my friend asked me what the top speed of my car is...now, i've only been up to about 100 because i'm (semi-) responsible, but i told him i'd go find out soon. i don't really want to do that either. my engine's fairly well-modified with 2.73's and a c4, but i know the '68's gotta have a cD of over .6... what'll these puppies do?
top speed...?
- Thread starter jcp123
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
I had my '65 up to 125 - 130 mph. One of the dumbest things I have done. Old tires, worn suspension, etc.....but it was a friggen rush. The car was shaking like no tomorrow!
later,
Chris
www.stangit.com
later,
Chris
www.stangit.com
HistoricMustang
Active Member
with 2.79s his top speed won't be all that high unless he really has the HP to push it.
my 67 with a stockish engine (mild cam, intake, headers) with 3.00 gears and a C4 would do 130 or so.
with the new engine i get screwed by overdrive and my gears... she'll do 142 mph after shifting into 5th at 138... course my engine in a foxbody would push the thing to like 160, but oh well.
my 67 with a stockish engine (mild cam, intake, headers) with 3.00 gears and a C4 would do 130 or so.
with the new engine i get screwed by overdrive and my gears... she'll do 142 mph after shifting into 5th at 138... course my engine in a foxbody would push the thing to like 160, but oh well.
My 67 Fastback with the 427 ( stroked & poked to 454) 4 speed,3.00 rear , got up to around 155 one night. Still accellerating too, but ran out of road. One thing I remember about it was it handled well till about 110 then the front end started to lift and then it got that "floating" sensation.
D.Hearne said:
Flotaing is an excellant discription. My '66 has been completely restored with all the right suspension parts for great handling and it still starts walking at 110 or so. I've it up to 135, plenty of pedal left, but I didn't want any more excitement... Does that me me a coward, or smart??
Nah, It just says you value your life more than a quick thrillGaPonyFarm said:Flotaing is an excellant discription. My '66 has been completely restored with all the right suspension parts for great handling and it still starts walking at 110 or so. I've it up to 135, plenty of pedal left, but I didn't want any more excitement... Does that me me a coward, or smart??
I've only had my 67' up to around 125 with a c-4 and 3.00 gears, the acura to 130, my friends 97' gmc 120, my buddies 96' supra 165 and still going strong still looking for a road to top it out at 180, my uncles RIP 300 zx 240 km/h for 2 hours straight just slowing down a little for turns track and once on the street for a few minutes (empty long straight road), a girl I know s2000 135.
Yeah low wide and aerodynamic cars are good for this can't really go that fast in a stock chassis and body classic.
I'll probably die doing this one day but I can't help it it's just a rush like no other.
Yeah low wide and aerodynamic cars are good for this can't really go that fast in a stock chassis and body classic.
I'll probably die doing this one day but I can't help it it's just a rush like no other.
My 68 starts to float after 100...........I am running a 4.1 rear with a tremmec......The max speed I have got to is(if someone can estimate)round past the 120 on the second digit from the left on the odometer @4000rpm in 5th,still had 2200rpm left before I realised that I would be arrested and my car put in a compound.
BunBun
New Member
none67 said:
If i remember correctly, the drag coefficient for a 64.5-66 coupe is .42 or something close to that. The 67 body style was either .39 or .40
Bun
dodgestang
Active Member
jcp123 said:
4.11, plus 255 40 17 tires, plus .68 OD gear, redline set low at 6250....theoritical top speed......156 MPH.
At 4000 RPM in OD (100 MPH) the car resonates (prob because I have no sound deadneing right now..just carpet, metal, and seats).
At 4500 RPM in OD (112 MPH) the car begins to float.
The mustang really isn't designed for high MPH work.
BunBun said:
that low?? someone posted here a while back that the '69's cD was .6x, and it seems more sleek than either of those...
and yah, i know it was never designed for high speed work...in the 60's everybody had the sense to stay at fairly safe speeds, right?
BunBun
New Member
jcp123 said:that low?? someone posted here a while back that the '69's cD was .6x, and it seems more sleek than either of those...
and yah, i know it was never designed for high speed work...in the 60's everybody had the sense to stay at fairly safe speeds, right?
please not my disclaimer "If I remember correctly"
I don't remember where I got the info from and I certainly don't know if its right. .6 seems awfully high tho. .42 does seem a bit low yes, but I believe its correct. The more I think about it, the .4/.39 may have been for the mach body style.Bun
