[Shotimes] RE: supercharging

[Donald Mallinson]

Not trying to start a nasty argument, but I just don't agree 
that the SHO in stock form is an understeering pig, or 
whatever you described it as (useless for going fast?).

The proof is that in virtually stock form with just decent 
street legal tires, my '89 whipped the front bumpers off a 
LOT of higher HP machines in the 1996 One Lap (Yes, I know I 
have beat this to death, and it is the car's only real major 
accomplishment, but the facts are still valid!).

IN the hands of a good driver, the SHO is fast, understeer 
can be controlled and you can put power down without the 
quaife, if not am much as when you have one.  I have driven 
my '89 on track with it stock and with the quaife, and yes, 
the quaife is faster and more fun, but without it, all I had 
to do was feather the throttle and I could come out of any 
corner while accelerating.  Only a very poor driver would 
come out of a corner with the inside tire smoking and even 
THEN, the car would still be accelerating, if only a little.

I had a Mustang LX 5.0L 5-speed (hatchback) and it was fun. 
I didn't feel the body was all that flexible, and RWD was a 
kick to hang out when you wanted.  But I have to say, my '89 
SHO and even my '96 are a huge amount of fun on a track, and 
even at an autocross.

My friend that writes for the club magazine has a huge 
amount of track experience, and only a little thing called a 
big sponsor with major bucks, kept him from making the big 
time in pro-racing.  He tried out for several mid-level 
teams in open wheel cars and was faster than most, but 
didn't have the big bucks to contribute.  His first laps in 
my '89 at Blackhawk Farms were very fast, and the car was 
totally stock (Including those stock brakes, which worked 
just fine if you were a good driver and used good pads). 
His comment was he had never driven a sedan that was SO easy 
to go fast in so quick!  Oversteer is easy to attain, and 
understeer can be handled easily with the right technique. 
If I could learn it, then I would guess a high percentage of 
decent drivers could.

Yes there are better handling cars, and for all-out racing 
RWD can be an advantage (but then again, ask the BMW guys 
that get beat all the time by Hondas in Europeon sedan 
racing if RWD is that big a deal!) but the SHO is a very 
GOOD handling sedan, no matter which wheels drive the car, 
and open diff or not.

Another thing, in the 1996 Blackhawk Farms convention event 
(the only event where we took and saved lap times for 
trophies, can't do that anymore due to insurance regs) the 
Basic SHO field was touring the track as fast as most of the 
club racing fields in similar cars.  Mike Courtney, the hot 
shoe was lapping with impressive speed, and I am not sure if 
he had his Quaife in yet, and the car wasn't near as light 
or fast as it got later on.  My car was in 10th place out of 
about 70 cars and my lap times were respectible for a good 
race at that track.  In essence.  Our times were good enough 
to leave up for the regular racers to see,  and be impressed by.

Don Mallinson


John Miller wrote:
>> Speaking as someone that owns a Taurus and someone that owned a Fox body
>> (sheds a tear) let me toss in my 8.75 cents.  The fox body is raw, not
>> very comfortable to drive, but fun as all hell.  Regardless of whether or
>> not the Taurus has a stiffer structure to being with, stock for stock,
>> the Mustang handles very well and the Taurus has more understeer than....
>> ummmmm.... Something that has a lot of understeer. : > )
> 
> 
> In a track setting, or very energetic (perhaps too energetic) street 
> driving, a stock SHO simply cannot put power down.  You will buzz the 
> inside front tire, and you will slow down.  The early Gen 1 cars are, if 
> anything, the worst of the bunch, because of their 24mm front anti-roll 
> bars.  They should have had a lot more spring and a lot less anti-roll bar.
> 
> In my book, a SHO without a Quaife is pretty well useless for going 
> really fast.  The open diff and the tiny brakes are the car's two 
> biggest design failings.
> 
> The older 5.0 GT and LX Mustangs also have poor brakes in stock form, as 
> well as horrid toe change in the front suspension, roll bind in the rear 
> suspension, weight distribution as bad as most FWD cars, and a floppy 
> structure.  And there are few cars on this Earth less responsive than a 
> 5.0 GT or LX with 2.73 rearend gears.  But they do at least get a 
> Traction-Lok...
> 
> John.
> _______________________________________________
> Shotimes mailing list
> Shotimes@autox.team.net
> http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes