Ford Racing Mustang GT Wins At Daytona

351CJ opined in news: snipped-for-privacy@msn.com:

if you want wallpaper, and the original press release

Cant believ how hard it is to find NEWS on the freaking race. Like, um what OTHER mfrs were there and who was the real competition in the race

Backyard Mechanic opined in news:Xns960B6505C94A0BkMch6d@207.115.63.158:

Ah... duh!

HERE it is:

"Nastasi and James led a 1-2 sweep for the new Mustang, as David Empringham and Scott Maxwell came home second in the No. 55 Multimatic Motorsports Ford Mustang in an eventful race. On the second lap, Empringham rocketed past Justin Marks in the No. 96 Turner Motorsport BMW M3 and into the lead in the chicane at the end of the Daytona Superstretch."

The win marks

Motorsports Ford

I'd never heard of this Grand Am series. Imagine, Pontiac takes a name

-- Trans Am -- of a series in which it never won a race, morphs it into a made up name -- Grand Am -- that means nothing, and a sanctioning body picks it up as the name for a new series.

Anyway, checking out the Grand Am rules, I see this series is very similar to the original Trans Am in that stock unibodies must be retained and that very few mods are allowed.

HOWEVER, what's the deal with the " M6007-R50P" 5.0 liter engines being mandatory in the Stangs? I can find no reference to that part number anywhere on the web, but I do know that five liters is a substantial boost -- 25 cubic inches -- over the standard GT's 4.6. At the same time the BMW M3's are stuck with a 3.2 liter six (although they can do a .030 overbore). With a 110 cubic inch advantage it would be pretty embarassing if the Mustangs could not "rocket" past the M3's at the top end of a big straightaway.

180 Out

Well, now you have.

Imagine, Pontiac takes a name

You did imagine it. You're speculating. And Grand Am obviously means Grand American.

The racing association did not take its name from Pontiac's little sporty car, but Pontiac did use the Trans Am name to sell cars because of Trans Am racing. Ask them if this is the origin of name of their series; I'm sure they'd enjoy a good laugh.

It's actually 21 cubic inches; 302 vs. 281. The 5.0 is actually a 4.9. It displaces 4942cc.

At the same

That comparison isn't terribly meaningful, considering nothing else is held equal. Road racing is not antiseptic numerical analysis anyway.

Did you read these sections?

"It was the debut race for the 2005 Ford Mustang GT, and was the first Grand-Am Cup Series overall victory for a Mustang of any generation. "

What's going on here, big guy? Did I get myself a Usenet puppy?

Ow! That stings.

because

P-P-Pontiac's "little sporty car"? You've got to be kidding.

Anyway, my comment on the origins of the name "Grand Am" series was what we call a "joke," subcategory "snide remarks." Annoying, most likely yes, but intended to be taken seriously, definitely no.

Sounds like YOU'RE speculating now, and the speculation is a very strange one, that the 5.0 liter engine that the '05 Mustangs are required to run would be a 4.00 x 3.00 inch (101.6 x 76.2 mm) pushrod Challenger motor (301.6 ci, 4,942 cc), and not a 94 x 90 mm (3.70 x

3.54 inch) mod-motor (4,997 cc, 304.5 ci).

Anyway, my 25 ci number was off-the-cuff, thinking that 6.1 ci per 100 cc, times 4, would be somewhere around 25 ci. Sorry if I was off by .6 ci. I didn't realize I'd be having some unemployed drug dependent Usenet puppy dog checking my work. So now I know.

So now a 110 ci advantage is not "terribly meaningful." Look, moron, it was just a throwaway line, OK? The only "antiseptic numerical analysis" was the observation that if you have two production-based race cars and one has a 56% larger engine than the other, then the guys running the big engine car should be embarassed if they were not in the lead at the end of a Daytona Speedway straightaway.

I'll give you one guess. What do your quotes have to do with what I wrote, anyway? You're such a fool.

concluded.

If today's lesson is that there are an awful lot of idiots in the world, and few are more idiotic than alcoholic unemployed welfare queens wasting time on the Usenet, thanks but I aced that quiz a long time ago.

180 Out

This will keep prices above sticker a while longer!

(>snip HOWEVER, what's the deal with the " M6007-R50P" 5.0 liter engines being

dwight

dwight opined in news: snipped-for-privacy@individual.net:

Go to the grand am forum and read all about it.. Lot of contention about mustang even being in there... and about the showroom availablillty of the engine,

Seems FRPP keeps the part number of the crate engine listed as "in development - coming soon"

Still, no matter the controversy... the thing won right out of the box, note the race descriptions where it seems the thing seems to handle with the euro cars.

Sounds like 1968 all over again, when the SCCA ruled the 302 ci Chevy Z/28 engine to be homologated for use in Pontiac Firebirds based on Pontiac's false claims that they intended to offer the engine in Canadian Firebirds. Once it became apparent that Pontiac never intended to produce any Chevy powered Firebirds, the SCCA required Pontiac to run destroked Poncho big blocks. This led to the disastrous 1970 season, with zero top six finishes, zero points, and the "factory" team's top driver, Jerry Titus, killed while testing a last-gasp lightweight car.

There is no way to minimize that achievement. Cars fresh out of the fab shop and drivers with zero seat time, beating teams running cars with years of development and race seasoning, is unheard of. Handling prowess aside, what this says about the design and strength of the factory pieces is what is really significant.

180 Out

There are no Ponnywreck big blocks. All the same deck, and most Indian freaks will remind you of this with an air of faux indignation.

I understand viruses like this happen from surfing a Great Wave of Net pRon.

I'm beginning to think I lost my job for a reason.

What I meant was, "I'm beginning to think there was a greater reason in the overall scheme of things for losing my job"

Glad you clarified that, I thought you meant you thought you lost your job due to your elevated hate level...

No, other reasons, which are very unfortunate. The job was fine. I wanted a change, but it killed me to lose it, on top of everything else. Stuff happens. It could all be far, far worse.