IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 Forum Rules 
Solo PerformanceHotpart.comBlaine Fabrication.comUnbalanced EngineeringUMI Performance
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> It's getting closer - the fifth gen spotted
Rob Hood
post Dec 13 2007, 12:21 AM
Post #21


Experienced Member
***

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 1,086
Joined: 16-January 04
From: Chandler AZ
Member No.: 130



Hope they paint the mirrors...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
V6RSR
post Dec 13 2007, 03:14 AM
Post #22


Member
*

Group: Banned
Posts: 148
Joined: 27-January 04
From: So. Calif
Member No.: 157



How about no camoflague at all....

http://www.cardomain.com/member_pages/show...52_162_full.jpg

http://www.cardomain.com/member_pages/show...52_163_full.jpg

http://www.cardomain.com/member_pages/show...52_164_full.jpg

This post has been edited by V6RSR: Dec 13 2007, 05:02 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BigEnos
post Dec 13 2007, 03:54 AM
Post #23


Collo Rosso
***

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 1,220
Joined: 3-August 05
From: San Antonio, TX
Member No.: 839



QUOTE (Racer X @ Dec 12 2007, 06:56 PM) *


Someone is gonna burn for this one! Looks nice, though. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/2thumbs.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Blainefab
post Dec 13 2007, 06:29 AM
Post #24


I build race cars
*****

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 4,748
Joined: 31-August 05
From: Central coast, CA
Member No.: 874



QUOTE (dailydriver @ Dec 12 2007, 11:17 AM) *
QUOTE (Blainefab @ Dec 11 2007, 06:04 PM) *
Compared to 4th gen:

shorter overhangs front and rear - good for aero mods and PMI

probably longer wheelbase - good

smaller, lighter windshield - good

smaller, lighter hatch glass, unless the camo is covering an extension to the spoiler - maybe good

very short door window openings - bad for quick exit

roof appears deeper at top of door glass - good for tucking halo up there


How much weight do you figure could be pulled out of these things (not that it will help the F/Stockers out there any)??


My SWAG is the car will be 200-300# heavier than a 4th gen, maybe half of that increase in steel in the chassis for crashworthiness, and the other half in airbags, electronics and creature comforts. Steel stays, geegaws get tossed, race weight ends up 100-150# more than a 4th gen with similar rules. The smaller front/rear glass will mean less weight loss with Lexan. With a 400hp LS3, IRS and enough rubber it should come off the corners well, but give up some in braking and transitions to the lighter cars. Like I said, tho - just my SWAG.

I do expect the stamped steel IRS control arms to spawn a race in the aftermarket to get shiny powder coated tubular arms into the marketplace, but what we really need is a DIY aluminum forge ;-)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sam Strano
post Dec 13 2007, 05:13 PM
Post #25


Experienced Member
***

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 2,441
Joined: 30-December 03
Member No.: 76



FWIW.... and not sure it will come to anything, but:

I was contacted by GM after Solo Nationals with questions about what the car would need to be a competitive autocross car. Apparently the Mustang got their attention.

Hopefully the act on the information.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
991LE
post Dec 13 2007, 05:37 PM
Post #26


newbie


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 25-March 04
From: S.E. Mass
Member No.: 288



QUOTE (Sam Strano @ Dec 13 2007, 12:13 PM) *
FWIW.... and not sure it will come to anything, but:

I was contacted by GM after Solo Nationals with questions about what the car would need to be a competitive autocross car. Apparently the Mustang got their attention.

Hopefully the act on the information.



I've often wondered if auto manufacturers contacted those, such as yourself, on issues like this with upcoming models. This pretty much confirms it...

Jeff
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dailydriver
post Dec 13 2007, 06:04 PM
Post #27


Experienced Member
***

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 1,528
Joined: 13-January 07
From: Solebury, Pa.
Member No.: 1,589



QUOTE (Blainefab @ Dec 13 2007, 01:29 AM) *
QUOTE (dailydriver @ Dec 12 2007, 11:17 AM) *
QUOTE (Blainefab @ Dec 11 2007, 06:04 PM) *
Compared to 4th gen:

shorter overhangs front and rear - good for aero mods and PMI

probably longer wheelbase - good

smaller, lighter windshield - good

smaller, lighter hatch glass, unless the camo is covering an extension to the spoiler - maybe good

very short door window openings - bad for quick exit

roof appears deeper at top of door glass - good for tucking halo up there


How much weight do you figure could be pulled out of these things (not that it will help the F/Stockers out there any)??


My SWAG is the car will be 200-300# heavier than a 4th gen, maybe half of that increase in steel in the chassis for crashworthiness, and the other half in airbags, electronics and creature comforts. Steel stays, geegaws get tossed, race weight ends up 100-150# more than a 4th gen with similar rules. The smaller front/rear glass will mean less weight loss with Lexan. With a 400hp LS3, IRS and enough rubber it should come off the corners well, but give up some in braking and transitions to the lighter cars. Like I said, tho - just my SWAG.

I do expect the stamped steel IRS control arms to spawn a race in the aftermarket to get shiny powder coated tubular arms into the marketplace, but what we really need is a DIY aluminum forge ;-)


COOL! Thanks for the educated speculation!! (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/2thumbs.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dailydriver
post Dec 13 2007, 06:09 PM
Post #28


Experienced Member
***

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 1,528
Joined: 13-January 07
From: Solebury, Pa.
Member No.: 1,589



QUOTE (Sam Strano @ Dec 13 2007, 12:13 PM) *
FWIW.... and not sure it will come to anything, but:

I was contacted by GM after Solo Nationals with questions about what the car would need to be a competitive autocross car. Apparently the Mustang got their attention.

Hopefully they act on the information.



This kind of thing is really hopeful (hope giving?) information!! (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/cool2.gif)
Maybe we won't need those D.I.Y. aluminum alloy forges that Alan is talking about afterall?? (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/gr_grin.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Crazy Canuck
post Dec 13 2007, 07:25 PM
Post #29


North of the border
***

Group: Admin
Posts: 2,307
Joined: 4-February 04
From: Montreal, CANADA
Member No.: 177



QUOTE (Sam Strano @ Dec 13 2007, 12:13 PM) *
FWIW.... and not sure it will come to anything, but:

I was contacted by GM after Solo Nationals with questions about what the car would need to be a competitive autocross car. Apparently the Mustang got their attention.

Hopefully the act on the information.

hope you get involved in the suspension/damping choices
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BigEnos
post Dec 13 2007, 07:39 PM
Post #30


Collo Rosso
***

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 1,220
Joined: 3-August 05
From: San Antonio, TX
Member No.: 839



Sounds like GM Performance will be mounting a challenge to F-stock autocross in 2009 or 2010. Hope they don't try to pull the same crap they did with the Z0K GXP solstice in A-stock.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poSSum
post Dec 13 2007, 08:10 PM
Post #31


Advanced Member
**

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 368
Joined: 22-September 05
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Member No.: 892



QUOTE (Sam Strano @ Dec 13 2007, 12:13 PM) *
FWIW.... and not sure it will come to anything, but:

I was contacted by GM after Solo Nationals with questions about what the car would need to be a competitive autocross car. Apparently the Mustang got their attention.

Hopefully the act on the information.


Seriously?!?!?!?!?! (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/2thumbs.gif) After they blew me off for even suggesting they talk to you!! (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
prockbp
post Dec 13 2007, 11:59 PM
Post #32


Advanced Member
**

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 440
Joined: 25-December 03
From: Newport Beach, California
Member No.: 41



QUOTE (Sam Strano @ Dec 13 2007, 11:13 AM) *
FWIW.... and not sure it will come to anything, but:

I was contacted by GM after Solo Nationals with questions about what the car would need to be a competitive autocross car. Apparently the Mustang got their attention.

Hopefully the act on the information.



well... are you sworn to secrecy? hearing you say that makes me think that they are simply looking for a sales pitch, especially this late in development
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BigEnos
post Dec 14 2007, 03:41 AM
Post #33


Collo Rosso
***

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 1,220
Joined: 3-August 05
From: San Antonio, TX
Member No.: 839



QUOTE (prockbp @ Dec 13 2007, 06:59 PM) *
QUOTE (Sam Strano @ Dec 13 2007, 11:13 AM) *
FWIW.... and not sure it will come to anything, but:

I was contacted by GM after Solo Nationals with questions about what the car would need to be a competitive autocross car. Apparently the Mustang got their attention.

Hopefully the act on the information.



well... are you sworn to secrecy? hearing you say that makes me think that they are simply looking for a sales pitch, especially this late in development


Late in development? With still over a year until release, it seems like spring/shock/swaybar development (at a minimum) would still be open to change. Especially with the likelihood of multiple packages being available.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
slowTA
post Dec 14 2007, 04:02 AM
Post #34


Experienced Member
***

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 2,289
Joined: 4-May 04
From: Kenvil, NJ
Member No.: 331



Sam, I'm just hoping you mentioned something about race tires being really expensive for 18"+ rims. I can't imagine what a 22" R compound would cost!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
prockbp
post Dec 14 2007, 06:13 AM
Post #35


Advanced Member
**

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 440
Joined: 25-December 03
From: Newport Beach, California
Member No.: 41



QUOTE (BigEnos @ Dec 13 2007, 09:41 PM) *
QUOTE (prockbp @ Dec 13 2007, 06:59 PM) *
QUOTE (Sam Strano @ Dec 13 2007, 11:13 AM) *
FWIW.... and not sure it will come to anything, but:

I was contacted by GM after Solo Nationals with questions about what the car would need to be a competitive autocross car. Apparently the Mustang got their attention.

Hopefully the act on the information.



well... are you sworn to secrecy? hearing you say that makes me think that they are simply looking for a sales pitch, especially this late in development


Late in development? With still over a year until release, it seems like spring/shock/swaybar development (at a minimum) would still be open to change. Especially with the likelihood of multiple packages being available.


1 year before production begins is late to me. Think about the time it takes to create tooling for something like this. A "Strano Z28" with spring/shock/swaybar is exactly the kind of sales pitch I'm talking about... i don't doubt that Sam could set the car up to be faster, but i'm concered about other things....

that's why i ask if he's sworn to secrecy about what they discussed
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dailydriver
post Dec 14 2007, 04:57 PM
Post #36


Experienced Member
***

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 1,528
Joined: 13-January 07
From: Solebury, Pa.
Member No.: 1,589



Given the supposed 'portliness' of this thing, I hope that a real, FULL delete 1LE is offered on whatever is going to be the 'Z28' type model. Hopefully they will also offer the option of Konis with valving input from Sam (EVEN if they force one to take double adjustables, and only offer it as a 'trunk kit', along with the other suspension stuff).

BTW; are 'trunk kits' F/Stock legal (were they EVER?), or again was that ONLY legal in Showroom Stock???

This post has been edited by dailydriver: Dec 14 2007, 04:59 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BigEnos
post Dec 14 2007, 06:19 PM
Post #37


Collo Rosso
***

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 1,220
Joined: 3-August 05
From: San Antonio, TX
Member No.: 839



QUOTE (dailydriver @ Dec 14 2007, 11:57 AM) *
Given the supposed 'portliness' of this thing, I hope that a real, FULL delete 1LE is offered on whatever is going to be the 'Z28' type model. Hopefully they will also offer the option of Konis with valving input from Sam (EVEN if they force one to take double adjustables, and only offer it as a 'trunk kit', along with the other suspension stuff).

BTW; are 'trunk kits' F/Stock legal (were they EVER?), or again was that ONLY legal in Showroom Stock???


Trunk kits are not solo legal in stock class and would be a disaster for us if that's the only way this stuff is offerred. I'd rather that the 1LE was not "Full Delete" meaning no A/C and other stuff. Make the suspension a line-item and let us choose the rest ourselves. I need to have a car I can drive every day as well as autocross and mandatory A/C delete makes that impossible.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CMC #37
post Dec 14 2007, 06:47 PM
Post #38


CMCer
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,932
Joined: 12-February 04
From: the sticks near VIR
Member No.: 194



I was speaking with a GM "deep throat" the other day and the weight numbers sounded much better than we were guessing here for racing apps. That's all I can say for now. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rob Hood
post Dec 14 2007, 06:55 PM
Post #39


Experienced Member
***

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 1,086
Joined: 16-January 04
From: Chandler AZ
Member No.: 130



From a production perspective, it's probably more cost-effective for GM to just install upgraded springs/shocks/sway bars rather than remove weight through deleted options. We are a niche in the scheme of things, and niches don't pay the bills, mass-production does. Sad but true. If GM were to offer a low-weight model it would probably come with a higher price tag.

However, it would be nice if the Z28 or SS came with (at least) better shocks and sway bars right off the showroom floor as part of the standard package. I'm not sure how much spring rate GM could get away with and still provide mass- or near mass-production ride quality.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sam Strano
post Dec 14 2007, 07:10 PM
Post #40


Experienced Member
***

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 2,441
Joined: 30-December 03
Member No.: 76



QUOTE (poSSum @ Dec 13 2007, 03:10 PM) *
QUOTE (Sam Strano @ Dec 13 2007, 12:13 PM) *
FWIW.... and not sure it will come to anything, but:

I was contacted by GM after Solo Nationals with questions about what the car would need to be a competitive autocross car. Apparently the Mustang got their attention.

Hopefully the act on the information.


Seriously?!?!?!?!?! (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/2thumbs.gif) After they blew me off for even suggesting they talk to you!! (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)


I'm not sure it was an official call, but clearly someone wants to know and the number I called back was @ GM and it's someone working on the car.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
4 User(s) are reading this topic (4 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 13th May 2025 - 11:07 PM