FOX MUSTANG

God forbid anyone actually read the fucking rule book themselves....

11.
If a lead-acid (wet cell) type battery is located in the drivers/co-driver compartment it must be equipped with leak proof caps and enclosed in a non-conductive “marine type” box. Dry Cell batteries commonly known as Recombinant Gas (RG) or Glass Mat Technology (GMT) batteries are not required to be in a “marine type” box. The hot terminal shall be insulated on all vehicles. All batteries shall be securely attached to the primary structure of the vehicle

Show me 'waterproof' ..bahhhh (buzzer sound)


So kiddies..put your old school wet cell batteries in a 'plastic' marine type box. RVs use these also, look at the front of most trailers when leaving the park in the morning... Fatsen the box down securely to the car. No required method mentioned. I would build an angle iron frame around the base and use a metal strap over the top. Optimas can just be mounted without the box but be sure and really insulate the positive terminal AND..if it is a dual post style insulate the other positive terminal also. We always see a car or two in tech with a side post terminal not covered. Keep the little red screw in caps and I'm happy.

Quote
heymagic
So kiddies..put your old school wet cell batteries in a 'plastic' marine type box. RVs use these also, look at the front of most trailers when leaving the park in the morning... Fatsen the box down securely to the car. No required method mentioned. I would build an angle iron frame around the base and use a metal strap over the top. Optimas can just be mounted without the box but be sure and really insulate the positive terminal AND..if it is a dual post style insulate the other positive terminal also. We always see a car or two in tech with a side post terminal not covered. Keep the little red screw in caps and I'm happy.

NHRA requires a minimum of two 3/8" bolts holding the battery to the main structure of the car (I come from a drag racing background and still do it every now and then), so what I have always done is two chunks of all-thread on the outside of the box, a strip of steel over the top of the box, and a block of wood or two between the battery and lid.

---

Pete Remner
Cleveland, Ohio

1984 RX-7 (rallycross thing)
1978
Silence is golden, but duct tape is silver.

thank you for the clarification

---

I would rather drive a slow car fast as a fast car slow!
first rule of cars: get what makes you happy, your the one paying for it!

Quote
Pete

Quote
heymagic
So kiddies..put your old school wet cell batteries in a 'plastic' marine type box. RVs use these also, look at the front of most trailers when leaving the park in the morning... Fatsen the box down securely to the car. No required method mentioned. I would build an angle iron frame around the base and use a metal strap over the top. Optimas can just be mounted without the box but be sure and really insulate the positive terminal AND..if it is a dual post style insulate the other positive terminal also. We always see a car or two in tech with a side post terminal not covered. Keep the little red screw in caps and I'm happy.

NHRA requires a minimum of two 3/8" bolts holding the battery to the main structure of the car (I come from a drag racing background and still do it every now and then), so what I have always done is two chunks of all-thread on the outside of the box, a strip of steel over the top of the box, and a block of wood or two between the battery and lid.

Good point on the blocking Pete. We don't want the battery to break in the box either. Not really a safety issue but could end a rally issue.

All thread, steel strap, 1.5 angle iron all pretty easy to fab with a bit of thought. I've even welded supports to the main hoop.

ALSO..if you smell sulfur ..check the battery. They can short inside and get very hot. I just replaced one on my 5th wheel for that reason. Red hot and we noticed the fan in the power center running a lot.

i bought a nice fabricated mount for not much cash plan to bolt it in a take some pix this weekend

---

I would rather drive a slow car fast as a fast car slow!
first rule of cars: get what makes you happy, your the one paying for it!

i spent a few hours researching engine weights
i hope to put that to rest once and for all

at any rate the it looks like the 2.3 lima turbo 4 cylinder and the 5.0 v8 weight the same at 450 pounds more or less
according to:
http://www.team.net/sol/tech/engine.html
http://www.fordpinto.com/it's-all-about-the-turbo/2-3-turbo-nearly-as-heavy-as-a-v8-and-other-questions/
http://www.carnut.com/specs/engdim.html
http://www.35pickup.com/mulligan/weight.txt
http://westfield-world.com/engineweight.html
if any one out there wants to weigh a complete 2.3 lima turbo to confirm this i will be happy to weigh a complete all iron 5.0 i have in stock

that said the idea of a new EcoBoost 2.0-liter turbo four-cylinder engine works for me!

now lets move on to more worldly issues like suspension and brakes

---

I would rather drive a slow car fast as a fast car slow!
first rule of cars: get what makes you happy, your the one paying for it!

Quote
tdrrally
i spent a few hours researching engine weights
i hope to put that to rest once and for all

at any rate the it looks like the 2.3 lima turbo 4 cylinder and the 5.0 v8 weight the same at 450 pounds more or less
according to:
http://www.team.net/sol/tech/engine.html
http://www.fordpinto.com/it's-all-about-the-turbo/2-3-turbo-nearly-as-heavy-as-a-v8-and-other-questions/
http://www.carnut.com/specs/engdim.html
http://www.35pickup.com/mulligan/weight.txt
http://westfield-world.com/engineweight.html
if any one out there wants to weigh a complete 2.3 lima turbo to confirm this i will be happy to weigh a complete all iron 5.0 i have in stock

that said the idea of a new EcoBoost 2.0-liter turbo four-cylinder engine works for me!

now lets move on to more worldly issues like suspension and brakes

Once again the Intra-web is completely full of shit and leads innocent people to wrong conclusions and since the assholes talking bullshit on the Intra-web--most being computer related assholes and who actually know absolutely nothing but who repeat bullshit they read somewhere and, being incapable of thought themselves, repeat whatever bullshit in a yet more confident voice,

the innocent reader accepts this bullshit and doesn't reflect just how amazingly stupid the claim that Small Block Ford and 2,3 Lima "weigh about the same"

They are all quoting each other. And have been for more than 20 years.

1 sets of 8 rods weigh the same as 1 set of 4 rods
1 set of 8 piston 4" dia weigh the same as 4 pistons 3.78" dia--both around 1.6" comp hgt.
1 crank this big weighs the same as one crank this much smaller--just look at them.
2 heads made of iron weight the same as 1 head made of iron.
2 manifolds of cast iron weigh the same as 1 manifold made of cast iron
1 block with 2 banks of 4 cylinders--and connecting parts in the valley---weigh the same as 1 block of 4 cylinders.
One huge fucking intake manifold in cast iron weighs the same as a little cast aluminum one

Do whatever you want but please, at leastt stop spreading that bullshit those sites..

(Just glanced at the Westfield site... It claims the Ford V4 weighs 206 lbs --a 60 degree all cast iron block essentially Small block Ford dimensionally inside--but bigger bore spacing, wider block for balance shaft, and taller block... and many dimensions close enough to use aftermarket VW aircool stuff---------which they claim weighs 200 lbs..
aluminum magnesiun crank cases, crankshaft about the same, rods the same pistons the same, flywheel the same-- alumium heads, little cylinders all carved into fins----all that weighs only 6 lbs less.

ALL those sites weights are all bullshit and have been forever.

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

Last time I looked the 5.0 was a good 100-150 lbs heavier but the 4.0 cammer was about 50 lbs heavier.

Engine weight vs the benefits is a good argument. NA always trumps forced induction for reliability and generally drivability to a point. Adding 50-80 lbs to get similar or better performance isn't really significant in a land of lard asses anyway. Hardly anyone really builds to the limit as far as weight reduction or mods. We all reach a point and say "That's enough".

The 4.0 cammer is the logical choice to me, 240ish hp on pump gas, 300k mile reliability with an occasional timing chain concern on some early engines. Quick, current (readily available) and affordable. The 2.3 turbo is anything but reliable and you have to dig for them nowadays. Someone will have one in a field, I think the local Mustang kid at the parts store has about 4 of them broken in his collection (he just bought my sons 5.0 takeout and is switching horses ..groan..)

So Exploder diffs and engines COULD be options for some builds.

for now i'm sticking to my near stock 5.0
and a real weight reduction program for the car and me

i will say i like the idea of the Volvo 2.3 dohc but the budget doesn't allow for that right now

does any one have a complete lima 2.3 turbo to weigh?
long block, manifolds, turbo, intercooler, plumbing for the intercooler, ect

we will see where the future takes the fox box

---

I would rather drive a slow car fast as a fast car slow!
first rule of cars: get what makes you happy, your the one paying for it!

My machine shop guy who has been in the business since the mid-60s burst out laughing when I told him a few years back about all the mare-koooor morons claiming this bullshit about "about the same"...same sarcastic "Oh twice everything weighs the same" with a lot more 'fucking morons' thrown in..
I asked what did he figure and he said flat "I figure with flywheel and manifolds 525 lbs"

He's long term drag guy, we talk powerplant weights...we one time did a 6 man weight comparison between a Cosworth block, a Lima 2.3 and a Volvo Redblock--- deck height being 206.9mm, 212.5mm and 231,7mm respectiveli, plus the Volvo is full skirted and has the beginning of the bellhousing behind the main block--much bigger, more iron.
6 men all lifted each in turn--and nobody could "feel" any difference...(both the Fords were way way more beefy in the block half of the mainline, solid iron.

I have shipped Volvo motors and of course they weigh the motor--and the small pallet and with manifold and flywheel it was 309 lbs--including a small pallet---maybe 10-12lbs..
That is with a normal Volvo aluminum head---but much taller block, much longer rods, big ugly flywheel.

Quote

The 2.3 turbo is anything but reliable and you have to dig for them nowadays.

Disagree.. I have driven them daily--lots of different ones--continuously for the last 17 years..
I have 3 now. I've done a headgaskets on 2 or 3. That's it. Good forged Mahle pistons makes them fairly tolerant of stupidity.

Any chronic unreliability, as one poor bastid I know is down to poor advice and what has to be sloppy work..or poor calculation of cost/benefit of a "good refresh".

You pop headgaskets repeatedly at some point even a slow witted guy like me is going to realise you have to surface the block instead of just throwing gaskets at it..


That said I've always said "don't spend any money on these. Check compression and just run 'em stock, there are plenty of engines that are so much better and are between 80 and 100 lbs lighter. Or more. and which have heads that are better in flow than anything you can ever do with these things, and better in combustion efficiency also.. thus mo better in every way (excpt rods and pistons).

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

my muse for the mustang program

---

I would rather drive a slow car fast as a fast car slow!
first rule of cars: get what makes you happy, your the one paying for it!

John, I know what you're saying, but have you ever dealt with 5.0 engines? The deck heights are very short and the engines are lattices of iron just thick enough to hold the decks and journals together without letting the coolant fall out. They split at power levels that a 2.3 block would laugh at, too. And, if you want to machine them anal-retentitively right, you have to torque the heads and intake manifold down, because just torquing the intake manifold will deflect the main journals measurably. But when the engine is running the block is flopping around all over the damn place so precise machining doesn't really matter.

IIRC weight of an empty 5.0 (not 302) block is 135lb.

The heads are shit, too. Very light weight light duty junk, decks will lift off of the head gaskets even if you're not overpowering the bolts, since they are so damn thin.

When I saw this car come up for sale on another forum, my first thought was, yank the V8 turd and put in a 2.3. Lima or Duratec, either way.

---

Pete Remner
Cleveland, Ohio

1984 RX-7 (rallycross thing)
1978
Silence is golden, but duct tape is silver.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/18/2014 08:07AM by Pete.

the idea of 2.3t or some other newer engine doesn't bother me
right no i have 2 5.0 in stock and 0 other engines
one day i may happen across a 2.3t or the like and make a change

the thought of a v6 is pretty close too
good read, i need to read it a couple more times
http://www.mustangandfords.com/parts/mump-0102-ford-mustang-v6-3-8-liter-mods/
http://www.supersixmotorsports.com/

right now i want to have some fun on stages for little cash
i'm putting my focus on the chassis for now then the brakes and suspension power is last on the list, it has enough.

i will say the four link like i see the volvo folks converting to looks like a possible direction in the future

---

I would rather drive a slow car fast as a fast car slow!
first rule of cars: get what makes you happy, your the one paying for it!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/18/2014 09:32AM by tdrrally.

Yah, enough's enough, I wouldn't worry about it yet.

I like the idea of fixing the Mustang rear suspension with an Escort style 4 link but it looks to me like you have to do a lot of restructuring, since Ford oped to put a lot of crap in the way of where the links have to go. Granted most of that crap is related to the old suspension, but still.

---

Pete Remner
Cleveland, Ohio

1984 RX-7 (rallycross thing)
1978
Silence is golden, but duct tape is silver.

yep
i ready to move on

the steeda 5 link seams to work well enough for now

time will do the tell

---

I would rather drive a slow car fast as a fast car slow!
first rule of cars: get what makes you happy, your the one paying for it!