Stability at high speeds?
#101
They love harping on the "crappy" live rear axle. They keep asking me how I'd feel if I hit a bump going 150 and flying to the moon. They also claim they would beat an 05 GT in a 100 to 150 mph race because of their 6 speed transmission.
Does anyone have anyone have any high speed stories? The fastest I've gotten mine up to is 120 before I chickened out (scared of the law, not of my Stang's capability), and to be honest, it felt very stable.
Has anyone gotten to 150? How did it feel?
Does anyone have anyone have any high speed stories? The fastest I've gotten mine up to is 120 before I chickened out (scared of the law, not of my Stang's capability), and to be honest, it felt very stable.
Has anyone gotten to 150? How did it feel?
I read the thread where a guy was saying he walked over a GT at high speeds, did he have the new 298HP or the older 265ish one? My boss kept gunning for me in his and finally gave up. He has the 04 or 05 G35 sedan. I didn't blow him away but he was obviously slower.
I read in motor trend the 05 GT is drag limited at 145ish, never got it over 140 so I wouldn't know for sure. The car pulls hard all the way up to 120, then you can feel the acceleration slowing a bit up to 140.
If I had to bet on it, 0-140 mph, my money would be on the GT.
#102
Without casting stones in any direction, I will just put up some "numbers".
A car with a Cd (coefficient of drag) of .30 (newer vettes have .28 or so) will use 230 hp just to overcome air resistance at 175 mph. This does not include the horse power required to overcome rolling resistance and drive train losses.
At a Cd of .35 it would require 257.25 hp just to overcome air resistance at 175 mph.
Given a theoretical test car that makes 312 rwhp (which we can assume accounts for driveline losses) that would leave 54.75 hp to overcome rolling resistance on the N. Vegas test strip.
Using 285/40-19 tires and a 5200 rpm point in 5th gear (.68) and 3.55:1 rear end ratio we would have:
Tire diam = 2 x [(285x40)/2540] + 18 = 26.98
mph = (5200 x 26.98)/(.68 x 3.55 x 336) = 172.97 (176.3 @ 5300 rpm)
Interpret as you wish
A car with a Cd (coefficient of drag) of .30 (newer vettes have .28 or so) will use 230 hp just to overcome air resistance at 175 mph. This does not include the horse power required to overcome rolling resistance and drive train losses.
At a Cd of .35 it would require 257.25 hp just to overcome air resistance at 175 mph.
Given a theoretical test car that makes 312 rwhp (which we can assume accounts for driveline losses) that would leave 54.75 hp to overcome rolling resistance on the N. Vegas test strip.
Using 285/40-19 tires and a 5200 rpm point in 5th gear (.68) and 3.55:1 rear end ratio we would have:
Tire diam = 2 x [(285x40)/2540] + 18 = 26.98
mph = (5200 x 26.98)/(.68 x 3.55 x 336) = 172.97 (176.3 @ 5300 rpm)
Interpret as you wish
#103
Originally posted by Zodiac@September 20, 2005, 12:00 PM
Governors set at 115 from the factory
Governors set at 115 from the factory
#104
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by TehSLeeper@September 25, 2005, 4:55 AM
Is there a governor on the Z06? Honestly I have no doubts the z06 will go faster than 170. If you really believe the low 12 high 11's Z06 will not go faster than 170 you're a uneducated bum.
Is there a governor on the Z06? Honestly I have no doubts the z06 will go faster than 170. If you really believe the low 12 high 11's Z06 will not go faster than 170 you're a uneducated bum.
There is no limiter on the C5 Z06, but its drag limited. Learn something about Vettes before making smart comments. Do a search on Corvetteforum and something should show up.
#105
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by 2MFF@September 25, 2005, 2:22 PM
Without casting stones in any direction, I will just put up some "numbers".
A car with a Cd (coefficient of drag) of .30 (newer vettes have .28 or so) will use 230 hp just to overcome air resistance at 175 mph. This does not include the horse power required to overcome rolling resistance and drive train losses.
At a Cd of .35 it would require 257.25 hp just to overcome air resistance at 175 mph.
Given a theoretical test car that makes 312 rwhp (which we can assume accounts for driveline losses) that would leave 54.75 hp to overcome rolling resistance on the N. Vegas test strip.
Using 285/40-19 tires and a 5200 rpm point in 5th gear (.68) and 3.55:1 rear end ratio we would have:
Tire diam = 2 x [(285x40)/2540] + 18 = 26.98
mph = (5200 x 26.98)/(.68 x 3.55 x 336) = 172.97 (176.3 @ 5300 rpm)
Interpret as you wish
Without casting stones in any direction, I will just put up some "numbers".
A car with a Cd (coefficient of drag) of .30 (newer vettes have .28 or so) will use 230 hp just to overcome air resistance at 175 mph. This does not include the horse power required to overcome rolling resistance and drive train losses.
At a Cd of .35 it would require 257.25 hp just to overcome air resistance at 175 mph.
Given a theoretical test car that makes 312 rwhp (which we can assume accounts for driveline losses) that would leave 54.75 hp to overcome rolling resistance on the N. Vegas test strip.
Using 285/40-19 tires and a 5200 rpm point in 5th gear (.68) and 3.55:1 rear end ratio we would have:
Tire diam = 2 x [(285x40)/2540] + 18 = 26.98
mph = (5200 x 26.98)/(.68 x 3.55 x 336) = 172.97 (176.3 @ 5300 rpm)
Interpret as you wish
#108
Originally posted by nynvolt@September 25, 2005, 9:03 AM
I read in motor trend the 05 GT is drag limited at 145ish, never got it over 140 so I wouldn't know for sure. The car pulls hard all the way up to 120, then you can feel the acceleration slowing a bit up to 140.
I read in motor trend the 05 GT is drag limited at 145ish, never got it over 140 so I wouldn't know for sure. The car pulls hard all the way up to 120, then you can feel the acceleration slowing a bit up to 140.
Incidently, I believe the gov chip chimed in when the tac was at about 4250 rpm. anyone know for sure?
#110
Mach 1 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: August 7, 2005
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by nynvolt@September 25, 2005, 8:03 AM
I read the thread where a guy was saying he walked over a GT at high speeds, did he have the new 298HP or the older 265ish one? My boss kept gunning for me in his and finally gave up. He has the 04 or 05 G35 sedan. I didn't blow him away but he was obviously slower.
I read the thread where a guy was saying he walked over a GT at high speeds, did he have the new 298HP or the older 265ish one? My boss kept gunning for me in his and finally gave up. He has the 04 or 05 G35 sedan. I didn't blow him away but he was obviously slower.
My (then stock) GT easily pulled on my friend's auto G35 Coupe going 80 to 120 mph, but I think the argument on the thread was that a 6mt would beat an 05 GT at high speeds cuz of the closer gear ratios. When they say higher speeds, they mean like 120+.
I think the sedans are substantially slower than the coupes.
#112
Cobra Member
Join Date: November 27, 2004
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico
Posts: 1,303
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally posted by Vegasjay@September 20, 2005, 6:13 PM
On a desolate desert hiway I got Natasha up to 175 mph and I know this because my buddy was on a Ducatti 996 pacing me...Drag limit my hieny...It was rock solid till about 160 and then it felt slightly "floaty", but not wild on the edge of death at all. I am not stock though.
On a desolate desert hiway I got Natasha up to 175 mph and I know this because my buddy was on a Ducatti 996 pacing me...Drag limit my hieny...It was rock solid till about 160 and then it felt slightly "floaty", but not wild on the edge of death at all. I am not stock though.
To make matters worse, motorcycle speedos (and particularly superbike speedos!) are WAY off! They usually read at least 5% fast and some are as high as 10% fast. The manufacturers do that on purpose to avoid lawsuits when some idiot losses it at 130 mph and claims he thought he was "only" going 125 mph. Lawsuits have been won on less in this stupid country (well, stupid tort system at least!).
As someone suggested, grab a GPS and see what it tells you (I would guess around 155 mph). GPS by it's nature is pretty good at relative positioning (telling you were you are on the globe), but it is VERY accurate with velocity and direction information (basically, the vectors).
There is a lot of math involved (most of which I have managed to forget since I ran the GPS Master station in Buenos Aires, Argentine back in 1990-1991), but it basically boils down to the simple fact that calculating velocity is basically (final position - initial postion) / time elapsed (and they are dead nuts ON with time! Time error for GPS is measured in billionths of a second!). The neat trick is that any position error for the initial is almost EXACTLY the same for the final position, so when you subtract the two, you cancel out (almost) all the error and end up with VERY accurate velocity data.
Oh, and just for fun: True * 1.05 = 175 indicated, so True = 166.7 mph. Or, True * 1.10 = 175 Indicated, so True = 159 mph. I bet your friends bike has closer to 11% error, or you have added a good bit of hp over stock...
#113
Hey clockworks, I had my 05 GT M up to 145 indicated and the Stang felt fine, stable and tracked very well, just as good as my old 93 RX-7 Twin Turbo at that speed. By the way, Two weeks ago today I rolled and totaled the car. Was only going 30 at the time, no one hurt. The 05 Mustang got the highest rollover rating from the Govt and I have to say, the roof held up VERY well. My new 06 GT M Tungsten, red leather will be here in 4 more weeks. Doc
#115
Originally posted by clockworks@September 29, 2005, 5:37 PM
Whoa!! How'd you roll it at 30 mph? Glad no one was hurt, but that sucks about the car. Do they flip easily?
Btw, good to hear that it felt solid at 145.
Whoa!! How'd you roll it at 30 mph? Glad no one was hurt, but that sucks about the car. Do they flip easily?
Btw, good to hear that it felt solid at 145.
Yeah how did you do that? When they test rollover ratings it is for the lack of tendency to roll over. Not how well they hold up during the roll over I thought.
Somebody in a vert (like me) should know.
#116
GT Member
Join Date: October 15, 2004
Location: Mission, TX
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The G35 coupe and sedan I believe are very close in performance. If you compare specs for the two they weigh almost exactly the same and share the same wheelbase and overall length, which is surprising to me.
MT ran a 14.1 with an o5' 6MT sedan. Just some food for thought...
BTW Vegasjay, go get a GPS and put this 175mph matter to rest.
MT ran a 14.1 with an o5' 6MT sedan. Just some food for thought...
BTW Vegasjay, go get a GPS and put this 175mph matter to rest.
#117
Originally posted by jlb@September 20, 2005, 9:58 PM
That may be absolutely true...everything I said about the drag limit being 147, I read on line or in a magazine...probably all quoting the same, and quite possibly, the wrong source. Since the speedo tops at 145, tough to find out anything with any acurracy, I guess.
That may be absolutely true...everything I said about the drag limit being 147, I read on line or in a magazine...probably all quoting the same, and quite possibly, the wrong source. Since the speedo tops at 145, tough to find out anything with any acurracy, I guess.
Side note:
There is a reason for the ~147 mph speed limiter on the stock car. IT'S THE TIRES. They are only rated for 150 miles an hour. I would HIGHLY suggest not taking a stang over that speed with the stock perrellis. Very bad idea.
#118
Originally posted by max2000jp@September 25, 2005, 12:35 PM
There is no limiter on the C5 Z06, but its drag limited. Learn something about Vettes before making smart comments. Do a search on Corvetteforum and something should show up.
There is no limiter on the C5 Z06, but its drag limited. Learn something about Vettes before making smart comments. Do a search on Corvetteforum and something should show up.
#119
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by TehSLeeper@September 29, 2005, 10:26 PM
Well somehow the vortech mustang with such pooty aero did 198. So I still stand by what I said.
Well somehow the vortech mustang with such pooty aero did 198. So I still stand by what I said.
#120
Originally posted by max2000jp@September 29, 2005, 8:35 PM
Jeez you can't win with some people. Actually read the article; it states that it put down 552 rwhp.
Jeez you can't win with some people. Actually read the article; it states that it put down 552 rwhp.