Winning the @Project Fastback car would be great for any of you readers, but having a great street driving car that also has the ability to tear up the track and drag strip would be great too - and that's the exact purpose of "Track Attack". There are a lot of design elements involved in making a car perform great in the various aspects it may be used. You may want it to excel at the drag strip or on the track. Sometimes the parts needed for one area of performance do not help on the other, but a lot of things changed on a car help both ET’s and lap times as well as drivability on the street. We will touch on a few of them here.One thing that helps in all areas is weight reduction. The use of fiberglass or carbon fiber hoods, doors, fenders, etc. can pare off a lot of weight on the car’s total poundage. Less weight means quicker et’s or lap times as well as easier on the engine, tires, and brakes at the track or on the street. Lightweight wheels equal less rotating mass which also greatly helps. The use of custom lightweight racing seats and carbon fiber interior parts can also take out a lot of weight. This all adds up to less total weight your car has to carry making it faster and handle better in all areas. It will also free up some mpgs.
Speaking of weight, the power-to-weight ratio of the car, as well as the weight distribution front-to-rear is very important in a fast streetable and track car. This means an old school big block probably isn't the best option for its engine. A modern, modular engine will fit the bill nicely. Lots of power, lighter, smaller (better weight distribution) and more fuel efficient (more laps on track).
When building this 1967 Fastback, we could also benefit from new suspension technology like the guys at @Detroit Speed do. They transform cars like our 1967 Mustang into a state-of-the-art car for the 21st century. Detroit Speed was founded to provide automotive components and systems which deliver late model vehicle ride and handling expected from a world class OEM vehicle. Detroit Speed has developed a line of products that have been through extensive engineering analysis, testing, and development to assure that customers receive the highest quality performance parts with eye appeal. Each and every part they design is unique and meets only the highest DSE standards for fit, finish, and function. Without going into elaborate detail about each part they do sell, we can tell you that they can upgrade almost every area of the 1967 that we have talked about and more.They have an all aluminum front suspension system featuring DSE’s unique suspension geometry with 6” of suspension travel for the ultimate in ride and performance, a new 4-link geometry design to achieve the best possible handling, lightweight Recaro buckets, as well as electrical components, engine cooling setups, modern braking, engine and driveline parts, and lightweight wheels. Go to www.detroitspeed.com and check them out. They have a whole section just on the 1964 ½ to 1970 Mustangs, as well as many other pony cars and muscle cars.All these mods give you an example of what you can do to the 1967 Mustang to make it a rocket ship on the street and track and still keep the reliability of a stocker when driving around town. It’s always been hard to get the best of both worlds in a driven car, but with today’s technology, you can have it. Your Mustang will have the right stance, and can back it up if need be on the street or the track. What body design will you vote for? "Classic Cool," "Track Attack," or "Nod to Mod"?
Since it's the fastback shape why not dump those rear seats, move the driving position back to fill it up and bring that modular engine back a few inches to give even better weight distributionm?
I mean, who is gonna WANT rear seat passengers?
I am more than an interested observer. I have been setting on a project 69 Mach1 mustang for some time, torn between stock and a canyon carver/track attack. When Classic Garage came up with this idea to do a build and the mustang won as the project vehicle, it sort of pushed me to decide what "I" wanted and not what would be the most return on my investment and my vote went TA. I to stretch the limits of the seating at 6'7". So I have looked seriously at getting some clearence. The 67 unlike my 69 does have some room to gain between the seat rails and the pan. There are dyi's to get some head room in this location by triming out inches and rewelding. This on the 69 it is different but I was able to squeak out just about an inch. As to the leg length is a problem for the stock seat rails when moving the seat back because the bolts for the come up throught the pan from under the car. (you can see them on my garage photos). There are holes in the pan with rubber plugs for access. Here the talk of going for trimming weight and particularly getting a better balance front to rear and the seat change to an aftermarket might get around that. For the 69 there is another issue in that between the floor pan and seat mount platform ( which kicks the angle of the seat back) there is a seperate channel running length wise welded to the pan which happens to align with the end of the front frame rail and extend toward the rear. I have not read anything about the purpose of this but it is an additional step that cost Ford to install so it must serve some function.I read somewhere the earlier Mustangs had designed through the seat mounts a cross brace tieing from side to side including over the tunnel. But I would guess the engineers working on this project will look into all that and have figured out what is esential and what is redundant. But I have sat in kit cars that the frame rails are out on the perimeter and the seating is span between and the flexing under the seats is unnerving. Now about that back seat I always had the back up, making a back seat. It really got limited use, but I did like putting any extra ladies back there when we we testing out the physics of centrifical force and that endless correction of contact patch. I always thought of the back as the x brace at the axis of the rear wheels. I know we now use a shock towner brace, but this upper and lower style brace only forms a parrallelagram, but the seat back fastened in place acted as a diaphram. With the advent winning some of that battle to improve the contact patch and the help of the industry proviing such improvments as radial tires the weakest of my mustang was the force transfer to the unibody at the front of the rear frame rails. The rotational force would drive the front of the rear frame rails toward the gound. I have heard from more that one passenger in the back seat they swore the could feel their feet pulse as I would hammer it coming out of a turn. When I welded the new pans I had to jack that whole area all up roughly an inch and a eighth. Over the differential it was buckeled and the metal had cracked So the long and short of this diatribe is I like the idea of an improved weight balance but that might be lower on the priorities when the final design with the coyotee weight reductions, 6 speed gear box assembly, aluma-frame front suspension changes, carbonfiber hood, moving the battery to the back of the car, removing the steel front bumper it all has to be part of the equation.
I agree with Mvw, small block, fuel injected, manual transmission so it can be a proper street driver. Start getting into big blocks and the suspension mods are crazy to help with handling. Big block is fine for a drag racer but not for a street-driven car. We can get plenty of power from a new model small-block with fuel injection and a stick-shift. I also agree with others about the no Eleanor clones. This car needs to stand out. My two cents.
Cool, this is a great debate that is going. I like the thread going that recognises the impact of the original design, but acknowledges that nothing stands stationary. The enthusist needs to tinker/re-engineer perfection. This gives us incriments of change that each at the time seems monumentous, but in the case of a design done in 1967 reviewed nearly 50 years later the potential improvements can be epic. I say there is only the line and iconic details that are off limit. Start at the contact patch and stop at the polish. Well spoken UtopianDesign, what will be done?We each come with our experience and prejudice and that seem too clear in the discussions I have read regarding the motor proposals. I too agree with those who would wish for a streetable / road coarse concept. Can we blend the fluidity of motion with forces creating thrust to overcome drag and friction. It will need to change direction, both forward and backward, with the greatest of haist, to decelerate quicker than it can accesserate, the ability to overcome mass impacts on such things as centrifical force while resisting flight with a sound concept of active down forces & maximizing forward speed. I can only hope we can come to incorperate each of our experiences and include sound predictive engineering to create the untimate 20-14 67 Fastback Mustang.As I read each post I find I am searching these references being made and for one I have learned much. Sir Dee J you are so right, this type of final detailing only applies to specific choices in actual applications and was offered as a point in reference to the detailing of the current seat mounting method. This level of detailing will utimately reach each and every change made. I was impressed with the likes of Jon Kaase Racing Boss Nine Stack Injection. How I want to experience this for myself.