bifs66

As far as I can tell, the Grand Am GT class is made up of tube-frame representations of production cars. I was reading about a GT class Corvette being constructed for the Grand Am and it had some of the following specs: * Prep 2 Square tube design by Woody Wood of Bemco Fab in Deland, Fl. * Live axle with SPEEDWAY engineering Grand National floater with Nascar Cup chunk * Schwanke Racing Engines LS6 * G Force T101 A tranny from Nascar Cup team, with long shifter * Penske 8100 Series shocks * Brembo calipers and rotors, PFC pads * Howe upper and lower control arms * SWEET spindles * CCW wheels * Kirkey seat * Body by Chevrolet, save for composite roof. * approx. 2600 # minus driver There is not much in common with a stock Corvette (Notice the switch to a live axle)! The Contenental Tire (Grand AM companion series) races have Mustangs, Camaros, etc. that are much closer to "real" cars. This class typically runs a day before the Grand Am cars. My problem with Grand Am is that rules are created and applied differently to each car configuration to level the competition. Supposedly, if a car wins too much, something is done to slow it down. That leads to constant bickering; and the rules essentially determining who is going to win. I've already read that some are wanting rules changes because of Ganassie's win. I would prefer that the rules limit only car weight, engine displacement (regardless of engine type), wheelbase, etc. Let the best car, engine, and team win. Anything else is just smoke and mirrors. Remember when NHRA added hundreds of lbs. of weight to Bob Glidden's Cleveland powered Pinto so that the great SBC could win a few races? With Chevrolet sponsoring Grand Am, it would be naive to think that rules will be made without regard to Chevrolet's investment. Perhaps that is why some teams thought it advantageous to switch to bowtie power this year.

I haven't watched all of speed's coverage of the race; but they seem to bias their attention to DP cars other than the Ford powered ones. Many of the Ford powered DP cars have been in the top ten for the most of the race; yet they focus coverage on others, particularly Chevrolet powered cars such as the #99 which is 44 laps behind. It's kind of subtle, but Ford powered DP pit stops are quickly covered from afar (don't show that blue oval?); while others are covered up close and personal so that the bowtie can be seen. I suppose there is less of an issue with focusing on Porsche and BMW powered cars than since they are actually winning, and they don't compete with Chevrolet in the market place. As a Ford fan, I may be overly sensative and perhaps am imagining the bias. Do any other viewers share this impression? Perhaps my imagination is a little overly active after learning that Chevrolet has become an official sponsoring partner for this years GrandAm series. Speed may find it necessary to cover the Fords more towards the end of the race if they continue to be the most competitive American manufacturer.

The other side of this story is that these magazine guys (all from different magazines) would probably write, or cause to be writen, favorable articles about GM cars. Although, the story didn't say whether they continued to work for the magazines in some capacity while being employed by GM. There's just a hint of conflict of interest here.

A 68 yr old whose been buying Mustangs since 1965 adds a +1

How true. That Ford Indy engine had its roots in the then new 260 cu in small block Ford passenger car engine (refered to back then as the "Fairlane V8"). Over the years it lost the "Fairlane" designation and just became the SBF that we all know and love. It first appeared at Indy in 1963 as an aluminum version of the production engine, push rods and all. It came in 2nd (Clark) and 7th (Gurney). By 1965, it had been converted to DOHC; but its roots could still be traced back to the SBF. That engine was an entirely in-house Ford development effort. It's a shame that people still confuse that engine with the later Cosworth Indy engine; which was a blown version if the Ford/Cosworth F1 engine.

"Concurrently, Hau Thai-Tang, 44, director, Product Development, Ford South America Operations, is appointed executive director, Global Product Programs" As I recall, Hau Thai-Tang was one of the movers and shakers in the development of the 2005 Mustang. I remember attending a Ford event near D.C which introduced the new Mustang to numerous area Mustang car clubs. Hau Thai-Tang was the guest speaker and seemed to be a true enthusiast.

Well...My wife and I are in our 60s and we both had a good laugh over the ad. One may not appreciate the humor; but they would have to be a hermit to not understand it.

As I remember, the Cooper was NOT a modified Shelby Cobra; but a period race car/chassis into which race teams installed different manufacturer's engines. This particular one had Ford power installed. As with many vintage race cars (except the GT-40), they are not particularly handsome by today's standards.

Since the Modular family (and Coyote) are bore spacing limited; it makes sense that the Boss would be a little longer to allow for larger bores. I, and apparently Ford, saw a requirement for an engine of larger displacement (without making it wide and high due to greater deck height). I'd especially like to see the Boss show up in marine applications where GM has had a solid monopoly for over 30 yrs. How many thousands of pleasure craft are sold every year that exclusively use GM engines?

Now I can agree with a lot of what you said (feel) here.

That may be your version of the truth (your opinion). However, my opinion of the truth is founded in everything I saw, heard, or read during the hearings that reinforced the idea that Ford was there to support the bailout for the other two companies in order to keep the aftermath of their bankruptcy from having a devestating effect on Ford at a very critical time. I simply do not agree with your rant regarding Ford's role in the affair. That being said, I do have reservations on some of GM's activities since their "reconstruction"; particularly their heavy and continued support of an extraordinary number of motorsports teams and competitors across many different sanctioning organizations. Back in the late fifties, GM claimed to divest themselves of factory backed motorsports; yet continued to develop and sell high performance components and automobiles. Likewise today, GM claimes to have significantly cut back racing dollars; yet I don't see much of a reduction at all. Being a die hard Ford enthusuast for over 50 yrs, I typically have nothing positive to say about GM. However, under the current circumstances, I do hope they recover for the overall good of the country.

Apparently Alan Mulally thought it was more than speculation when he humbled himself in front of Congress to plead for the auto bailout in behalf of GM and Chrysler.

Didn't the designer of the PT Cruiser defect to GM and styled the HHR? If so, maybe he had a hand in the Stratus and Volt sedans. .

I remember a development version of the BOSS was raced in a Mustang some time ago; so apparently it fits. Anyone know the dimensions and weight of the production BOSS engine? Its been overshadowed by the 5.0; but isn't it basically similar the MOPAR HEMI, only potentially better with being an OHC design?

I've ordered three Mustangs over the past years from three different dealers...a 65 GT Fastback, a 69 Mach I, and an 85 GT. All three took exactly 8 weeks. The 65 was delivered as ordered; the 69 had the wrong tires; and the 85 had a window sticker stating that Ford had put 147 "test" miles on the car.

Recently, our Mustang club sponsored our annual all-Ford show at Bob Bell Ford (MD). The evening before the show, our club members moved all the dealer's inventory to other lots to make room for the show. One of the vehicles that I got to move was a $50K+, 6.2 Raptor. I was concerned about driving it off of the high-curbed display area; but the salesman said "just take it off at about 60 mph and get some air"! I eased it down and was very careful transporting it to the other lot.

Last Saturday, our local Mustang club had its 17th annual all-Ford car show at Bob Bell Ford in Glen Burnie Md. The dealer acquired an SMS franchise; and had several SMS Mustangs there for sale, including Nos. 01, 03 and 05. Steve Saleen made a personal appearance and signed autographs, dashes, and various car parts for the many Saleen Mustang owners that had gathered for the show. Interestingly, there were some detail differences between SMS Mustang 01 and SMS Mustang 03. Steve gave a little speech, selected a favorite Saleen Mustang; and acknowledged the recent GT-1 class victory for his Saleen S-7 supercar at the Le Mans 24 hrs. race.

In general, doesn't the 6.2 Ford already have about the same valve/cylinder layout as the Mopar Hemi engine with the exception that the Ford has SOHC while the Hemi has push rods? Basically, isn't the difference between the new engines similar to the difference between the 60s era 427 SOHC FE and the 426 Hemi?

I like it too.

As soon as the 1965 GT package was made public, I ordered a 4spd Ivy Green Fastback GT (which was my first new car) from Archway Ford in Baltimore. After waiting the eight week delivery time, I picked it up and headed straight to the local hambuger joint where everyone hung out. The Mustang caused quite a bit of excitement back then...just like the new 5.0 is doing today. I've owned Mustangs of one variety or another ever since.

The Popular Hotrodding article takes me back to 1985 when I orderd my 5.0 5spd Mustang GT (which I still have). Back then, I collected as much of the published info that I could find about the GT. A Popular Hotrodding issue that I bought (Apr 85) had a comparison test of the Mustang GT, IROC Camaro, and Dodge Shelby Charger. We all know that Popular Hotrodding is GM biased; however, they wrote thew following: "This was a classic battle...and the typical result of the confrontation. The auto equipped Camaro could not handle the lighter and quicker Mustang, the latter recording a best 1/4 mile time of 14.8 secs at 94 mph to the Camaro's 15.45 secs at 89 mph." They noted that the Camaro had an auto because it was the only transmission available with the 215 hp tuned port engine. Also, the Mustang generated increasing power up to 5000 rpm while the Camaro power fell off after 4000 rpm. I guess history does repeat itself.

Several committee members have bored down on the testimony regarding the ineffectiveness of the witness putting the transmission in "reverse" at high speed. One particular member revisited the issue claming that it would have dropped the transmission on the ground. I don't know about modern electronic transmissions; but I mistakenly pushed the "R" button on a 1957 Plymouth (47 years ago) at about 40 mph and it went into "neutral". I quickly pushed "D" and all was well again. So I feel pretty certain that hitting reverse would not "drop" a new transmission.

On Hagerty's suggestion, I'll hang on to my 85 GT 5spd for a little longer. I've had it since new, but haven't driven it regularly since 1987. It's still shod with the original tires which show no cracking; but I bet they're pretty hard by now.

A few months ago when I went for my yearly eye exam, I discovered that a woman had ramed her car (staff told me it was a Toyota) through the office side window and nearly killed the doctor at his desk. Of course, the immediate response was to blame the driver; but with the subsequent Toyota gas pedal issue, she may have an excuse.

I believe this is a case where racing will actually improve the breed. This professional series is about as close to stock as it gets. They will discover a great deal about the Mustang's structure, handling, and the new 5.0 engine which can influence and improve the production Mustang. I'd bet that the previous years Mustang GT racing had a lot to do with the excellent handling characterictics of the current "track pack" option. At least the JBS Mustang (4th) did manage to beat the Camaro (5th). I've got my finger's crossed that one of the Ford powered DP cars will win the 24 hrs.