Motor Differences
8/31/05, 12:19 PM
#1
Hey Brian,
Whats the difference between the motor you guys run in the #59 05 mustang and the #58 @ #52 04 SVT cobra? Other than the obvious intake difference?
#59
#52
Whats the difference between the motor you guys run in the #59 05 mustang and the #58 @ #52 04 SVT cobra? Other than the obvious intake difference?
#59
#52
8/31/05, 01:07 PM
#2
V6 Member
Join Date: September 26, 2004
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the GA rules, the 05 runs the 5.0 "Cammer" crate engine from FRPP. 03 and 04 Mustangs can run either the supercharged 03-04 Cobra engine or the 98-02 NA Cobra engine. It looks like a NA 4.6 Cobra engine in the #52.
GA Cup regulations are here:
http://www.grandamerican.com/CONTENT/Docs/...0GAC%203-28.pdf
GA Cup regulations are here:
http://www.grandamerican.com/CONTENT/Docs/...0GAC%203-28.pdf
8/31/05, 03:49 PM
#3
more or less what chocophile said.
But to throw out a few more specifics, the engine we run in the SN95 cars is more or less standard 4.6L 4V, bored out to displace 5.0L (94mm bore IIRC), and is allowed a mild cam (11mm lift cam IIRC)
The new "cammer" engine is the FRPP R50 crate engine. It has a unique Ford racing engine block casting, as well as different heads from production. Basically, it shares similar architecture, but nearly every part is different from production Mustang.
But to throw out a few more specifics, the engine we run in the SN95 cars is more or less standard 4.6L 4V, bored out to displace 5.0L (94mm bore IIRC), and is allowed a mild cam (11mm lift cam IIRC)
The new "cammer" engine is the FRPP R50 crate engine. It has a unique Ford racing engine block casting, as well as different heads from production. Basically, it shares similar architecture, but nearly every part is different from production Mustang.
8/31/05, 03:56 PM
#4
thanks guys.
That is what I was more wondering about, if the bore on the sn95 were comparable to the 05 cammer. Thought maybe it was a cammer just with a 99/01 adapted intake or something.
Rara, I know you guys have these cars on the dyno, can you post what kind of numbers show up between the 2 style motors? Also, if you are able to run a supercharger on the sn95 ones, why dont you? heat/reliability issues revolving around the 03/04 eaton m112?
That is what I was more wondering about, if the bore on the sn95 were comparable to the 05 cammer. Thought maybe it was a cammer just with a 99/01 adapted intake or something.
Rara, I know you guys have these cars on the dyno, can you post what kind of numbers show up between the 2 style motors? Also, if you are able to run a supercharger on the sn95 ones, why dont you? heat/reliability issues revolving around the 03/04 eaton m112?
8/31/05, 07:50 PM
#5
Scothew, I'm not going to post any numbers, but I will say the "cammer" makes noticably more power than the older engines. We've asked to allow the R50 for the SN95 cars, but no dice yet, lol.
As far as why no supercharged engines, that is a very good question . . . There was a team last year that made a serious go of the 03/04 Cobra spec engines, and most often they ran behind us, lol.
But seriously, the 03/04 SC engines bring with them some difficulties for road racing. First, Grand Am limits the amount of boost you can run, as well as dictating that you must use the iron block, and the base weight is 125 lbs more than a car running the NA 5.0L. The two major hurdles to overcome on the SC engine in road racing are cooling and fuel economy. Remember that the parasitic drag of the supercharger uses up something like 100hp at full song on an 03/04 Cobra, which means you are using up enough fuel to make 500hp, and dumping 500hp worth of waste heat into the cooling system while only putting down ~400hp at the tires. The cooling issue can be overcome with some creative thinking, but the fuel economy thing is tough. Mustangs are limited to 20 gallons of fuel in Grand Am Cup, and depending on the track, it is often borderline whether you will need one or two stops for fuel. The extra usage of the SC almost guarantees the need for more than one stop.
As far as reliability, as long as you don't overheat the whole engine, or way over spin them, the eaton blowers are really stone reliable.
As far as why no supercharged engines, that is a very good question . . . There was a team last year that made a serious go of the 03/04 Cobra spec engines, and most often they ran behind us, lol.
But seriously, the 03/04 SC engines bring with them some difficulties for road racing. First, Grand Am limits the amount of boost you can run, as well as dictating that you must use the iron block, and the base weight is 125 lbs more than a car running the NA 5.0L. The two major hurdles to overcome on the SC engine in road racing are cooling and fuel economy. Remember that the parasitic drag of the supercharger uses up something like 100hp at full song on an 03/04 Cobra, which means you are using up enough fuel to make 500hp, and dumping 500hp worth of waste heat into the cooling system while only putting down ~400hp at the tires. The cooling issue can be overcome with some creative thinking, but the fuel economy thing is tough. Mustangs are limited to 20 gallons of fuel in Grand Am Cup, and depending on the track, it is often borderline whether you will need one or two stops for fuel. The extra usage of the SC almost guarantees the need for more than one stop.
As far as reliability, as long as you don't overheat the whole engine, or way over spin them, the eaton blowers are really stone reliable.
8/31/05, 08:32 PM
#6
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: February 12, 2004
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems like the SN-95s would already be at a disadvantage to the new cars without further handicapping it by not allowing the cammer. Are they intentionally trying to drive out the older cars and smaller teams that can't afford the latest and greatest?
8/31/05, 09:59 PM
#7
It almost sounds like it doesnt it Dan.
Brian, thanks for clearing that up. I understand on not posting numbers.
The points you made on the supercharger just putting more stress on the motor and eating resources was pretty much what I was figuring on, just wasnt sure what all limitations you guys were held to.
btw, I am guessing you use an alum. block in the sn95's. Is it the one from the 96-98 4v's or a special core SHM uses?
Brian, thanks for clearing that up. I understand on not posting numbers.
The points you made on the supercharger just putting more stress on the motor and eating resources was pretty much what I was figuring on, just wasnt sure what all limitations you guys were held to.
btw, I am guessing you use an alum. block in the sn95's. Is it the one from the 96-98 4v's or a special core SHM uses?
9/1/05, 07:14 AM
#8
we have been using the standard Ford alum. block, don't recall the part number, but I'm sure its the current 99+ replacement block (IIRC its the same block as the Mach and the Aviator, etc.)
9/1/05, 02:50 PM
#9
V6 Member
Join Date: September 26, 2004
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by DanS.02GT@August 31, 2005, 8:35 PM
It seems like the SN-95s would already be at a disadvantage to the new cars without further handicapping it by not allowing the cammer. Are they intentionally trying to drive out the older cars and smaller teams that can't afford the latest and greatest?
It seems like the SN-95s would already be at a disadvantage to the new cars without further handicapping it by not allowing the cammer. Are they intentionally trying to drive out the older cars and smaller teams that can't afford the latest and greatest?
Another question for you Brian: I've seen 05 GA Mustangs both with and without the rear spoiler. At Barber, the Blackforest 4 didn't have a spoiler, but the #5 (also from Blackforest) did. I think most of the 05s run without. Any comments on what kind of difference the spoiler makes?
9/2/05, 01:00 PM
#10
One correction, the 05 Mustang is now up to 3300lbs for GAC.
The SN95 cars, both SC and NA, are becoming less and less competitive as all the rest of the field develops thier cars better. The SN95 cars are pretty much fully developed to take maximum advantage of what the rules allow for them. If we were given some more breaks on some key parts, we could continue to keep up with the front runners I think.
As far as the spoilers, there is a Steeda one that is an allowed mod for the 05 cars. The wing is very similar to the one allowed for the SN95 cars. We haven't tried it on our 05 car, but I know on the SN95 it did provide some additional rear stability at high speeds (especially tracks like Daytona) that made the car more confidence inspiring for the drivers. Plus it looks mean
I'm not sure if we will end up putting one on the 05 car or not, only time will tell . . .
The SN95 cars, both SC and NA, are becoming less and less competitive as all the rest of the field develops thier cars better. The SN95 cars are pretty much fully developed to take maximum advantage of what the rules allow for them. If we were given some more breaks on some key parts, we could continue to keep up with the front runners I think.
As far as the spoilers, there is a Steeda one that is an allowed mod for the 05 cars. The wing is very similar to the one allowed for the SN95 cars. We haven't tried it on our 05 car, but I know on the SN95 it did provide some additional rear stability at high speeds (especially tracks like Daytona) that made the car more confidence inspiring for the drivers. Plus it looks mean
I'm not sure if we will end up putting one on the 05 car or not, only time will tell . . .
9/2/05, 02:09 PM
#11
V6 Member
Join Date: September 26, 2004
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3300 lbs!?! That makes it the heaviest car in the GS class, doesn't it? Unless they've changed other car's specs but not updated the online regs. Actually, looks like it was already the heaviest car at 3200. The Cadillac CTS-V is only 3150, with a 5.7 engine and 6-speed trans!
Then again, let's admit that the Cammer is *not* a stock engine. I enjoy seeing Mustangs doing so well. But part of me thinks that the inclusion of the Cammer seems to go against the spirit of the GA Cup. (But so do the carbon fiber body parts on the CTS...)
Then again, let's admit that the Cammer is *not* a stock engine. I enjoy seeing Mustangs doing so well. But part of me thinks that the inclusion of the Cammer seems to go against the spirit of the GA Cup. (But so do the carbon fiber body parts on the CTS...)
SECTION 1 - PURPOSE
1-1 Purpose - This category is designed to encourage race competition of standard volume-produced cars and components, to demonstrate the quality and reliability of various makes and models, and to promote the performance of drivers, manufacturers and other participants.
1-1 Purpose - This category is designed to encourage race competition of standard volume-produced cars and components, to demonstrate the quality and reliability of various makes and models, and to promote the performance of drivers, manufacturers and other participants.
9/4/05, 10:25 AM
#12
yeah, i'm pretty sure the 05 Mustang is the heaviest car in the field now.
and you are right, the "Cammer" is not a "stock" engine, its a FRPP crate motor. To be honest, I have suspicions that the CTS-V engines are actually destroked versions of the world challenge 7.0L block . . . and they also have dry sump oiling. Not that it matters I suppose, because while they have plenty of power, no one can seem to make the CTS-V handle well enough to be competitive.
The one that frustrates me, is that the Mustangs and the M3s have been pounding at each other all season, and the Mustangs get "competitive adjustements" on a regular basis, while the BMW's have gotten few changes through out the year, and to nowhere near the same level as the Mustangs.
and you are right, the "Cammer" is not a "stock" engine, its a FRPP crate motor. To be honest, I have suspicions that the CTS-V engines are actually destroked versions of the world challenge 7.0L block . . . and they also have dry sump oiling. Not that it matters I suppose, because while they have plenty of power, no one can seem to make the CTS-V handle well enough to be competitive.
The one that frustrates me, is that the Mustangs and the M3s have been pounding at each other all season, and the Mustangs get "competitive adjustements" on a regular basis, while the BMW's have gotten few changes through out the year, and to nowhere near the same level as the Mustangs.
9/5/05, 03:46 AM
#14
Originally posted by GOFISCH@September 4, 2005, 1:18 PM
When you say "competitive adjustments" do you mean the Mustangs are being slowed down?
When you say "competitive adjustments" do you mean the Mustangs are being slowed down?
Yeah, the Mustangs were originally spec'ed out to be 3100 # and have a 4.10 rear gear. They have progressively increased the Mustang's weight as the car does well, until now, the min weight is 3300#, and allowed rear axle ratio was changed from 4.10 to 3.55.
The BMW M3 has had weight added, but I believe is still allowed to be less than 3100#, and I believe they are forced to run the stock intake tube.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post