TomServo92 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 we are talking about an acura TSX here, a luxury family sedan. ford should be ashamed about their sports car getting destroyed by a family sedan, even with the weight disadvantage. oh, and don't side step the main issue in homologation: the fact remains, the mustang is allowed much greater displacement per vehicle weight. let me say it again: 1.37 cc of displacement / lb weight, while the tsx is only allowed 0.89 cc / lb. and even with the displacement / weight advantage, and with a sports car chassis, the mustang consistently gets lapped by a family sedan. There's nothing to be ashamed of when the rules put you at a disadvantage. If I made you carry an extra 200 lbs in a footrace against someone was allowed participate unemcumbered, would you be embarrassed if you lost? Didn't thinks so. As for the displacement per lb of weight: that only helps you in straight line. On a road course, a lighter vehicle will have an advantage, FWD or not. I bet if you put a bone stock Mustang GT against a bone stock TSX, it wouldn't even be close to fair. The TSX would be "decimated". That's why these ruling bodies like SCCA are always tweaking the rules in regards to weight, gearing, etc.: to level the playing field. Of course I'm not a bit surprised you're too stupid to realize that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGallun Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 we are talking about an acura TSX here, a luxury family sedan. ford should be ashamed about their sports car getting destroyed by a family sedan, even with the weight disadvantage. oh, and don't side step the main issue in homologation: the fact remains, the mustang is allowed much greater displacement per vehicle weight. let me say it again: 1.37 cc of displacement / lb weight, while the tsx is only allowed 0.89 cc / lb. and even with the displacement / weight advantage, and with a sports car chassis, the mustang consistently gets lapped by a family sedan. if iam not mistaken the tracks they run on in that series seriously favor a lighter vehicle, hence more nimble etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Another question: What about brakes? I'm not going to dig through the specs, but if the ratio of weight to swept area isn't proportional, all other things being equal, that puts you at a serious disadvantage on a road course...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captainp4 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) Just something that is being over looked and I think would have a fairly large impact on the speed that the vehicles run. If they NASCAR cars are required to run stock ride height and bodies, including tires, motors, transmissions, etc - I doubt the top speed will be anywhere near the same with the aero on factory fusions, malibus, etc. It all depends on how much is regulated to "stock". If the companies really cared about winning, we'd start to see some pretty awesome family sedans coming out .. SHO Fusiosn?? lol Edited February 14, 2011 by Captainp4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 If the companies really cared about winning, we'd start to see some pretty awesome family sedans coming out .. SHO Fusiosn?? lol But they don't fit the rules, and couldn't compete. Capice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 I think he was talking about changing the rules..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captainp4 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) Yep. Capice? Edited February 15, 2011 by Captainp4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGR Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 The number of participants in a race is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. There were 43 cars on the track at the start of the Brickyard 400 and 24 cars on the track for the Indy 500. The rest of your spot on, but the Indy 500 has had 33 starters every year since the 40s, except 1996, when they had 35. Some years in the 00s it was a struggle to get to 33, but they always did. Now the rest of the races are a different story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Capice? Is Chevy bringing a Holden police vehicle to NASCAR??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captainp4 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Is Chevy bringing a Holden police vehicle to NASCAR??? :lol: Falcons, chargers, 300s and cheby caprices on the NASCAR circuit? Could be pretty cool! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 The mustang FR500 weighs 3240 lbs as a turn key race car. 3350 lbs min weight with DRIVER is not adding too much weight. The fact is the mustang is heavier to begin with, and the acura's lighter, more finely tuned chassis and smaller displacement makes it a better platform to build a touring class race car from. A stock mustang would beat a stock tsx because the stock tsx is built more for refinement and luxury. But if you want to build a race car, the mustang is obviously vastly inferior to the tsx. The FR500 was DOMINATING it's class before they started adding weight and jacking with final drive ratios. It's time to admit that you are just full of bullshit and move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 It's time to admit that you are just full of bullshit and move on. Somewhere there is a bridge missing it's resident........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) This is a quote from an article from August 13, 2010 regarding the Mustang making it's first appearance in the GTS class. The article is on the SCCA World Challenge website: The first appearance of the car to the series became a trial run of sorts for the machine in the production-based series, which uses weight and performance restrictions to equalize the competition among a variety of cars. Even without a baseline to operate from, the No. 68 Cates Engineering Ford Mustang FR500S of Devin Cates finished third in Saturday’s race. Bubububububububububu...... Source Edited February 15, 2011 by TomServo92 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Well, when you consider what ugly little turds the Acuras are, is it any wonder that a troll like Numb9 is in love with them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) More from the article: “We knew before Mid-Ohio that SCCA Pro Racing would have adjustments coming in the future for the Mustangs, but the series didn’t want to make them while the Mustang Challenge series was still running to a specified rules set,” WC Vision Director of Operations Scott Bove said. “Discussions and analysis are under way regarding what can be done for 2011". Edited February 15, 2011 by TomServo92 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 where are you getting this information? All I see are displacement and rpm caps What do you think an RPM cap is? HP = tq * RPM / 5252. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue II Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 well, there were a couple mustang fr500s cars in the last scca world challenge season, and they were completely decimated by acura tsx and honda civic LOL So............you like your cool aid rice flavored. Honda will never have a 110 year old racing heritage like Ford. We have won on every venue on planet earth. Get over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Nr9 - why no replies to the quotes from the article I posted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 heh. dominating who? Bimmerworld? Oh you mean those clowns who crashed out all three of their cars at watkins glen trying to keep up with RTR Acuras a couple years back... Learn some history before you look like more of troll-moron than you really are.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 well theres no artificial cap on the torque curve except for displacement, and stock engine configuration. Yeah, well, that's a cap on torque........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 honestly i didn't see what you were trying to say with the article. Finish third with a 4.6L engine in a class where most competitors are between 2-3 liters is not terribly impressive. While carrying more weight. You truly are stupid aren't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 More proof SCCA caps peformance on certain cars to equalize competition: Along similar lines of cost containment, the GT class will use a new performance baseline in 2010, for example, one similar to the 2010 Porsche 911 GT3 Cup car. Existing cars, such as the Chevrolet Corvette, Dodge Viper, Ford Mustang, Volvo S60, 2009 Porsche GT3 Cup and Aston Martin DB9, will be adjusted to the new baseline by means of weight and air restriction to achieve parity. Source OK Nr9. Let's hear some more of your moronic spin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) the weight disadvantage is miniscule compared to the displacement advantage. for example, the SLR mclaren has the same base weight limit as the mustang and similar displacement, yet it competes in the GT class! lol at the mustang bringing that type of displacement-weight ratio into the GTS class and then getting hammered by a bunch of rice rockets 750lb is miniscule? Did your momma drop you on your head as a child? Edited February 15, 2011 by TomServo92 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 i never denied this, scca does it by minimum weight and rpm limits, and turbo pressure restrictions on cars with stock turbo, as well as intake restrictors. the mustang does not have any intake restriction and the displacement-weight ratio it is allowed is extremely high for the GTS class yet it consistently gets destroyed by 4 cylinder family sedans Wait...you said there are no artificial torgue limits yet now you say they have RPM or turbo pressure limits? MORON!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 give 750 lb and get twice the engine displacement? who wouldn't want that? Because you don't twice the power moron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.