top speed? (not a n00b question) - Page 2 - Third Generation Forum

This thread is locked.
For more information about why this thread might have been locked, please read the rules.
Re: top speed? (not a n00b question)
Sunday, May 08, 2005 1:00 PM
agreed, you can only get up to so fast before the animals and people you hit start to limit the top speed.



Cardomain|Myspace


Re: top speed? (not a n00b question)
Monday, May 09, 2005 6:34 AM
Are we talking about stick or auto, because there is going to be a difference between the two.

And I always hate it when your just about to hit that 150 mark and a damn grandma with a bag of groceries slow you down!!! lol
Re: top speed? (not a n00b question)
Monday, May 09, 2005 7:17 AM
A.15 wrote:If you drive a jbody over 108 mph, everything goes plaid. Trust me I know this.


"what happened?"

"we've gone plaid sir."



Re: top speed? (not a n00b question)
Wednesday, May 11, 2005 1:29 PM
I know of a ecotec turbo doing 151mph. not the same one in this post either. I have been over 135mph, but have never been able to take the car to its complete limits safley to see.



FU Tuning



Re: top speed? (not a n00b question)
Wednesday, May 11, 2005 3:46 PM
I do so hope some of you guys are not basing this on your speedometers.

They get more inaccurate the higher you go.




2006 Cobalt SS I/H/E ZZP S2 HPT 2.8/60's Etc...13.8@105(I need to learn how to launch)
Re: top speed? (not a n00b question)
Thursday, May 12, 2005 2:57 PM
i did the math a long time ago, a stock 5sp (getrag) , with stock diameter tires (195/__/15) , and stock gear ratios will do 146 on the moon. a lot of variables are into play here, understeer is kinda scary up there as our cars are actually designed to lift in the front, with not much downforce, and plenty of drag. then you would have to get to 6200 RPM in 5th gear. was fun playing with numbers though. i've got faith though.






CAR GODS MADE THE 1.6 SOHC TO MAKE US 2.2 OHV GUYS FEEL BETTER.
Re: top speed? (not a n00b question)
Friday, May 13, 2005 6:41 AM
Chris Dixon wrote:I do so hope some of you guys are not basing this on your speedometers.

They get more inaccurate the higher you go.


base it off the ABSs ensor they read speed, same as the VSS.



FU Tuning



Re: top speed? (not a n00b question)
Friday, May 13, 2005 9:27 AM
Chris Dixon wrote:I do so hope some of you guys are not basing this on your speedometers.

They get more inaccurate the higher you go.


i do so hope you know that the speedos only go to 115



Re: top speed? (not a n00b question)
Saturday, May 14, 2005 1:46 PM
[quote=ßãggéÐÇåv98 (Ûñqùðtäߣè Øñé)]
Chris Dixon wrote:I do so hope some of you guys are not basing this on your speedometers.

They get more inaccurate the higher you go.


i do so hope you know that the speedos only go to 115

if youve got the car set up to pass the governor (which you DONT do), the speedometer wont give a reading anyway, so i guess it wouldnt really matter.




Re: top speed? (not a n00b question)
Saturday, May 14, 2005 11:07 PM
rob wrote:[quote=ßãggéÐÇåv98 (Ûñqùðtäߣè Øñé)]
Chris Dixon wrote:I do so hope some of you guys are not basing this on your speedometers.

They get more inaccurate the higher you go.


i do so hope you know that the speedos only go to 115


if youve got the car set up to pass the governor (which you DONT do), the speedometer wont give a reading anyway, so i guess it wouldnt really matter.

unless you properly set the car up to go past the limiter. which involves chipping (I have a 95 2.3L MTX) the computer to remove the limiter

Oh, and the speedo only reads to 110, at 110 it just sits there no matter how fast you go. I've been up to around 140 or so (paced a car with a real speedo), and the speedo just sat at 110 the whole time (on a track to make clear).




Re: top speed? (not a n00b question)
Sunday, May 15, 2005 8:08 AM
yea the last number is 110 but there is a mark after it for 115.




Re: top speed? (not a n00b question)
Sunday, May 15, 2005 11:57 AM
only when my car starts hitting 108 in the quarter mile would I even THINK of bypassing the limiter. nice 140 though.... thats like the absolute top speed, isnt it? i didnt think gears would allow for any higher.




Re: top speed? (not a n00b question)
Sunday, May 15, 2005 6:01 PM
i remeber reading a post a while back....some guys were doing the math and figured the car wont go any faster then like 148 (based on only gearing)



Re: top speed? (not a n00b question)
Sunday, May 15, 2005 9:40 PM
unless you can raise the rev limiter, like mine is .from what I can guess, my fuel cutoff is around 7200 RPM-ish, still need some info from the builder, they seem to have forgotten some of my paperwork, so I had to write them for it, I'll bug them until they die



Re: top speed? (not a n00b question)
Monday, May 16, 2005 8:36 AM
My 2000 2.4L with automatic tranny will cruise at 80mph at 3000 rpm. So at 6000 rpm I should be cruising at 160mph.
Re: top speed? (not a n00b question)
Wednesday, May 18, 2005 12:33 PM
30 min. 100 -108 Im sorry.
Re: top speed? (not a n00b question)
Wednesday, May 18, 2005 1:05 PM
chapter10 wrote:i did the math a long time ago, a stock 5sp (getrag) , with stock diameter tires (195/__/15) , and stock gear ratios will do 146 on the moon.


You clearly didn't account for the lack of oxygen up there. You'll be hard-pressed to get your engine started on the moon...





Re: top speed? (not a n00b question)
Thursday, May 19, 2005 12:37 AM
^ it's one of those...you know rhetorical answers. i think it might have a chance on uranus



CAR GODS MADE THE 1.6 SOHC TO MAKE US 2.2 OHV GUYS FEEL BETTER.
Re: top speed? (not a n00b question)
Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:40 AM
Only had my goat up to 130mph... but it was smooth and I only needed 1 hand on the wheel lol... suposedly it has a fuel cutoff at 155 to 160 mph.

Rob




Image
Sold 2/2/05
Re: top speed? (not a n00b question)
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 4:03 PM
if you roll your car off of a cliff. you take the weight of the car (2600 lbs) multiplied by 6.82 per second falling. then you will have to divide that number by 3600. because there is 3600 seconds in an hour to get the measure of speed you are used to.. fall for 30 seconds you will go 147.76 mph, 40 seconds, 197.02mph






























DISCLAIMER:
do not try this at home, this is intended to be a joke and have no true factual information. i am not responsible for any damage to you, your car, or whatever you land on. if you go this fast in an airspace avoid the slow lane on the way down, it is the one the big passenger planes use. and only pass on the left side.


you have to stand for something, or you're bound to fall for anything
Re: top speed? (not a n00b question)
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 4:59 PM
you need to check your physics man.... everything falls at the same rate regardless of its mass.

if gravitational acceleration = ~32 feet per second per second
and the fall time you want is 30 seconds...

velocity = acceleration * time

velocity = 32 feet per second squared * 30 seconds

velocity = 960 feet per second.. which is about 655 mph.

this is assuming no air resistance.... (car in space).... in reality it would probably have a terminal velocity of 200 or something depending on its aerodynamics.

just rob the physics student being helpful!





Re: top speed? (not a n00b question)
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 6:38 PM
you need to check the disclaimer man, ignore the smartass electrician trying to be funny


you have to stand for something, or you're bound to fall for anything
Re: top speed? (not a n00b question)
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 7:00 PM
yeah i get the disclaimer... dont be so harsh man i just gave the real answer for fun anyway... besides we all know that throwing your car off a cliff to go faster is ALMOST as bad as using an ebay speed chip.




Re: top speed? (not a n00b question)
Thursday, May 26, 2005 1:22 PM
as for the same weight fallinf if a 1gram pebble and a 1 gram feather were dropped at the same time the pebble would hit first


you have to stand for something, or you're bound to fall for anything
Re: top speed? (not a n00b question)
Thursday, May 26, 2005 4:38 PM
The sum of forces acting on both of the objects is not the same, however, gravity still has the same effect.


_____________________________
WWW.BEIRUTNIGHTS.COM WWW.DI.FM
This thread is locked.
For more information about why this thread might have been locked, please read the rules.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search