Discussion in '2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-' started by Stangman_X, Jun 20, 2004.
they offset with very low (high number) gear ratios...
Ok but I am looking at the race pages magazine (They say on the cover it is the official magazine of NMRA Ford national series). There is an super street outlaw car in there. It is not running low profile tires. And the final gear ratio is 3.89. And from what I remember (Though my memory may be faulty). You don't want that high of a rear gear in drag racing. Because you don't want to run out of rpms before the end of the track.
Were not talking about a car with a built rearend that can dump at 5000-6000 rpms...were talking about stock cars. The lower the profile the tires the better for appearance and performance. I'll just leave it at that.
That may be true in road racing, but not drag racing. In drag racing you want the sidewall to "work". The sidewalls in SERIOUS drag cars (including 7000+hp top fuel cars) have a large sidewall. Why is that? I don't know the exact physics, but I do know that large, flexible sidewalls are needed for ultimate traction from a standstill while racing in a straight line. Look in an NHRA rulebook, you can run tires with a short and or rigid sidewall in Top Fuel, Funny Car, Pro Stock, etc, etc. Do they? No.
I don't know anything about a Lotus or a Miata. But i personaly would rather have them than a "REPLICA" Cobra due to the fact of the history of the replica Cobras, now a real Cobra would be a different story.
Hmm that taller tire is more rotational mass, thus hurting performance by reducing RWHP. And to the other guy who posted to my earlier post, yea you may be right about the suspension making up for the tire width difference, but still try to hook the current stangs with 300HP....you really cant get any traction,thats basically my point.ford should have put some 275s on the back.BTW how wide of a tire is possable to fit under there?Just wondering ifyou can cram 315s under there like the current stangs.
But my point is they have dramatically changed the weight balance. And people move things like batteries to the back end to get more weight on the back wheels. Or why funny cars and dragsters try to get as much weight on the rear wheels. This is exactly what Ford has done with the new mustang. And they changed to a taller gear (3.55) in the gt.
There's some variables that are being forgotten about and/or ignored in this tire size debate. And alot of the arguments or questions posted are totally exclusive of wheel diameter or width, and only take into consideration the tire. Sidewall flex is an enormous contributor to traction. You can gain gear ratio by reducing overall wheel/tire diameter, but if you just reduce the diameter of the tire only by putting a lower-profile tire on, you've unfortunately reduced overall diameter at the expense of sidewall flex. In short, you cut off your nose despite your face, you're likely to just induce a ton of wheelspin. The best way to increase traction without increasing rotational mass is to reduce wheel diameter, and leave the tire profile alone or increase it, but achieve an OVERALL diameter that is smaller. Crying for fatter/wider tires can be fool's gold, because with the increased traction of the wider contact patch, you get the unwanted side-effect of unwanted higher rolling resistance and wind resistance once the car gets moving. Dragsters use tall tires for dual purposes. They deal with the reduction of drive ratio by compensating with the differential gear. If you notice, Dragsters acually use a fairly tiny diameter wheel, and the majority of the overall diameter is due to the monster donuts they use for tires. They use these big balloons because they are able to take advantage of the extreme flexibility they afford. Off the line, the contact patch is huge and wide, and alot of the energy is absorbed in the sidewall flex, allowing the tire to grip, and then flex, prior to spinning. Once the car starts moving, a metamorphasis takes place, radically changing all of the proportions of the tire. As tire RPM builds, the centrifuge effect of spinning at high rpm causes the tire to grow in diameter and shrink in width, which reduces the contact patch and horizontal profile allowing for less rolling resistance and less wind resistance. Think those things aren't important?? Why do you think fast drag cars run the equivelant of bicycle tires on the front?? Aerodynamics and friction. Lastly, rotational mass is indeed a horsepower killer. Of course, for a top-fuel dragster pushing 6,000-plus horsepower, the small sacrifice in rotational mass is HUGELY outweighed by the benefits I outlined above. It's the best compromise for them in the quest to get the car down the 1/4 the quickest they can. To a 6,000-7,000 h.p. rail, what you consider "BIG" tall tires are just little pee-on's to them. It's silly to equate what they run to your 300 h.p. street car. It's a crabapples to watermelons perspective. Everything is a compromise when it comes to choices in wheel/tire combo. From grip, to ride, to fuel mileage. But you've got to look at the entire picture, rotational mass, sidewall diameter/flex, wheel diameter, rolling resistance, air resistance, ride quality, lateral grip, etc.etc.. to make an intelligent observation. I would guess that Ford engineers crunched ALL of the numbers, when coming up with their wheel/tire combos for the new car so that they could achieve the optimum mix of ride and performance for their core customers. You change one aspect to the positive, you run the risk of altering 3 or 4 other aspects to the negative. That's why this ranting about "they should have done this", or "that seems stupid" makes my head hurt.
I am with SVT driver...
why would the japs sue Ford over having a similar crumple zone when Asian carmakers are so notorious for copying domestic styling?
Does it bother no one that the new Civic looks nothing like the old one, but nearly identical to the Focus?
Or that some Honda and Toyotas (can't remember which) cars have Mustang style front ends?
I think the new Celica looks suspiciously like that gay FWD rendition of the cougar.
Basically there is no end all be all of carmakers... Europeans make gay cars with some awkward features that make no sense sometimes. The Japanese are shameless copiers that end up developing styling laughingstocks like the Element that cater to ricers. American cars don't drive worth **** and generally break down more.
On top of it all, you need a degree in computer science and limitless patience to try and repair one of these crammed together peices of junk. I just stay away from all new cars altogether.
Bigger sidewalls absorb jolts that might otherwise break traction... like wheelhop
Large sidewall tires ride much better than ricer tires because they have that cushioning effect. I don't understand why anyone wants a 23 inch tire on a 22 inch rim.
Sounds about right to me, every estimate I have seen has it running 0-60 in 5.2-5.5 and the quarter in 13.9-14.2 GREAT!! Ford has finally got the Mustang to be just as quick as the Camaro Z28 was 11 years ago...they should be ashamed of the weak cars they come out with
Ray that has got to be the most ignorant comment I have ever seen on this board
If you stay away from all new cars altogether, why are you posting on a 2005 forum?
Ok maybe it's just me. But are they estimating the engine to run out of power at the top end? I'm looking at 1996 Cobra numbers (Nearly the same amount of hp and tq). And it is supposed to do a 5.9sec. 0 to 60. With a 1/4 time of 13.9. So a car that is estimated to be .4 faster getting to 60. loses it after 60 with better (higher) gearing?
As you stated thats an estimate. If this were true there's a couple reasons why. For one the 05 is supposed to launch better, hence the lower 0-60. The Cobra motor that you are bringing into question has the 4 valve heads that I would assume can breath better up top. Considering the fact that the 3v heads are the same exact part# as the truck motor it came off of, I would assume the 4v has better flow characteristics. I don't know what the actuall redline is, but looking at the dash pictures, its around 6 grand. I'm not to knowledgeable about stangs, but doesn't the 4v rev to like 7 grand or somewhere a lot higher than the GT motors. Plus, I would expect that the dual cam setup would allow Ford to tune for a much broader power band. Where as the single cam is limited to making power in a smaller rpm range. They might put out the similar numbers but as everyone knows its the power under the curve that makes the difference. Not to mention there's supposed to be a slight weight increase in the 05. Once again these are just estimates and we'll see the truth when it drops. However i don't expect the car to run too much better than 13.9's.
I can promise you that the mustang engine will put out alot more power than the 3valve truck. If for only one reason the intake will flow ALOT more then the trucks. Ford has always used choked off intakes on the truck engines to produce more torque and less peak power because its a truck thats used mostly for pulling trailer weight and payload.
While we do not have a dyno to show what the power curve looks like. The point where the gt makes peak power is within 50 rpm for hp. And tq is made 300 rpm sooner. And while the talk about the weight increase maybe have some validity. The estimate so far is actually lighter by 25 lbs than the cobra I compared it to.
I know that the stang is going to have more power than the truck. I can't remember the specifics, but they changed some things around to allow the motor rev higher and make power higher in the rev range. It makes a considerably less amount of torque than the truck motor. However the only items I was comparing was the heads. The 3v vs the 4v. I still am not convinced that the new 3v has better flow characterstics than the 4v.
What about the redlines? Also, if it makes that tq 300 rpm sooner, how long does it hold that max torque......thats the part under the curve that I'm talking about. Max numbers mean nothing, its more about the motors efficiency and ability to keep that curve nice and flat. I'm not doubting you I was just trying to explain a couple of reasons why it "might" have quicker 0-60's and equal/slower 1/4mi times. For all I know, until it comes out, it might be running low 13's.
Someone on BON had the flow #'s for the heads. The new 3V heads intake airflow is almost the same as the 4V heads.
The 3V has VVT, which gives it a broader torque band than the 4V motors do which do not have VVT.