2011 Mustang GT500 - 9 seconds faster at VIR

Vincent Keene · **Posted:** Wed May 19, 2010 2:59 pm

Kevin Allen wrote:

Explain what makes it crap, please. Does it just turn off the engine and let it coast for a couple of seconds or something?

I can't speak to the Mustang RL, but there are different types and some suck. The one in my Miata is the typical "bang, bang, bang" which will continue until you lift or shift. The one in my Z-24 is a fuel cut and it acts almost like the someone switched off the ignition...which sucks.

Michael Westerfield · **Posted:** Wed May 19, 2010 3:34 pm

Vincent Keene wrote:

Kevin Allen wrote:

Explain what makes it crap, please. Does it just turn off the engine and let it coast for a couple of seconds or something?

I can't speak to the Mustang RL, but there are different types and some suck. The one in my Miata is the typical "bang, bang, bang" which will continue until you lift or shift. The one in my Z-24 is a fuel cut and it acts almost like the someone switched off the ignition...which sucks.

Yes, similar in the mustang, once you hit it, you lose power for several seconds before power is restored. I don't know if it is ignition or fuel that they are using to control it, but obviously it is a function of the firmware in the ECU. The frequency is lower, and the duration of engine speed drop is higher.

Donnie Barnes · **Posted:** Wed May 19, 2010 3:59 pm

Jason Tower wrote:

oh hell yes i hit the curbs, but not to the extent that i saw in the video (half a car width over them, maybe more). but eventually you reach a point where the increased turning radius is more than offset by upsetting the car and it slows you down. of course the word "abuse" is relative too, both to the car and to the track. when you run over the curbs so much that you're visibly spreading dirt across the racing surface, that's irresponsible IMHO, especially when it's just open lapping instead of a race where you may be jockeying for position three wide. i guess if it isn't his car, and the vir folks don't care, then drive any way you want.

Sounds like we agree on how much curb to hit in general. At track days, dragging crap onto the track is bad. At club races, it's bad. At pro races? They all do it and the track has to make it painful enough they shouldn't, but few do. They just fix the place back up after the pro weekend.

But I'm not sure we agree on how much this guy did it, either. I saw egregious use at the bottom of the spiral (which could have been error as much as anything) and in two of the esses on the Patriot portion. It looks like everyone does it out there, though, so that's on VIR, IMHO, to make it abrupt enough you don't want to do it. If I'm out there driving for a factory and trying to set a fast lap time for my employer, well, I'm gonna straightline a lot more than he did.

Anyway, we're splitting hairs now. The more I watch it the more I think the guy is actually a very good driver who just didn't know VIR very well yet (and definitely made some mistakes because of it).

--Donnie

Jason Tower · **Joined:** Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:31 pm **Posts:** 1173

yeah we're pretty much on the same page. good driver + long track - time to learn it / early session + a little showboating = video. i should be driving grand at least once or twice this year, hopefully i can get some lap times myself for the sake of comparison.

DickRasmussen · **Posted:** Wed May 19, 2010 8:33 pm

I "think" Ford put up the "less than optimum" lap on purpose to make the "average" potential buyer feel better about how he would drive one and to give actual racing experts a chance to spot the errors, etc and debate them.

If it was a "perfect" lap, everyone would say WOW and give the credit to the driver rather than the car. :lol:

Arthur McDonald · **Joined:** Fri Aug 29, 2003 1:54 am **Posts:** 2052

Michael Westerfield wrote:

Vincent Keene wrote:

Kevin Allen wrote:

Explain what makes it crap, please. Does it just turn off the engine and let it coast for a couple of seconds or something?

I can't speak to the Mustang RL, but there are different types and some suck. The one in my Miata is the typical "bang, bang, bang" which will continue until you lift or shift. The one in my Z-24 is a fuel cut and it acts almost like the someone switched off the ignition...which sucks.

Yes, similar in the mustang, once you hit it, you lose power for several seconds before power is restored. I don't know if it is ignition or fuel that they are using to control it, but obviously it is a function of the firmware in the ECU. The frequency is lower, and the duration of engine speed drop is higher.

Sam S told me that the GT rev limiter requires you to back off 500 rpm before you get power again. I've bumped into it once or twice, fortunately just as I was entering elements that required me to slow down anyway. The traction control event I had a Danville was much worse, where it left me in limp-home mode for the last 200 ft of the course after some wheelspin in the last right hand turn. I am proud to say that I remembered to TURN OFF the traction control before every run at Sanford

Also, I ran the 2011 GT w/3.73 gears through my handy-dandy rpm/gear/mph spreadsheet, and it says you hit redline at 60 mph. Add in shorter sidewall r-comp tires, and I think you're gonna want to order yours with 3.55 gears.

Wheels.. well, according to the order guide I found http://forums.themustangsource.com/show ... p?t=479987
there are 18x8s and 19x8.5s for non-Brembo GTs, and 19x9s for Brembo equipped GTs. (My 2007 runs 18x8.5s) A quick glance through the Hooiser catalog shows 265/30-19 (1" narrower than what I'm running now), or 315/30-19s, which are spec'ed for an 11" wide rim. Assuming they'll fit. My 295/30-18s already rub the left-side fender liner at full right lock.

Nevertheless, I WANT a 2011 GT500, but only if it looks like a 2008 KR.

DickRasmussen · **Posted:** Thu May 20, 2010 7:47 am

Regarding gearing for the 2011 Mustang GT manual the choices are 3:31 (standard) or 3:55 or 3:73. Gear choices are stand alone options. The consensus of Sam and a couple of other National level guys on SCCA Forums is the 3:31s should be optimal. Assuming 7K redline and slightly smaller diameter than stock tires the speed would be about 65 mph at redline. Sam said 3:55's might be his choice depending on rev limiter behavior.

FYI on similar courses my 114 HP FF typically would see between 60 and 68 mph on several straights (rev limit in second at 68 mph ). I have a 78 mph 3rd for the longer straights.

Aaron Buckley · **Posted:** Thu May 20, 2010 1:44 pm

It's official. Both the V6 and V8 non-GT 500 are FS. GT 500 is BS.

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/ ... k-june.pdf

- AB

JamesShort · **Posted:** Thu May 20, 2010 2:30 pm

Aaron Buckley wrote:

It's official. Both the V6 and V8 non-GT 500 are FS. GT 500 is BS.

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/ ... k-june.pdf

- AB

I saw that they didn't recommend RSB for stock class

. That would have been nice for us pushers

.

Why do you folks think that only FSBs are allow in stock and not rear? Is this just a very old rule from the days where RWD was more or less the only cars in autox such that a FSB was the more common/desirable mod?

Donnie Barnes · **Posted:** Thu May 20, 2010 2:35 pm

JamesShort wrote:

Why do you folks think that only FSBs are allow in stock and not rear? Is this just a very old rule from the days where RWD was more or less the only cars in autox such that a FSB was the more common/desirable mod?

FSBs were originally only allowed because as tires got stickier there were some stock class cars that were a rollover possibility without an upgraded bar. Why can't we now get RSBs? Mostly because doing that would probably change the balance of power in a couple or three classes quite significantly. So nobody wants to go fixing everything.

And then there's the whole "rules creep" that the stock folks are trying so hard to avoid.

--Donnie

DickRasmussen · **Posted:** Thu May 20, 2010 6:16 pm

Donnie Barnes wrote:

JamesShort wrote:

Why do you folks think that only FSBs are allow in stock and not rear? Is this just a very old rule from the days where RWD was more or less the only cars in autox such that a FSB was the more common/desirable mod?

FSBs were originally only allowed because as tires got stickier there were some stock class cars that were a rollover possibility without an upgraded bar. Why can't we now get RSBs? Mostly because doing that would probably change the balance of power in a couple or three classes quite significantly. So nobody wants to go fixing everything.

And then there's the whole "rules creep" that the stock folks are trying so hard to avoid.

--Donnie

There were even lots of "autocrossable" type cars with no anti roll bars at all.

Kevin Harvey · **Posted:** Fri May 21, 2010 10:21 am

An impressive car, but until Ford gets a version of the Mustang back down to 3200 lbs or less, I will not be buying one. That is my bar of measurement.

-Kevin
"who has owned Mustangs for 20+ years"

Marty Howard · **Posted:** Fri May 21, 2010 12:11 pm

THat may never happen.

DickRasmussen · **Posted:** Fri May 21, 2010 2:35 pm

Kevin Harvey wrote:

An impressive car, but until Ford gets a version of the Mustang back down to 3200 lbs or less, I will not be buying one. That is my bar of measurement.

-Kevin
"who has owned Mustangs for 20+ years"

I would love a slightly smaller Mustang since that is what it would take to get down to your target weight.

Given the current "size of people" the car won't get smaller and still be a nominal 4 seat car with trunk plus disc brakes, 18 inch wheels, a/c, etc.

Look at the weights of various smaller cars: (per Edmunds)

911 ("base") 3075
BMW 335i Coupe: 3571
Vette: 3208
Genesis Coupe 3.8: 3389
Miata:2480
RX-8: 3111

Versus:
2011 Mustang V6: 3453 (prelim Ford Specs)
My 1988 5.0 Mustang Hatch: 3100
My 1974 260Z: 2531
Our 1984 Datsun 200SX Hatch: 2600

Donnie Barnes · **Posted:** Fri May 21, 2010 2:39 pm

So what you guys want....wait for it....wait for it.......WAIT FOR IT.....

Is a MUSTANG 2!!!!!

THSCC Forums

2011 Mustang GT500 - 9 seconds faster at VIR

Who is online