autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Burnable Ballast???

To: rrax-mustang@egroups.com, autox@autox.team.net
Subject: Burnable Ballast???
From: Tommy Regan <tommy_regan@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 14:17:57 -0800 (PST)
Ron,

I think you'll find different answers depending on whether you're in
FS/ESP or in CP.  

First of all, I'd run either a nearly empty tank or a completely full
one.  This way the amount of fuel (mass) sloshing around is minimal.  

If you're in CP or EM and can remove/relocate weight, I'd tend to run
close to empty.  That's what I'm doing and so far it seems to be
working pretty well.  I'll add weight within the wheelbase instead of
behind it (gas tank)....y'know, that polar moment stuff.  :-)

FWIW, I run my '87's tank almost empty and have yet to have any
starvation problems at all.  I think the stock tanks have really good
baffling.  The '96 Cobra only starved briefly on me once in 2.5 years.

If you're in FS or ESP and can't remove/relocate weight, you might
want to consider running a full tank.  My suggestion?  Try both.  Make
no other changes to the car other than the amount of fuel and
determine the handling characterisitcs of both scenarios.  Pick
whichever better suits your driving style.  Some prefer less weight at
all costs.  Some prefer more weight and better balance.  I'm trying
the less weight method, but being in CP it's a different animal
altogether.

Overall, you might find that with a full tank:
- the rear end will hang out longer and not come back too easily
- grip out of corners may very well improve
- you'll launch better
- the rear of the car may not feel as "tossable", a feature I found
very useful this past weekend!

To a degree, the opposite of the above should hold true for running
little fuel.

Hope this helps!
Tommy



==
Tommy Regan
'87 Mustang CP #16
Austin, Texas




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>