2020 SCCA CAM-T Allowed Cars

[Sleeper68]

Thoughts on the SCCA's decision to let in 1995-2002 Camaros and 1993-2004 Mustangs into CAMT?

I just went the the Champ Tour event in Bristol and all but 3 cars (14 entrants) were 1995-2002 cars. The car that won was a 4th gen Camaro ESP car and bested the fastest CAMC car by over 0.6 sec.

[F-Body International]

It's debatable.

Mustang suspension was generally the same for 1979-2004.
F-Body pretty much had 1967-1981 leaf spring and then 1982-2002 torque arm.

The main thing I think we need to consider is the 90's and early 2000's cars having ABS and Traction Control.

[gscherer78ta]

Most of the cars in CAM-T only have the sheet metal in common with what came from the factory. With modern engine swaps, modern transmission, engine controls, modern suspensions- these cars are newer than an original 2002 Fbody.

[Sleeper68]

Most of the cars in CAM-T only have the sheet metal in common with what came from the factory. With modern engine swaps, modern transmission, engine controls, modern suspensions- these cars are newer than an original 2002 Fbody.

That is true for some CAM cars but I have found that a large portion of the vintage cars are still on factory frames/subframes or use factory style suspensions. In addition many do not have LS/LT/modular swaps and still retain factory style engines. Even fewer have TC or ABS.

The issue I have is many of the vintage cars with minor geometry modifications, stock style suspensions, and factory engine topologies can run in no other class that the "unlimited" CAM series.

[SSLance]

It is not the direction I would have taken the classes, and I've been involved with it from the very beginning...but it is what it is.

Fact is, almost NONE of the cars running in T are built to the edge of the rules...and some of the very good T cars (and drivers) regularly raw time the C cars anyway.

Personally I see no reason to separate T and C, never did...even more so don't think so now. Run what you brung and see where you stack up.

[landstuhltaylor]

I've lurked here on and off for a while, figured I'd make an account to respond. That 4th gen is mine.

The car was broken for the entire tour so we were fighting to jury rig the throttle. It was slow for the tour. I normally beat Randy in his CAM-C car 1.5-2 seconds per day.

But the main point is that I think every single person who has an issue with my car doesn't understand the time or money that is in it. It looks like **** but that's because all the important parts can't be seen. Yes the stock front suspension geometry is very good but the rear is still the limiting factor. I've been developing that car for 5 years. If I had to start all over again and replicate it, it would cost me $30,000 not including the cost of buying a car or any labor. That's just the parts bill. And the motor is 100% stock internally aside from an oil pump and crank scraper/pan baffle. I've never added up how much I've spent on things that didn't work.

Eric Simmons result is representative of what you can expect for a ~$10k part list.

Not trying to argue one way or the other, just adding important relevant info.

[Sleeper68]

It is not the direction I would have taken the classes, and I've been involved with it from the very beginning...but it is what it is.

Fact is, almost NONE of the cars running in T are built to the edge of the rules...and some of the very good T cars (and drivers) regularly raw time the C cars anyway.

Personally I see no reason to separate T and C, never did...even more so don't think so now. Run what you brung and see where you stack up.

I agree. Most cars are nowhere near the edge of allowance (although I would not be surprised if the tube chassis cars come out to play in the near future). I also agree that the C and T cars should not be separate. Instead I would separate cars based on allowable mods (motor swap, tire size, full frame replacements, suspension topology, minimum weight, etc.) I think that would be a more fair and economical way to include most P-T cars and allow people to stay in budget.



I've lurked here on and off for a while, figured I'd make an account to respond. That 4th gen is mine.

The car was broken for the entire tour so we were fighting to jury rig the throttle. It was slow for the tour. I normally beat Randy in his CAM-C car 1.5-2 seconds per day.

But the main point is that I think every single person who has an issue with my car doesn't understand the time or money that is in it. It looks like **** but that's because all the important parts can't be seen. Yes the stock front suspension geometry is very good but the rear is still the limiting factor. I've been developing that car for 5 years. If I had to start all over again and replicate it, it would cost me $30,000 not including the cost of buying a car or any labor. That's just the parts bill. And the motor is 100% stock internally aside from an oil pump and crank scraper/pan baffle. I've never added up how much I've spent on things that didn't work.

Eric Simmons result is representative of what you can expect for a ~$10k part list.

Not trying to argue one way or the other, just adding important relevant info.

Oh there's no doubt you have a lot of money and time into that car. Both the car and yourself perform very well. Also, I could see the 8760s hiding out underneath.

[landstuhltaylor]

Oh there's no doubt you have a lot of money and time into that car. Both the car and yourself perform very well. Also, I could see the 8760s hiding out underneath.

Oh I'm not that baller, just 8300s. I also went the cheap way in the front with 7500 doubles. I just hate seeing people base arguments on the assumption that it's a 10k bucket of junkyard bolts.

Anyway, I agree that discussion needs to happen but I also know this was the logical conclusion. I wouldn't want to cut fenders on a clean 60s car to fit massive tires either. Unfortunately that's just what CAM is. The current two page rule sheet philosophy means that the disparity will always be there. So it can either be accepted as-is with some tweaks for whatever the vision is for the category or it turns into a full rule book that it was created to avoid. I personally think anything with a solid axle should be classed together and anything with an IRS in a separate class. Give them a weight penalty and run them heads up. Other people may have different opinions. But I don't think leaving it as-is is going to work in the long term. I know I'm not the target either way as I'll go where the competition is and chase tires when those other classes don't make numbers.

[dontlifttoshift]

Like I said on FB. Like Lance said years ago (and I disagreed at that point)

Combine T and C, break it out by front tire size. Big tire guys still get the builder class that they lust over. The small tire guys, the guys that the class was created for, get to be competitive without feeling they need to carve the car up.

[F-Body International]

Like I said on FB. Like Lance said years ago (and I disagreed at that point)

Combine T and C, break it out by front tire size. Big tire guys still get the builder class that they lust over. The small tire guys, the guys that the class was created for, get to be competitive without feeling they need to carve the car up.

I like your input here....I assume 275 vs 315/335 tire class?

[Sleeper68]

Like I said on FB. Like Lance said years ago (and I disagreed at that point)

Combine T and C, break it out by front tire size. Big tire guys still get the builder class that they lust over. The small tire guys, the guys that the class was created for, get to be competitive without feeling they need to carve the car up.

I think that is the compromise; although, I don't know if the CAM Gods will hear it. I'd say you would have to do a blanket max size on all four corners though. 275mm max for small tire seems reasonable since that is what most vintage muscle cars can fit without extensive mods.

I do like Devin's point of separating the IRS cars, but it seems most of the cars that have it from the factory (gen 5+ camaros, S550s, charger/challengers) are much heavier, assuming you aren't dealing with people like the Schoonmaker's.

[BonzoHansen]

Like I said on FB. Like Lance said years ago (and I disagreed at that point)

Combine T and C, break it out by front tire size. Big tire guys still get the builder class that they lust over. The small tire guys, the guys that the class was created for, get to be competitive without feeling they need to carve the car up.

I get that, its a great thought. But what about electronics - ABS, etc. I still think that matters. I've read other opinions IRS vs live axle. I get that too but am not on board as much.

i dont think there is a great universal answer.

[dontlifttoshift]

So far, it doesn't matter. It still comes down to four patches of rubber.......and how the driver manages them.


I haven't preached here in a while so here is where I am at. CAM should never be a jacket class, trophies should be ice cream, run what you brung and hope you brung enough but for gods sakes have a good time doing it. I firmly believe that regardless of what my car does, if I don't win, it is because someone outdrove me.

However.

As every racing series develops it changes, if we want to continue to capture the core of the OG CAM competitors that class was built for you have to make them feel like they still belong. If they feel outgunned before they even get to grid they won't show up and CAM will become just another SCCA class and no longer be the recruitment tool it was engineered to be.


275 and down, CAM Touring / 285 and up, CAM Comp No reason to factor in rear tires, you can only go as fast as the front will let you.

[gscherer78ta]

I like your input here....I assume 275 vs 315/335 tire class?

Good guys did this last year. Street Machine is max 275 tires, above that is the pro class. I think this kind of classing makes more sense then the mods kind of classing.

[F-Body International]

I think that is the compromise; although, I don't know if the CAM Gods will hear it. I'd say you would have to do a blanket max size on all four corners though. 275mm max for small tire seems reasonable since that is what most vintage muscle cars can fit without extensive mods.

I do like Devin's point of separating the IRS cars, but it seems most of the cars that have it from the factory (gen 5+ camaros, S550s, charger/challengers) are much heavier, assuming you aren't dealing with people like the Schoonmaker's.

The '03-'04 Mustang Cobra's have IRS..........and I have seen people on the internet install those IRS setups in '79-'04 Mustangs.

[SSLance]

So far, it doesn't matter. It still comes down to four patches of rubber.......and how the driver manages them.


I haven't preached here in a while so here is where I am at. CAM should never be a jacket class, trophies should be ice cream, run what you brung and hope you brung enough but for gods sakes have a good time doing it. I firmly believe that regardless of what my car does, if I don't win, it is because someone outdrove me.

However.

As every racing series develops it changes, if we want to continue to capture the core of the OG CAM competitors that class was built for you have to make them feel like they still belong. If they feel outgunned before they even get to grid they won't show up and CAM will become just another SCCA class and no longer be the recruitment tool it was engineered to be.


275 and down, CAM Touring / 285 and up, CAM Comp No reason to factor in rear tires, you can only go as fast as the front will let you.


Preach it brother... Sooner or later hopefully the powers that be will listen to those of us in the trenches...

Meanwhile, just keeping hurting the big tire car driver's feelings with your small tire car. :naughty:

[dontlifttoshift]

It's my favorite thing to do.

One more thing, this was pitched to Raleigh last fall and dismissed at that time. I think he was just looking for support for what they already had planned as opposed to looking for input. Send an email. Don't say "I", don't talk about your car or you'll get a TYFYI for sure.

[Sleeper68]

So far, it doesn't matter. It still comes down to four patches of rubber.......and how the driver manages them.


I haven't preached here in a while so here is where I am at. CAM should never be a jacket class, trophies should be ice cream, run what you brung and hope you brung enough but for gods sakes have a good time doing it. I firmly believe that regardless of what my car does, if I don't win, it is because someone outdrove me.

However.

As every racing series develops it changes, if we want to continue to capture the core of the OG CAM competitors that class was built for you have to make them feel like they still belong. If they feel outgunned before they even get to grid they won't show up and CAM will become just another SCCA class and no longer be the recruitment tool it was engineered to be.


275 and down, CAM Touring / 285 and up, CAM Comp No reason to factor in rear tires, you can only go as fast as the front will let you.

Yes, tires, weight, driver. Since Solo has always been a driver competition, limits need to be on weight and tires. That bring up the other issue. CAM-C cars and CAM-T cars are very different. Good luck getting a 2005+ mustang or 2010+ camaro to 3000lbs, let alone 3300. Because of the weight differences I think C and T should be separate. Also alot of those newer cars come with 285s or 305s from the factory. Split tire sizes at 305, or could run em all together?
My proposition for C and T:

CAM-T TOUR: 275 max tire, 200tw, 3000lbs minimum
CAM-T PRO: 200tw, 3000lbs minimum

CAM-C TOUR: 285 max tire, 200 tw, 3350 lbs minimum
CAM-C PRO: 200 tw, 3350 lbs min


Good guys did this last year. Street Machine is max 275 tires, above that is the pro class. I think this kind of classing makes more sense then the mods kind of classing.

Great idea. Keeps it cheap for the little guy.


The '03-'04 Mustang Cobra's have IRS..........and I have seen people on the internet install those IRS setups in '79-'04 Mustangs.

Let em run it. I don't care to compete with an IRS car with TC/ABS if we have the same weight and tire limits.

[dontlifttoshift]

But now you turned two classes into four......and made it more complicated than it needs to be.

We don't want or need more classes.

[Sleeper68]

But now you turned two classes into four......and made it more complicated than it needs to be.

We don't want or need more classes.

How would one solve the weight disparity issue then?

[SSLance]

There are times...and I know old schoolers will skoff at this...but having more weight on a smaller tire will actually give one MORE grip instead of less.

I've been racing lighter and fatter tire'd cars with my fat pig on small tires for a long time, and like Donny, it gives me great satisfaction to beat them.

Most of the guys with these older cars that don't want to cut them up, also don't care about a couple hundred pounds. We are mostly talking about 3500# cars with 55-57% weight on the nose and big horsepower. A lot of professional autocrosser rules and setups just don't work in this scenario.

[dontlifttoshift]

I just don't think the weight disparity is an issue. Of course the math will show that it matters, conventional theory says that it matters, but in reality......it hasn't mattered. Sure my car would be faster if weighed the same as the Dumpster Fire but I still wouldn't be able to drive around him. Until CAM gets to a point where we have 10 cars fully prepped to the rules with 10 very good drivers behind the wheel, 300 lbs won't make a significant difference. So lets keep it simple and fun.

The driver makes the most significant difference. Then tires and long after that, everything else. It took me a lot of time and money to learn that hard lesson but I didn't take seconds off my time until I started learning to drive.

[landstuhltaylor]

I just don't think the weight disparity is an issue. Of course the math will show that it matters, conventional theory says that it matters, but in reality......it hasn't mattered. Sure my car would be faster if weighed the same as the Dumpster Fire but I still wouldn't be able to drive around him. Until CAM gets to a point where we have 10 cars fully prepped to the rules with 10 very good drivers behind the wheel, 300 lbs won't make a significant difference. So lets keep it simple and fun.

The driver makes the most significant difference. Then tires and long after that, everything else. It took me a lot of time and money to learn that hard lesson but I didn't take seconds off my time until I started learning to drive.

I will say this. Either the BFGs really aren't as far off the Hoosiers as most people think, or my car got quite a bit quicker by removing ~80lbs from the nose and adding weight to the rear. Weight loss from ESP trim has only been about 80lbs, but that's after accounting for a full vs empty tank.

I am starting to come around to the 275 and under idea. But I am also a fan of keeping the weight break for solid axle vs IRS. I don't think those two ideas are mutually exclusive.

[dontlifttoshift]

LoL at you liking ***** ***** when they are free. :)

I think the wagon axle weight break is a discussion worth having, I just think we are 4 or 5 years from needing to have it.

[Sleeper68]

I just don't think the weight disparity is an issue. Of course the math will show that it matters, conventional theory says that it matters, but in reality......it hasn't mattered. Sure my car would be faster if weighed the same as the Dumpster Fire but I still wouldn't be able to drive around him. Until CAM gets to a point where we have 10 cars fully prepped to the rules with 10 very good drivers behind the wheel, 300 lbs won't make a significant difference. So lets keep it simple and fun.

The driver makes the most significant difference. Then tires and long after that, everything else. It took me a lot of time and money to learn that hard lesson but I didn't take seconds off my time until I started learning to drive.

Driver is definitely the most important part, and thank goodness it is. Solo is supposed to be a driver's competition as we all know.

I am not concerned with the weight difference between C, T, and S cars necessarily. Even so, there is no argument that the difference is not significant, and I think if C,T,S are merged many in C class will not be happy.

One could argue 300lbs weight difference can be overcome with skill certainly, but it gets alot harder between ~2500lb S cars and ~3600lb C cars and maybe even 3000lb T cars and 3600lb C cars.

Both Randy and Devin are fantastic drivers, yet Devin is almost always ahead of Randy by 1 or more seconds. I don't think that is all skill.


I will say this. Either the BFGs really aren't as far off the Hoosiers as most people think, or my car got quite a bit quicker by removing ~80lbs from the nose and adding weight to the rear. Weight loss from ESP trim has only been about 80lbs, but that's after accounting for a full vs empty tank.

I am starting to come around to the 275 and under idea. But I am also a fan of keeping the weight break for solid axle vs IRS. I don't think those two ideas are mutually exclusive.

I too am of the opinion they are not mutually exclusive.


LoL at you liking ***** ***** when they are free. :)

I think the wagon axle weight break is a discussion worth having, I just think we are 4 or 5 years from needing to have it.

What would you say is the best way CAM as a whole should progress from now into the next 5-7 years?

[dontlifttoshift]

Here is DriveAutoX results from a couple of weeks ago. First set is Sunday, conditions were drying through out the morning. Second set is Saturday and it was dry all day.

1 GTU 10 Jansen Fischer 2003 Mitsubishi Evolution 8 38.357
2 GTU 37 James Elliott 2002 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 45.228
3 GT 196 Nathan Popp 1995 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 45.690
4 GTU 96 Danny Popp 2003 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 45.773
5 GTU 138 Bill Hughes 2001 Chevrolet Corvette 45.845
6 GTV 32 Donny Freise 1971 Chevrolet Camaro 45.964
7 SCN 85 Eric Brown 2019 Mazda Miata 46.455
8 GTV 67 Tavis Spencer 1967 Chevrolet Camaro 46.490
9 GTU 191 Robert Armstrong 1991 Chevrolet Corvette 46.581
10 GTU 48 Mike Gallagher 2016 Ford Focus RS 46.586
11 GT 5 James Bishir 2017 Chevrolet Camar_OH! 46.758
12 NLO 135 Randy Adkins 2016 Ford GT350 46.812

1 GTU 37 James Elliott 2002 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 41.871
2 GTU 96 Danny Popp 2003 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 42.456
3 NLO 135 Randy Adkins 2016 Ford GT350 42.706
4 GTU 7 Marshall Reinert 2000 Chevrolet Corvette 42.894
5 GTV 32 Donny Freise 1971 Chevrolet Camaro 42.937
6 GTU 191 Robert Armstrong 1991 Chevrolet Corvette 43.106
7 GTU 94 Alex Tziortzis 2002 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 43.224
8 GT 35 James Thomas 2016 Ford Mustang GT350 43.230
9 GTU 138 Bill Hughes 2001 Chevrolet Corvette 43.303
10 GTV 25 Nathan Johnson 1968 Chevrolet Camaro 43.382
11 GT 5 James Bishir 2017 Chevrolet Camar_OH! 43.433
12 GT 196 Nathan Popp 1995 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 43.436

My 71 is 3500 pounds on 265s with off the shelf parts from RideTech. No ABS, no electronic shocks, no 315s. Curb weight on Randys car is 3760.......I will be amazed if it still weighs that. Devin would beat Randy in Randys car.

CAM should progress just the way it has and continue to evolve but ultimately the membership will decide what CAM becomes. We can't make classing decisions based on 1 or 2 cars or drivers or whiners. Classing should serve the majority of participants. You will always have people that are willing to work harder on their cars or skillset, you can't legislate that out of the sport. You can level the playing field with simple tire size rule.

If everyone had to race in a Street class before coming to CAM we could eliminate alot of the rules discussions. Most of them are driven by the perception that they are outgunned. Getting your a$$ handed to you by someone driving the _exact_ same car is a sobering experience. I highly recommend it for everyone.

[gscherer78ta]

This will be the first year that I will compete in the OUSCA series without a Pontiac Motor in my Trans Am, I have an LS3 in it now. This weekend I am betting that there are very few SBC's or SBF's at the event. Also guessing that my 275 tires are among the skinniest in grid. I'm not complaining, this is a choice I've made and I don't have to go to Optima events, just speculating on what I find when I get there. I run what I brung and have as much fun as I can!

[SSLance]

Getting your a$$ handed to you by someone driving the _exact_ same car is a sobering experience. I highly recommend it for everyone.



Every time I feel like I've reached a plateau as a driver I do just that...put a driver better than me in my car for an event.

I don't do it to be humbled as much as I do it to learn and better myself as a driver.

[Sleeper68]

CAM should progress just the way it has and continue to evolve but ultimately the membership will decide what CAM becomes. We can't make classing decisions based on 1 or 2 cars or drivers or whiners. Classing should serve the majority of participants. You will always have people that are willing to work harder on their cars or skillset, you can't legislate that out of the sport. You can level the playing field with simple tire size rule.



I think that is what this discussion is about, to help the CAM community talk about what rules changes, if any, should come through in 2021. I agree on all points.




If everyone had to race in a Street class before coming to CAM we could eliminate alot of the rules discussions. Most of them are driven by the perception that they are outgunned. Getting your a$$ handed to you by someone driving the _exact_ same car is a sobering experience. I highly recommend it for everyone.

I came from street classes and moved to CAM because I wanted to race my Camaro, which was illegal for any other street tire class. The insane number of rules is the street classes was very annoying and limiting. One was very hard pressed to do well unless you had the "right" starting car for the class. CAM is much better in that you can make your car work for the class, which I think we all love.

Some of the CAMT guys do have that perception, and they are right, and it has kept them from showing up recently. This assertion is based on discussions I have had with some of them.

The reason this particular discussion was brought up is because of the lack of "vintage" cars in CAMT at the most recent National SCCA event, not because the drivers of the vintage cars did or did not do well.

[dontlifttoshift]

I think that is what this discussion is about, to help the CAM community talk about what rules changes, if any, should come through in 2021. I agree on all points.

<snip>

The reason this particular discussion was brought up is because of the lack of "vintage" cars in CAMT at the most recent National SCCA event, not because the drivers of the vintage cars did or did not do well.

I purposely held off on replying to this. I wanted the chance to run heads up with Devin before I expanded any further and see what actual attendance was at the OG Cam event.

Saturday results from Cam Challenge East. https://www.scca.com/downloads/51461-official-class-results-cam-challenge/download

The rest of the results can be found here https://www.scca.com/events/1995521-2020-tire-rack-peru-cam-challenge

47 drivers with times in T. 33 of them were pre 95. 28 were pre 87....that includes all turd gen F bodies and fox mustangs as pre 87. 16 were pre 72, that includes all 2nd gen F bodies. There were 3 cars in the top 20 Saturday that did not have at least 315s in the front. There were two cars with IRS swapped in.

In 2015 there were 64 drivers in C and only 21 in T.....the cutoff then was 72. So we are down 5 "T" cars over the past 5 years. Going by memory, in 2015, the top 20 had 4 cars _with_ 315s. Kyle Tucker and Cody Mason co drove Kyles car, Al Unser in the Speedway 2nd gen, and Mary Pozzi in her 2nd gen.

I can think of 4 drivers that voted with their wallet and decided not to attend this year due to last years rule change and they all fall into the pre 72 category.

Since 2015 DriveAutoX showed up, where you don't have to work and vintage class is actually vintage. Local SCCA support for CAM has grown to the point that traveling for events no longer seems like a requirement.


If you want to know why actual vintage cars aren't attending I think you can 100% say that they feel outclassed......again. Which is the whole reason CAM exists. These cars and their typically novice drivers used to get tossed in CP or SM and get clobbered locally and would end up 121st on pax so they couldn't even math their way into feeling good about their day. Whether or not they are actually outclassed is irrelevant, if they think they are, that's all that matters. Couple that with a couple of other options that are more attractive and people will race elsewhere.

GoodGuys does a lot of stuff wrong but they got the tire rule right. I'll say it again. Combine T and C. They consistently run the the same times.

3300# for IRS cars #3000 pounds for wagon axle cars. (I personally would like to see both of these number go up, but I understand why they shouldn't)

CAM Touring 285 max front tire width and 10" max front wheel width
CAM Competition unlimited tire and wheel width.

[Sleeper68]

I purposely held off on replying to this. I wanted the chance to run heads up with Devin before I expanded any further and see what actual attendance was at the OG Cam event.

47 drivers with times in T. 33 of them were pre 95. 28 were pre 87....that includes all turd gen F bodies and fox mustangs as pre 87. 16 were pre 72, that includes all 2nd gen F bodies. There were 3 cars in the top 20 Saturday that did not have at least 315s in the front. There were two cars with IRS swapped in.

I can think of 4 drivers that voted with their wallet and decided not to attend this year due to last years rule change and they all fall into the pre 72 category.

Since 2015 DriveAutoX showed up, where you don't have to work and vintage class is actually vintage. Local SCCA support for CAM has grown to the point that traveling for events no longer seems like a requirement.

GoodGuys does a lot of stuff wrong but they got the tire rule right. I'll say it again. Combine T and C. They consistently run the the same times.

3300# for IRS cars #3000 pounds for wagon axle cars. (I personally would like to see both of these number go up, but I understand why they shouldn't)

CAM Touring 285 max front tire width and 10" max front wheel width
CAM Competition unlimited tire and wheel width.

Thank you for posting this Donny. I wish I could have gone this year, would have been a real treat to watch you drive. I can think of 3 of the 4 people you're talking about who are notably missing this year.

Of the top 10, only 2 cars are what I would consider vintage; of the top 15, 4 vintage cars. Very telling.

Also good to note how similar the CAMC and CAMT top times are even with the weight disparity.

I must say the argument to combine C and T is quite compelling looking at this - so long as the 275/285 tire class split rule is carried with it.

I have yet to attend a DriveAutoX event but I've heard they're very fun. Would like to go to one soon.

[dontlifttoshift]

https://driveautox.com/register Last one is coming up.

[nokones]

It's debatable.

Mustang suspension was generally the same for 1979-2004.
F-Body pretty much had 1967-1981 leaf spring and then 1982-2002 torque arm.

The main thing I think we need to consider is the 90's and early 2000's cars having ABS and Traction Control.

I believe the 1992 F Body was the only 3rd Gen model year with ABS. The 90 model year did not have ABS or traction control and I believe the 1991 didn't either.

[anguilla1980]

1993 was for f-bodys.

[Sleeper68]

https://driveautox.com/register Last one is coming up.

Unfortunately I don't think I can make that one. I am definitely trying to run some next year.