FFR Lap Times vs. "Original" Lap Times ?

[Sherrell]

I noticed just the other day Dave Smith's claim our roadsters are delivering quicker lap times than the original cars. This got me to thinking...

Accepting this claim without knowing the particulars, I can see several minor and a few potentially major reasons...

A. the FFR chassis is superior to the original chassis
B. modern tires are superior to the original tires
C. modern track surfaces are superior to track surfaces in the mid 1960's

In any event, I'd love to see the data behind the claim. Specifically:

1. Which tracks are we talking about?
2. Which engine/suspension/tranny combos are we talking about?
3. Given the answer to #1 & #2, what are the actual time difference for our cars vs. the time for the original cars posted IN THE MID-1960's?
4. Given the answer to #1 & #2, what are the actual time differences for our cars vs. the original cars TODAY with everyone on modern tires?

Anyone have the hard data?

[trevor]

FFR ran a coyote powered MK4 against an original this year and smoked it. It is pretty much all the reasons you stated plus better brakes

[ROADRACER83]

Sherrell

Probably hard to quantify without some input from FFR drivers that are running on tracks that have retained their original layout, which are few and far between. Contrary to folklore the Cobras of the 60's were really pretty primitive by todays standards. The race tire of the mid sixties were less grippy than a good high performance street tire today let alone todays racing radial tires. The suspension components were kind of whimpy on the originals. Shocks had fluid that heated up and even boiled so the shocks tended to quit working after a number of laps. The oils and lubricants of the day quit working when hot and sucked up a lot of horsepower.

The brakes on the originals were very iffy. In thiose days SCCA made production based cars run factory stock brakes and getting better components involved a ton of paperwork. Brakes were smaller, brake fluid way less effective, pads were organic and wore rapidly. The original Cobra frame and suspension were based on a 50's era 4 cylinder car with transverse leaf springs and I don't believe they were as stiff as an FFR. The later Cobras updated to coilovers but by that time the A and B Production Corvettes were coming on strong in SCCA racing and GM was designing and selling upgraded brakes, suspension pieces, beefed up parts, and getting them homologated.

Interesting comparison, but kind of one of those apples and oranges things.

Ron

[R Edgar]

Check Powerblock TV's website. I think the show where they compared the two cars is still on their site.

Roy from Springboro

[Sherrell]

Good thoughts everyone... (I forgot to mention the brakes).

Still, if folks are going to run around claiming an FFR can smoke an original car, one should have the data to back that up...

I would love to see an original 427SC against an 5-liter FFR - both on modern tires, on the same track, head-to-head... If not head-to-head, then at least both cars on modern tires.

I'm still hoping someone out there has either historic or modern "best lap" times for the original cars that can be compared to the best lap times from today's NASA series FFRs...

Sherrell

[cobradawg]

As many of you know that was the original cobra/ FFR challenge last fall in Charlotte N C. The FFR won the slalom, 1/4 mi. and most impressively the braking. Ths guys on the show Muscle Car built up a FFR with help from the FFR tech guys and an owner provided the orginal 427 car. At the end of the days filming at the new Charlotte drag strip, a FFR get together was held at the local Quaker Steak and Lube. We had over 30 roadsters and a couple of 33's there. Dave Smith and the whole Muscle Car crew were there. The M C crew were easy going and lots of fun to josh around with, sadly no Courtney.

[ROADRACER83]

Here's that link:

PowerBlockTV - Video

Ron

[SJDave]

At this years Monterey Historics, the fastest lap time by a 289 Cobra was Jim Click at 1:41.5.
The fastest 427 was Bob Jordon at 1:42.6

... so the 289 was faster by a bit even with the transverse leaf springs and 150 less HP...so better driver, better prepared car?? probably.

In general the 289s were faster then the 427s, maybe all the HP is hard to handle on this course...or maybe the 427 brakes were the weak link with al that HP.

I found some FFR challenge car times from Laguna from 2011, the fastest of the group were running 1:46. So this is with what...250HP.. what if they had 325 + HP like some of the vintage 289s? especially Jim Clicks car..dry sumped and all and tended to by a professional racing crew with gumball racing slicks.

So the answer is I'm not sure either....it's apples and oranges again...need both cars with the same HP, gear ratios, brakes, tires, driver...that's the only way to really tell.

But it would appear they are pretty comparable from the Laguna Seca results.

Dave

[MikeKelly]

Originally Posted by Sherrell

Still, if folks are going to run around claiming an FFR can smoke an original car, one should have the data to back that up...

I would love to see an original 427SC against an 5-liter FFR - both on modern tires, on the same track, head-to-head... If not head-to-head, then at least both cars on modern tires.

Ok, let me add a few other thoughts to the list:

1- Heads. Modern aluminum performance heads are far superior to anything they had going in the '60s.
2- Wheel / tire sizes. I *think* the biggest wheels they were running were 8", most FFRs are running 10.5" / 9".
3- Roller cams.


So, no, I don't think a stock 5.0 FFR has much of a chance against a well driven original 427SC or race config 289.

I also don't think either of those original cars in 1964 - 1970 trim stand any chance against a suitably built FFR - (suitably built to include stroker crank, better heads, better cam, bigger stickier tires, better brakes, better coilovers, heater A/C PS PB delete, did I leave out much?)...

I don't have much interest in putting the wrong stuff (modern) on a vintage car to see if it will run with a modern car.

And don't forget that the 427 (FE) gives away *about* 400lbs to a small block from the word go...


Just a few thoughts,

Mike

[Mike D]

It's all in which original Cobra you decide to compare. An unrestored 428-powered street car with crap tires....or this one.

1966 Cobra sweeps the autocross - YouTube

1966 Cobra sweeps the autocross - YouTube

[tirod]

Isn't your current daily driver better than a 1965 Galaxie? Let's not get all misty eyed and wax poetic over old cars. They are a snapshot of the time, but that doesn't mean their superior performance then is still dominant. To insist it is means telling all the engineers, racers, and industry the last 45 years work has been useless, they can't possibly be better than an old '60's museum piece.

Track times can be argued, the reality is that tracks have limits of speed and cornering that endanger a driver when exceeded. Rules to limit the car's ability are exactly what create classes and why crews keep skirting them. I don't see rules limiting the drivers, tho, because that is what racing is all about - who's the better driver.

Better machines are easy to build, just step up to the unlimiteds. It only takes cubic yards of cash, the parts are out there, the skill to assemble them, too.

The road test of Coyote vs 427 was unfair - to the Coyote. It hasn't had 40 years of development, or testing. In reality, it's a new motor dropped in a new chassis with best guess suspension and brake pieces, no extensive track time, no proof it's the best setup or tune at all. Still beat the 427 overall, didn't it?

That's why new kits beat the old ones. As a snapshot of technology, the last 45 years of competition and superior design have gotten us to the point where a guy can screw together a better car with stock daily driver parts than what was raced then. Add the same options, it will make more hp with less displacement.

Please be reminded that no one in this thread is hand typing and mailing responses to be transcribed into a post. Life has moved on, auto technology is far superior now than then. New kits can smoke the originals.

And you can build, race, wreck, and rebuild a new kit for less than the cost to repair the older car. Watch out for those hay bales.

[Chepsk8]

I have had the special pleasure of driving both on the race track. The 289 had many FIA mods, including the Magnesium Mags and Goodyear tires, plus a built 289 making 450+ HP. All of you know my car, with many competition mods.

On the track there is no comparison, our FFR's will anhilate an original, either motor. It's the technology and chassis. Also, the seating position and ergonomics of the later FFR's also makes a huge difference.

A very close comparison is tracking a 1968 Mustang GT vs a 2012 Mustang GT. Technology and chassis wins.

[trevor]

I read a lot about the 66 autoX light blue cobra. The cobras' suspension/tires/wheels are not stock. Big lightweight brakes aren't a large part of autoX, so the old ones probably would suffice.

As far as laps times, the amount of mods to just an FFR can make a large gap.

Example at VIR
stock FFR challenge, 2:10 track record
new mods FFR Challenge, I think 2:08s
Boothman highly modified FFR cobra, 2:05
my FFR cobra (see mods below), high 2:03s

[CHOTIS BILL]

I was racing a LeGrand BSR in SCCA up until 1969 and I had to run treaded tires I don’t remember have slicks available . Did Cobras run slicks?

Bill Lomenick

[ROADRACER83]

Originally Posted by CHOTIS BILL

I was racing a LeGrand BSR in SCCA up until 1969 and I had to run treaded tires I don’t remember have slicks available . Did Cobras run slicks?

Bill Lomenick

Bill:

True slicks didn't really start to be avaiable in all sizes for sports cars until the early 70's. Even Indy cars were running treaded tires until then. When I built my SCCA B Production/Trans Am Corvette in the winter of 70-71 we mocked up the suspension and wheel well flairs with the biggest, newest Firestone bias ply race tires available which had very fine sipes in the tires. I'm not sure you could even call them treaded as the sipes were maybe only 1mm wide or so, but there were a lot of them. The tires had to be a fairly hard compound or they would have shredded themselves fast. The Firestones looked a lot like the current G7 Goodyear vintage race tire.

http://www.racegoodyear.com/tires/pd...web_100511.pdf

By the next year we switched to slick Goodyears in basically the same sizes and we were amazed at how much faster they were. They also started getting stickier and didn't last as long.

Ron

[CHOTIS BILL]

Thanks Ron, that is about how I remember it. The G7 look about like the last tires I remember buying before returning to racing in the early 80’s when everyone was using slicks. I guess I haven’t forgotten everything.

Bill Lomenick

[Greg_M]

Go to 14:00 on the video and observe the braking tests on Dave's car. Lots of front wheel lock up on each run, especially on the right side. Skid marks 4 car lengths long. He needs ABS

Greg

[MikeKelly]

Originally Posted by Greg_M

He needs ABS

Heh, if he had his bias right it would have already been stopped...