top speed
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
From: Austin, TX
Originally posted by jimlab
In other words, at 180 mph, you're "wasting" 220+ horsepower just to overcome the resistance of the air.
In other words, at 180 mph, you're "wasting" 220+ horsepower just to overcome the resistance of the air.
Awesome!!
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 30,800
Likes: 646
From: FL-->NJ/NYC again!
Originally posted by WHIPSrx7
Come to Detroit and I'll show you...I hit 155 all the time. That's the fastest I've gone in my car, so that's why it sticks out even more. According to the recording your speed change through 1000rpm's...I came up with this:
5th gear-
2000rpm=80km/h
3000rpm=120km/h
8500rpm=340km/h
340km/h=212.5mph
Of course, this is considering the drag is the same on my car from 3000rpm to 8500rpm...Which in this world isn't necessarily true. I think my car will top out just under 200mph. Although, I would love to hit 200mph!!!
Craig
Come to Detroit and I'll show you...I hit 155 all the time. That's the fastest I've gone in my car, so that's why it sticks out even more. According to the recording your speed change through 1000rpm's...I came up with this:
5th gear-
2000rpm=80km/h
3000rpm=120km/h
8500rpm=340km/h
340km/h=212.5mph
Of course, this is considering the drag is the same on my car from 3000rpm to 8500rpm...Which in this world isn't necessarily true. I think my car will top out just under 200mph. Although, I would love to hit 200mph!!!
Craig
Constant threat
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,968
Likes: 39
From: near Wichita, Kansas
I've only got to 158 indicated, and that took a long run to do. A buck forty to forty-five comes up pretty quick, the rest takes a while. In my car the last 5 mph were realized over something close to a mile, meaning I was at about 153 indicated and it just CREPT up to 158 over the next mile.
Still, it was a white-knuckled, sphincter-tightening experience. 'Course, it ain't nothin' for you all that hit 180 or so.....
'Specially in those 2nd gens.....
Still, it was a white-knuckled, sphincter-tightening experience. 'Course, it ain't nothin' for you all that hit 180 or so.....
'Specially in those 2nd gens.....
Guys, this site started as "what’s the fastest you've had your FD"
My I have taken my R2 to 172 on gauge, but I correct this to about 165; with gauge non-linearity, tire shape change, etc.
As an hydrodynamist, the determination of a vehicles Cd is a rather accurate way to calculate Hp needed to overcome wind resistance. Comparing Cd's between different cars is like comparing apples and oranges as the true term of interest is Cd*D, where D is the projected frontal area of the vehicle.
While change in ride height and vehicle trim will had big effects on Cd and Cl, the reputable car manufacturers and wind tunnels will test at near top speeds, thus the errors wash out.... besides we are in near similar trim state cars
Yes Downforce (or negative Cl values) are developed at the expense of drag... note the flap on an airplane to develop extreme lift coefficients for takeoff and landing ... as speeds are reduced and thus total lift .. But reserve power is huge. Formula cars don't develop 700-800 Hp just to go 220 mph but to overcome the drag required to develop large downforce loads.
The R1/R2 wing should reduced Top Speeds, but may actually help the seat of the pants guts by stabilizing the car
My I have taken my R2 to 172 on gauge, but I correct this to about 165; with gauge non-linearity, tire shape change, etc.
As an hydrodynamist, the determination of a vehicles Cd is a rather accurate way to calculate Hp needed to overcome wind resistance. Comparing Cd's between different cars is like comparing apples and oranges as the true term of interest is Cd*D, where D is the projected frontal area of the vehicle.
While change in ride height and vehicle trim will had big effects on Cd and Cl, the reputable car manufacturers and wind tunnels will test at near top speeds, thus the errors wash out.... besides we are in near similar trim state cars
Yes Downforce (or negative Cl values) are developed at the expense of drag... note the flap on an airplane to develop extreme lift coefficients for takeoff and landing ... as speeds are reduced and thus total lift .. But reserve power is huge. Formula cars don't develop 700-800 Hp just to go 220 mph but to overcome the drag required to develop large downforce loads.
The R1/R2 wing should reduced Top Speeds, but may actually help the seat of the pants guts by stabilizing the car
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
From: NJ
I still can't figure where some of you do this top speed stuff on the street... at least here in NJ, you're lucky to find a stretch of road long enough and unpopulated enough to go that fast... and even if you did, you'd have to hope there aren't any potholes or patched up road...
That said, I've only hit 130mph in my RX, and that was on the track (still just learning - have to 1) figure out how to go faster in the last turn before the long straights; 2) have more cajones to keep the gas down longer; 3) get really good brakes and tires!). On the street, I have never gone over 120 mph...
I have been in a F355 though that hit 160+ on the front straight at the Glen... and he wasn't at 10 10th's....
That said, I've only hit 130mph in my RX, and that was on the track (still just learning - have to 1) figure out how to go faster in the last turn before the long straights; 2) have more cajones to keep the gas down longer; 3) get really good brakes and tires!). On the street, I have never gone over 120 mph...
I have been in a F355 though that hit 160+ on the front straight at the Glen... and he wasn't at 10 10th's....
Guys, this site started as "what’s the fastest you've had your FD"
My I have taken my R2 to 172 on gauge, but I correct this to about 165; with gauge non-linearity, tire shape change, etc.
As an hydrodynamist, the determination of a vehicles Cd is a rather accurate way to calculate Hp needed to overcome wind resistance. Comparing Cd's between different cars is like comparing apples and oranges as the true term of interest is Cd*D, where D is the projected frontal area of the vehicle.
While change in ride height and vehicle trim will had big effects on Cd and Cl, the reputable car manufacturers and wind tunnels will test at near top speeds, thus the errors wash out.... besides we are in near similar trim state cars
Yes Downforce (or negative Cl values) are developed at the expense of drag... note the flap on an airplane to develop extreme lift coefficients for takeoff and landing ... as speeds are reduced and thus total lift .. But reserve power is huge. Formula cars don't develop 700-800 Hp just to go 220 mph but to overcome the drag required to develop large downforce loads.
The R1/R2 wing should reduced Top Speeds, but may actually help the seat of the pants guts by stabilizing the car.
Last thing: rolling diameter of tire is less than theoretical diameter. Tire manufactures give number of revolutions of tire to go one mile.. But this is at 60mph...as speed increases tire shape will change. but could get bigger or smaller. Speedo and tach errors can be huge, and definitely not linear as it should be…just compare readings to PFC readings. Warning on GPS reading … it will not give instantaneous speed, but the average between last SAT takes so guys you need lots of highway to keep that speed up.
My I have taken my R2 to 172 on gauge, but I correct this to about 165; with gauge non-linearity, tire shape change, etc.
As an hydrodynamist, the determination of a vehicles Cd is a rather accurate way to calculate Hp needed to overcome wind resistance. Comparing Cd's between different cars is like comparing apples and oranges as the true term of interest is Cd*D, where D is the projected frontal area of the vehicle.
While change in ride height and vehicle trim will had big effects on Cd and Cl, the reputable car manufacturers and wind tunnels will test at near top speeds, thus the errors wash out.... besides we are in near similar trim state cars
Yes Downforce (or negative Cl values) are developed at the expense of drag... note the flap on an airplane to develop extreme lift coefficients for takeoff and landing ... as speeds are reduced and thus total lift .. But reserve power is huge. Formula cars don't develop 700-800 Hp just to go 220 mph but to overcome the drag required to develop large downforce loads.
The R1/R2 wing should reduced Top Speeds, but may actually help the seat of the pants guts by stabilizing the car.
Last thing: rolling diameter of tire is less than theoretical diameter. Tire manufactures give number of revolutions of tire to go one mile.. But this is at 60mph...as speed increases tire shape will change. but could get bigger or smaller. Speedo and tach errors can be huge, and definitely not linear as it should be…just compare readings to PFC readings. Warning on GPS reading … it will not give instantaneous speed, but the average between last SAT takes so guys you need lots of highway to keep that speed up.
No it's not Turbo'd
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,511
Likes: 2
From: Los Angeles, Ca
I agree that at those speeds (130+) the FD feels very twitchy, especially since normally the kind of roads that you can do 130+ on in California, are not the best maintained, since nobody other than 2 locals, and a bunch of weekend warriors frequent them....
Even in an oval like Daytona, doing anything close to what the nascar drivers with slicks are doing, cannot be described as a pleasureable experience, thrill seeking maybe, but all it takes is a slight miscalculation, and you're doing barrel rolls @ 100+ mph... which depending on your rollcage you would be incredibly lucky to survive...
Even in an oval like Daytona, doing anything close to what the nascar drivers with slicks are doing, cannot be described as a pleasureable experience, thrill seeking maybe, but all it takes is a slight miscalculation, and you're doing barrel rolls @ 100+ mph... which depending on your rollcage you would be incredibly lucky to survive...
Super Snuggles
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 10,091
Likes: 34
From: Redmond, WA
Originally posted by Julian
Comparing Cd's between different cars is like comparing apples and oranges as the true term of interest is Cd*D, where D is the projected frontal area of the vehicle.
Comparing Cd's between different cars is like comparing apples and oranges as the true term of interest is Cd*D, where D is the projected frontal area of the vehicle.
The R1/R2 wing should reduced Top Speeds, but may actually help the seat of the pants guts by stabilizing the car.
Jim is 100% correct about wind resistance. Wind resistance at 180 must be insane...
A few years back before I even installed aboost gauge I tried to see how fast my ride was. Even though it seemed slower than before it still had a 'quick' pick up. The result of my top end run was that I couldn't get past 130 MPH! 5K RPMs and on 4th, the car just stopped accelerating. The power just wasn't there to over come wind resistance. Went out bought a boost gauge and I had 8-6-8 psi...
A few years back before I even installed aboost gauge I tried to see how fast my ride was. Even though it seemed slower than before it still had a 'quick' pick up. The result of my top end run was that I couldn't get past 130 MPH! 5K RPMs and on 4th, the car just stopped accelerating. The power just wasn't there to over come wind resistance. Went out bought a boost gauge and I had 8-6-8 psi...
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 30,800
Likes: 646
From: FL-->NJ/NYC again!
Originally posted by BlackRX7Turbo
I still can't figure where some of you do this top speed stuff on the street... at least here in NJ, you're lucky to find a stretch of road long enough and unpopulated enough to go that fast...
I still can't figure where some of you do this top speed stuff on the street... at least here in NJ, you're lucky to find a stretch of road long enough and unpopulated enough to go that fast...
Actually, I have done my 170 mph runs in OK and in TX, but have seen more than 150 a bunch of times on 287....
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 30,800
Likes: 646
From: FL-->NJ/NYC again!
Originally posted by DCrosby
I agree that at those speeds (130+) the FD feels very twitchy
I agree that at those speeds (130+) the FD feels very twitchy
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 30,800
Likes: 646
From: FL-->NJ/NYC again!
Originally posted by radiantRX-7
WOW stable at 170!!!!!!!!!
And you only had those mods.must be a tail wind.goodfella.
WOW stable at 170!!!!!!!!!
And you only had those mods.must be a tail wind.goodfella.
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 691
Likes: 24
From: Catlett, VA USA
top speed
Originally posted by BlackRX7Turbo:
I hit 170 a few months ago and it took about two miles on a relatively flat road with no wind. Last 10 mph took a lot of effort.
Ron A.
How many miles did you have to travel to make it to 170mph?
Ron A.
The Ricer Eliminator
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 647
Likes: 1
From: Boston
I would say that the guy that says he thinks the car will top out at a shade under 200 is correct. I've read that the 5 speed runs out of gear(assuming you have the hoss to push it this fast) at 194(or something like that), and that the auto tops out at 196.
I read this on the Lightning site some time ago. I searched again today, but had no luck. Maybe you guys will do better. These guys weren't doing math according to rpm, they claimed to have factory specs. Who knows if they were factual..............
I've had mine to 176, but I could only do that when the road leveled out. I topped out at 150 uphill. At that time I was putting 276hp to the ground.
I haven't had the car running consistently or felt the need to do that again since.
The car sttles down nicelt over 150, and the motor is really smooth, but you only turn the wheel increments of a 1/4 inch. The car is just too responsive at those type of speeds. I could totally see how people would say that the car is twitchy.
I read this on the Lightning site some time ago. I searched again today, but had no luck. Maybe you guys will do better. These guys weren't doing math according to rpm, they claimed to have factory specs. Who knows if they were factual..............
I've had mine to 176, but I could only do that when the road leveled out. I topped out at 150 uphill. At that time I was putting 276hp to the ground.
I haven't had the car running consistently or felt the need to do that again since.
The car sttles down nicelt over 150, and the motor is really smooth, but you only turn the wheel increments of a 1/4 inch. The car is just too responsive at those type of speeds. I could totally see how people would say that the car is twitchy.
Super Snuggles
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 10,091
Likes: 34
From: Redmond, WA
Originally posted by Jim Calandrella
I would say that the guy that says he thinks the car will top out at a shade under 200 is correct. I've read that the 5 speed runs out of gear(assuming you have the hoss to push it this fast) at 194(or something like that), and that the auto tops out at 196.
I would say that the guy that says he thinks the car will top out at a shade under 200 is correct. I've read that the 5 speed runs out of gear(assuming you have the hoss to push it this fast) at 194(or something like that), and that the auto tops out at 196.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 348
Likes: 1
From: Brisvegas, Aust
285km/h (170mph) with:
PWR FMIC, intake exhaust and EMS@ 15psi+ on 255/40/17 Proxes T1-S
All with the AC on Ran out of ***** not revs. After I lifted off, it trailed white smoke for several kilometers but once I got below 110 it stopped. Wierd. Never did it again.
**** I miss that car
PWR FMIC, intake exhaust and EMS@ 15psi+ on 255/40/17 Proxes T1-S
All with the AC on
Ran out of ***** not revs. After I lifted off, it trailed white smoke for several kilometers but once I got below 110 it stopped. Wierd. Never did it again.**** I miss that car
