. We've been buying new cars since 1965; and our 2011 Edge has been the most mechanically perfect and satisfying automobile we have ever owned. Through the last 40+ years of car buying before the Edge, every new car had something wrong or disappointing. Sometimes the problems were relatively minor; while other times there were issues that were never corrected. Even the 2008 Bullitt (that got traded for the Edge) had some issues. The power (V-6), ride, handling, comfort; and the absence of rattles, vibrations, etc. make every drive a pleasure. Being retired, most of our drives are short, local hops; yet we average 20+ mpg, This was the first auto that I purchased sight unseen. I never even looked it over prior to the dealer handing me the keys to take it home; yet interior and exterior are perfect. Perhaps, you can tell we are completely satisfied with our Edge, and thumbs down to CR. Over the years, I have had somewhat better luck with Ford's homegrown products and Ford/Japan cooperative efforts; while the European based cars were the most problematic. Can someone relate the platform lineage of the Edge?

We had a formation of AT-6s fly over our house (south of Baltimore) on the weekend of the Reading airshow. It was a distinctive sound that I immediately recognized even though it hasn't been heard around here since the '50s when the ANG flew P-51s, B-25s, and AT-6s on weekends. As a kid, I remember flying to NY on a regularly scheduled Eastern airlines DC-4 (non-pressurized) in the daytime and flying home at night. It's quite different than flying in Jet airliners.

I had a red 91 Escort GT that sustained hail damage not long after we purchased it. The insurance paid for the fix; but the repair/paint was never equal to factory finish. After a few years, the paint faded differently on each panel; and the car is mostly pink now. We bought a new Mustang in 2008; and the one night it sat outside of the garage, it was dinged by an unexpected hail storm. This time, I searched around for an expert in "paintless" dent removal. Some of them wouldn't take the job as the car was only a couple of weeks old. I finally found a guy and he did a remarkable job; even fixed a few factory issues leaving the car absolutely perfect. I wonder what form of repair Ford will apply to those Escapes.

I did't realize that Ford outsourced the Ford GT project. I thought it was an in-house development program from start to finish. Who was the company that got the contract? Additionally, wasn't the '60s Le Mans winning Ford GT Mark IV developed by Ford in-house?

I've been following NASCAR for over fifty years now; and the Toyota thing doesn't bother me at all. After all, it gives Ford a chance to beat them on the racetrack. Additionally, it gives the bowtie guys some added competition. I do lament Bill Elliot and Mark Martin driving anything other than a Ford.. As a Ford fan, it was Bill Elliot who renewed my interest in NASCAR back in the early eighties.

"I don't begrudge either of those guys. It's kind of like Ray Bourque asking for a trade to Colorado after 20 years in Boston. I don't think any reasonable person could resent a move like that. " I don't wish Bill nor Mark any ill will; nor do I consider them "bad guys" for leaving Ford, whatever the circumstances. However, my interest in NASCAR , as in other motorsports, is to enjoy Ford victories, primarily over GM entrants. When they leave the Ford camp, I have no desire to keep, nor display their items. You don't have to defend those guys to me. They are just not on my team anymore.