A bit of everything

[Removed user as requested]

Hello

Its been some months now trying to find myself a 68 Dodge Charger Pump. Somebody has finaly found me one and its been sent over.

So soon it gets here I will finally have my 1968 DOdge Charger back and on the road, ready for sale.



On the other hand

Due to my crazy Idea to go with a Ford GT over the Exotic F355 Ferrari or Lamborghini Diablo, I ran into an interesting turn of events after I received the GT40s forum website on here from somebody.

I will not be getting a GT but I will have a company build me a GT40 replica.

The GT40 is a smaller car, weighs under 2000lbs, has a 95" wheelbase and runs a roaring V8 in the back.

To me thats a car that would really Auto X well and handle a road course umbelievably well while accelerating like a real drag racer (power to weight ratio).

Having said that, it comes to a question I have.

Why would I option for a 302 Windsor a 351 Clevland (is there a 351 windsor? and what the...is the difference between windsors/clevlands etc) when I can also option for the 427 FE motor big block or something even bigger.

EG: 600HP in a 351 small block or 600HP in a 427/429 Big Block.

The Small block would have MORE Rpms available, but the BIG BLOCK will have a flatter torque curve.

Both have the same Power.

Why would I want more RPMS in a GT40 which is already light (so bigblock = heavier doesnt matter in a car like this), and why would I want a bigblock... since the car will get built ground up, I can pick whatever engine I want.

So really the question is, why option for a higher reving motor when a low reving motor (big ci) can produce the same power for roadcourse application?

Will the SB have a higher top speed, or top speed is due to the power in the car and thus the RPMs mean nothing and thus the car would be faster with a big block as it will have better acceleration due to a flatter torque curve...and so forth.


And back to something that got me Curious. Being a dodge owner, i didnt want to look really but decided to anyway cause I know DODGE is not really the best when it comes to performance,lets face it, too large, too heavy, thus needing huge motors, handles poorly etc... went and had a look at a 1969 Boss Mustang.

The car doesnt look as tough as the Charger... but the body shape does look more 'thought' out, more refined... its not just a brick with wheels under it. U can see more went into making that body in technical terms. However, with its beefy muscle look, it has this 'fast' look about it... it looks like its ready to race. I really appreciate the Boss Mustang in terms of looks. Not to mention its wheelbase kicks ass over the Dodge and ofcourse it was 1 of the best race cars in pony car class racing, as the mustang really is a very good handling car.

So if I ever decide to go 'pro touring' on the side of a GT40, or perhaps just want a nice old cruiser (as i do have a soft spot for muscle cars and always will), i may just go with the Boss Mustang, ofcourse if I already got a GT40, then I wont need another 'handling' car as no pro touring car gonna compare to that, so I may just get a Charger again for cruising sake. Point im making is... I like the BOSS mustang enough to consider it above a Charger

Im sure the Mustang feels a little sportier (tight around u - go kart like) than a big dodge aswell, giving it that little race edge feel to it aswell that I like while still being a muscle car with race like/speed like shape to it.

Have I converted from dodge - Ford? I dont wanna say Yes to that, but the facts are facts, Dodge costs more, handles worse and needs MUCH ENGINE due to its elephant weight. With a Ford im paying less to get more car with a track record of wining races that actualy turn left and right (which ofcourse perhaps the weight etc of the dodge wont matter considering I will have a GT40 for that race/performance purpose).

I understand pro-touring with XV2 kits and whatever else is available u can make a Charger handle awesome... but do the same resto mod on a Mustang, u still got a lighter car with a better wheelbase, thus a Mustang would be hard to beat. The only car physicaly I see giving it a run is the 67-69? Camaro. But I do prefer the shape of the 69 Boss or a 67 'eleanor' body kitted car. Obviously gotta be a Manual car otherwise no point owning one. Have Automatic... n seriously, my charger feels like an old mans car. Gotta Be Manual Gearbox to be fun otherwise whats the point.

So I guess the point is, I find the mustang to be a real good car, and If I was to not have a 'gt40' for performance, I would probbably option for the Boss Mustang Pro-touring over the charger. But if performance is of no question due to having a gt40, I will always have a soft spot for the looks and shear size of the Charger Beast for cruising purposes.

Tough Call I must say.

[Ron.in.SoCal]

Dude you crank me up, but I give you points for being entertaining! Since you asked:

http://mustangsdaily.com/blog/2010/1...inger-mustang/

Also, do a search on here as there was a discussion of small block vs big block on a road course. I recall the consensus was Hp = HP no matter the block size.

[WVhotrod]

With your question on the 351, there was a 351 cleveland as well as a 351 windsor. From all i have read most people prefer the cleveland and say its a better motor for building hp. Also if you are having the gt40 built are you wanting to keep it a ford engine? If not the lsx 454 is a small block with big block CI and comes with the 600 hp you mentioned. It's 10 grand from GMPP and still need to either put a carb or FI on it but is a nice base. If wanting to stick with ford i would look at roush 427. A guy I know has one in a cobra replica and it screams.

Just some things to think about.

Brandon

[Removed user as requested]

Hi

I do plan to keep it a Ford engine.

I was even thinking of putting a 429 Hemi in.

The thing is, with the GT40 weighing in at 900kg, not the general 1400-1600kg of a muscle car... a big block in the back with alloy block may add some weight but being in the rear, its a good think, some extra grip.

Thing Is, I dont understand why option for MORE RPM vs MORE CI to achieve the same thing...

Where would the RPMs be of more use... TOP Speed? Or either will go same TOp SPEED because of the 'power' in it.

This is where im stuck not being an engine builder and understanding stuff.