5.0 theoretical top speed?
- Thread starter Hi-Po
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
Shaolin Crane
Banned
Good stuff in here, its been a while since I have seen actual thought and math go into a 5.0 talk thread
You call it "actual thought", I call it an exercise in futility, haha. I suppose it's better than another "how do I know what gears are in my car?" thread.
My wife is from Norway. Vi bodde i Sogndal i seks månader. Er du egentlig fra Oslo eller? Svigermora mi bor i hurdal circa en time unna.
But...I guess that's enough Norwegian.
How does your mustang handle the lovely little Norwegian roads? I always wondered how it would be to have my mustang in Norway. I think it'd be fun.
But...I guess that's enough Norwegian.
How does your mustang handle the lovely little Norwegian roads? I always wondered how it would be to have my mustang in Norway. I think it'd be fun.
My stock 91 GT has 2.73s and a stick. In 5th at 60 MPH my rpms are exactly 1500, and at 120 MPH they are 3000. The engine's torque peaks at 300 ft. lbs. at 3200.
I once tried to see how fast the car would actually go. I got it up to 230 km/h (144 MPH) (Canadian speedo), at which point speed was still increasing (slowly) but I ran out of highway and had to stop this experiment. The amount of fuel that I burned was unbelievalbe - I actually noticed the gas gauge had dropped.
I've never owned a car that could go that fast, or, more imporatantly, hold the road well over 90 or 100 MPH and this car didn't disappoint. At no time did it feel unsafe to keep going faster, even over a couple of dips and curves - if it had I would have backed off (I'm a pretty safe person).
The only reason I got such top end is 'cuz of the gears and having a healthy, strong engine.
I can also report that after a certain speed the relative lack of aerodynamics of the fox body were increasingly showing their effects. The air pushing back against the car was massive, but it always pushed down on the front end, rather than up. Some cars seem like the front end wants to come up when going fast, here it felt like a huge hand pushing down on the hood/and front as bursts of air would rush against the car. I have no doubt that if this car had better aerodynamics, it could definitely go faster and do so easier.
The fox wasn't ever designed for super high speeds. I like it because I am 6 foot 5 and its boxy look appeals to me cosmetically and practically - I can fit very comfortably in the car (which is more that I can say for many other sports cars, especially older ones).
I once tried to see how fast the car would actually go. I got it up to 230 km/h (144 MPH) (Canadian speedo), at which point speed was still increasing (slowly) but I ran out of highway and had to stop this experiment. The amount of fuel that I burned was unbelievalbe - I actually noticed the gas gauge had dropped.
I've never owned a car that could go that fast, or, more imporatantly, hold the road well over 90 or 100 MPH and this car didn't disappoint. At no time did it feel unsafe to keep going faster, even over a couple of dips and curves - if it had I would have backed off (I'm a pretty safe person).
The only reason I got such top end is 'cuz of the gears and having a healthy, strong engine.
I can also report that after a certain speed the relative lack of aerodynamics of the fox body were increasingly showing their effects. The air pushing back against the car was massive, but it always pushed down on the front end, rather than up. Some cars seem like the front end wants to come up when going fast, here it felt like a huge hand pushing down on the hood/and front as bursts of air would rush against the car. I have no doubt that if this car had better aerodynamics, it could definitely go faster and do so easier.
The fox wasn't ever designed for super high speeds. I like it because I am 6 foot 5 and its boxy look appeals to me cosmetically and practically - I can fit very comfortably in the car (which is more that I can say for many other sports cars, especially older ones).
Which brings me to a thought or two:
The simillar experiment I posted earlier had a different effect. My 4 eye, prior to the air-dam install, felt like it wanted to "float" at 120 MPH. When referring to the Fox as a "flying brick", for me at least, it's more of a comment about air flow around the car than it's coefficient of drag.
I'm not sure what sense it makes to compare drag coefficient between car type A and car type B. Air flow around a car (aerodynamic characterisitics or just aerodynamics) is purpose specific. A Ferrari designed to go 200 mph has been designed to provide the downforce necessary to run at those speeds. The Fox.... not so much. By the time you add or remove to body shape to allow those kinds of speeds then yeah... the drag cooeficient is going to increase.
Which brings me to my next thought....
What exactly is the drag cooeficient of a brick anyway???
TRWXXA
Member
In aerodynamics, they do have a theoretical body shape called a "smooth brick" -- a smooth square cylinder. It has a Cd of 2.10 . Parachutes have a Cd that's typically between 0.80 to 1.20 .What exactly is the drag cooeficient of a brick anyway???
1987LXragtop
Member
All that money we've been wasting on parachute manufacture and developement when we could have just used bricks.
Sam8950
Founding Member
Back when my old '89 LX hatch 5.0/5 speed (with 2.73's) was still bone stock . . . I was at 130 and still climbing nicely when I saw the flashing lights in the oncoming lane. I was also very lucky, the Trooper had already locked in on some poor sucker going a few over in the opposite direction.
I hit over 160 mph in my 5-speed manual 86 GT convertible (with roof down) back in 1995 racing a Porsche 944 Turbo from 80 mph on the freeway. My car has an A-trim Vortech blower (8 pound pulley) on a otherwise stock motor with 3.55 gears and a BBK 170 mph speedometer (car also has equal length shorty headers, off-road h-pipe and MSD 6AL). The speed was still climbing when I got out of it when slower traffic ended the race (8 car lengths ahead). The car was very stable at that speed (not lowered at that time, but had a Dugan racing spoiler on the trunk), but the side mirrors were shaking violently. Very stupid on my part, with no roll bar, or helmet on a public road (marked for air surveillance) on a Saturday afternoon. A very similar equipped (but with stock 2.73 gears) 86 Mustang averaged 190 mph in the Silver State Challenge that same year.
fiveohwblow
Official Member
- Jul 21, 2005
- 2,169
- 145
- 135
Exactly what I was referencing. The silver state challenge is what 5.0 followed that build on and it AVERAGED 190 meaning several times at 200+
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
