Do the Mustang and Camaro have technical parity?

[Matt K]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Blue and yellow? I'm still unsure why more efforts weren't put in to get some turbos out there -- be it Nissan Z, Toyota Supra, BMW M4 or whichever.

Granted the ATCC's technical parity measures seem barely up to the task of balancing two vehicles, let alone four or five.

Still... a more varied grid would have provided for a much better beginning to the next chapter of ATCC racing.

Ahh why I knew Nissan, Toyota and BMW will pop up in this discussion... Well, would like to see them too but it didn't happen and probably never will...

[Sandgroper]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Blue and yellow? I'm still unsure why more efforts weren't put in to get some turbos out there -- be it Nissan Z, Toyota Supra, BMW M4 or whichever.

Granted the ATCC's technical parity measures seem barely up to the task of balancing two vehicles, let alone four or five.

Still... a more varied grid would have provided for a much better beginning to the next chapter of ATCC racing.

I like your concept. More the merrier but we have sort of fenced ourselves off sadly with regards to other brands.

[bluesport]

More from speedcafe.

https://www.speedcafe.com/2023/05/30...-for-a-reason/

[V8 Fireworks]

Ford involvement in the Australian Touring Car Championship contingent on the opportunity to win:

What I will say is that, anywhere we race, we race for the same reasons, and that is to win races and championships that matter.

We need to have that opportunity to win because it’s important to our brand. If we’re not able to win – if we don’t have the opportunity to win – it has the risk of tarnishing our brand.

We need to be in a racing series where there’s an opportunity for innovation and tech transfer, we need to race where we have the opportunity to market our product appropriately – tied back to winning, of course – and to provide employee pride and satisfaction.

So, as we very regularly review – inside our company, with the leaders of our company, to the very top – we are assessing all of the series for all of those important pillars for us.

Where we meet those pillars, we will continue and we will be very strong in our presence.

If we’re not meeting some of those pillars, then that’s a consideration for us as we look at our future racing motorsport cycle plan.

- Mark Rushbrook

https://www.speedcafe.com/2023/05/30...tunity-to-win/

Strong statements from Rushbrook.

Rushbrook notes the importance of transient dyno testing and welcomes the torque sensors:

As for us, every engine that we develop in every series, we run on a transient dyno; usually both a transient engine dyno and also a transient driveline dyno, which includes the full engine, full driveline out to the wheel hubs.

So, I think it should be an indication that if automakers that are involved in motorsports on a global basis are using transient dynos to develop the engines, we’re using them for a reason, because there’s a lot of valuable information that you get on the transient dyno that you don’t otherwise.

So, yes, we ran on a transient dyno, but that doesn’t do anything to help parity within the series if the two engines, or as installed in the driveline system, if they’re not run on the same dyno in a comparative way.

We’ve been a proponent of a transient dyno for a very, very long time, as well as torque sensors, so it’s good to see movement towards those and that is what will ultimately help guide the series to true technical parity.

- Mark Rushbrook

https://www.speedcafe.com/2023/05/30...-for-a-reason/

Originally Posted by Matt K

Ahh why I knew Nissan, Toyota and BMW will pop up in this discussion... Well, would like to see them too but it didn't happen and probably never will...

If Ford were to withdraw from the Australian Touring Car Championship and with no other manufacturers (like Nissan, Toyota or BMW), what regulations would the Australian Touring Car Championship likely adopt? A one-make Chevrolet Camaro cup with that being the only vehicle licensed to the category?

There are some rumours that Ford Performance have already decided to cut the ATCC from their activities, and Ford Australia may choose to reallocate their marketing budget to activities with superior ROI than the ATCC...

Originally Posted by Sandgroper

More the merrier but we have sort of fenced ourselves off sadly with regards to other brands.

What a mess! BMW and Nissan were happily involved in the ATCC, yet it all went horribly wrong.

Unless the ROI of ATCC involvement is improved significantly, they may indeed not come back either.

[Matt K]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

If Ford were to withdraw from the Australian Touring Car Championship and with no other manufacturers (like Nissan, Toyota or BMW), what regulations would the Australian Touring Car Championship likely adopt? A one-make Chevrolet Camaro cup with that being the only vehicle licensed to the category?

Don't know what Supercars do if Ford is to pull out but certainly can't see any manufacturer rushing to help and prevent the category from collapsing. Ford withdrew from Supercars once, perhaps this would be managed this time as well. Would Supercars try and bring other manufacturers? In such a scenario probably yes but Walkinshaw's been trying for a couple of years and nothing's come of it.
So, either Mustangs carry on without Ford's backing or Supercars becomes a Chevrolet Camaro Cup - which would be terrible and unworthy of the Supercars name.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Matt K

a Chevrolet Camaro Cup - which would be terrible and unworthy of the Supercars name.

If it's a competition of teams, why does it matter if some of them are running Falcon hardtops and some of them are running Torana A9Xs (the era Group 3A was supposed to recreate I assume), compared to if all of them are running Falcon hardtops or all Torana A9Xs.

It's still team v team, no?

Especially when now there is negligible difference between the two "different" vehicles and the parts that are different are meant to be made as identical and indistinguishable as possible.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Matt K

Don't know what Supercars do if Ford is to pull out but certainly can't see any manufacturer rushing to help and prevent the category from collapsing. Ford withdrew from Supercars once, perhaps this would be managed this time as well. Would Supercars try and bring other manufacturers? In such a scenario probably yes but Walkinshaw's been trying for a couple of years and nothing's come of it.
So, either Mustangs carry on without Ford's backing or Supercars becomes a Chevrolet Camaro Cup - which would be terrible and unworthy of the Supercars name.

I think "technical parity" is what is stopping the category from going ahead, manufacturers don't like to be dictated to, maybe it would have been simpler to use marc cars with the 5 litre coyote and the 6 litre gen 4, then use air restrictors and the like to achieve parity, supercars seem to be off in some ideological wilderness making something that is simple quite difficult to achieve.

[bluesport]

More from speedcafe.

https://www.speedcafe.com/2023/05/31...ars-test-days/

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by bluesport

I think "technical parity" is what is stopping the category from going ahead, manufacturers don't like to be dictated to, maybe it would have been simpler to use marc cars with the 5 litre coyote and the 6 litre gen 4, then use air restrictors and the like to achieve parity, supercars seem to be off in some ideological wilderness making something that is simple quite difficult to achieve.

It seems so!

BOP would also be the best way to balance turbocharged engines and vehicles with shorter wheelbases (like the Z and Supra) and so on.

Should Herrod Performance withdraw the Coyote and present a turbo Barra for homologation as part of a shift of the ATCC towards turbocharged six-cylinder engines perhaps? Presumably the "world class and robust" technical parity processes can handle it even without BOP... A turbo Barra ATCC-style touring car in action, though I'm not convinced the drivability is necessary better than a naturally aspirated V8! [Also: the GM LF3/LF4 V6 twin-turbo ATCC-style touring car in action which seems somewhat more drivable.]

In any case, it will be important to make sure technical parity processes are sufficient to perfectly balance not only naturally aspirated V8s but also turbocharged six-cylinders, if technical parity will continue to be used instead of balance-of-performance.

[Tourer]

Technical Parity has served the category really well for decades and is a key part of the foundations on which it has been built. However we should always be open to new ideas, particularly as there are now different capacity engines in play.

The transient dyno looks like it could be one of those and now that there is one in Australia that the Supercars tech people have confidence in, it may provide the last piece of the puzzle that enables tech parity to work across engine design / size variations. When both Ford & Holden were running 5L, pushrod engines the current system worked well (acknowledge that it wasn't as good for others running multivalve engines).

In a formula with restricted revs, four-valve, DOHC engines don't get to deliver the usual benefits of that design and it seems that we're seeing that at the moment from what is being said by the Ford group. If a transient dyno is able to sort out the wheat from the chaff, then it'll help identify clearly how the different engines match up against each other.

No reason that Tech Parity can't continue in that case - only have to look at the various comments and threads about BoP on 10/10ths to understand that it isn't ideal either - so it may be a case of "the devil you know".

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Technical Parity has served the category really well for decades and is a key part of the foundations on which it has been built. However we should always be open to new ideas, particularly as there are now different capacity engines in play.

The transient dyno looks like it could be one of those and now that there is one in Australia that the Supercars tech people have confidence in, it may provide the last piece of the puzzle that enables tech parity to work across engine design / size variations. When both Ford & Holden were running 5L, pushrod engines the current system worked well (acknowledge that it wasn't as good for others running multivalve engines).

In a formula with restricted revs, four-valve, DOHC engines don't get to deliver the usual benefits of that design and it seems that we're seeing that at the moment from what is being said by the Ford group. If a transient dyno is able to sort out the wheat from the chaff, then it'll help identify clearly how the different engines match up against each other.

No reason that Tech Parity can't continue in that case - only have to look at the various comments and threads about BoP on 10/10ths to understand that it isn't ideal either - so it may be a case of "the devil you know".

Tourer, technical parity has been a complete mess from the very beginning.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Tourer, technical parity has been a complete mess from the very beginning.

I disagree Bluesport, but also accept that we may differ in our view. It has of course evolved over time but it has given us very even and close competition for a long time now and I think that it has served the category and fans well.

Not saying it has been perfect, but then what is?

[chunterer]

Interestimg that a couple of posters have mentioned other manufacturers engines having to be 6 pot turbos or similar.
Both Toyota (Lexus) and Bee-em have big v8 lumps in their model ranges although the Germams has erred towards v6's with the current 'M' range I think?

Do Nissan still utilise a V8 in their bigger cars?

Audi are using 5's and 10's.

Can't think of any other mainstream makes with big coupes that have suitable large capacity engines.