Quote
mack73
um...... that is why this is Rally Anarchy. Everything goes here.

I've always seen huge irony in the 'Rally Anarchy' name. Truth is, if you don't drink the JVL Kool-Aid be prepared to have a rough go of things around here. This forum as a whole is FAR less welcoming of different views or dissenting opinion than just about any other forum I've been to. That said - individually most of the forum participants are welcoming and helpful.

Mike, if you were expecting to be welcomed and your plan to be fostered on this forum you should have spent more time lurking and searching to get a better understanding of the forum and why it exists.

Quote
mack73

Quote
greenmachine
if john is trying to help the sport grow, he has a strange way of doing so.

Hell yes he is.

But the 'strange way' he does it regularly hurts more than it helps.

With all that said - rallying a Mustang II would be like using a screwdriver to chop onions. We had a Bobcat (Pinto) with a v8 (I think) rallied here in Alberta a few years ago and it was completely unsuitable.

I've seen many people say that they have this old car sitting around so they figure they'll cage it and rally it. The 'shell' represents such a small portion of the build cost you are far better off starting with something that already has development of rally bits for it and something that has a market for it if/when you want to move on.

I also strongly recommend buying your first car (something that isn't universally accepted) and then tearing it down and re-assembling it before you run it. Best line about buying a used race car is to assume the guy selling it wants to kill you. You'll buy a prepared car for a fraction of what it would cost to build one. While you will inherit some 'built in' headaches and problems it will also help you understand what you need/want when you build your second car.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2011 10:43AM by Morison.

Quote
modernbeat
The only place I can recall the Mustang II or the Pinto being raced successfully was in econo circle track classes before they allowed the FWD cars. And those took a lot of prep.

The Pinto was quite a different car than the 'stang II. Actually, there were a handfull of them running in rallies in the midwest in the 70's and into the early 80's. They did OK, but just OK. 510's, Opels, and others did a lot better, mainly due to the suspesion. The Pinto leaf rears just did not stick like the coil rears of the other cars that had much better suspension travel. 2.0 L engine was OK.

Mark B.

Hey Welcome,

I would suggest that you ignore John at this point. He is not very good or civil at this type of discussion. You will get a lot of good feedback here. Sorry, John....'struth.....

I'm an ex-Ford street rodder (and long time and experienced rallier, and tech inspector), and the 'stang II would be one of the poorer choices for rally, IMHO. The front suspension is similar to the Torino/Fairlane/Falcon, and it is weakish on the street. Suspension geometry is fair, but the lower control arms and both upper and lower control arm attach points are weak and will twist/bend in rallying. That particular rear leaf spring is short, and is not that good. There were far better rear leaf suspensions.

A V8 in this car will be horribly heavy in front and will have awful weight balance. It will just make the weak front suspension break/bend even more. It would be better to run a 2.3L to keep engine wieght down, but this car is a bit heavy-ish, and that combo would be slow. Maybe an Xr4Ti or T-bird 4 cylinder turbo engine would be OK for power to weight ratio.

BTW, I like odd cars: I ran Opels (am builidng a '72 Manta) and now run an '87 Starion. But, in all objectivity and honesty, both of these have far better attributes than the 'stang II for any performance use that involves turning corners.

Odd cars that I have really liked that have rallied:
'67 Plymouth Valiant 225 slant 6; drum brakes all around
'78 Plymouth Fury V8 police cruiser
'74 Checy Malibu Wagon (all the bondo fell out of the quarter panels by the end of the rally)
These all were great to watch, but they all finished dead last and they all rallied just once.

Would you consider any other car? If you stick with the 'stang II, let us know if anyone can help. With little rally use, there will not be much experience for this car on this site, besides general info. But some of that general info will be useful. Figuring out how to strengthen the front suspesion and towers and inner fenders, getting in a turbo 4 cylinder, shedding some weight, and figuring out how to control the leaf rear and make it behave as well as it can (which don't ever expect to be very good; I think the springs are relatively short in length), are the first things I would look at.

Regards,
Mark B.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2011 05:56PM by starion887.

IF you are going to build this car, you could go two dirrections; one would be just go with what you've got, and know that your have suspension will be a scarey handful at half the speed everyone else is going, which is fine; go for a super simple build and just have as much fun as you can with minimal effort, or go whole hog and do what would need to be done; macpherson struts in front and a 4 bar linkage in the rear with turrets for coil springs, (watch "The Fast and Furious; Tokyo Drift" for an example build here).

The rear is doable, many here have done this. The front would be uncharted territory, and it entails a shit ton of fab work, and knowing some stuff about suspension dynamics. A possible method might be cutting the front end off something with front struts like a volvo 240 and grafting it on there. Not sure I would suggest doing this though.

If you are on a tight budget, option 1 sounds likely. Which is fine, because then you only need a stock 4 cylinder motor, because it would be a bad idea to go too fast.

Just get comfortable with the idea that you are sacrificing a lot because that model car looks cool.

Well, he obviously wants to run this car. You're not going to change his mind. He may make a new decision on new information and experience... but he wants to build this car.

So, let him. It's his money. I don't get why that concept is so hard for certain people to understand.

And I was in his situation. I know what it's like being in school, working and having a car. I have my priorities RIGHT. And right now, a rally car is NOT my top priority. Getting my career in order is.

Anyone who thinks I have them wrong is a FOOL. I believe it is Tom Burress who told me, "Rally wont get you money, rally is what you do with your money." There is a lot of truth in that statement.

So really, unless you actually KNOW me, and maybe 3-4 people on this board do, and John, lol, you think you do, but no, you're not one of them, so I would advise you to shut the fuck up.


[Keith is right, drink the kool aid if you cave easily to peer pressure, have low self esteem, or will cry if someone tries to "educate you" via overbearing use of insults... ]

This is getting good.

Well, not really. It's really just the beginning of a vicious cycle of John having to get the last word via an insult, and my stubbornness to point out his ridiculous use of insults, then him saying something again.

He's being immature and knows he should just stop as I'm sure by know he has GOT to be smart enough to realize I dont listen to him, I'm being stubborn and know I should just stop, but I wont because I like to point out when he is talking out his ass, as he frequently does to me.

So yes, I suppose I am part of the problem. I take blame for that. But how's that phrase go... it takes two....

After some thought, I realized I was wrong on one comment about this front suspension; it's a lot different from the Torino. I dug out the diagrams and it basically looks pretty good to me. Dunno why one would cut this off and use a McPehrson strut system. But the stock unit is weak; don't put a V8 on it. I would not be willing to go hard on a stage on the stock 'stang II front end.

Mark B.

Quote
Slowwpoke
This is getting good.

Would you like some popcorn?

In reality, most any car can be made to rally. The Volvo and Merkur actually require extensive work to be really competitive. Couple that with 90% of the participants having 10% of the talent, reliablity isn't that big of factor. The BIG factor will be sourcing parts, especially during an event weekend. If you lose out on a $1000 to $1500 weekend because you can't find a windshield or suspension upright or a dozen other things it is a bitter pill.

Rally need to be fun primarily. It is a brutal sport, extremely barbaric if you love cars. Choose a solid, reliable, replenishable car for the task. It is simply a tool. Would you rather use a $10 ratchet made in India or a $120 SnapOn?

Best bet for the II would be to run it for track days and TSD events such as this...http://www.nwclassicrally.org/Home.html , maybe a few hill climbs, tarmac events and even a car show or two. Lots if good fun to be had with that car, other than a gravel rally. But if you have to rally it then that just furthers the theory that in order to rally you must first be crazy..welcome.

Go ahead, Make an "odd" car and have fun even if most people here crushes the idea... In European Historic events you can see many even stranger card than Mustang, and most of them really arent made for the sport, but anyway drivers, and spectators like them.. If You want to see many cars that are all alike, go to watch Finnish championship events, 30 Mitsu Evo´s and 20 Subarus and 20 Civic Type R´s... Boooring...
And John, i disagree with You, Rally isn´t just about going faster that others, for most "hobbyists" it is good excuse to get away from home for the weekend... =)
Few "odd" and definately not the "right breed" rallycars:


(me...)


check 3.58


check 5.22 and 7.20


check 1.43 and onwards..


check 4.44


(me)

Quote
bttmotorsport
Go ahead, Make an "odd" car and have fun even if most people here crushes the idea... In European Historic events you can see many even stranger card than Mustang, and most of them really arent made for the sport, but anyway drivers, and spectators like them..

You kinda got that wrong in my oppinion. Not that spectators don't like them, but that they are "even stranger" and "aren't made for the sport".
You see, the European historic classes are VERY strict on authenticity. You can't enter with a car that isn't originally homologated by FIA, and that means that it would have had to have been competing back when it was new.
So as odd ball as some of them may seem, they have all been competing back in their day, and the historic class is about keeping that alive.
Rules on allowed changes are very strict - no swapping just about everything out (as we aren't allowed in the other classes either - you guys got some seriously lax rules).
They are keeping the cars as original as possible since they are also worth more money like that, and to keep that heritage alive.

Comparing european historic classes to running an odd ball heap that is entirely re-fabricated with 20 year younger motor and trans, completely different suspension, etc. - that's just like comparing apples and bananas.

---

Brgrds
Brian

What happened to the guy with the old Chev Monza from a couple years ago??

bttmotorsport,

Who are you?

I don't think that you are making a very good argument. The majority of the cars shown in the videos were pretty good in their time. They have proven rally history. Totally unlike a Mustang II.

I would also be willing to bet that the owners of all those cars have more resources than our friend with the Mustang.

---

Robert.

"You are way too normal to be on Rally Anarchy." Eddie Fiorelli.

"entirely re-fabricated with 20 year younger motor and trans, completely different suspension, etc. - that's just like comparing apples and bananas."

Which is exactly what we're doing to volvos, corollas, and merkurs...