PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 01 Jul 2015 04:56 PM by  Fair
Vorshlag 2011 Mustang GT 5.0 - auto-x/track build (STX?)
 310 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 1 of 1612345 > >>
Author Messages
Fair
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:1021


--
12 Nov 2010 01:39 PM
    [B]Project introduction:[/B] Some of you guys know us here at Vorshlag. We're a suspension design and manufacturing shop, making the world's best camber plates as well as numerous other items for various modern sports/sporty cars, such as: competition motor and transmission mounts, competition wheel studs, wheel spacers, and even our popular E36 LS1 swap kit. We're also an AST shock dealer and we sometimes work with AST-USA on developing new shock models and valving. We're also racers... running our test cars in SCCA Solo and NASA Time Trial, among other venues.

    SCCAForums Image
    [I]2011 Mustang "Boss 302R" race car[/I]

    It helps us in suspension development to periodically acquire and build-up new cars. About once a year we get a few new cars in the stable, and this time we've focused on the 2011 Mustang GT 5.0. We already have 2 versions of camber/caster plates for the S197 chassis Mustang ('05-11+), but we've only sold a few of them and haven't really pushed suspension parts for this chassis yet. Its been foolish of us, because its a HUGE market (avg sales are 200K units/year) that has a large percentage of owners who are enthusiasts and that auto-x/HPDE/race these cars. I've only driven a few of these S197 cars but have personally owned and raced previous generation Mustangs (7 in total) in the past, and raced in those for many years. I was never a fan of the "mod motor" 4.6L V8 in the 1996-2004 Mustang models, however, which is the main reason I haven't owned one of these already. When GM was making their sports cars with the legendary LS1, Ford was trying to match the power with smaller displacement motors that were still massively bigger and heavier. Only the supercharged Cobras and GT500s could keep pace.

    SCCAForums Image

    But when the all new Ford "Coyote" 5.0L DOHC V8 engine was announced in ~2007 I took notice. When we found out it was going to debut in the 2011 Mustang, along with an all new Getrag 6-spd transmission, we went and test drove one right after they came out in May 2010. It took about 60 seconds of driving it before I was sold... Ford had finally built a Mustang that had some serious potential and was worth comparing to cars costing 2-3 times as much! The brakes rocked, the transmission shifted better than the almighty T56 Tremec, and the motor... oh the motor was [I]perfect. [/I]We borrowed a new 2011 "Brembo" GT for a day, took lots of measurements and weights (see below). As heavy as it is its still hundreds of pounds lighter than the other modern muscle cars - the 2010 Camaro or Challenger - and was on par with the latest BMW M3 V8, 335i and many others. Modern cars are heavy!

    SCCAForums Image
    [I]This was the weight of a loaner '11 Brembo GT back in June - 3605 with 1/2 tank of fuel[/I]

    Sure, as a 4-valve-per-cylinder V8, the Coyote 5.0 revs to 7000 rpm effortlessly, but more important: it has a LOT of low and mid-range torque, something the previous Ford 4.6L motors really lacked. 390 ft-lbs of torque and 412 hp is what these are rated at, but in reality they are making closer to 385-395 [I]wheel [/I]horsepower, which means they have even more power at the crank than that. The power is what really sold the car for me.

    SCCAForums Image

    The new Mustang 5.0 was quickly matched up against some heavyweight sports cars, and the obvious E92 M3 V8 vs Mustang 5.0 magazine match-ups popped up everywhere (see spec sheet comparo above). But unlike most of the "numbers only" comparisons, the new 2011 had some serious improvements in a lot of areas (interior quality, Sync voice control, sound system/NAV, and the suspension/brakes), and was winning the hearts of most jaded auto journalists. Sure, the Mustang ran blistering 12 second 1/4 mile times and did 0-60 mph in the low 4 second range, but for once the Mustang [I]was as quick on a road course[/I] as the $70K M3. And you could get a 2011 Mustang for $29K retail, and the 14" Brembo brake package was only +$1600.

    So we custom ordered our 2011 GT in June of 2010. With SO many optional rear gear ratios (3), and dozens of other options, dealers were loading the cars up with crap that we didn't want. We got it with just the "standard" 3.31 rear gear (for a "longer" 2nd gear in autocross situations), the Brembo brake/suspension/wheel package, and my wife insisted on the expensive and frivolous "electronics" package (boy am I glad she did - the system is incredible). The car took over 3 months to be built, and there were further delays once it arrived, but we finally picked up the car on Oct 29th.

    SCCAForums Image
    [I]we've been playing with wheel fitment this week... and photoshop![/I]

    So far the Mustang is still bone stock, but it won't be for long. We are planning on making various parts for the car, such as revised camber plates, motor mounts, and some other bits and pieces as we run across them. What better way to test the car than autocross and track use? So we had been planning on building it for autocross use around an as-yet-undecided autocross class, then running it in NASA TT in whatever class it fell into (the 2011 is still not classed as of this writing but it will likely fall into TTB). The obvious choice for SCCA Solo was E Street Prepared... that means virtually any suspension mods (no changing pick-up points), intake/exhaust/tuning mods, racing seats, and giant Hoosier A6 "DOT" R compounds. With the 6 time ESP National Champion in our SCCA region we wouldn't be starved for serious competition, either.

    But after a year of racing in another "SP" class, and trashing lots expensive Hoosier A6 tires, I had second thoughts. We had run in Street Touring classes from 2004-2009, and we kind of missed racing there. The "ST" category allows for almost the same level of mods as "SP" but uses much more cost effective tires (lower grip/longer wearing) - basically they have to be 140 of higher treadwear. Racing in this category is lots of fun and its the only category outside of "Stock" that allows you to keep your car emissions legal and still be competitive.

    SCCAForums Image
    [I]This is the weight on our '11 Brembo GT with no fuel - 3563 lbs sans [URL="http://vorshlag.smugmug.com/Projects/Vorshlag-2011-Mustang-GT-build/DSC5518/1087126975_9VEcJ-M.jpg"]12.7 lbs of "trunk junk"[/URL][/I]

    Where to run this hefty Mustang? We have seen exactly one S197 Mustang run in STU before (one of our testers - and he moved quickly to ESP), but the thought of battling against the AWD boost buggies in there in a 3600 pound Mustang, even with wider 285mm tires, would be almost pointless. Well since its under 5.1L of displacement its legal to race it in STX, as long as we stick to a maximum 265mm wide tire and 9" wide wheel. So that's where we'll start.

    SCCAForums Image SCCAForums Image
    [I]Stage 1 testing is to verify our OEM perch/camber plate solution[/I]

    To see if this is even a remotely competitive car we plan on doing several stages of prep and testing before spending the bucks for full out suspension and weight saving mods. Stage 1 will be fairly simple: little more than swaybars, Vorshlag camber plates, and [I]maybe [/I]lowering springs.

    SCCAForums Image
    [I]This will be the "Stage 2" prep level for our S197 Mustang - AST 4100s and Vorshlag plates[/I]

    After we test camber plates on the otherwise stock suspension for a few weeks we'll jump right into Stage 2: AST 4100 coilovers, plates, lightweight 18x9" wheels and 265mm tires (max widths allowed in STX) - then get to an autocross! There's several Nationally competitive STX cars in our region including multiple E36 328is BMWs, several RX8s and some WRXs. Sure, we'll have double the power of the rest of the class, but the Mustang has a solid axle and LOTS of extra mass to throw around. We'll know pretty quickly if the car is going to be competitive, and if so we'll go to the 3rd stage of prep - looking for every pound we can save, and adding AST 5200GA remote reservoir (the same style AST shocks being built for Continental GRAND AM and World Challenge).

    That's another key area of testing we'll perform - to see how much weight we can get out of the car. We'll weigh everything that goes on or off this car and [I]track every pound[/I]. The 2011 GT gained about 100 pounds over the 2005-2010 GT, due partly to the new engine, the new 6-spd transmission, and some extra sound insulation Ford added (all S197s got the extra insulation from the GT500, in 2011, according to Ford engineers we met at the [URL="http://vorshlag.smugmug.com/Racing-Events/SEMA-Show-2010/"]2010 SEMA show[/URL]). The stock 19x9" wheels and tires weigh a considerable amount also, and we're already testing [I]lightweight [/I]wheels/tires on our car that most of the Mustang aftermarket either ignores or doesn't know about.

    SCCAForums Image
    [I]Test fitting 18x9.5" ET20 wheels (needs more like ET45 offset to fit that wheel) with 275/35/18 tires[/I]

    As always we're going to post regular updates on several forums for this project, and we'll share everything we do and learn. We're all about "bringing the tech". We'll start with posts on Vorshlag forum, SCCAforums and Corner-Carvers. Please let us know of other forums we should post on! Each forum will get the same updates from us. A lot of our car projects and ideas are crowd sourced, and tapping into several thousand brains is always a help. I freely admit I'm out of touch with the Mustang chassis, and we're learning as we go, but some of you out there will obviously have more experience in these and we welcome your suggestions.

    [B]One small note:[/B] Feel free to ask any questions or post helpful tips on the thread, but remember: there's potentially hundreds if not thousands of other people reading the same thread (one of our project threads from last year had 250,000 hits in 12 months). Seeing 1,000 "me too" or "cool car!" posts don't really add anything to the discussion, nor does asking the same question that's been asked and answered on that same forum thread already. Remember: if you want to subscribe to a thread you can just go to "thread tools" and click "subscribe to thread". This will keep the thread chock full of useful discussion and save everyone time when reading. :)

    Next post: wheel testing!

    Thanks,
    madarash
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:79


    --
    15 Nov 2010 09:16 AM

    The obvious choice for SCCA Solo was E Street Prepared... that means virtually any suspension mods (no changing pick-up points), intake/exhaust/tuning mods, racing seats, and giant Hoosier A6 "DOT" R compounds. With the 5 time ESP National Champion in our SCCA region we wouldn't be starved for serious competition, either.

    Just for the record 6 time National Champion [:O]

    Fair
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1021


    --
    15 Nov 2010 10:13 AM
    [QUOTE]Terry, just a thought: You have found some rims that would clear the calipers that either come in the right widths but wrong offset or vice-vice versa. Given the volume of the SN197 aftermarket (and its likely growth), I wonder if a company making one of those rims could be talked into producing some with the correct offset and the widths you want. Perhaps a retailer such as Vorshlag could commit to selling and promoting them? Just a thought.

    We are looking at the potential for helping design/market a new wheel to fit the S197, yes. It would have to be "significantly different" than the hundreds of other S197 fit wheels out there to be worthwhile... lighter, wider, proper hub bore/bolt circle/caliper clearance without spacers, etc. As we're seeing there are a lot of heavy wheels, and a few Nissan/Honda/Subaru/EVO wheels that can be made to fit these cars, but not any real lightweight wheels that are truly made for the S197 (other than the $637, "20 pound" BBS being sold by Rehagen Racing - see below, right).

    SCCAForums Image SCCAForums Image
    [I]Left: D-Force 18x10" wheel is 18.7 lbs and $309 retail. Right: This is the only lightweight 18x10" we could find truly built specifically to fit the S197[/I]

    There's probably a good place to build say.... an 18x10.5" wheel (under $350 and less than 21 lbs) that would fit the S197 [I]correctly [/I]and accept wider than 275mm tires. We'd partner with D-Force Wheels, of course. Then again, as soon as we spent the capital to make this new wheel, a company that sounds like [I]FirePack [/I]would just copy it with a Chinese built offering and sell it for $10 less... :rolleyes: D-Force is also getting into forged and multi-piece wheels - we'll know more about their added capabilities after the 2010 PRI show next month. The Mustang is one car that really needs a dedicated, racer-owned/run, small wheel company like D-Force in its corner making lightweight racing wheels, and Vorshlag has worked with D-Force intensely since 2007 developing new wheel fitments for the BMW community.

    [QUOTE]Let me guess......this car will [I]not[/I] have an LSx put in? ;)
    Ha! For once there is a car out there with a motor worthy enough to NOT need an LSx swap! :D

    SCCAForums Image
    [I]Va-goosh![/I]
    rhit_rs
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:111


    --
    15 Nov 2010 10:57 AM

    I'm sure you've already done some preliminary bench racing for STX, but looking at PAX alone it's hard to feel confident in the mustang's chances.

    Let's say that the best pax time for a given course is set by a 2011 GT in F-stock.

    The pax time is 50.0, meaning the raw time for the FS car is 60.46 seconds (50/0.827). To run an equivalent time in STX, you'd need a 60.68 (50/0.824), for a difference of 0.22 seconds in raw time. You lose the r-comps (and tire width) in the process, but weigh slightly less, have better suspension, and maybe a bit more power. Let's say you can get the STX mustang to corner just as fast on street tires as you can on r-comps (probably a strech, but let's go with it), you still won't be able to put nearly the power down on the street tires as you can with the r-comps.

    OTOH, say you decided to prep for ESP. Now you'd need to run a 59.10 to have the same PAX as the FS car. That's 1.36 seconds faster than the FS car's raw time, but you can now get the car even lighter, run 315+mm A6's, improve the suspension, and have maybe a bit more power (that the wider tires actually let you use!).

    Don't get me wrong, I really like the new mustang and it would be a hoot to autocross on street tires with the STX prep level, but I have a very hard time seeing it be competitive in STX at anywhere above 3100 lbs. Perhaps in the impending ST re-org, it will have a more competitive place to play.

    Best of luck with the project!

    Fair
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1021


    --
    15 Nov 2010 12:25 PM

    madarash wrote:
    Just for the record 6 time National Champion [:O]

    Oh! My bad. When you've won as many as you have its hard to keep track. Fixed. [:)]

    rhit_rs wrote:

    I'm sure you've already done some preliminary bench racing for STX, but looking at PAX alone it's hard to feel confident in the mustang's chances.

    Let's say that the best pax time for a given course is set by a 2011 GT in F-stock.

    The pax time is 50.0, meaning the raw time for the FS car is 60.46 seconds (50/0.827). To run an equivalent time in STX, you'd need a 60.68 (50/0.824), for a difference of 0.22 seconds in raw time. You lose the r-comps (and tire width) in the process, but weigh slightly less, have better suspension, and maybe a bit more power. Let's say you can get the STX mustang to corner just as fast on street tires as you can on r-comps (probably a strech, but let's go with it), you still won't be able to put nearly the power down on the street tires as you can with the r-comps.

    OTOH, say you decided to prep for ESP. Now you'd need to run a 59.10 to have the same PAX as the FS car. That's 1.36 seconds faster than the FS car's raw time, but you can now get the car even lighter, run 315+mm A6's, improve the suspension, and have maybe a bit more power (that the wider tires actually let you use!).

    Don't get me wrong, I really like the new mustang and it would be a hoot to autocross on street tires with the STX prep level, but I have a very hard time seeing it be competitive in STX at anywhere above 3100 lbs. Perhaps in the impending ST re-org, it will have a more competitive place to play.

    Best of luck with the project!

    I hear you, and it does sound a bit crazy because it is. [H] I don't want to discourage anyone else from trying to run STX (or STU) in an S197 chassis Mustang, but we know this will be "an uphill battle", to say the least.

    SCCAForums Image

    The car above (2006 GT with 315hp stock) is one of our testers that has some of the very first AST shocks and Vorshlag camber plates we made for the S197 (2005-2011+) Mustang chassis. We convinced him to try it first in STU, which he did for maybe a handful of events before he thought it was somewhat futile. Looked fast but couldn't hang with the local (Nationally competitive) STU crowd so he moved to ESP. It wasn't fully prepped to the STU class limit then, however, and he was there for so short a time - who knows? He ran it in ESP with a few more mods and big A6s, like you suggest, and did fairly well at Nationals. He's managed to get a couple hundred pounds out of it since then, too. Now add 100 whp. That's what the new 5.0L brings to this chassis.

    Our goal for STX legal trim is 450 whp, and with the STX legal mods we've seen done to similar 2011s, its doable. With 265mm tires of course we won't always be able to use that, but it will be fun trying. STX is still going to be tough, even with that much power. It is mostly just a class to build around for testing purposes - we know that curb weight is going to be the killer in any STX formula. Look what won STX this past year - a stinkin' ST Honda interloper that weighs well under 2000 pounds (eventually, sometime in the next centory we hope, the STAC/SEB will get off its collective butts and move the Civic to STS, where it can no longer "bump up" and win; they admit that they know this needs to happen but even when motivated and buried with evidence to support something, they move at a glacial pace). We'll run the Mustang in NASA Time Trial (TTB or TTA, depending on where it gets classed), and with this much power and even larger wheels/tires, it could do better there.

    Cheers,

    ken o
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:112


    --
    15 Nov 2010 01:44 PM

    How is the new Mustang 5.0 in STX and the e46 M3 in STU?

    For NASA there was a 5.0 at the ECR event. He ran TTA due to points for brakes, suspension, Hoosiers, and weight. Apparently NASA has the car listed really heavy. So even in stock form it has a weight penalty.


    rp1
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:219


    --
    16 Nov 2010 11:03 PM
    ken o wrote:

    How is the new Mustang 5.0 in STX and the e46 M3 in STU?

    Exclusionary list, iirc?

    Fair
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1021


    --
    17 Nov 2010 10:31 AM
    ken o wrote:

    How is the new Mustang 5.0 in STX and the e46 M3 in STU?

    Exclusion list. All M3s are banned from STX, where they should otherwise run from the ST categories displacement and number of seat rules. I hear ya... they should be in STX... we held onto our E36 M3 for the past 3 years waiting for them to be reclassed. They moved the RX8 down but have some hang-up with the M3s.

    ken o wrote:
    For NASA there was a 5.0 at the ECR event. He ran TTA due to points for brakes, suspension, Hoosiers, and weight. Apparently NASA has the car listed really heavy. So even in stock form it has a weight penalty.

    [url]http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic...;/url]

    [QUOTE]2010 Provisional Car Classifications--updated 11-2-10
    Ford Mustang GT ('11)---TTB 3770 lbs


    Yea, apparently the 2011 is classed in TTB at 3770 race weight! Its going to take ballast to run in TTB. Silly.

    mtbprelude
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:460


    --
    17 Nov 2010 10:50 AM

    Terry -

    Are y'all going to compete on the Rota wheels? Or just using them to test fit/proof of concept?

    -Zack

    Chiketkd
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    17 Nov 2010 11:22 AM

    Great project Terry.

    Looking forward to seeing what you are able to do with the car. Any idea what tires you plan on testing first? My advice would definitely be the Hankook RS-3's. They have softer sidewalls (than the Star Spec), so your cold/hot pressures may need to be a bit higher (40+), but they have great longitudinal grip and will hopefully allow you to get a good portion of that ~450whp to the ground.

    Good luck!

    mgbman69
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:10


    --
    17 Nov 2010 01:04 PM
    Fair wrote:

    Exclusion list. All M3s are banned from STX, where they should otherwise run from the ST categories displacement and number of seat rules. I hear ya... they should be in STX... we held onto our E36 M3 for the past 3 years waiting for them to be reclassed. They moved the RX8 down but have some hang-up with the M3s

    Hang up? Come on, Terry. You're going to have a hard time catching the normal E36 in the Mustang let alone an M3 which we all know would crush the current class of STX.

    Fair
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1021


    --
    17 Nov 2010 02:13 PM

    mtbprelude wrote:

    Terry -

    Are y'all going to compete on the Rota wheels? Or just using them to test fit/proof of concept?

    -Zack

    Oh the Rota's have the completely wrong offset. Just for testing.

    Chiketkd wrote:

    Great project Terry.

    Looking forward to seeing what you are able to do with the car. Any idea what tires you plan on testing first? My advice would definitely be the Hankook RS-3's. They have softer sidewalls (than the Star Spec), so your cold/hot pressures may need to be a bit higher (40+), but they have great longitudinal grip and will hopefully allow you to get a good portion of that ~450whp to the ground.

    Good luck!

    Yep, we're getting 265/35/18 RS-3s for the first STX tests. Probably 285/35/18 RS-3s for NASA TT use as well - we'll see. I'm still going to want to test the Yokohama AD08 and maybe a few others... the joys of running ST - too many tire choices!

    Fair
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1021


    --
    17 Nov 2010 03:30 PM
    Project Update for Nov 17, 2010: We've had a huge amount of responses (some that I've replied to) on the 4 forums where I have posted this thread on so far, so some of this might look familiar on the thread you're reading. Adding the RoadRaceAutoX.com forum was a big boost in ideas/questions (thanks guys).

    Autocross and Time Trial Classing - We've had a lot of folks question my sanity on the decision to run STX for SCCA Solo classing. Not sure what this class is? Read the STX rules here on Jason Rhode's STX blog page. Speaking of that...

    http://www.rhoadescamaro.com/build/

    Go read that blog and see another racer who's bucking the trend in STX - by using a V8 powered RWD solid axle '67 Camaro Z/28! If you thought our build was crazy, he has pretty good reasoning for his similar-yet-different V8 RWD chassis decision there. Now his 1st gen Camaro STX build, when all is said and done, will likely be 300+ pounds lighter than our 2011 GT, so he might really be onto something. And remember: he beat all the Civics in STS back in 2006 using a RWD Nissan 240SX, so don't just assume that being competitive in STX is impossible in a powerful RWD car. He's proven that winning in unconventional cars is possible, if you develop it well enough. Very cool build, mad prop's to J-Rho! We've been tossing ideas back and forth on both of our cars, and he has clued me into some great ideas already.

    SCCAForums Image SCCAForums Image

    Also, our foray into the ST category with the S197 Mustang GT isn't unprecedented. We had a Vorshlag tester (KentK ) that helped us in the development phase with our S197 camber plates and AST shocks for this chassis. Somehow Hanchey and I convinced him to try it in STU. He ran the same Enkei NT03+M 18x10.5" ET30 wheels (the rears needed more backspacing) we ran on the EVO X, and he had the STU class limit 285mm wide Dunlops, with the above mentioned AST/Vorshlag suspension. It wasn't half bad in the handful of races he ran in STU, against the Texas STU crowd here, but he didn't stick around long enough to develop it. He moved to ESP class, with big 315mm Hoosier A6 tires, where its done well Nationally - and is still doing well there. The prep level he has on the car now would have sure helped his chances in STU, way back when. So for our 2011 GT in STX... sure, its going to take a lot of testing and prep, but we think its got an outside shot at being competitive. Stock for stock, the '11 GT has +100 whp over the '05-10 GT chassis Kent used in STU, too.

    For NASA Time Trial use (where we should have better luck using the proposed 450 whp we think we can make in STX legal trim) we'll use a wider wheel (18x10" or 18x10.5") and a wider tire (285mm) with something like 140-200 treadwear. The 2011 GT was just re-classed in NASA from TTC (2005-2010 GT) to TTB (2011 GT), and has a race weight of 3770. We'll have to ballast up to make that, and it will likely end up in TTA with the mods we have planned. Ugh. We'll talk more about TT prep in a later post - we won't have a track test day even planned until after at least the "Stage 2" (AST 4100) suspension and the "big" wheels are on.

    SCCAForums Image SCCAForums Image
    Factory undertray has a flip-down trap door over the oil filter. We changed 8 qts of Mobile1 and Wix filter goodness

    Wheel Testing - this has been most of what we've done with the GT the past week, other than the initial oil change @ 250 miles (the stock oiling system takes 8 qts of oil - that's kind of encouraging, actually. Went with 10W30 Mobil1 + Wix filter). I started asking about wheel options before we bought the car, back in this massive Corner-Carvers thread about the Coyote 5.0 motor/2011 GT. The beef I brought up there was the lack of wider, lightweight 18" wheels made for the S197. In my early measurements I could see that the standard GT's 18x8.5" and even the '11 Brembo GT's 19x9" (ET42) wheels were small for the size and weight of this car - and there was tons of room for wider wheels going inboard. The stock 19x9" wheels/tires are boat anchors (57.2 lbs per corner!) and the factory 255/40/19 tires are super tall, too (27.2" tall!).

    SCCAForums Image SCCAForums Image
    Left: Stock wheel/tire is 57.2 lbs. Right: factory wheel is 19x9" ET42... that's made in China

    The problem we quickly noted was that the aftermarket was pushing blingy, heavy, yet narrow wheels for the S197. Most of the Mustang drivers on the non-race forums were choosing cheap, "replica" wheels that are hideously heavy. Or Shelby GT500 wheels (18x9.5"), also very heavy. The only "real S197" direct fit wheel we found in 18x10" that wasn't a Chinese replica was the expensive BBS 18x10" shown below...

    SCCAForums Image SCCAForums Image
    Above: The "Boss302R" 18x10" BBS wheel Rehagen sells is 20+ lbs and $637; Its used on some Continental GRAND AM S197 race cars

    TireRack lists a bunch of heavy aftermarket stuff for these cars, too: 18x8, 18x8.5", 18x9.5" and a bunch of 19" rubbish - all of it heavy. I won't have a car that uses 19" race tires, no way. There's no reason to have 19" wheels on this car, period. 18"ers clear the brakes, and the tire choices are MUCH better in that diameter, so 18" it is. 19's is simply a styling move, and one I hate. Some of the reason we haven't found many wider 18" options yet, I think, is because the 2011 Brembo package is still "new" and the larger 14" Brembo front brakes are somewhat unknown - not all 18" wheels will clear the big caliper, as we found out.

    Where were the Enkeis, Team Dynamics, Volks, WedSports, OZs and the many other lightweight aftermarket wheel options?? Well, digging deeper we noticed that they were all out there, just not listed under the S197 Mustang. Nissan (350Z), Mitsubishi (EVO), Subaru (WRX/STI), and Honda (S2000) all use the same 5 x 4.5" bolt circle (they call it 5 x 114.3mm). And most of the aftermarket wheels use an oversized hub bore, so we can make hub-centric adapter rings to fit the Ford's 70.5mm hub bore. That's good news.

    SCCAForums Image SCCAForums Image

    So last week I tried to fit Stuart at AST's 18x10" CCW Classics (6.75" backspacing) from his '05 GT (above, left) onto our '11, but they didn't even come close to clearing the huge front calipers. The Classics aren't known for their awesome caliper clearance, but it did have me a tick worried. Next we pulled an 18x9.5" ET20 (6" backspace) Rota "Grid" Matte Bronze wheel and 275mm tire off of Matt@Vorshlag's 350Z (above, right) to see if that cleared the brakes and fenders, but I had my doubts due to the 20mm offset... (sorry for posting this pic twice, but it is more applicable here/now)


    (yes, that is photoshopped to be lowered... this is the actual pic )

    That first test was pretty enlightening. The gold wheel didn't look that bad on the car, either, but that was not the point. This Rota 18x9.5" ET20 doesn't fit inside the S197 fenders, as feared; the tire was sticking out past the fenders (about 1/2" out back - see below), but it was a good reference point and let us measure the inboard clearance to the suspension. After measuring the 18x9.5" Rota on the car it looks like we could go inboard by 2.5" in back and over 2" in front... meaning an 18x11" up front and 18x12" in back could just barely fit , if you played your offsets right. With enough camber, rolled front fender lips, and a different style front swaybar end link (more on that later). It should be easy to fit an 18x10 on both ends, though. Backspacing of 7-7.5" on the front and 7.5-8.5" on back looks to be ideal for 10"+ wide wheels, from my measurements.

    SCCAForums Image SCCAForums Image

    I then borrowed an 18x9.5" ET45 wheel (a TireRack branded Subaru-fit wheel) with a mounted Dunlop 275/35/18 tire from Paul M's '95 Impreza/STi swap project last weekend. Tested it on the GT this past Sunday and it fit much better than the same size'd wheel in ET20 we tried before (under the fenders at both ends). If I had to choose a street wheel without the need for maximum width/grip or goofy class rules that limit us to little 9" wide wheels, the 18x9.5" ET45 would be the obvious choice for the S197.

    So the Subaru/Nissan 350Z fitments are what we ending up searching on, as there seemed to be many more wheel choices from companies like Enkei. Hub bore is different, but like I said, we can make a hub-centric adapter ring. I'm trying to get an 18x9" in at 18 lbs or less, so Enkei is the first obvious option we're looking at (NT03+M, RPF-1 or PF01 models). Matt found an Enkei RPF-1 in 18x9" ET35 (6.4" backspace) which might just barely fit (18.4 lbs), and they also have a PF01 (new for '09) with ET45 (6.77" backspacing) that's sub-19 lbs (the 18x8.5" shows to be "18 lbs", no weight on the 9"). The ET45 will fit inboard better, obviously (nearly identical to the stock '11 Brembo 19x9" ET42 wheel). In the 18x10" size the choices got much slimmer... the most backspacing we could find was 7" (18x10 ET38) for this bolt pattern. So we ordered one of the 18x9" ET45 in the Enkei FP01 and one 18x10 ET38 in the Enkei RPF1 yesterday from TireRack and we'll test fit them when they show up next week and report back.

    SCCAForums Image SCCAForums Image

    We talked to the nice folks at Team Dynamics, who were willing to custom make the 5x4.5"/70.5mm hub bore in one of their 18x10 wheels in one of 3 offsets (ET40, 52 and 56 - all Porsche fitments normally in 5-130mm), all of which would fit much better on the rear but might require a small spacer up front. Weight was the killer - 28.5 lbs for the 18x10s.

    Tire height is the next issue. The stock Mustang 255/40/19 tires on the 19" wheels are a staggering 27.2" tall. The 265/35/18 we're thinking of using for STX class is only 25.3" tall, which is a huge difference (for gearing, CG height, etc). Not many choices there, as most of the ST-legal/competitive 265s are all this same size. For the street a closer match to stock is a 285/35/18 tire, which is 25.9" tall. Those probably will go on the 18x10" wheels for street/track use. For a variety of reasons (racer recommendations, price, compound, & sidewall style) we're looking at the Hankook RS-3 tire for initial testing. After being out of ST category for a year a lot has changed... we probably need to test the same sized tire in Yokohama AD08, Dunlop, Kumho XS, and Toyo R1R, if not more. I doubt many/any of these have been tested on a car this heavy, either.

    SCCAForums Image SCCAForums Image

    Last night I worked late on SolidWorks and revised our Vorshlag S197 camber/caster plate drawings (rev 3 for all of the main parts), so we're having a short run of these made in steel. It will eventually be released as an aluminum plate, after I have time to add the "Vorshlag" logo, model engraving, hash marks, and crunch the numbers. We'll test the plates on the stock springs/suspension next week, then try it with Eibach lowering springs (I think that's going to likely become a popular and affordable S197 package - Eibach springs and Vorshlag plates). I'll rate the stock '11 GT Brembo spring rates on our Longacre spring rater, too (see this Spring Archive for similar data).

    I'll stop there for now. We've got a lot more to share., and keep those suggestions, questions and ideas coming.

    Thanks,
    Fair
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1021


    --
    19 Nov 2010 02:56 PM
    Update for Nov 19, 2010: Not a lot of "work" to update on here, but we did get the baseline dyno run completed so I figured I'd share that, plus some bench racing on the exhaust, and some more wheel weight testing.

    The guys at Dallas Performance were kind enough to squeeze in a quick 3-pull dyno test on our GT late yesterday. This was using their state-of-the-art, 2008 model, Dynojet® "Eddy Current", loaded in-ground 224xLC chassis dyno. They just moved to a new (and massive) location where they've built a dedicated dyno cell. Its as clean as a surgical room in there - and everywhere else in their shop. It is literally the nicest looking, most well equipped tuner/fab shop I've seen in all of Dallas/Ft Worth. They do some amazing high powered builds there, with 1000-1400 whp twin turbo V8s and V10s being the norm.


    Our 2011 GT was the first stock Coyote 5.0 powered car they'd dyno'd so far. They told me that the most power they'd seen from a bone stock 2010 Camaro V8 was 345 whp, and a 370 whp pull from a stock 6.1L Hemi Challenger was the highest of any modern, stock "pony car" they have tested to date. Well the numbers from our 2011 GT beat all of those pony cars... [8-|]

    Here's the video & dyno chart (all pulls within 3 whp):


    Click for baseline dyno video




    We were a little disappointed with the peak 378 whp figure, as we'd seen a number of '11 GTs post 385-395 whp pulls, bone stock. We tried to rationalize the number on the low mileage on the motor (580 miles at the time of the test), or the fact that I drove the car around all day and didn't let it cool down before we dyno'd it (heat soaked), but in reality I screwed up and told them to dyno it in the wrong gear!

    For consistency and the least drivetrain loss, you typically dyno a car in the 1:1 gear, which is usually 4th gear in most 4, 5 and 6 speed transmissions. All Tremec T56 cars ever built had a 4th gear of 1:1, which is normal. But of course the 2011 GT doesn't have a Tremec, it has the Getrag MT82 6-spd (see the specs on the 6-spd ).


    6-speed manual transmission (MT82 Getrag) gear ratios:
    [LIST]
    [*]1st = 3.66
    [*]2nd = 2.43
    [*]3rd = 1.69
    [*]4th = 1.32 (oops! We dyno'd in 4th, thinking it was 1:1)
    [*]5th = 1.00
    [*]6th = 0.65
    [*]Final drive 3.31:1
    [/LIST]
    So not using 5th might account for maybe... -3-8 whp or so? A small but measurable amount. We'll dyno it in 5th after the next round of mods, and we'll do a 4th vs 5th gear pull to see the difference, then. We have the headers we want to use picked out and we're rounding up parts for the custom after-header system we're going to build in-house so hopefully this won't be too long from now.

    We have a ways to go on the 450 whp goal , but I still think its doable. Tuners are finding 10-20 whp on otherwise stock 5.0's, just in air/fuel/spark tweaks, too. DP is looking into getting the software for HPTuners or one of his other tuning packages to be able to tune our car, but I won't bother until after we have the updated I/H/E or at least the underdrive pulleys. Nobody else tunes our cars but Taylor @ DP. He programs powerful yet reliable tunes. We'll raise the rev limit at that time to 7500 rpm, up from the 6800 rpm the car is stuck with now (was supposed to be 7000 stock).

    The I/H/E mods (intake/headers/exhaust) currently planned include some sort of aftermarket cold air intake (need to research the various 2011 offerings available) and of course full length headers + custom exhaust. A biggest single gain will likely be found in the headers - the stock exhaust manifolds units are short, tortured messes of tubes. There's a lot of 2011 GT header offerings out there already, but I plan on using
    American Racing Header's
    stainless steel full lengths:



    Luckily they have some of the best header products on the market and their 2011 GT 5.0 full length header options are amongst the best. They claim a 32 whp increase, using the stock mid-pipe/mufflers/no tuning. So somewhere around 410 whp is what we'd be looking at after installing just their headers, without any tuning or other exhaust mods. The baseline number they had was almost identical to ours, 379 whp, and they reached 411 whp with the headers.

    The problem I see with using theirs or anyone's full length header design and catted X-pipe is the location of the converter. Here's the STX/STU specific rule :

    [QUOTE]STX, STU – Any high flow catalytic converter(s) are allowed, but
    must attach within six inches of the original unit. Multiple catalytic
    converters may be replaced by a single unit. The inlet of the single
    replacement converter may be located no further downstream
    than 6” along the piping flow path from the original exit of the final
    OE converter.

    Here's the stock converter location on our 2011 (there's only 2)



    So my thought is to buy the headers, throw some header wrap on them, then mock them up in the car. Take the measurements and see where the cats can be placed. Then we can build our own after-header exhaust with high flow cats further upstream, maybe even modify headers/collectors a bit if needed. We can then push the high flow cat exactly 6" back from the stock unit. Its more work, and less than ideal for ultimate power gains, but its the rules. We'll at least save weight on the custom X-pipe and rear exhaust portions over the pre-made units from the aftermarket, which always use heavier wall tubing.



    On the custom X-pipe and after-cat portions of the exhaust system we'll be using thin walled, 20-22 gauge stainless mandrel bends & tubing, with a few V-bands in there to make everything easily removable. I thought briefly about making an aluminum after-cat exhaust, for the lightest possible weight, but the longevity would be severely compromised and it would be significantly louder. Need to keep the tested sound number under 100 dB (SCCA limit), but with cats it shouldn't be a problem. We'll do our own [URL="http://vorshlag.smugmug.com/Projects/Exhaust-Sound-Testing/ wrote:
    before-and-after exhaust sound tests[/URL] here, as usual.

    Not sure what mufflers to use, yet. Just read Andy Hollis' "Sounding Off" muffler test article in the Dec 2010 issue of
    Grassroots Motorsports
    and the best results came from the Burns mufflers, so I cannot ignore those pricey little buggers. I really like Flowmaster's products and tend to use their mufflers on a lot of our builds, but I want to keep it very light and all stainless. With the cats required in STX it won't need as much muffler to meet sound regs as we used in DSP on the E46, so we might go with some sort of lightweight race muffler instead of FM's larger chambered style or the new glass-pack style Hushpower units. Since there's 2 big spots for the stock mufflers all the way at the back, that's likely where we'll end up with ours. Meaning: a full length exhaust (not a dumped/shorter run). If we can use a bullet style muffler we could place them where the stock resonators are, and use turn-downs for a shorter/lighter system.



    The first two real "test wheels" purchased for the Mustang also arrived today. Both Enkei wheels were immediately weighed, with some surprising results:

    SCCAForums Image SCCAForums Image

    So the 18x10" RPF1 was lighter than the 18x9" FP01. Weird, right? But we knew the FP01 would be heavier in the same size, just a bit surprised that a one inch wider RFP1 would be almost a pound lighter. Still, at 19.3 lbs the FP01 is already at least 7 pounds lighter than the stock wheel.

    My wife stole the Mustang today so we'll test fit wheels later this weekend and post up about if/how they fit next time. I have a feeling the more curved spoke FP01 will have substantially more caliper clearance than the flatter spoke RPF1.

    OK, I'm going to get back to work. Until next time,
    ccwebb
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    22 Nov 2010 12:44 PM

    Great project! As an S197 driver I will definitely be following the evolution of your test car.

    I've have been agonizing over lightweight wheels for longer than I care to divulge. In so doing I've scoured various forums, websites and discussed the topic with S197 owners who mention the same options you have listed.

    Dollars for pounds (or lack thereof) the Enkei's seem to be the clear winner.

    One more wheel that you may want to take a look at, if you haven't already, is the Volk RE30 18x9.5 +42. They are forged, not cast so twice the price of the Enkeis but still much less than Forgeline, etc. I've corresponded with another S197 owner who has raced these wheels for several years. They are incredibly light and have proper offset...At least for his 05-10 S197 running Wilwood brakes. Not sure about the '11 Brembo's GT.

    Anyway, your thread here is fantastic. Keep us posted. Thanks!

    Fair
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1021


    --
    22 Nov 2010 02:02 PM

    ARG! The SCCAforum layout/software stinks. I have to tweak my posts heavily to avoid "errors" when I post them here. And only here. I've dumbed this latest post down significantly to get it through.

    Project update for Nov 22, 2010: I'll start with some replies to questions, some requests for ideas/advice on upcoming mods, then I'll move on to the wheel test I did yesterday on the 18x9 and 18x10 test wheels.

    Quote:
    Either allow headers or don't. I don't see how they picked the number 6. Why not 7, 10, or 14? Floorpan stampings and engine combinations can leave plenty or no room at all. Why not use a number that allows most any effort the same opportunity in fitting a long tube header?

    Agreed. At least the STX and STU classes can do away with 4 cats and replace them with 2, of any type (not OE/CARB stamped units of the same number as stock, like in ST/STR/STS classes). There are rumbles of making STX/STU adopt the lame cat rules in these lower classes, but that's not until 2012, at the soonest. I hope.

    Quote:
    You might consider whether any (muffler) choice greatly increases drone. There are plenty that don't. There are also plenty that do. Maybe I'm getting older, but I much prefer a quieter system that emits a simple, deep, burble, as opposed to an all-out wail.

    Yup. I'm old.
    Agreed. I've owned many Mustangs over the years that had oppressive exhaust drone, and I'm also getting old. And my wife daily drive's the Mustang (but she's pretty a dedicated racer, so she has mucho tolerance). When I worked at a Mustang tuner shop over a decade ago for a short stint the head tuner there (Sen-Roy, who used to post here a lot) would do tricks with varying the muffler case size on each side of a dual exhaust Mustang. It usually killed the drone. If it gets bad I'll swap out one muffler and try that.

    Quote:
    A quick word on coatings....if you coat, don't wrap. (his coater) said it would not help and would not be good longterm for the coating. Check with your coater and see what they say.

    Costas
    cars and such...
    Yea, I think coating and wrapping a stainless header is probably overkill. Now I'm leaning towards just using header wrap on the stainless headers only, and not blowing $250-350 (and weeks of time!) on coating.

    SCCAForums Image
    http://www.summitracing.com/parts/DEI-010130/

    I have this 100' x 2" roll of DEI header wrap in my "shopping cart" as well as stainless steel zip ties, DEI exhaust wrap (for wiring), some long front wheel studs (for potential wheel spacer use up front - see more below), and a pair of these mufflers:

    SCCAForums Image
    http://www.summitracing.com/parts/FLO-843048/

    I did some searching and found, for the first time, real stainless steel chambered Flowmaster Series 44 mufflers. There isn't room for a small/resonator style muffler before the axle, so I might as well go with a "real" chambered muffler out at the rear bumper (these don't have packing that burns/wears out). I don't want this car stupid loud with $600 worth of Burns mufflers and dumps before the axle, either. Sure, it'll cost us a few more pounds to go with a chambered style muffler and full length tail pipes, but these FM 44's are shown to be only 7-8 pounds each (not 13 pounds like the much larger case sized Flowmaster Series 50 I used on my E36 M3). We'll see how they sound, test the sound levels, test the performance hit with and without them on the dyno, and weigh the mufflers before they even go on. These 3" type 44's are smaller than the stock mufflers so they should easily fit in the stock locations. The stock over-the-axle pipes are so compromised and crimped down to clear the panhard support (by inches) that we should hopefully see some small gains here, as well.

    SCCAForums Image
    Stock muffler case is 15.5" long. The FM type 44 muffler case is 13" long

    SCCAForums Image
    http://www.summitracing.com/parts/ARP-100-7722/

    If anyone has experience with these wheel studs, please chime in. These ARP 1/2-20 x 3.3" long studs show to be made for 2005-2010 Mustangs ("front only"), so its a gamble if they'll fit the 2011. And at $11.36/each they are just a wee bit pricey. Probably not enough market to make it worthwhile to make [URL="http://www.vorshlag.com/index.php?cPath=1_4_158 wrote:
    our on wheel studs[/URL], though. We might need these long studs for use with the 18x10" track wheels (see below).

    Quote:
    Terry, I really enjoy your perspective. You stated your goals, continue to research, make sound and logical choices, then verify results. Keep up the good work and I hope the car is capable of meeting your demands.

    Tob
    Thanks - we are always trying new stuff here, and I'm sure some of it won't work and we'll have to back up and try again. I like having the input from lots of experienced racers, because it limits the "dead ends" a good bit. :)

    [QUOTE]To save some weight you may be able to get away with just the cats. When I had the '05 GT I had a muffler delete exhaust with stock headers and cats and was never above 93dB at the local autocross course. I know it's a different engine and exhaust configuration but there is also a big difference between 93 and 100 dB.

    Yea, I have heard a "muffler delete" exhaust on Kent's ESP-prepped S197. Its still pretty loud. With full length headers and a 7500 rpm redline on this Coyote motor, it might get a bit too loud. I don't want to be "that annoying guy with the loud car" at events.

    Quote:
    We have been spinning our car past 7500 with a 8000 rpm limit. The car only picks up power beyond 7000 with a good CAI (we have a JLT) and just an off road H-pipe we see over 400 SAE on the cars we have tuned.

    The shop car has; CAI - ported heads - long tube AR headers - X-pipe - resonator delete - flowmaster mufflers - 1 peice DS - RST clutch and flywheel. With SCT software we have gotten as much as 435 RWHP SAE.

    Ahh, some real power numbers from an S197 tuner. Thanks for replying. I noticed when we dyno'd the car it wasn't really losing power yet at 6800 rpm, so I could see it gaining a bit more up top with the right tweaks. I'm still planning on an eventual 7500 rpm redline. With the right tire choice (we've been looking at so many) in STX it could mean a 73 mph 2nd gear speed . Virtually assured to never have to shift. :)

    We cannot do the 1-piece driveshaft (the stock unit is a huge 2-piece unit that looks very heavy), ported heads, or the lightweight clutch/flywheel, but the rest is fair game. We need to look at the CAI offerings soon, as I'm getting tired of how quiet, stock and slow this car is already. :D If anyone has experience with a Cold Air Intake on a 2011 GT, especially with before/after dyno numbers, please chime in. I saw a couple at SEMA already, but many weren't ready yet.

    SCCAForums Image SCCAForums Image

    OK, onto the latest round of wheel testing.

    SCCAForums Image SCCAForums Image

    The two Enkei test wheels arrived Friday but I didn't get a chance to test them on the GT until Sunday. The 18x9" ET45 FP01 fit fine. This wheel bolted right onto the front and rear, with ample clearance to the caliper and strut (front) and to the inner sheet metal (rear). Even without any camber and this 4x4 ride height the outer lip of the 18x9 wheel fit within the stock fender confines.

    SCCAForums Image SCCAForums Image

    As they should - they are almost the same width/offset as the stock 19x9 ET42 wheel. In fact these Enkei 18x9's will be 3mm more inboard than stock, which is good - I like to run narrow track widths for autocross cars when I can, to make slaloms that much easier to navigate. Its worth a little time, as we've seen in testing where we time a car through a set gate length slalom, then again with wider cone offsets by just a few inches. You can see the big end link stud that interferes with some wheel/tire clearance when you push the wheel inboard. If it comes down to it we'll just cut/shorten this stud.

    SCCAForums Image SCCAForums Image

    So the 18x10" ET38 Enkei RPF1 wasn't quite as easy to fit. The flatter spokes of the RPF1 didn't clear the caliper on the front, as we kind of expected, and some of you warned about.

    SCCAForums Image SCCAForums Image

    Not a huge shock - so I tried it on the rear and it looked good. There's a good 1.5" more inboard room, too.

    SCCAForums Image SCCAForums Image

    So back to the front with the RPF1 18x10". I didn't have any 5x4.5" wheel spacers, so I started stacking washers to get the proper clearance. Turned out about 7mm of spacer is all that's needed to clear the caliper with the spokes on the RPF1 up front. Then I counted turns on the lug nuts and had just a hair over 10 threads of engagement... which equates to 1/2" (which is 1 diameter). That's just barely enough , and still only afforded about .040" of clearance at the caliper (but the [URL="http://vorshlag.smugmug.com/Projects/Vorshlag-2011-Mustang-GT-build/DSC5718/1099560724_FMAuc-M.jpg wrote:
    stock wheel only has about .050" clearance here[/URL]). Hmm.

    SCCAForums Image SCCAForums Image

    Then there was the outer fender clearance. With the already wide 18x10" and now a 7mm spacer. It looks... well, its damn hard to tell if it will clear at full droop and with no camber, even hard to show in pictures. With the stock ride height and stock camber, I'd guess no. But we're going to be lowering the car a LOT (2-3"), which will inherently add negative camber and tire clearance. And then with some more camber adjusted in at the plates, that's more outer wheel clearance we'd be adding.

    So for now we'll punt on the 18x10" wheels, and retest this wheel again once we have the car lowered and a 285mm tire mounted to it (I've got plenty of dead Hoosiers in this size we can mount and test with). It looks like we'd need a spacer of some sort, which I can draw up and machine easily enough if it comes to it. So I'll get the longer wheel studs installed, just in case. We'll also get the remaining 3 wheels in the 18x9" set, then order the tires (I'll discuss the size and model in an upcoming post). I'll be buying all of the stuff mentioned in this post in the next 24-48 hours, so if you have suggestions/alternatives, speak up now.

    Thanks,

    Chiketkd
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    15 Dec 2010 12:41 PM
    Any update on this project Terry?
    Fair
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1021


    --
    21 Dec 2010 06:56 PM
    Chiketkd wrote:
    Any update on this project Terry?

     


    Yea, but I'm not sure how to even post any of my updates in here anymore. This new format won't accept my standard vBulletin posts, even with the substantial tweaks that I used to have to do.

    I'm seriously considering dropping this forum now. Its a TRAIN WRECK. Too bad, as this is the best place to discuss autocrossing.
    christoc
    I'm an Admin
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:3652


    --
    22 Dec 2010 01:40 AM
    I've tried to clean up some of the BB code issues in this thread, though with all the quotes I know I messed something up somewhere.

    Future BB code posts should be fine, except for the LIST tag which will take me some time to figure out how best to implement
    SS RX7 R2
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:223


    --
    22 Dec 2010 01:55 AM

    "That's just barely enough , and still only afforded about .040" of clearance at the caliper "

    Hi Terry,

    Sorry, just saw this. I think 1mm of clearance may not be enough. I think I had about that much clearance initially with the same wheel and Brembo caliper, and it worked fine driving to the event. One everything heated up on course, there was some rub. I would go with 2mm minimum clearance.

    Hope to see more on the build!

    Rick


    You are not authorized to post a reply.
    Page 1 of 1612345 > >>


    Woodhouse Motorsports SPS 88x31 Button
    G-Loc Button Vorshlag 88x31 Button
    Sunoco 88x31 Button

    Advertise on SCCAForums.com and reach thousands of visitors per day!

    SafeRacer FREE SHIPPING over $99

    Shop for Pirelli tires at Tire Rack. blank




    Sunoco Bottom 468x60 Banner