Crown Vic Cop Cars go 155 mph?
Gary H
wrote:
>>Can somebody please clear this up for me. I have had several different
>>people tell me that the Crown Vic cop cars can go 155mph or faster. I
>>said that this is impossible and here is my reasoning: Crown
>>vics(police edition) and SN-95 Mustang GT's both have the 215 hp 4.6
>>SOHC. The mustang has a 1000 lb weight advantage and is also way more
>>aerodynamic and struggles to hit 140 mph stock so how in the world can a
>>crown vic go 155+?
>> A sheriff once told me one time that the crown vics went 135 and the
>>caprices went around 140 mph. I find that very believable but have been
>>told otherwise and have even had people get mad at me when I told them
>>that the cop cars were that slow.
>>
A friend of mine did an intership with our township police department
in the summer of '97. He learned lots of interesting stuff about the
job, and of course the cars. The Crown Vic tops out at 127 when
equipped with the light bar. It may be limited, I'm not sure. No top
speed info for the Chevy, Impalas do 147-148, so my guess would be
about 144-145 because of the light bar.
Steve
people tell me that the Crown Vic cop cars can go 155mph or faster. I
said that this is impossible and here is my reasoning: Crown
vics(police edition) and SN-95 Mustang GT's both have the 215 hp 4.6
SOHC. The mustang has a 1000 lb weight advantage and is also way more
aerodynamic and struggles to hit 140 mph stock so how in the world can a
crown vic go 155+?
A sheriff once told me one time that the crown vics went 135 and the
caprices went around 140 mph. I find that very believable but have been
told otherwise and have even had people get mad at me when I told them
that the cop cars were that slow.
TIA,
Steve
--
Steve
90' Mustang GT 5-Speed
ska...@d.umn.edu
http://www.d.umn.edu/~skajala/home.html (My Mustang Homepage)
"Blue Oval at the drag strip taking your dough,
Hey, does that Saturn run?, No, child, no."
FORD5LITRE
>people tell me that the Crown Vic cop cars can go 155mph or faster. I
>said that this is impossible and here is my reasoning: Crown
>vics(police edition) and SN-95 Mustang GT's both have the 215 hp 4.6
>SOHC. The mustang has a 1000 lb weight advantage and is also way more
>aerodynamic and struggles to hit 140 mph stock so how in the world can a
>crown vic go 155+?
> A sheriff once told me one time that the crown vics went 135 and the
>caprices went around 140 mph. I find that very believable but have been
>told otherwise and have even had people get mad at me when I told them
>that the cop cars were that slow.
>
>TIA,
>
>Steve
I have heard similar claims on other police vehicles. A cop once told me that
the cop Mustangs will hit 160. He had the nerve to say "it will beat anything
at a track" and "it's really a race car" I say BULLSH**. I think the only real
upgrades are in things like cooling, electrical and suspension components.
Other than that, they are just V-8 cars. People like to believe mystical
things about police cars.
George L
. '88 GT convertible, 5 Sp., 100% stock
'97 F-150 Exended Cab 5.4L
To send Email, remove SPAMBUG from My address
JAY585COOL
>>people tell me that the Crown Vic cop cars can go 155mph or faster. I
>>said that this is impossible and here is my reasoning: Crown
>>vics(police edition) and SN-95 Mustang GT's both have the 215 hp 4.6
>>SOHC. The mustang has a 1000 lb weight advantage and is also way more
>>aerodynamic and struggles to hit 140 mph stock so how in the world can a
>>crown vic go 155+?
>> A sheriff once told me one time that the crown vics went 135 and the
>>caprices went around 140 mph. I find that very believable but have been
>>told otherwise and have even had people get mad at me when I told them
>>that the cop cars were that slow.
Police Crown Victoria cars differ from the publics version in very few ways:
they're equipped with heavy duty colling, brake, and electricl systems. I
believe the suspension is different also. They have no governor limited top
speed, unlike the publics version which shuts down @ 115, I believe. Given
these cars weight, I think they could probably hit 125-135 on an open straight.
The police Mustangs, however, are usually taken from people who were caught
drag racing, from drug busts, etc. Whatever mods are on the car at the time of
transaction is what the police keeps. There was an article in MM&FF a few
months back about NYPD having a blown GT they took from a drag racer. They
did, however, remove the blower due to the amount of head-gaskets the car was
blowing. These cop Mustangs differ in top speed, from car to car. However,
the Mustangs that are had directly from Ford Motor COmpany have a set top speed
of 160, and they also have heavy-duty braking, exlectrical, and cooling
systems. Here on Long island is where the fun starts...Suffolk County PD (the
county I live in) has 2 Corvettes (a 94 ZR-1 and a 98), 3 Z-28's, all of them
6-speeds, and all of them with some mods, 2 Impala SS's, and a GMC Typhoon. I
know this because I know a number of cops here on the island. None however,
have gotten into any high-speed chases with these cars. Unfortunately they
said. Hope this helps.
Jay
87 Mustang LX 5.0, 5-speed, t-top hatchback
Michael Bolden-King
that drove a 5.0 didn't believe it would go 150 m/h since his 'stang toped
at 137 m/h on the speedo. They got on I-10 in the Florida panhandle and the
trooper went a few miles down the road to make sure it was clear then gave
him the go on the CB. Wouldn't ya' know it, RADAR clocked at 152 m/h! The
Trooper was amazed, I think my friend was too! We were all in a club, the
Trooper was an honorary member, all cop 'stangs in the area were.
Mike
Black 98 GT w/17" Wheels
Mass Air Mod and K&N
FORD5LITRE wrote in message
<19990126164046...@ng-fx1.aol.com>...
>>Can somebody please clear this up for me. I have had several different
>>people tell me that the Crown Vic cop cars can go 155mph or faster. I
>>said that this is impossible and here is my reasoning: Crown
>>vics(police edition) and SN-95 Mustang GT's both have the 215 hp 4.6
>>SOHC. The mustang has a 1000 lb weight advantage and is also way more
>>aerodynamic and struggles to hit 140 mph stock so how in the world can a
>>crown vic go 155+?
>> A sheriff once told me one time that the crown vics went 135 and the
>>caprices went around 140 mph. I find that very believable but have been
>>told otherwise and have even had people get mad at me when I told them
>>that the cop cars were that slow.
>>
CobraJet
> Can somebody please clear this up for me. I have had several different
> people tell me that the Crown Vic cop cars can go 155mph or faster. I
> said that this is impossible and here is my reasoning: Crown
> vics(police edition) and SN-95 Mustang GT's both have the 215 hp 4.6
> SOHC. The mustang has a 1000 lb weight advantage and is also way more
> aerodynamic and struggles to hit 140 mph stock so how in the world can a
> crown vic go 155+?
> A sheriff once told me one time that the crown vics went 135 and the
> caprices went around 140 mph. I find that very believable but have been
> told otherwise and have even had people get mad at me when I told them
> that the cop cars were that slow.
>
> TIA,
>
> Steve
I can't tell you about the top speed, but the weight difference between
a new Mustang GT and a police Vicky is only about 450 lbs or so. Any minor
difference in aerodynamics may be overcome by the Vic's better stability at
speed than a Mustang.
I also tend to believe the figures the deputy gave you as more
realistic. I really don't know why anyone would actually get angry at you
for saying that cop cars are not Ferraris. There exists two avenues of
research for you. First I remeber seeing in the alt.autos.ford group that
there is a list server or such for Crown Vic enthusiasts. You might try
locating that or even asking around in the ford group concerning measured
speeds on late model police cars. Also, try an Internet search for the
National Police Car Association (or something similar). This is an old
enthusiast club that has regional shows involving special service vehicles.
CobraJet
>
> --
> Steve
> 90' Mustang GT 5-Speed
> ska...@d.umn.edu
> http://www.d.umn.edu/~skajala/home.html (My Mustang Homepage)
>
> "Blue Oval at the drag strip taking your dough,
> Hey, does that Saturn run?, No, child, no."
.
Marc Warden
speed was something less (<130MPH if memory serves) than the Mustang GT
(>140MPH but not by much).
Also, the light bar impacted/reduced top end on the Crown Vic some, I think
exacting a 10MPH penalty. Even without the light bar the Crown Vic's top
speed was approx. 10MPH less than the Mustang GT.
I do not know what the weight difference between teh Crown Vic and the
Mustang but suspect it is more than the 450lbs someone else posted. The
T-bird weighed in several hundred (~3600lbs vs. ~3200lbs for the Mustang)
pounds more than the Mustang and I would suspect the Crown Vic, accessorized
with police radio and other equipment would weigh even more than the T-bird.
Sincerely,
MarcW.
Steve
> I really don't know why anyone would actually get angry at you
> for saying that cop cars are not Ferraris.
Me either but a few people have gotten really pissed, both on the internet and
in person. Someone told me that their buddy had an ex cop car and nothing could
catch it and would do 155. Another kid was trying to tell me that cop cars
were all wheel drive! :o) Oh well, just as I thought. Thanks for the info
guys.
Steve
CobraJet
mwa...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
> In one of the recent car mags a Crown Vic in police trim was tested adn top
> speed was something less (<130MPH if memory serves) than the Mustang GT
> (>140MPH but not by much).
>
> Also, the light bar impacted/reduced top end on the Crown Vic some, I think
> exacting a 10MPH penalty. Even without the light bar the Crown Vic's top
> speed was approx. 10MPH less than the Mustang GT.
>
> I do not know what the weight difference between teh Crown Vic and the
> Mustang but suspect it is more than the 450lbs someone else posted. The
> T-bird weighed in several hundred (~3600lbs vs. ~3200lbs for the Mustang)
> pounds more than the Mustang and I would suspect the Crown Vic, accessorized
> with police radio and other equipment would weigh even more than the T-bird.
I based that estimate on the following: Stock late model GT's with A/C
have been weighed in at or around 3500 lbs. by their owners. The 1999 sales
brochure for the Grand Marquis LS (heavier than the GS) shows a curb weight
of 3922 lbs. The Marquis in question has power everything, leather
interior, and added sound deadener. A police package Vic would be lighter
to start with, but obviously gain some weight with enforcement equipment.
The only V8 Mustangs near 3200 lbs curb weight would be pre-SN95 LX
notchbacks. My '86 Cougar V6 weighs 3180 lbs on certified scales.
Of course, nothing beats actually weighing a Crown Vic on scales.
Anybody out there volunteer?
CJet
>
> Sincerely,
>
> MarcW.
>
> Steve wrote:
>
> > Can somebody please clear this up for me. I have had several different
> > people tell me that the Crown Vic cop cars can go 155mph or faster. I
> > said that this is impossible and here is my reasoning: Crown
> > vics(police edition) and SN-95 Mustang GT's both have the 215 hp 4.6
> > SOHC. The mustang has a 1000 lb weight advantage and is also way more
> > aerodynamic and struggles to hit 140 mph stock so how in the world can a
> > crown vic go 155+?
> > A sheriff once told me one time that the crown vics went 135 and the
> > caprices went around 140 mph. I find that very believable but have been
> > told otherwise and have even had people get mad at me when I told them
> > that the cop cars were that slow.
>
> >
.
Jason William Ivany
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Chris Alley wrote:
> I will ask my girlfriend's dad. I is a coop, and drives a Crown Vic.
> I'll talk to him and e mail you and post.
He is a Coop?
>
> Chris Alley
> 89 LX 5.0
>
> Steve <ango...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Can somebody please clear this up for me. I have had several different
> >people tell me that the Crown Vic cop cars can go 155mph or faster. I
> >said that this is impossible and here is my reasoning: Crown
> >vics(police edition) and SN-95 Mustang GT's both have the 215 hp 4.6
> >SOHC. The mustang has a 1000 lb weight advantage and is also way more
> >aerodynamic and struggles to hit 140 mph stock so how in the world can a
> >crown vic go 155+?
> > A sheriff once told me one time that the crown vics went 135 and the
> >caprices went around 140 mph. I find that very believable but have been
> >told otherwise and have even had people get mad at me when I told them
> >that the cop cars were that slow.
> >
> >TIA,
CobraJet
wrote:
> Jason William Ivany <d33...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Chris Alley wrote:
> >
> >> I will ask my girlfriend's dad. I is a coop, and drives a Crown Vic.
> >> I'll talk to him and e mail you and post.
> >
> > He is a Coop?
> Ok so I'm not that great of a typer :) Coop=cop
>
> >
> >>
> >> Chris Alley
> >> 89 LX 5.0
Naw, here it is in the dictionary right here: Coop 1. A law enforcement
officer who conducts surveillance from a building used to raise chickens.
2. Southern for an automotive body type (i.e. "'lil doose coop").
Cobra-coveringotherpeoplestypos-Jet
.
ImEvil1
>> In one of the recent car mags a Crown Vic in police trim was tested adn top
>> speed was something less (<130MPH if memory serves) than the Mustang GT
>> (>140MPH but not by much).
>>
>> Also, the light bar impacted/reduced top end on the Crown Vic some, I think
>> exacting a 10MPH penalty. Even without the light bar the Crown Vic's top
>> speed was approx. 10MPH less than the Mustang GT.
>>
>> I do not know what the weight difference between teh Crown Vic and the
>> Mustang but suspect it is more than the 450lbs someone else posted. The
>> T-bird weighed in several hundred (~3600lbs vs. ~3200lbs for the Mustang)
>> pounds more than the Mustang and I would suspect the Crown Vic,
>accessorized
>> with police radio and other equipment would weigh even more than the
>T-bird.
>
I drive a '96 Vic at work....125 is about it. That's with a light-bar
<Street-Hawk>.
My '93 SSV Mustang <no light bar> is only good for 140 <and that's with the
air-silencer removed and factory 3.08's>..
Mike
93 LX 5.0 Sedan
93 LX 5.0 Special Service Vehicle
Chris Alley
I'll talk to him and e mail you and post.
Chris Alley
89 LX 5.0
Steve <ango...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Chris Alley
>
>
>On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Chris Alley wrote:
>
>> I will ask my girlfriend's dad. I is a coop, and drives a Crown Vic.
>> I'll talk to him and e mail you and post.
>
> He is a Coop?
Ok so I'm not that great of a typer :) Coop=cop
>
>>
Transalp89
about 130 in a vic with no light bar..
Also weight , to a certain point... doesnt have much to do with top
speed...just how quickly you can get there. Aero is the big killer,,, takes 4
times as much power to go twice as fast.
SedanBoy
ones. First is obvious : HP. Second is drag coefficient (Cd). Third is
related to #2, which is frontal area. The Cobra (305hp) does not do 155.
the Crown Vic has LESS horsepower, HIGHER Cd, and MUCH more frontal area.
Gearing plays a medium part, but is definitely insignificant in this case.
Crown Vic's as supplied to the police will definitely NOT achieve a true
155. 140 MAYBE, but the amount of HP to go from a drag limited 140mph to a
drag limited 155 is about 40hp *at the rear wheels* in this case - just
for the aero difference. Add frictional losses and you need about another
60-65 crank hp.
--
Dave Lum - ICQ#2554240
'71 Datsun 510 - LIC# 24v 510
http://www.datsuns.com - remove * to e-mail - or not.
Transalp89 <trans...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990127000522...@ng08.aol.com>...
sbest
>>>Can somebody please clear this up for me. I have had several different
>>>people tell me that the Crown Vic cop cars can go 155mph or faster. I
>>>said that this is impossible and here is my reasoning: Crown
>>>vics(police edition) and SN-95 Mustang GT's both have the 215 hp 4.6
>>>SOHC. The mustang has a 1000 lb weight advantage and is also way more
>>>aerodynamic and struggles to hit 140 mph stock so how in the world can a
>>>crown vic go 155+?
>>> A sheriff once told me one time that the crown vics went 135 and the
>>>caprices went around 140 mph. I find that very believable but have been
>>>told otherwise and have even had people get mad at me when I told them
>>>that the cop cars were that slow.
>
On 26 Jan 1999 22:22:24 GMT, jay58...@aol.com (JAY585COOL) wrote:
>Police Crown Victoria cars differ from the publics version in very few ways:
>they're equipped with heavy duty colling, brake, and electricl systems. I
>believe the suspension is different also. They have no governor limited top
>speed, unlike the publics version which shuts down @ 115, I believe. Given
>these cars weight, I think they could probably hit 125-135 on an open straight.
This is pretty much right. I drive a 92, 4.6 AODE.
It came with 3.27 gears and did 125 mph repeatably with no lightbar in
stock condition. With good plugs and wires, a K&N, a tailwind and a
downhill it would do an indicated 140+mph before the rev limiter would
shut it down. It would not shift into 4th gear. It seemed very stable
at that speed. With lower gears and smaller tires now the AODE does
shift into 4th gear but I believe (as best the speedo is corrected)
top speeds are about the same, up to 125mph quickly in 3rd and a
painful crawl in 4th.
The motor is the same as the civvie Vics according every bit of info
I can get ahold of, including the shop manuals, although I swear it
"feels" more gutsy than any civilian Vic I have driven. Later cars
have a few more hp I am told.
Steve Best, Nova Scotia,
4x4 van website:
http://www.glinx.com/users/sbest
Greg Banish
few years. The Police Vic's had upgraded brake pads for pre 97 models,
and 98 1/4+ models have identical brakes to the regular grandma model, but
both were upgraded to a 12" dual piston front brake package. The engine
is the same as the GT, with a different EEC/transmission control. This
EEC package provides more spark advance and firmer, quicker shift pattern.
Oh yeah, they also had an aluminum driveshaft and 3.55 posi rear.
Suspension had new higher rate springs and shocks with upgraded rear UCA's
and bushings. The 98 1/4's had 16" wheels standard with the new Watt's
link and four link rear suspension.
This EEC package also had a speed limiter at about 124mph. The argument
was that a lot of police supervisors stated that they didn't want their
officers engaging in 120mph+ chases that are dangerous to both parties and
the public, especially when they can set up road blocks/tire strips.
Later performance tests with our 97 Police Crown Vic Mule confirmed this.
~gb
'93 LX
I can be emailed directly at ban...@saoa.com during the week, but this
address doesn't work for newsgroups posts yet.
Bob Willard
although publically-denied, practice of catching some Z's
on-duty.
Cheers, Bob
Bob Willard
equipment which enables Crown Vic FuzzMobiles to snag Mustangs
and Vettes and Lambo's: the radio. If you're tempted to outrun
those 120MPH slugs, remember that you're badly outnumbered.
Cheers, Bob
Olaf
will do 155.
olaf
Sedanboy
Dave.
Bob Willard <bo...@bsgs.ultranet.com> wrote in article
<36AF2070...@bsgs.ultranet.com>...
ArsonFindr
>top
>>> speed was something less (<130MPH if memory serves) than the Mustang GT
>>> (>140MPH but not by much).
Deputy in our county went on a chase a few months ago & reached an indicated
138 mph on a straight section of US281. He was driving a brand new Crown Vic
with lightbar & 10,000 miles on it (I saw the odometer) Down the hills & on
the level he said the speedo indicated 138, up the hills it was 130 or less
depending on the incline. Pretty sure his car's a '98, might be a '99 though.
bill
64.5 coupe: 260 bored .060, 3 sp., a/c, SVO cam, Performer intake, Holley 4v,
Pertronix, 289 Hi-Po manifolds, 1.5" A arm drop kit, 1" lowered rear, Jacobs
wires.
66 coupe: '93 HO 5.0, a/c, ps, C4 & bench seat. (wife's car)
Colt SP1
Sig P220
Marc Warden
half tank gas, and sans driver weighed just about 3280lbs.
CobraJet wrote:
<snip>
> I based that estimate on the following: Stock late model GT's with A/C
> have been weighed in at or around 3500 lbs. by their owners.
> <snip>
5.0 Fiend
launch it at the police helicopters so you can safely get away.
Bob Willard wrote:
>
> Don't overlook that all-important piece of police add-on
> equipment which enables Crown Vic FuzzMobiles to snag Mustangs
> and Vettes and Lambo's: the radio. If you're tempted to outrun
> those 120MPH slugs, remember that you're badly outnumbered.
>
> Cheers, Bob
--
-Justus
1990 5.0 LX Hatch
K&N:Exhaust:Shifter
RAMFM Member Since - 08/24/98
狂人
>Bob Willard wrote:
>>
>> Don't overlook that all-important piece of police add-on
>> equipment which enables Crown Vic FuzzMobiles to snag Mustangs
>> and Vettes and Lambo's: the radio. If you're tempted to outrun
>> those 120MPH slugs, remember that you're badly outnumbered.
>See, you carry a bazooka/rocket launcher in your car (w/ sunroof) and
>launch it at the police helicopters so you can safely get away.
Errr... don't do that too often, otherwise they are gonna use Apache or
Comanche chopper to go after you... :) Hellfire is designed so that they can
kill ya outside your range... :)
--
===Team OS/2, Team OS/2 at Taiwan, ICE News Beta Tester. Bovine Team===
======Warped Key Crucher, And OS/2 ISP CD Project Member. TBA #3======
Owner of PC End User Web Site http://www.pcenduser.com/
光碟月刊 OS/2 技術編輯 Internet Pioneer CD-ROM Monthly, OS/2 Editor
Java 1.1.4 - MR/2 ICE REG#:10510 - OS/2 T-Warp Connect 4.0
ICQ# = 8943567 (Still Experimenting with ICQ for Java :) )
John Carlson
>I do not know what the weight difference between teh Crown Vic and the
>Mustang but suspect it is more than the 450lbs someone else posted. The
>T-bird weighed in several hundred (~3600lbs vs. ~3200lbs for the Mustang)
>pounds more than the Mustang and I would suspect the Crown Vic, accessorized
>with police radio and other equipment would weigh even more than the T-bird.
The weight involved here has very little to do with top speed, it
really hurts you in acceleration but not top speed. Once you get all
that mass moving it wants to stay moving, the extra weight will cause
more rolling resistance as the tires have more weight on them but this
is nothing compaired to all that air your pushing at high speeds.
John Carlson
John Carlson
>Also weight , to a certain point... doesnt have much to do with top
>speed...just how quickly you can get there. Aero is the big killer,,, takes 4
>times as much power to go twice as fast.
This is not really true, might be close on some applications but a
75HP Escort that can hit 110mph will not go 220mph with 300HP.
Years ago I read a story in Road & Track where they were trying to get
a 84ish Vette to hit 200mph, they got it up to about 194mph before
they ran out of money. The last 3 or 4mph took somethihg like 30 to
40HP so they figured the next 6mph was going to cost them at least
75HP on a very tweeked engine. That wind at high speed is a bitch.
John Carlson
Tygress(Emily)
To double your speed is roughly a cubed function of hp. For
example, a 100 hp car that can go 100mph would need 800 hp to hit
200mph.
---
'69 Camaro w/Edelbrock manifold and fancy plug wires
'85 Cutlass w/airfilter upgrades w/tricked spark plugs
There's maybe something else on those that I forgot, but
it probably doesn't matter as much. ;) Probably.
John Carlson
> To double your speed is roughly a cubed function of hp. For
>example, a 100 hp car that can go 100mph would need 800 hp to hit
>200mph.
Isn't 100HP cubed 1,000,000HP? It looks like you have a linear
relation thing going on, 8 times HP to double speed (100HP at 100
mph,800HP at 200mph, 6400HP at 400mph.......).Wind resistance will go
up exponentially so HP will need to climb at the same rate, it looks
like the cubed function might climb a wee bit too fast.
John Carlson
Tygress(Emily)
No. The increase in speed, proportionally, is cubed. 100hp gets
100 mph. To go twice as fast, cube 2=8. 8*100 oringinal hp gets you
the needed 800 hp to go 200 mph.
Wind resistance, or drag, is indeed an exponential function. It
is squared as you increase speed.
狂人
>Isn't 100HP cubed 1,000,000HP? It looks like you have a linear relation
>thing going on, 8 times HP to double speed (100HP at 100 mph,800HP at
>200mph, 6400HP at 400mph.......).Wind resistance will go up exponentially
>so HP will need to climb at the same rate, it looks like the cubed function
>might climb a wee bit too fast.
Double your speed, you will Quadruple your wind resistence...
It is squared, not doubled... If nothing else comes in, your 100HP/100MPH
car should be able to go 200MPH with 400HP... of course, 100HP cars are a
tad hard to get to 100MPH... :)
John Carlson
>>>
>>> To double your speed is roughly a cubed function of hp. For
>>>example, a 100 hp car that can go 100mph would need 800 hp to hit
>>>200mph.
>>
>>relation thing going on, 8 times HP to double speed (100HP at 100
>>mph,800HP at 200mph, 6400HP at 400mph.......).Wind resistance will go
>>up exponentially so HP will need to climb at the same rate, it looks
>>like the cubed function might climb a wee bit too fast.
>
>100 mph. To go twice as fast, cube 2=8. 8*100 oringinal hp gets you
>the needed 800 hp to go 200 mph.
> Wind resistance, or drag, is indeed an exponential function. It
>is squared as you increase speed.
How about this:
HP = spd times the multiple of speed cubed.
HP = 100 * 2^3 = 800 HP at 200 mph
HP = 100 * 3^3 = 2700HP at 300 mph
I read your "speed is the cubed function of HP" as :
y f(x) = x^3 or spd f(HP) = HP^3
So do I get a passing grade anyway? : )
John Carlson
John Carlson
>Double your speed, you will Quadruple your wind resistence...
>
>It is squared, not doubled... If nothing else comes in, your 100HP/100MPH
>car should be able to go 200MPH with 400HP... of course, 100HP cars are a
>tad hard to get to 100MPH... :)
That dosn't quite work out, take your new speed of 200mph at 400HP,
lets double again, 400mph at 1600HP, we doubled the speed and
quadrupled the HP but those numbers don't fly.
John Carlson
狂人
>> No. The increase in speed, proportionally, is cubed. 100hp gets
>>100 mph. To go twice as fast, cube 2=8. 8*100 oringinal hp gets you
>>the needed 800 hp to go 200 mph.
>> Wind resistance, or drag, is indeed an exponential function. It
>>is squared as you increase speed.
>How about this:
>HP = spd times the multiple of speed cubed.
>HP = 100 * 2^3 = 800 HP at 200 mph
>HP = 100 * 3^3 = 2700HP at 300 mph
>I read your "speed is the cubed function of HP" as :
>y f(x) = x^3 or spd f(HP) = HP^3
Don't think so, if resistence is a non-issue, you can go to about as close
to light speed as you can... it just takes a LONG time to get there...
That's why that NASA launched a sattlite that uses an ION engine that can
barely blow a paper off the table (then again, maybe it can't... :) ), but
over time, the speed biulds and they got it as an extremely cheap and fast
system (the exhaust is 1/3 the light speed, if my memory didn't fail me...
or maybe that was 1/30 the light speed... :) )
John Carlson
>>> No. The increase in speed, proportionally, is cubed. 100hp gets
>>>100 mph. To go twice as fast, cube 2=8. 8*100 oringinal hp gets you
>>>the needed 800 hp to go 200 mph.
>>> Wind resistance, or drag, is indeed an exponential function. It
>>>is squared as you increase speed.
>
>>How about this:
>>HP = spd times the multiple of speed cubed.
>>HP = 100 * 2^3 = 800 HP at 200 mph
>>HP = 100 * 3^3 = 2700HP at 300 mph
>>I read your "speed is the cubed function of HP" as :
>>y f(x) = x^3 or spd f(HP) = HP^3
>
>Don't think so, if resistence is a non-issue, you can go to about as close
>to light speed as you can... it just takes a LONG time to get there...
>That's why that NASA launched a sattlite that uses an ION engine that can
>barely blow a paper off the table (then again, maybe it can't... :) ), but
>over time, the speed biulds and they got it as an extremely cheap and fast
>system (the exhaust is 1/3 the light speed, if my memory didn't fail me...
>or maybe that was 1/30 the light speed... :) )
You might have missed something, we were talking about fighting wind
resistance, it's not a non- issue, it's the entire issue (and didn't
that engine crap out after a few days?).
John Carlson
狂人
You actually missed other stuff that I was talking about... Wind resistence
increase by SQUARE NOT CUBE... take that out and where's that cube coming
from?
狂人
> No. The increase in speed, proportionally, is cubed. 100hp gets 100
>mph. To go twice as fast, cube 2=8. 8*100 oringinal hp gets you the
>needed 800 hp to go 200 mph.
> Wind resistance, or drag, is indeed an exponential function. It is
>squared as you increase speed.
Emily, are you talking about ACCELERATION instead of the terminal velocity?
How else does that cube come about?
Saying that you need cube the % increase to double the 1/4 mile trap speed,
that I might believe... but other than that, what else is there???
Greg Banish
Just to settle this, the formula for wind resistance is:
F=(1/2)*(Rho)*(A)*(Cd)*(V)^2
Where:
F= Force (horsepower) required
Rho= Density of the fluid (air)
A= Total Frontal Area of the vehicle
Cd= Drag Coefficient of the Vehicle
V= Vehicle Velocity
Keep in mind that tire rolling resistance also has a small, but
significant, effect at high speed as well...
~gb
'93 LX
BSME Automotive, GMI E&MI
James Moran
force (in lbs) times the speed (in ft/sec) and you get ft-lbs/sec (power is
work over time). Divide by 550 (I think, I know 5252 is for converting
rotational work, aka torque into power) and NOW you've got horsepower.
That's why the power required for speed is cubic:
Power = 1/2 Rho A Cd V^3 / 550
Jim Moran
Greg Banish wrote in message ...
Clint Law
5.0 Fiend wrote in message <36AFA3A0...@usa.net>...
>See, you carry a bazooka/rocket launcher in your car (w/ sunroof) and
>launch it at the police helicopters so you can safely get away.
>
>Bob Willard wrote:
>>
>> Don't overlook that all-important piece of police add-on
>> equipment which enables Crown Vic FuzzMobiles to snag Mustangs
>> and Vettes and Lambo's: the radio. If you're tempted to outrun
>> those 120MPH slugs, remember that you're badly outnumbered.
>>
>
I was watching one of the "wild police videos" shows the other day and it
had some drug smugglers in a 94/95 GT Convertable Running away from the
helicopter. The pilot (or narrator w/ a helicopter sound added in), said he
was falling behind. He could cut corners, but he couldn't catch the Stang.
Most Helicopters are kind of slow, no need to blow em, just go faster than
them.
Marc Warden
Sincerely,
MarcW.
Tygress(Emily)
Carlson) wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> To double your speed is roughly a cubed function of hp. For
>>>>example, a 100 hp car that can go 100mph would need 800 hp to hit
>>>>200mph.
>>>
>>>Isn't 100HP cubed 1,000,000HP? It looks like you have a linear
>>>relation thing going on, 8 times HP to double speed (100HP at 100
>>>mph,800HP at 200mph, 6400HP at 400mph.......).Wind resistance will go
>>>up exponentially so HP will need to climb at the same rate, it looks
>>>like the cubed function might climb a wee bit too fast.
>>
>> No. The increase in speed, proportionally, is cubed. 100hp gets
>>100 mph. To go twice as fast, cube 2=8. 8*100 oringinal hp gets you
>>the needed 800 hp to go 200 mph.
>> Wind resistance, or drag, is indeed an exponential function. It
>>is squared as you increase speed.
>
>How about this:
>HP = spd times the multiple of speed cubed.
>HP = 100 * 2^3 = 800 HP at 200 mph
>HP = 100 * 3^3 = 2700HP at 300 mph
>I read your "speed is the cubed function of HP" as :
>y f(x) = x^3 or spd f(HP) = HP^3
>
>So do I get a passing grade anyway? : )
Sure, why not? I wasn't all that clear in the first post now
that I re-read it. Oh well, that's what I get for posting that late
at night. Sorry for the confusion.
Tygress(Emily)
>In <36b01484...@news.mindspring.com>, on 01/28/99
> at 07:44 AM, Em...@Tigress.com (Tygress(Emily)) said:
>
>> No. The increase in speed, proportionally, is cubed. 100hp gets 100
>>mph. To go twice as fast, cube 2=8. 8*100 oringinal hp gets you the
>>needed 800 hp to go 200 mph.
>> Wind resistance, or drag, is indeed an exponential function. It is
>>squared as you increase speed.
>
>Emily, are you talking about ACCELERATION instead of the terminal velocity?
>How else does that cube come about?
>
>Saying that you need cube the % increase to double the 1/4 mile trap speed,
>that I might believe... but other than that, what else is there???
It got explained in a later post, so I'm not going to redo it. You
can check with USAC if like to see if the cubed function is right,
too. Oh, and one more thing, just WHERE do you get off doubting me,
the all knowing, all seeing, all hearing, all smelling.... well,
scratch that last one, goddess of automotive stuff?!?! Don't make me
use my Voice Of God (tm) on you!! I may not know what a gozillia is,
but that doesn't give you license to doubt my amazing Ultra Emily
Powers in the automotive realm!! I'll get back to you when I think up
an appropriate penance for you, David. ; )
Chris Alley
>>
>>>>
>>>> To double your speed is roughly a cubed function of hp. For
>>>>example, a 100 hp car that can go 100mph would need 800 hp to hit
>>>>200mph.
>>>
>>>Isn't 100HP cubed 1,000,000HP? It looks like you have a linear
>>>relation thing going on, 8 times HP to double speed (100HP at 100
>>>mph,800HP at 200mph, 6400HP at 400mph.......).Wind resistance will go
>>>up exponentially so HP will need to climb at the same rate, it looks
>>>like the cubed function might climb a wee bit too fast.
>>
>> No. The increase in speed, proportionally, is cubed. 100hp gets
>>100 mph. To go twice as fast, cube 2=8. 8*100 oringinal hp gets you
>>the needed 800 hp to go 200 mph.
>> Wind resistance, or drag, is indeed an exponential function. It
>>is squared as you increase speed.
>
>How about this:
>HP = spd times the multiple of speed cubed.
>HP = 100 * 2^3 = 800 HP at 200 mph
>HP = 100 * 3^3 = 2700HP at 300 mph
>I read your "speed is the cubed function of HP" as :
>y f(x) = x^3 or spd f(HP) = HP^3
All of this Calculus I'm taking in school right now actually comes in
handy???I would have never known it :).
Chris Alley
89 LX 5.0
>
>So do I get a passing grade anyway? : )
>
>John Carlson
狂人
> It got explained in a later post, so I'm not going to redo it. You can
>check with USAC if like to see if the cubed function is right, too.
Dang, my physics memory is going...
>Oh,
>and one more thing, just WHERE do you get off doubting me, the all knowing,
>all seeing, all hearing, all smelling.... well, scratch that last one,
>goddess of automotive stuff?!?! Don't make me use my Voice Of God (tm) on
>you!!
Don't worry, I got "Earplugs Of God" (R) (Universal Patent Number AFCEB92EDh
(in HEX)) right here with me... :)
What cha' saying again? Pardon? :)
>I may not know what a gozillia is,
Godzilla is nothing... My ICBM Launch Control Panel is a lot more fun... :)
"Godzilla? What Godzilla?" (looking up at a cloud of smoke) "Ah, there..."
:)
>but that doesn't give you license
>to doubt my amazing Ultra Emily Powers in the automotive realm!!
I doubt anyone, anything... :)
>I'll get
>back to you when I think up an appropriate penance for you, David. ; )
Don't worry, my "Earplugs Of God" will stand ready at all times... :)
CobraJet
going 200 miles an hour? Here it is:
Take a 1969 Ford Torino. Drop in a Nascar-spec 427 Tunnel Port (about
550-575 horsepower). Drop car 3" in front and 2" in back. Turn ignition key
and move forward. At 180 mph throw list of negative comments about old car
aerodynamics out the window. Proceed to 210 mph. Crank up volume on
8-track.
End of argument.
CobraJet
.
CobraJet
jvca...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Sorry, but I did the math and you'll only be able to hit
> 208.354789524159874 mph.
>
> John Carlson
I need a Tylenol.
.
Steve
CobraJet wrote:
> You mathematics types are giving me a headache. You want a formula for
> going 200 miles an hour? Here it is:
>
> Take a 1969 Ford Torino. Drop in a Nascar-spec 427 Tunnel Port (about
> 550-575 horsepower). Drop car 3" in front and 2" in back. Turn ignition key
> and move forward. At 180 mph throw list of negative comments about old car
> aerodynamics out the window. Proceed to 210 mph. Crank up volume on
> 8-track.
>
> End of argument.
>
> CobraJet
Werent 70' hemi superbirds capable of 200+ in nascar?
Steve
--
Steve
90' Mustang GT 5-Speed
ska...@d.umn.edu
http://www.d.umn.edu/~skajala/home.html (My Mustang Homepage)
"Blue Oval at the drag strip taking your dough,
Hey, does that Saturn run?, No, child, no."
CobraJet
> CobraJet wrote:
>
> > You mathematics types are giving me a headache. You want a formula for
> > going 200 miles an hour? Here it is:
> >
> > Take a 1969 Ford Torino. Drop in a Nascar-spec 427 Tunnel Port (about
> > 550-575 horsepower). Drop car 3" in front and 2" in back. Turn ignition key
> > and move forward. At 180 mph throw list of negative comments about old car
> > aerodynamics out the window. Proceed to 210 mph. Crank up volume on
> > 8-track.
> >
> > End of argument.
> >
> > CobraJet
>
> Werent 70' hemi superbirds capable of 200+ in nascar?
Yep, them too.
>
> Steve
>
> --
> Steve
> 90' Mustang GT 5-Speed
> ska...@d.umn.edu
> http://www.d.umn.edu/~skajala/home.html (My Mustang Homepage)
>
> "Blue Oval at the drag strip taking your dough,
> Hey, does that Saturn run?, No, child, no."
.
»|\/|årãúÐér«
>car should be able to go 200MPH with 400HP... of course, 100HP cars are a
>tad hard to get to 100MPH... :)
My 100Hp 1990 Dodge Daytona easily made 100mph. Of course I had a modified
A-525 5spd transmission with a 3.50 final drive gear too. =)
CobraJet
<nos...@home.com> wrote:
> In <musclecars-ya024080...@news.supernews.com>, on 01/28/99
> at 08:58 PM, muscl...@theirpeak.net (CobraJet) said:
>
> >In article <36B11CBA...@d.umn.edu>, Steve <ska...@d.umn.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Werent 70' hemi superbirds capable of 200+ in nascar?
> > Yep, them too.
>
> Hey, 200MPH is easy, even an idiot driving a JATO equipted Impala can do it
> easy... :)
Yeah, but in the end you're still driving a Chebby (Shivvy?) Plus, I
hear the JATO tends to burn up those Powerglides.
ABetterJet
>
> --
> ===Team OS/2, Team OS/2 at Taiwan, ICE News Beta Tester. Bovine Team===
> ======Warped Key Crucher, And OS/2 ISP CD Project Member. TBA #3======
>
> Owner of PC End User Web Site http://www.pcenduser.com/
>
> 光碟月刊 OS/2 技術編輯 Internet Pioneer CD-ROM Monthly, OS/2 Editor
> Java 1.1.4 - MR/2 ICE REG#:10510 - OS/2 T-Warp Connect 4.0
> ICQ# = 8943567 (Still Experimenting with ICQ for Java :) )
.
John Carlson
> You mathematics types are giving me a headache. You want a formula for
>going 200 miles an hour? Here it is:
>
> Take a 1969 Ford Torino. Drop in a Nascar-spec 427 Tunnel Port (about
>550-575 horsepower). Drop car 3" in front and 2" in back. Turn ignition key
>and move forward. At 180 mph throw list of negative comments about old car
>aerodynamics out the window. Proceed to 210 mph. Crank up volume on
>8-track.
>
> End of argument.
>
> CobraJet
狂人
at 08:58 PM, muscl...@theirpeak.net (CobraJet) said:
>In article <36B11CBA...@d.umn.edu>, Steve <ska...@d.umn.edu> wrote:
>> Werent 70' hemi superbirds capable of 200+ in nascar?
> Yep, them too.
Hey, 200MPH is easy, even an idiot driving a JATO equipted Impala can do it
easy... :)
--
狂人
>In article <36b1481b$2$qnivqjrv$mr2...@news.nvcr1.bc.wave.home.com>, "狂人"
><nos...@home.com> wrote:
>> Hey, 200MPH is easy, even an idiot driving a JATO equipted Impala can do it
>> easy... :)
> Yeah, but in the end you're still driving a Chebby (Shivvy?) Plus, I
>hear the JATO tends to burn up those Powerglides.
Well, the look of a NASCAR driver's face while you are passing him at 200MPH
plus in you family car is usually worth it... tho I think I'll be seeing the
faces through a remote microwave uplink... :)
sbest
>
>5.0 Fiend wrote in message <36AFA3A0...@usa.net>...
>>See, you carry a bazooka/rocket launcher in your car (w/ sunroof) and
>>launch it at the police helicopters so you can safely get away.
>>
>>Bob Willard wrote:
>>>
>>> Don't overlook that all-important piece of police add-on
>>> equipment which enables Crown Vic FuzzMobiles to snag Mustangs
>>> and Vettes and Lambo's: the radio. If you're tempted to outrun
>>> those 120MPH slugs, remember that you're badly outnumbered.
>>>
>>> Cheers, Bob
>>
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 14:28:00 -0600, "Clint Law" <Law...@Eosinc.com>
wrote:
>
> I was watching one of the "wild police videos" shows the other day and it
>had some drug smugglers in a 94/95 GT Convertable Running away from the
>helicopter. The pilot (or narrator w/ a helicopter sound added in), said he
>was falling behind. He could cut corners, but he couldn't catch the Stang.
>Most Helicopters are kind of slow, no need to blow em, just go faster than
>them.
>
>
Do you really think this would be a good idea?
Steve Best, Nova Scotia,
4x4 van website:
http://www.glinx.com/users/sbest
sbest
(CobraJet) wrote:
>In article <36B11CBA...@d.umn.edu>, Steve <ska...@d.umn.edu> wrote:
>
>> CobraJet wrote:
>>
>> > You mathematics types are giving me a headache. You want a formula for
>> > going 200 miles an hour? Here it is:
>> >
>> > Take a 1969 Ford Torino. Drop in a Nascar-spec 427 Tunnel Port (about
>> > 550-575 horsepower). Drop car 3" in front and 2" in back. Turn ignition key
>> > and move forward. At 180 mph throw list of negative comments about old car
>> > aerodynamics out the window. Proceed to 210 mph. Crank up volume on
>> > 8-track.
>> >
>> > End of argument.
>> >
>> > CobraJet
>>
>> Werent 70' hemi superbirds capable of 200+ in nascar?
>
> Yep, them too.
But now you are talking a different newgroup...
sbest
My stock 85 hp Turbo Diesel VW Jetta had no problem doing 100mph all
day long, up hill and down. My 145 hp 78 Zepher maxed out at 85!
Mainly cuz top gear was too high so it did top speed in 2nd,
but that's the way it was.
狂人
>> I was watching one of the "wild police videos" shows the other day and it
>>had some drug smugglers in a 94/95 GT Convertable Running away from the
>>helicopter. The pilot (or narrator w/ a helicopter sound added in), said he
>>was falling behind. He could cut corners, but he couldn't catch the Stang.
>>Most Helicopters are kind of slow, no need to blow em, just go faster than
>>them.
> Do you really think this would be a good idea?
Nope... I saw that one too, either the Mexican police get that guy (crossed
border on foot) or the drug cartel would... (he lefted a shitload of crack
and stuff in the Mustang)...
I'm wondering, if McDonell Douglas built a stripped down version of the
Apache, throw away one engine, throw away the weapon mount (keep the 30mm
gun tho ;) )... that would still make it fast, and one mean police chopper
(can turn at 3G :) )... not to mention it would be a lot cheaper... :)
Police man on foot, "Chopper 505, watchout for the guy, he is armed with an
AK-47"... Police in chopper, "So? What's the big deal? He can pay for the
paint job after we got him..."
»|\/|årãúÐér«
>Apache, throw away one engine, throw away the weapon mount (keep the 30mm
>gun tho ;) )... that would still make it fast, and one mean police chopper
>(can turn at 3G :) )... not to mention it would be a lot cheaper... :)
>
>Police man on foot, "Chopper 505, watchout for the guy, he is armed with an
>AK-47"... Police in chopper, "So? What's the big deal? He can pay for the
>paint job after we got him..."
Two words come to mind.."Blue Thunder!" =)
Marc Warden
Found the review/test of the Crown Vic and the Tahoe with an eye towards law
enforcement use..
The Tahoe top speed was 123MPH and the Crown Vic was 7 miles more, 130MPH, both
sans light bar.
The reviewer(s) estimated (or maybe measured) the light bar cost 5MPH.
Both the Tahoe and the Crown Vic weighed in (curb weight) at just a skosh over
4,000lbs (!) each.
The reviewer(s) also said (from memory) that 120MPH was sufficent for most law
enforcement agencies but if they needed more top speed, there's always the law
enforcement Z28 with a top speed of over 150MPH.
Sincerely,
MarcW.
Marc Warden wrote:
> My '96 GT coupe with A/C, 5spd, but no power windows/door locks/seats, approx.
> half tank gas, and sans driver weighed just about 3280lbs.
>
> CobraJet wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I based that estimate on the following: Stock late model GT's with A/C
> > have been weighed in at or around 3500 lbs. by their owners.
>
> > <snip>
Greg Banish
> Force is not horsepower. The units for force is lbs. Now multiply the
(snip)
I know horsepower isn't a unit of *force*, it's force per unit time. I
was just generalizing so that people who don't have five years of
engineering school behind them would get the point.
> Power = 1/2 Rho A Cd V^3 / 550
What text did you get this equation from?
> Greg Banish wrote in message ...
> >
> >Just to settle this, the formula for wind resistance is:
> >
> >F=(1/2)*(Rho)*(A)*(Cd)*(V)^2
The equation *I* posted is a part of what's referred to as the "Proving
Ground Equation" used by vehicle engineers to describe how much work it
takes to push a vehicle at a given speed without accelerating or
decelerating. The output function of this equation is indeed *horsepower*
when the proper units are used for A, V, Rho, and Cd.
I'm not trying to be a dick here, I just wanted everyone to be able to
know the actual relationship between horsepower available and attainable
top speed.
~gb
'93 LX
狂人
>>Police man on foot, "Chopper 505, watchout for the guy, he is armed with an
>>AK-47"... Police in chopper, "So? What's the big deal? He can pay for the
>>paint job after we got him..."
>Two words come to mind.."Blue Thunder!" =)
Nah, like it better in the standard issue coloring that the army used... :)
BTW... I watched both BT and Airwolf when I was little... now watching back,
I feel that all those stuff sucked bad... :)
--
===Team OS/2, Team OS/2 at Taiwan, ICE News Beta Tester. Bovine Team===
======Warped Key Crucher, And OS/2 ISP CD Project Member. TBA #3======
Owner of PC End User Web Site http://www.pcenduser.com/
ĨúšÐĪëĨZ OS/2 §ÞģN―sŋč Internet Pioneer CD-ROM Monthly, OS/2 Editor
sbest
<bani...@kettering.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, James Moran wrote:
>
>> Force is not horsepower. The units for force is lbs. Now multiply the
>(snip)
>I know horsepower isn't a unit of *force*, it's force per unit time. I
>was just generalizing so that people who don't have five years of
>engineering school behind them would get the point.
>
>> Power = 1/2 Rho A Cd V^3 / 550
>
>What text did you get this equation from?
>
>> Greg Banish wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >Just to settle this, the formula for wind resistance is:
>> >
>> >F=(1/2)*(Rho)*(A)*(Cd)*(V)^2
>
>The equation *I* posted is a part of what's referred to as the "Proving
>Ground Equation" used by vehicle engineers to describe how much work it
>takes to push a vehicle at a given speed without accelerating or
>decelerating. The output function of this equation is indeed *horsepower*
>when the proper units are used for A, V, Rho, and Cd.
>
>I'm not trying to be a dick here, I just wanted everyone to be able to
>know the actual relationship between horsepower available and attainable
>top speed.
Far from it Greg, really appreciate this sort of thing!
狂人
>>> >F=(1/2)*(Rho)*(A)*(Cd)*(V)^2
>>
>>The equation *I* posted is a part of what's referred to as the "Proving
>>Ground Equation" used by vehicle engineers to describe how much work it
>>takes to push a vehicle at a given speed without accelerating or
>>decelerating. The output function of this equation is indeed *horsepower*
>>when the proper units are used for A, V, Rho, and Cd.
>>
>>I'm not trying to be a dick here, I just wanted everyone to be able to
>>know the actual relationship between horsepower available and attainable
>>top speed.
> Far from it Greg, really appreciate this sort of thing!
Not to mention that it confirmed about my doubt on Emily's equation... <G>
--
===Team OS/2, Team OS/2 at Taiwan, ICE News Beta Tester. Bovine Team===
======Warped Key Crucher, And OS/2 ISP CD Project Member. TBA #3======
Owner of PC End User Web Site http://www.pcenduser.com/
光碟月刊 OS/2 技術編輯 Internet Pioneer CD-ROM Monthly, OS/2 Editor
Greg Banish
> >> >F=(1/2)*(Rho)*(A)*(Cd)*(V)^2
> >
> >The equation *I* posted is a part of what's referred to as the "Proving
> >Ground Equation" used by vehicle engineers to describe how much work it
> >takes to push a vehicle at a given speed without accelerating or
> >decelerating. The output function of this equation is indeed *horsepower*
> >when the proper units are used for A, V, Rho, and Cd.
> >
> >I'm not trying to be a dick here, I just wanted everyone to be able to
> >know the actual relationship between horsepower available and attainable
> >top speed.
> Far from it Greg, really appreciate this sort of thing!
No problem, glad to help where I can. Besides, somebody has to beat Jared
to the punch occasionally with the exact engineering equation. LOL.
Just don't flame me for being a smart ass.
James Moran
>> >Just to settle this, the formula for wind resistance is:
>> >
>> >F=(1/2)*(Rho)*(A)*(Cd)*(V)^2
>
>The equation *I* posted is a part of what's referred to as the "Proving
>Ground Equation" used by vehicle engineers to describe how much work it
>takes to push a vehicle at a given speed without accelerating or
>decelerating. The output function of this equation is indeed *horsepower*
>when the proper units are used for A, V, Rho, and Cd.
>
The equation you posted is for the aerodynamic drag of a bluff body. Note,
drag is not horsepower, it is a force. Depending upon the units system used
in this equation you get:
English units of feet and pounds - lb-ft/sec^2 (or mass times acceleration
aka Force)
Metric units of kg and meters - Newtons (units of Force)
Force times Distance is Work. Work divided by Time is Power. Units for
Power include horsepower and Watts.
Thus, to convert drag to power, one must multiply by the velocity (distance
divided by time) of the object. The 550 is the conversion of ft-lbs/sec to
horsepower.
>I'm not trying to be a dick here, I just wanted everyone to be able to
>know the actual relationship between horsepower available and attainable
>top speed.
Nor am I. Bruce Bowling's Automotive Programs has a way to compute
aerodynamic horsepower (http://sura1.jlab.org/~grippo/auto.html). If you
notice, the equations he uses include mph^3. If you work out the units, the
equation I posted (which just adds an additional multiplication of velocity
to yours) is correct:
Power (in horsepower) = 1/2 Rho A Cd V^3 / 550
Jim Moran
Greg Banish
although I labeled it as force, is really in horsepower and expresses the
amount necessary to maintain a given speed. If the proper units are used
for Cd, A, Rho, and V, the output of my equation is indeed horsepower.
I don't care if anyone decides not to believe me, I'm just an automotive
engineer who learned from the best professors in the industry at GMI, what
do I know anyway?
Erich Coiner
I looked at one of your previous posts and your equation used a velocity
squared term. Drag FORCE is proportional to velocity squared.
Drag HORSEPOWER is proportional to velocity CUBED.
I have to side with the other guy on this one.
From the Motor Truck Engineering Handbook by James Fitch
Drag HP= Cd*FrontalArea*MPH^3/156,000 Area is in sq ft.
Erich "Just a mechanical engineer from San Diego State University"
charles copeland
Greg Banish <bani...@kettering.edu> wrote:
>I'm done trying to nitpik this one over the equations. My equation,
>although I labeled it as force, is really in horsepower and expresses the
>amount necessary to maintain a given speed. If the proper units are used
>for Cd, A, Rho, and V, the output of my equation is indeed horsepower.
>
>I don't care if anyone decides not to believe me, I'm just an automotive
>engineer who learned from the best professors in the industry at GMI, what
>do I know anyway?
You got the gall to ask a Ford group what your education is worth
at GMI ?! Need I answer?
James Moran
Greg,
While I'm not an automotive engineer, I'm a ship designer and deal with drag
equations, too. Except we get to deal two fluids and their interface :)
Jim Moran
Erich Coiner wrote in message <36B62E...@NOSPAMhp.com>...
>Greg,
>
>I looked at one of your previous posts and your equation used a velocity
>squared term. Drag FORCE is proportional to velocity squared.
>Drag HORSEPOWER is proportional to velocity CUBED.
>I have to side with the other guy on this one.
>
>From the Motor Truck Engineering Handbook by James Fitch
>
>Drag HP= Cd*FrontalArea*MPH^3/156,000 Area is in sq ft.
>
>Erich "Just a mechanical engineer from San Diego State University"
>
>
>
>Greg Banish wrote:
>>
>> I'm done trying to nitpik this one over the equations. My equation,
>> although I labeled it as force, is really in horsepower and expresses the
>> amount necessary to maintain a given speed. If the proper units are used
>> for Cd, A, Rho, and V, the output of my equation is indeed horsepower.
>>
>> I don't care if anyone decides not to believe me, I'm just an automotive
>> engineer who learned from the best professors in the industry at GMI,
what
>> do I know anyway?
>>
RCarr98021
chevrolet I can tell you that they do not go 155 MPH stock from the factory.
Crown vic tops out about 137 and caprice about 142. It is possible that an
individual department may have removed the engine governor or modified the
computer but in this day and age of lawsuits it is highly unlikely. Sounds like
a cop telling a BS story. Police cars don't need to go 155 mph because the
likely hood of needing that speed is remote. If that speed is needed it is
utilized in the air by means of helicopter. You can't out run the radio! By the
way, I would hardly call the police vehicles slow despite the fact they max out
at 140's. The caprice is quick off the line and is an extremely fun car to
drive as long as the suspension is in good repair. The crown vic is sloppy as
sin in the corner's but I hear they fixed the problem on 99's. They also added
15 more hp.
Greg Banish
> You got the gall to ask a Ford group what your education is worth
> at GMI ?! Need I answer?
The fact that you jump to the conclusion that all I learned about at GMI
was GM cars shows myself and everyone else here just how much you really
know. Do a little research if you're going to pick on someone for their
education. I'm sure you would be pleasantly surprised to find that GMI
(Now, Kettering University) became a private institution in 1982,
whereupon they started accepting co-op positions and relations with many
other companies ranging from Ford to UPS to Mannesman to Bosch and on and
on and on... If you want to really know what a GMI education is worth
talk with some of the people who are in charge of engineering departments
for automotive companies around the world.
If indeed my equations are wrong, I'll go back and tell the PHD's from
whom I learned that they're wrong too and all their experience in the
industry has been for nought as well.
I lack the patience to waste any more time defending my world class
education against people who seem to have had trouble with high school
general science. Time for some of you kids to catch the school bus...