This thread is too long for a single tread and will post in three parts. It was in respose to the now missing thread about Peter's car #73 reported in the 3/06 issue of R & T.
First thread:
Peter’s car #73 was reported in the March ’06 issue of R & T. Peter had C & D test my car #51 as part of purported six car shoot-out and the results are in the March ’07 issue of C & D. We are less that happy with the article as the car and Roush got an underserved bad rap.
Here is my post on the Superformance Forum followed by Peter’s e-mail to his coupe group followed in turn by my reply to Peter.
I AM THE OWNER OF THE COUPE USED IN THE CAR & DRIVER ARTICLE AND WOULD LIKE TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE. FIRST, IT WOULDN'T HAVE MATTERED HOW WELL ANY OF THE THREE "KIT" CARS DID, THEY WERE ONLY FILLER FOR THE ARTICLE ABOUT THE THREE PRODUCTIONS CARS. CAR & DRIVER DROVE THE HELL OUT OF THE CARS AND ABUSED THEM. I COULD NOT BELIEVE THE TREATMENT MY CAR RECEIVED. THE PAINT WAS SAND BLASTED OFF THE TRAILING EDGES OF THE WHEEL WELLS, THE SIDE PIPES WERE PITTED AND THE NOSE CHIPPED ALL OVER, NOT TO MENTION A COUPLE OF DIVOTS ON THE DRIVER'S DOOR. I WOULD NEVER HAVE ALLOWED THEM TO USE MY CAR HAD I KNOWN HOW POORLY THEY WOULD TREAT IT.
THAT SAID, I BUILT MY COUPE SOLELY AS A STREET CAR NEVER INTENDING TO PUT IT ON THE TRACK. I KEPT A SOFTER SUSPENSION SET-UP FOR DAILY DRIVER USE INSTEAD OF A STIFFER PERFORMANCE SET-UP THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE SUITABLE FOR STREET/TRACK USE. I LOVE THE LOOK OF THE OPEN VELOCITY STACKS AND I FABRICATED VELOCITY STACK SCREENS INSTEAD OF USING THE K & N AIR FILERS THAT ROUSH SUPPLIED WITH THE ENGINE EVEN THOUGH THE SCREENS COST 80 HP AT THE TOP END WHERE THE AIR FLOW RESTRICTION WAS THE MOST SEVERE. THE HORSE POWER LOSS DIDN'T MATTER TO ME BECAUSE I WANTED THE LOOK OF THE OPEN STACKS AND DIDN'T NEED THE LOST HORSEPOWER FOR STREET USE.
ENTER PETER BROCK AND THE CAR & DRIVER TESTS. ANOTHER CAR WAS SUPPOSED TO BE USED BUT IT WASN'T READY. PETER CALLED ME AT THE LAST MINUTE AND ASKED IF MY CAR COULD BE USED FOR THE ARTICLE. I AGREED BUT DIDN'T THINK ABOUT THE VELOCITY STACK SCREENS AND LOST HORSEPOWER AND DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO PREPARE THE CAR FOR THE TRACK. HAD I THOUGHT OF IT AND HAD THE TIME, I WOULD HAVE REPLACED THE VELOCITY STACK SCREENS WITH THE K & N FILTERS SO THE ENGINE WOULD HAVE ITS FULL POWER. I WOULD ALSO HAVE INSTALLED AN ACCU-SUMP TO PROTECT AGAINST
OIL STARVATION AT HIGH G LOADS ON THE SKID PAD WHERE MY CAR PULLED 1.12 G'S AND SUFFERED
OIL STARVATION WITHOUT THE ACCU-SUMP OR A TRACK PAN RESULTING IN THE "EXPENSIVE" ENGINE NOISES. APPARENTLY THE CAR & DRIVER DRIVER PAID NO ATTENTION TO THE
OIL GAGE AND EITHER DIDN'T NOTICE THAT THE PRESSURE WAS LOW AND FLUCTUATING OR DIDN'T CARE AND STAYED ON THE THROTTLE DAMAGING MY ENGINE. EVEN SO AND EVEN DOWN THE 80 HP BECAUSE OF THE SCREENS, THE COUPE DID 0 - 60 IN 3.7 SECONDS, 0 - 100 IN 8.4 SECONDS, 0 - 120 IN 12.2 SECONDS AND THE 1/4 MILE IN 11.9 AT 119 MPH. IMAGE WHAT IT WOULD HAVE DONE WITH THE K & N FILERS AND THE OTHER 80 HP! ADD THAT IT PULLED 1.12 GS ON THE SKID PAD AND DON'T TELL ME THAT IT
WON'T SET ANY LAP RECORDS.
PETER TOOK RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE CAR. ROUSH IS STANDING BEHIND THE ENGINE AND IS TAKING CARE OF REPAIRING IT EVEN THOUGH IT WAS AT A TRACK EVENT. THE ENGINE HAS BEEN PULLED AND IS ON ITS WAY TO ROUSH FOR REPAIR. PRELIMINARY THOUGHT IS THAT THE OIL STARVATION RESULTING FROM THE HIGH G LOADS PULLING THE OIL AWAY FROM THE OIL PICK-UP DAMAGED THE UPPER END OF A ROD ALTHOUGH THE ENTIRE ENGINE MOST LIKELY SUSTAINED OIL DEPRIVATION DAMAGE. ROUSH GOT A BUM RAP IN THE ARTICLE. THE FAULT WAS CAR & DRIVER. HEY GUYS, THERE IS AN OIL PRESSURE GAGE. LOOK AT IT SOMETIME.
RON WEINGART