ESP Mustang strut tower brace

[mrevilracing]

If you're running a '94 - '04 Mustang in the ESP class and have a 3pt strut tower brace, there is a good chance you can leave it on. The Steeda brace is made pretty close to the factory brace. But the Maximum Motorsports one isn't. Just look at the appearance compared to the factory one and you'll see the difference.

15.2 C.
Strut bars are permitted with all types of suspension. Strut bars
may be mounted only transversely across the car from upper
right to upper left suspension mounting point and from lower
right to lower left suspension mounting point. No other configuration
is permitted. Only bolt-on attachment is permitted. Additional
holes may be drilled for mounting bolts. Interior trim
panels may be modified to allow installation of strut bars. Holes
or slots may be no larger than necessary and may serve no other
purpose. This does not permit any modifications to the frame or
unibody beyond the allowed mounting holes.

Pure nonsense now. '94 - '97 Mustang convertibles had the brace. However, it was called a FRONT SUSPENSION BRACKET ASSEMBLY - Ford Part #F6ZZ 3A288CA. A quick trip to the Ford dealer's parts department will net you a print out of the schematic of where it's installed and all the part numbers included. Also, ask them to do a search nationwide on the Ford, DOES II System. I did and the order was put in as an emergency request and it came back classified as 'C'. C standing for cancelled. Further discussion will net that 'cancelled' means discontinued and NOT available anymore. Get a print out of this stuff.

Then, trek on over to the Solo rules again and find 15.11:

15.11 OUT-OF-PRODUCTION CARS
Where a car is out of production and the manufacturer is either out
of business, stocks no parts or no longer has a required part, a part
of any origin but as similar as possible to the original may be
substituted. The entrant must be prepared to show documentary
evidence that one of the three circumstances above applies and that
the substituted part is as similar as possible under the
circumstances. Substitute parts which provide improvements in
performance (e.g. superior gearing, lighter weight, better camshaft
profile, etc.) are not permitted under this allowance.

Your Steeda strut tower brace will fall into stocks no parts or no longer has a required part, a part
of any origin but as similar as possible to the original may be
substituted. And there ya have it.

Oh, I went and emailed the SCCA Solo Technical folks and got clarification that it's legal. Print out a copy of that email too. Now when you're questioned about it cause someone wants to play the technical BS game, there ya go.

By the way,I'm not promoting Steeda at all. I am simply stating that their brace is as similar to the factory one as possible. Happy bracing.

[NJ 03Mach1]

Hooray for strut tower braces!


Thanks for posting Steve-o!

[Matt Rowe]

A quick read of that narrative would tell me you can have put the Steeda strut tower brace in a 94-97 convertible or any cars listed on the same spec line. That does not mean it is allowed on other cars unless there is a factory strut bar for other models that is also now unavailable.

[mrevilracing]

Right. Which is why I clarified:

If you're running a '94 - '04 Mustang in the ESP class

. That was the spec line. If I inferred that ANY car can use it, my mistake.

[dspgti]

Don't you just love when somebody gets into the rule book and reads it.

Just to clarrify, ESP covers Ford Mustang "ALL" "NOC" (not otherwise classified) 94 to 04. There was a Cobra Convertable, right? Then, the strut brace is allowed for all Mustangs 94 to 04 in ESP, correct? Is that what you meant to say?

Dave

[mrevilracing]

Yeah, read the rule book? Some things have come to my attention and I thought it was a good idea for me to do so. When I built the car, I didn't have PHA in mind at all.

But Dave you bring up a good point. The ESP rules do state on the spec line: Mustang (‘94-’04) all NOC
including Cobra, Cobra R (SN95). However, if I am correct, the Cobra cannot be included in this rule due to the fact that it's supercharged and it has to get moved into SM. STB's are free if I am correct. The Cobra R is not supercharged so it stays in the spec, as far as I know.

So to clarify what I was saying, my statement should have said; If you're running a '94 - '04 Mustang (Not including the '03/'04 Cobra) in the ESP class and have a 3pt strut tower brace, there is a good chance you can leave it on.

Anything else ya need clarified while I'm poking around?

[dlascoskie]

The ESP rules do state on the spec line: Mustang (‘94-’04) all NOC
including Cobra, Cobra R (SN95). However, if I am correct, the Cobra cannot be included in this rule due to the fact that it's supercharged and it has to get moved into SM. STB's are free if I am correct. The Cobra R is not supercharged so it stays in the spec, as far as I know.

Which begs the question, "Why does the SCCA grossly neglect power to weight ratios, not to mention brake and suspension differences when classifying cars?"

[mrevilracing]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here...not you Dave. But I believe the Solo rules were primarily designed for Autocross, yes? How was it broken down between Solo 1 and Solo 2 when they were separate? 1 was autocross and 1 was Time Trial road course stuff, I think.

[Matt Rowe]

Solo I had historically been a relatively small segment of the Solo program so they relied on Solo II classifications. In a few rare instances certain types of cars were bumped up to a faster class. The last exception was turbocharged cars being bumped from DSP to ESP if my memory serves me correctly.

[dspgti]

WHAT DO YOU MEAN, NOT ME! I love these kind of conversations. I have run in Street Prepared for many years. My son(Aaron) and I did well. We knew the rules.

I'm not an official but I will give you my "opinion". PHA supps say, Forced Induction is automatically Street Mod. That does not negate any other Street Prepared rules. I don't know Mustangs, but I think I understand ESP. In SP, when you choose a class, you can up date and back date freely, if the model appears on the same line. If you have a Mustang GT with a 4.6 V8 it is only classed in ESP (Is that right?) along with the Cobra's and anything else produced by the factrory, Supercharged, turbocharged, whatever. If you are Forced Induction in a Time Trial, you are automatically moved to SM. That doesn't mean you can't update or back date any other car in ESP. If you meet the rules, you are in. So you can use any Mustang (94-04) with any Mustang part(94-04), in a TT (hillclimb, track trial, whatever you want to call it) EXCEPT A SUPERCHARGER.

You bring up the point about SCCA ignoring the "POTENTIAL" performnace differences beyond just weight verses horsepower. That is why we, as the PHA, have made all forced Induction SM. Sometimes you just have to make your own rules up

If we were talking VW's I could quote you chapter and verse. Learn your class, know the rules. I know there is a cliche about the power of knowledge but I can't remember it. I bet you Joe F. knows

Dave Y.

[dspgti]

While I'm on the subject of knowing and understanding the rules. If you know what belongs in your class and you know what is allowed, you will know when someone is outside the rules. Don't just study your own make and model, learn what your competitors are allowed to do. Don't just focus on your own brand, what does the other guy have?

Have a Nice Day
Dave Y

[mrevilracing]

Unfortunately, "learn what the other guy has" was done 2 days too late. That won't happen again.

[NJ 03Mach1]

Partly my fault Steve, I should've remembered that the early SN95's did indeed come with STB's.

I am glad we found confirmation on it though. Granted I'm not a fan of Steeda, but oh well.

The other issues we had however, I was hopeless on.

[Joe Foering]

With respect to Dave's comment about power and knowledge and cliches:
Sir Francis Bacon, English Philosopher, said: "Knowledge is Power"; succinct and to the point.
Whereas the French Philosopher, Michel Foucault, said: "Power is based on knowledge and makes use of knowledge; on the other hand, power reproduces knowledge by shaping it in accordance with its' anonymous intention." Never let it be said that the French would use one word when they could use more... Which one, Dave?
Perhaps more appropriate to this thread would be: "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind's made up."

[mrevilracing]

Whatever! I'm just tryin to catch up to Adam's post count. Good luck on that.

Is it legal to bounce between the French and the English cliches?

[NJ 03Mach1]

Whatever! I'm just tryin to catch up to Adam's post count. Good luck on that.

Is it legal to bounce between the French and the English cliches?

How'd my post count come into question!