2nd Generation Specific (1986-1992) 1986-1992 Discussion including performance modifications and technical support sections.

What Limits Vert Top Speed?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Dec 27, 2003 | 12:23 PM
  #1  
cafcwest's Avatar
Thread Starter
Rotary Enthusiast
Tenured Member 10 Years
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,123
Likes: 0
From: Richmond, VA
What Limits Vert Top Speed?

Yup, what limits the vert to the 115mph top speed? Is it a different ECU than coupes? Would swapping ECU's 'fix' it? Or is it something else?
Thanks,
-Jayson
Reply
Old Dec 27, 2003 | 12:39 PM
  #2  
1987RX7guy's Avatar
Eat Rice Don't Drive it.
Tenured Member: 20 Years
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 12,752
Likes: 1
From: Laredo, Tx
Lack of power. There is no governer on any FC that I know of in the US. If you have the power you can keep going untill you run out of gears and redline.
Reply
Old Dec 27, 2003 | 12:40 PM
  #3  
Erk's Avatar
Erk
1 day Sober! Never drunk again!
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
From: Irving, Texas
Verts are just alot heavier then other models of FC.
Reply
Old Dec 27, 2003 | 12:48 PM
  #4  
ponykiller's Avatar
Rotary Enthusiast
Tenured Member 10 Years
 
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
From: KC
I can get my 91 vert to 130.

Verts are limited by a higher Cd (Coefficient of Drag), and a greater mass. I would assume your 'vert is an auto if you can only get it to 115, or is an S4. If you get a cone intake and replace your cats with a straight pipe, you should be able to get to ~125.
Reply
Old Dec 27, 2003 | 12:57 PM
  #5  
hpram99's Avatar
Senior Member
Tenured Member 10 Years
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 540
Likes: 0
From: -
I've been up past 125 (spedometer speed) probably around 117 (real speed) in my s5 vert. I'll let you know how 2' of 3" straight pipe affects top speed when I get my engine back together
Reply
Old Dec 27, 2003 | 01:47 PM
  #6  
Icemark's Avatar
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 25,896
Likes: 24
From: Rohnert Park CA
Top speed is around 125 in stock verts. It is only limited by gearing and aerodynamics, not by anything electrical
Reply
Old Dec 27, 2003 | 03:17 PM
  #7  
KiyoKix's Avatar
13B N/A POWA!
Tenured Member 15 Years
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
From: Everywhere, WRLD
Icemark is correct, it has nothing to do with weight either. Weight determines acceleration not top speed.
Reply
Old Dec 27, 2003 | 04:00 PM
  #8  
ponykiller's Avatar
Rotary Enthusiast
Tenured Member 10 Years
 
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
From: KC
Originally posted by KiyoKix
Icemark is correct, it has nothing to do with weight either. Weight determines acceleration not top speed.

More weight means larger frictional force at the tires. This means more resistance to both acceleration and top speed (when limited by power).
Reply
Old Dec 27, 2003 | 04:12 PM
  #9  
cafcwest's Avatar
Thread Starter
Rotary Enthusiast
Tenured Member 10 Years
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,123
Likes: 0
From: Richmond, VA
I thought I had read in an old Motor Trend that the vert were limited to 114mph, thats why I questioned. The car seems to pull quite hard and then just stop right there.
Reply
Old Dec 27, 2003 | 04:20 PM
  #10  
venomrx7's Avatar
Full Member
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
From: South Mississippi
Is it an S4? My 1990 vert goes well past that with the stock ECU. I hit about 136 on the highway last night racing a neon, so it will go past 114.
Reply
Old Dec 27, 2003 | 07:19 PM
  #11  
Tofuball's Avatar
Jesus is the Messiah
Tenured Member 15 Years
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,848
Likes: 0
From: Silver Spring, MD
I've done 120 something. :/
Reply
Old Dec 27, 2003 | 07:35 PM
  #12  
NZConvertible's Avatar
I'm a boost creep...
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,608
Likes: 8
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Originally posted by ponykiller
More weight means larger frictional force at the tires. This means more resistance to both acceleration and top speed (when limited by power).
This is true, but the rolling resistance of the tires is a tiny, tiny fraction of the overall forces that must be overcome. At high speed they are so small compared to aerodynamic drag they are not worth considering.

The only reason why the 'vert would be slower than the NA coupe is aerodynamics.
Reply
Old Dec 27, 2003 | 09:18 PM
  #13  
RotaryResurrection's Avatar
Lives on the Forum
Tenured Member: 20 Years
Liked
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 11,576
Likes: 27
From: Morristown, TN (east of Knoxville)
I'd say the change in CD and weight both affect the vert's top speed.

I have had my convertible up to 151mph, had 1krpm to go until redline, and have a witness who I scared the **** out of...
Reply
Old Dec 27, 2003 | 09:24 PM
  #14  
downwinddave's Avatar
Senior Member
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
From: Treasure Island, FL
Depends on how long the hill is.
AND how big your ***** are.
Reply
Old Dec 28, 2003 | 01:22 AM
  #15  
NZConvertible's Avatar
I'm a boost creep...
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,608
Likes: 8
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Originally posted by RotaryResurrection
I'd say the change in CD and weight both affect the vert's top speed.
The 'verts ~15% extra weight would be lucky to have a 1-2mph effect. The maths proves it's all about aero.
Reply
Old Dec 28, 2003 | 01:24 AM
  #16  
RotaryResurrection's Avatar
Lives on the Forum
Tenured Member: 20 Years
Liked
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 11,576
Likes: 27
From: Morristown, TN (east of Knoxville)
Yes, on a straight stretch, you are right. KNowing how slow verts are in stock form, it would take 2-3 miles or more to get up to top speed. How many of us can say we can travel 3-4 miles without encountering a hill? As soon as you hit that grade, even a slight one, weight comes into play.
Reply
Old Dec 28, 2003 | 01:42 AM
  #17  
ponykiller's Avatar
Rotary Enthusiast
Tenured Member 10 Years
 
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
From: KC
Originally posted by NZConvertible
This is true, but the rolling resistance of the tires is a tiny, tiny fraction of the overall forces that must be overcome.

While I agree that the additional frictional force due to weight is small compared to the aerodynamic drag of the car, it is still there and still will make a difference. This is why I originally stated both mass and Cd as the reasons for decreased top speed.

RotaryResurrection is correct about the hills and the increase in mass having a larger effect when moving up the hill.
Reply
Old Dec 28, 2003 | 05:32 PM
  #18  
NZConvertible's Avatar
I'm a boost creep...
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,608
Likes: 8
From: Auckland, New Zealand
The power required to overcome drag force due to weight on the tires inceases linearly with speed. The power required to overcome drag force due to air resistance inceases to the third power of speed. I don't think people appreciate the massive difference that makes.

While you are technically correct to mention weight, in reality it's almost irrelevent. The effect of the extra weight of the 'vert has a miniscule effect on top speed when compared to the effect of the higher Cd.

And top speed isn't ususally measured on a hill...
Reply
Old Dec 28, 2003 | 11:17 PM
  #19  
Sam's Avatar
Sam
big boost baby
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
From: Okinawa, Japan
151.. pretty good. hopefully when my Turbo Vert is fixed and tuned I can do that : )
Reply
Old Dec 28, 2003 | 11:35 PM
  #20  
ponykiller's Avatar
Rotary Enthusiast
Tenured Member 10 Years
 
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
From: KC
Originally posted by NZConvertible
And top speed isn't ususally measured on a hill...
Wait a minute.... Are you sure?
Reply
Old Dec 28, 2003 | 11:48 PM
  #21  
JKM's Avatar
JKM
Tenured Member 15 Years
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 6
From: Burlington, NC
Originally posted by downwinddave
Depends on how long the hill is.
AND how big your ***** are.


Best post ever.
Reply
Old Dec 29, 2003 | 04:52 AM
  #22  
andrew lohaus's Avatar
Rotary Enthusiast
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,255
Likes: 0
From: fl
why do these "top speed" threads always end up having to explain that weight has baisicaly no influence on top speed.

to simplify

top speed=hpXgears Vs. drag(mostly aero)

we clear?

anyway i think the main reson the vert is down on speed is that it doesn't share the coupe's slippery .29 c.d.

oh and you should probobly have the top up. i dont think anyone mentioned that yet. (i guess ill be the wise ***)
Reply
Old Dec 29, 2003 | 07:25 AM
  #23  
Bukwild's Avatar
Rotary Freak
Tenured Member 15 Years
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,702
Likes: 1
From: DC Area
before Kevin and me swapped a t2 into my s4 vert I used to hit 130 no probs.
Reply
Old Dec 29, 2003 | 10:41 AM
  #24  
Icemark's Avatar
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 25,896
Likes: 24
From: Rohnert Park CA
Originally posted by andrew lohaus
anyway i think the main reson the vert is down on speed is that it doesn't share the coupe's slippery .29 c.d.
Only the 86-87 Sport had a .29 Cd, all the other coupe models have around .31 Cd.

The vert has .33 Cd top up, and .38 Cd top down.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
C. Ludwig
Single Turbo RX-7's
49
Jan 30, 2019 06:31 AM
Don49
Race Car Tech
4
Sep 3, 2015 05:03 PM
IB Cristina
West RX-7 Forum
0
Aug 20, 2015 05:46 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:08 AM.