 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / March 2005Ford Racing Mustang GT Wins At Daytona
With less than one day's experience behind the wheel of his new Ford Racing Mustang GT race car, car owner and driver Tom Nastasi, with co-driver Ian James, claimed victory in the opening race of the 2005 Grand-Am Cup season at Daytona International Speedway. The win marks the first race and first win for Ford Racing's Mustang GT race car built off the new 2005 Mustang GT that is currently available in Ford dealerships. http://mustang50magazine.com/eventcoverage/138_0502w_gt_daytona/ > With less than one day's experience behind the wheel of his new Ford > Racing Mustang GT race car, car owner and driver Tom Nastasi, with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://mustang50magazine.com/eventcoverage/138_0502w_gt_daytona/ http://www.seriouswheels.com/top-2005-Ford-Mustang-GT-Race-Car-Daytona.htm 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  Signature- Yes, I'm a crusty old geezer curmudgeon.. deal with it! - >> With less than one day's experience behind the wheel of his new Ford >> Racing Mustang GT race car, car owner and driver Tom Nastasi, with [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Like, um what OTHER mfrs were there and who was the real competition in > the race Ah... duh! HERE it is: http://www.grand-am.com/News/Article.asp?ID=3626 "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." Signature- Yes, I'm a crusty old geezer curmudgeon.. deal with it! - The win marks > >> the first race and first win for Ford Racing's Mustang GT race car > >> built off the new 2005 Mustang GT that is currently available in Ford > >> dealerships. > HERE it is: > http://www.grand-am.com/News/Article.asp?ID=3626 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Motorsport BMW M3 and into the lead in the chicane at the end of the Daytona > Superstretch." 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 > The win marks > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > I'd never heard of this Grand Am series. Well, now you have. 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. 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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. It's actually 21 cubic inches; 302 vs. 281. The 5.0 is actually a 4.9. It displaces 4942cc. 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. 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. " -- "The team elected to forego changing tires on its final pit stop, which proved to make the difference in the race." And from here- http://mustang50magazine.com/eventcoverage/138_0502w_gt_daytona/ "Two other Ford Racing Mustang GT race cars were campaigned, with 11th place captured by the # 37 JBS Motorsports car with drivers Jim and Bret Seafuse, and 22nd place by the #10 Champion Motorsports car with drivers Brad Lehmann and BJ Zacharias." These were not 2005 Mustang GTs, but they still had a sizable displacement advantage over the BMWs and Porsches. The 11th place car was a Cobra. There were obviously other reasons why the 2005s were the quickest in the field. Grand Am racing debuted in 1999, meaning that five model years of Mustangs raced previously. Displacement advantage does not tell the story. Furthermore, the No. 3 and 4 finishers, both BMW M3s, had better fastest lap times as the No. 1 and No. 2 Mustangs, respectively. http://www.grand-am.com/Events/SessionResults.asp?SessionID=440 Do your homework, and stop speculating. Today's lesson is now concluded. SignatureWound Up ThunderSnake #65 What's going on here, big guy? Did I get myself a Usenet puppy? > > I'd never heard of this Grand Am series. > > Well, now you have. Ow! That stings. > 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. 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. > > five liters is a substantial > > boost -- 25 cubic inches -- over the standard GT's 4.6. > > It's actually 21 cubic inches; 302 vs. 281. The 5.0 is actually a 4.9. > It displaces 4942cc. 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. > > 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. > > That comparison isn't terribly meaningful, considering nothing else is > held equal. Road racing is not antiseptic numerical analysis anyway. 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. > Did you read these sections? I'll give you one guess. What do your quotes have to do with what I wrote, anyway? You're such a fool. > Do your homework, and stop speculating. Today's lesson is now 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 > What's going on here, big guy? Did I get myself a Usenet puppy? No, I found myself a punching bag for a few days. > 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. I don't believe you. I believe it was more meaningless conjecture. You're a f.cking liar. You were trying to pass off your bullshit as fact, like usual. > Sorry if I was off by .6 > ci. Well, try harder next time. >>>With a 110 cubic inch advantage it would be pretty >>>embarassing if the Mustangs could not "rocket" past the M3's at the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > So now a 110 ci advantage is not "terribly meaningful." Your comparison is not terribly meaningful, in that it only compared two factors in an equation with many more. Who's got the reading comprehension problem? Look, moron, > it was just a throwaway line, OK? The only "antiseptic numerical > analysis" was the observation that if you have two production-based [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'll give you one guess. What do your quotes have to do with what I > wrote, anyway? You're such a fool. They further showed that your comparisons based purely on displacement were meaningless. Try a little harder to keep up. SignatureWound Up ThunderSnake #65 > 180 wrote: >> 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. > I don't believe you. I believe it was more meaningless conjecture. > You're a f.cking liar. You were trying to pass off your bullshit as > fact, like usual. Such language. You suck Cobra Jet's dick with that mouth? OK, so have it your way. I seriously believed that, when the sanctioning body behind this "Grand Am" series was setting it up, they all sat around a table and one of them said, "Hey, let's name it after that ' little sporty car' that Pontiac makes, what's it called, the GRAND AM!" You, with your thousand kilowatt intellect, your graduate degree, your four languages, your pharmaceuticals, your DT's, and your way-too-much-time-on-your-hands, called me on it. Trapped like a rat, what could I do but lie and pretend that I hadn't meant it seriously. Oh how I underestimated you. You saw right through me. Awe, awe is the only word to describe the feeling I'm having right now. Actually, what I'm feeling right now is that you're one sick f**k. You really need to make some changes in your life. Hey, and don't think EVERYONE didn't notice your complete deletion from your reply of your bona fide, pants down around the ankles, f**k up, thinking that the five liter engine in the '05 Stang race cars would be the 302 ci pushrod 5.0 or yore. What a maroon. 180 Out > > 180 wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Such language. You suck Cobra Jet's dick with that mouth? Homo fantasies *again*? You've had a TS# longer than he has. How many times have *you* sucked my dick? > OK, so have it your way. I seriously believed that, when the > sanctioning body behind this "Grand Am" series was setting it up, they [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > 180 Out SignatureCobraJet Thunder Snake #1 Cobra Jet wrote > Homo fantasies *again*? Well I've been having this real hot exchange of e-mail sex with Emily the Tigress. Does that count? > You've had a TS# longer than he has. How many times have *you* sucked my dick? Not sure I follow the logic of that. Sucking up to people is something you do or you don't do. The opportunity is always there, the inclination to do it either is or it isn't. 180 Out > 180 wrote: >> 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. > I don't believe you. I believe it was more meaningless conjecture. > You're a f.cking liar. You were trying to pass off your bullshit as > fact, like usual. Such language. You suck Cobra Jet's dick with that mouth? OK, so have it your way. I seriously believed that, when the sanctioning body behind this "Grand Am" series was setting it up, they all sat around a table and one of them said, "Hey, let's name it after that ' little sporty car' that Pontiac makes, what's it called, the GRAND AM!" You, with your thousand kilowatt intellect, your graduate degree, your four languages, your pharmaceuticals, your DT's, and your way-too-much-time-on-your-hands, called me on it. Trapped like a rat, what could I do but lie and pretend that I hadn't meant it seriously. Oh how I underestimated you. You saw right through me. Awe, awe is the only word to describe the feeling I'm having right now. Actually, what I'm feeling right now is that you're one sick f**k. You really need to make some changes in your life. Hey, and don't think EVERYONE didn't notice your complete deletion from your reply of your bona fide, pants down around the ankles, f**k up, thinking that the five liter engine in the '05 Stang race cars would be the 302 ci pushrod 5.0 or yore. What a maroon. 180 Out >>180 wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > 180 Out You are having technical difficulties, everyone of your posts is showing up in duplicate! > > 180 Out > > You are having technical difficulties, everyone of your posts is showing > up in duplicate! I understand viruses like this happen from surfing a Great Wave of Net pRon. SignatureCobraJet Thunder Snake #1 > > 180 wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Such language. You suck Cobra Jet's dick with that mouth? As if once wasn't enough.... > OK, so have it your way. I seriously believed that, when the > sanctioning body behind this "Grand Am" series was setting it up, they [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > 180 Out SignatureCobraJet Thunder Snake #1 >>180 wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Such language. You suck Cobra Jet's dick with that mouth? Easy, trigger... > OK, so have it your way. I seriously believed that, when the > sanctioning body behind this "Grand Am" series was setting it up, they [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Oh how I underestimated you. You saw right through me. Awe, awe is > the only word to describe the feeling I'm having right now. I really don't care at this point. It's moot. And it's just three languages. I can read Italian and Portugeuse, and make out basics in speech, but I don't count those. Too much time? Indeed. The flames... it's one pharmaceutical, and I've never had the DTs. I'm picturing Nicholas Cage in "Leaving Las Vegas". Ugh. > Actually, what I'm feeling right now is that you're one sick f**k. You > really need to make some changes in your life. I'm not that sick, really. I have just been seriously depressed and anxious after last year's life-changing debacle, which I alluded to a while back. I've been angry at the world for a long time. It -is- time for some changes. I hate my profession. I hate feeling trapped in my situation. I hate not finding anything fun anymore. Most of all, I'm sick of feeling hate. I'm beginning to think I lost my job for a reason. I am at a serious crossroads, 180, and you've identified that fact correctly. This is one of those times when you need to step back and say, "what in the hell is going on here?" > Hey, and don't think EVERYONE didn't notice your complete deletion from > your reply of your bona fide, pants down around the ankles, f**k up, > thinking that the five liter engine in the '05 Stang race cars would be > the 302 ci pushrod 5.0 or yore. What a maroon. Yep, no denial there. You said 5.0, and I thought 302. I didn't see the 304.5 cid specs. I saw what I thought was an incorrect number, and failed to call you on it with enough factual info. I, too, am capable of saying, "I was wrong". If I do mess with you in the future, I'll be very sure you'll know I'm joking. And can we agree on this - let's stay on-topic in future disputes, and leave the personal attacks out of the equation? I am just as guilty as you are. SignatureWound Up ThunderSnake #65 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" > 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... <G> >> I'm beginning to think I lost my job for a reason. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. SignatureWound Up ThunderSnake #65 (>snip<) > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > embarassing if the Mustangs could not "rocket" past the M3's at the top > end of a big straightaway. http://www.fordracingparts.com/announcements/news15.asp dwight > (>snip<) > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > dwight 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. Signature- Yes, I'm a crusty old geezer curmudgeon.. deal with it! - > 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" 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. > 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. 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 > intended to produce any Chevy powered Firebirds, the SCCA required > Pontiac to run destroked Poncho big blocks. 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. > 180 Out SignatureCobraJet Thunder Snake #1 > With less than one day's experience behind the wheel of his new Ford > Racing Mustang GT race car, car owner and driver Tom Nastasi, with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://mustang50magazine.com/eventcoverage/138_0502w_gt_daytona/ This will keep prices above sticker a while longer! SignatureJohn ThunderSnake #59 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.