RPHARRIS

And I'm sure that all the guys out there running lowered 944s with high end dampers, ridiculous wheel rates, extra long ball joint pins completely nailed the mark too. I'm sure they dealt with the less than optimal Akerman and Roll Axis Incline as well. Not trying to knock anyone, just trying to point out that this guy isn't necessarily any worse off than the rest of us.

Ian Carr

not at all.

A.Wayne

Ahh, it has been done before, Monoblock race engines...... never buy a head gasket again...

LOL,

I was alluding to the samething , the difference being the 911 rearweight bias gives more advantages than the mustangs outdated everything ...

gcb951

A friend of mine has that motor in his Audi. It's a boat, the car that is. That motor has lots of power though and his has a K24 on it. I imagine this will go like hell once its done. On youtube you can see an Audi S4 take a GT-S Viper. Same 20V 5 cylinder used on this 944.

blodstrupmoen

Well , I have seen this car several times, and actually been passenger in it at one time for one little lap. It is a impressive car to look at and it is fast. But fact is these other guys would just kill it around the track. Last couple of times he took it to Gatebil he had some issues with it and did not run. Btw Mr Frisak in his slightly modified 993Turbo his pretty high up there when it comes to lap times. Even though he does not have the same hp as the other guys , he likes better to push g-forces than burning rubber . He has posted some very nice in car videos on the 993/911 board.

reno808

he hasnt gotten any in a while

RPHARRIS

Did you actually open the link I posted? Here, I'll put the key information right here so you can see for yourself:

Thunderhill Track Records for cars running in similar classes to Ernesto Rocco's Mustang:

153.2 Ernesto Roco NASA AIX GR40 Mustang (DOT Tires)
1:53.7 Rudy Revak, SCCA GTA (Slicks)
1:57.4 Joe Osha NASA TTU Porsche 996 Cup (Slicks)
1:58.2 Scottie White SCCA T1 Corvette (DOT Tires)
2:03.4 Ross Murray SCCA A Firebird (DOT Tires)
2:07.6 Joe Hermes SCCA T2 Camaro (DOT Tires)

Again my only point is that weight distribution and "pedigree," as you have brought up, mean little for cars like ours on a track. For what its worth, that mustang is based on the same unibody as the 1973 Ford Fairlane...

333pg333

So these blocks have steel liners. So can ours. What else? I still don't see why they're so much stronger than ours? You would think that they have more chance of block flex too being longer.

Duke

The liners themselves don't make the total rigidity. An iron block is ususally a lot more sturdy than an alu block.
I don't know too much about those engines but there are a lot of details making them capable of lots of power.
A sturdy block and crank along with 20 valves distributed on 5 cylinders is more than enough to make them far better suited for high power than an alu block with 8 valves disitributed on 4 cylinders.

Take an engine with xxxx cc of displacement making xxx hp. Distributing the displacement on one more cylinder flowing through another set of intake valves and 20% less power/stress to put on each piston/rod is naturally a good thing and will ultimately make it easier to make reliable power than it's counterpart with less cylinders.

blodstrupmoen

Looks ike there is plenty of space in the 944.. Wonder if Tool could fit his straight six turbo project in his 951 .. Maybe with a Corvette box ( or the new Nissan GT-r transaxle)

A.Wayne

\

RP,
Yes i did open the link , NASA times don't mean much to me as they are usually slow run groups , Fairlane comparision is fair as it is an outdated car , now to say weight distribution and chassis pedigree means nothing on the track is very naive, worst if you are now comparing the Mustang to Porsches , cheese to chalk , **** in grandam that bitch is a tube chassis carbon body V8 , but if you want to compare apples put a 6 cylinder in the Mustang, for a 911 and a ford turbo 4 for the 951,i would love to see how that fairlane boogies when the apples are stacked evenly.........

Tms951

Well the engine was porsches atempt to make it more of a porsche by useing an in house engine. As a result of not wanting to develop a full new engine they cut a v8 in half, this was also so that it would not compete in the same market segment as the the 6 cyl. 911s. The main problem with the engine is the head, I don't have a single posative thing to say about it. The other problem with the engine is is its lack of cylinders. It is to big to be a 4 cyl. so they had to use mitsubishi technology to fix this (balance shafts). Less cylenders means less valves, all ready a problem with this engine, and a very wide cylinder for the flame front to travel accross. Hello detonation. Oh and did i mention the turbo is in the wrong place, its like porsche went out of their way to make a ****ty engine.

The fix for all of this would have been the 20v 5 cyl. engine. lots of vlaves, smaller cylinders and a 5 cyl. engines have no vibration issues. It is super strong and its group B rally history speaks for its performance, also look into its upgrade path, Dahlback does great stuff with it.

What is wrong with the rest of the car? Nothing at all its great. I love the looks and handleing. I also like that it is not pure porsche and is a VW that Vw decided not to make so porsche had Audi make it for them. I come from an Audi back ground and like them alot, it is one of the things that led me buy the car. I just wish I had done better research on the engine.

Fishey

American Muscle Class of Mustang runs faster then the E class does at all the tracks I have been to and given the cars can have less mods then E class I figure mustangs must do something right.

xsboost90

bah- if it had an audi motor then everyone would be bitchin that its just an audi. The 2.5 was only meant to be what it was factory- the engine that fits and puts down x amt of power and makes the car move. Im sure porsche never meant for that motor to get near 602rwhp! The 911 motors arent much better w/ 2.7+ liters and less hp than my car most the time.

RPHARRIS

As would many including myself.

I suppose that we are now comparing a Fairlane to a Beetle if that's the logic we are using. Each has evolved by leaps and bounds. In production form, the Porsche's development far exceeds the Mustang's. In limited budget racing trim, the gap between the two quickly narrows. The Fairlane's susepnsion geometry shortcomings are easily overcome with bolt-on modifications. Not so with the Porsche, tell me how many companies sell a comprehensively designed bolt-on front suspension from the sub-frame up for the 911, 944, or any Porsche for that matter?

In the example I have given, (which I stand by, as those are NASA Records set during wheel to wheel races, not mere lap times). The mustang's superior suspension development makes it a significantly quicker car around that track.

Both of these cars use a production uni-body chassis.


Give it an alloy flat 6 like the 911 and you will be chipping away at the Porsche's few remaining advantages, it's lighter weight, lower center of gravity, and less importantly, it's superior weight distribution. For what it's worth, that 5.4 liter V8 under the hood of Roco's car made around 440 at the wheels, not what I would consider an earth shattering amount compared to the Porsche.

Lol, I can't believe this all started with my trying to give this guy's car the benefit of the doubt until I know more. ST is probably right, that thing and it's little blue throttle body is going nowhere because he moved his tranny a few feet forward and hasn't ironed out the details of his intercooler pipe dimensions and shock valving yet. How could I be so naive .