What Limits Vert Top Speed?
#1
Rotary Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 1,123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Thanks,
-Jayson
#4
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.
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.
#5
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
Trending Topics
#8
Originally posted by KiyoKix
Icemark is correct, it has nothing to do with weight either. Weight determines acceleration not top speed.
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).
#9
Rotary Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 1,123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#12
I'm a boost creep...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 15,608
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
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).
More weight means larger frictional force at the tires. This means more resistance to both acceleration and top speed (when limited by power).
The only reason why the 'vert would be slower than the NA coupe is aerodynamics.
#15
I'm a boost creep...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 15,608
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by RotaryResurrection
I'd say the change in CD and weight both affect the vert's top speed.
I'd say the change in CD and weight both affect the vert's top speed.
#16
Lives on the Forum
iTrader: (8)
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.
#17
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.
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.
#18
I'm a boost creep...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 15,608
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
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...
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...
#22
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: fl
Posts: 1,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ***)
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 ***)
#24
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
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.
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.
The vert has .33 Cd top up, and .38 Cd top down.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
rx8volks
Canadian Forum
0
08-13-15 04:55 AM