0-100-0 in 13.8 seconds, what's your time?
Jeff Perry
the car (427cid) could accelerate from a dead-stop to
100mph and then come to a complete stop in 13.8 seconds.
Have any of you out there with high-performance cars attempted
to determine how well your car would perform such a test?
If so, what was your time?
jp
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions are those of j...@vllyoak.resun.com (Jeff Perry).
Mark Goldberg
>I recall seeing an old ad for the Shelby AC Cobra indicating
>the car (427cid) could accelerate from a dead-stop to
>100mph and then come to a complete stop in 13.8 seconds.
In fact, there are many cars that will do this. The challenge is finding
the proper test track. What is required is a long stretch with a heavy
concrete wall strategically placed. "Dead stop" is an approprate term
in such a test!
/|/| /||)|/ /~ /\| |\|)[~|)/~ | Everyone's entitled to MY opinion.
/ | |/ ||\|\ \_|\/|_|/|)[_|\\_| | gold...@oasys.dt.navy.mil
========Imagination is more important than knowledge. - Albert Einstein=======
Thad McCulloch
How about any car? Let's see, we'll start with the car on the
edge of a cliff about 336' high, push it off and start timing.
Although it would probably factor in a little bit toward the end,
we'll assume wind resistance is negligible. You'll probably
find that it'll take around 4.5 seconds to accomplish your
0-100-0 sequence (if I did the math right). You didn't say
that you have to be able to drive the car away after the
test! :-)
Thad
James P. Callison
>In rec.autos, j...@vllyoak.resun.com (Jeff Perry) writes:
>>I recall seeing an old ad for the Shelby AC Cobra indicating
>>the car (427cid) could accelerate from a dead-stop to
>>100mph and then come to a complete stop in 13.8 seconds.
>
>In fact, there are many cars that will do this. The challenge is finding
>the proper test track. What is required is a long stretch with a heavy
>concrete wall strategically placed. "Dead stop" is an approprate term
>in such a test!
OK, so maybe we should qualify this, limiting it to cars that can go
0-100mph-0 in under 14 sec--and do it again immediately, under its
own power, and it must be a land vehicle. If we want to get really
picky, we can limit it to street vehicles ;-)
Of course, it's worth noting that GM's "competitor" in this arena,
the Corvette, is capable of this performance--with the aid of the
aforementioned brick wall. ;-)
There is another car which should come close to these numbers; that
is the "street" version of the GT-40 (the real, firebreathing,
Ferrari-eating, kicking-@$$-and-taking-names, 500hp full-blown
racing GT-40 could, certainly; I'm not so sure about the street
version. And, at nearly $1,000,000.00/car, I don't expect to see
it happening any time soon ;-)
James
James P. Callison Microcomputer Coordinator, U of Oklahoma Law Center
Call...@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu /\ Call...@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu
DISCLAIMER: I'm not an engineer, but I play one at work...
The forecast calls for Thunder...'89 T-Bird SC
"It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away all he has
and all he's ever gonna have."
--Will Munny, "Unforgiven"
Ed Reddy
(Or the mini F-40?)
--
_____ - If every man stopped thinking about war and hatred,
/ ### \ and started to think about Space, just thing how
()\_____/() close a reality Star Trek would be right now...
ere...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca & edw...@dragger.ifmt.nf.ca
James P. Callison
>Yeah. The new Toyota Supra Turbo.
>
>(Or the mini F-40?)
The Toy Supra Turbo turns in a quarter mile of 12-ish seconds at 100-110mph,
right? So, you're saying that it came come to a dead halt from 100mph
in under 4 seconds (being generous, and figuring that it took two
seconds to get from 100 to 110, or whatever the top speed was).
Uh-huh. Sure. And I've got 100 acres of prime ocean front property
in suburban Phoenix for sale cheap.
Jim Chott
Perry) wrote:
>
> I recall seeing an old ad for the Shelby AC Cobra indicating
> the car (427cid) could accelerate from a dead-stop to
> 100mph and then come to a complete stop in 13.8 seconds.
>
> Have any of you out there with high-performance cars attempted
> to determine how well your car would perform such a test?
> If so, what was your time?
>
for the 0-100-0 thing. Nothing came close to the Cobra. They
tested a Calloway Vette, a Ferrari of some type, Mustangs, a wide
variety of cars. Some took >20 seconds, with the next best in the
16-17 second range if I remember right.
------------
Jim Chott 85 Toyota 4WD pickup
rza...@email.sps.mot.com 72 LeMans Sport Convertible
Tempe, A rizona
Unknown
|> In article <ereddy.740407237@morgan> ere...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Ed Reddy) writes:
|> >Yeah. The new Toyota Supra Turbo.
|> >
|> >(Or the mini F-40?)
|>
|> The Toy Supra Turbo turns in a quarter mile of 12-ish seconds at 100-110mph,
|> right? So, you're saying that it came come to a dead halt from 100mph
|> in under 4 seconds (being generous, and figuring that it took two
|> seconds to get from 100 to 110, or whatever the top speed was).
|> Uh-huh. Sure. And I've got 100 acres of prime ocean front property
|> in suburban Phoenix for sale cheap.
|>
|> James
|>
|>
I don't know about that... It may well be able to do it if only because
of its superior braking.
The Supra is not that far off the mark performance wise...
6/93 Motortrend:
Supra Cobra
----------------------------------------
1/4 mi 13.5/106.6 13.2/105.5
braking 60-0 109 feet 131 feet
It could just make it under the 14.0 clock tick.
$0.02
Ericy
James P. Callison
>In article <1vsl1i$k...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, call...@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (James P. Callison) writes:
>|> In article <ereddy.740407237@morgan> ere...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Ed Reddy) writes:
>|> >Yeah. The new Toyota Supra Turbo.
>|> >
>|> >(Or the mini F-40?)
>|>
>|> The Toy Supra Turbo turns in a quarter mile of 12-ish seconds at 100-110mph,
>|> right? So, you're saying that it came come to a dead halt from 100mph
>|> in under 4 seconds (being generous, and figuring that it took two
>|> seconds to get from 100 to 110, or whatever the top speed was).
>|> Uh-huh. Sure. And I've got 100 acres of prime ocean front property
>|> in suburban Phoenix for sale cheap.
And speaking of Phoenix, how 'bout them Suns? ;-)
>I don't know about that... It may well be able to do it if only because
>of its superior braking.
>The Supra is not that far off the mark performance wise...
>
>6/93 Motortrend:
>
> Supra Cobra
>----------------------------------------
>1/4 mi 13.5/106.6 13.2/105.5
>braking 60-0 109 feet 131 feet
That's not the 427 Cobra S/C; it is quicker and faster than the
regular street Cobras--they were, after all, race cars sold as street
cars (basically). These figures indicate that the Toy Supra will be
hitting 100mph closer to 12 sec, which means that it has to go from
100mph to zero in _1.8_seconds._ Remember, we're talking 100-0 here;
the braking distances are going to be on the order of 350 feet or so,
extrapolating from known data (60-0mph and 80-0mph figures) and giving
them the benefit of superior braking.
So, if we figure that it takes the Supra 12 seconds to hit 100mph
and 350 feet to stop from 100mph, we get a braking time of 2.37 seconds,
for a total elapsed time of 14.37 sec. Not bad, not bad at all.
Much closer than I thought.
Of course, to be fair here, we'd have to throw in the dual-Paxton
Cobras, which went 0-60 in 3 seconds with top speed in excess
of 200mph, but I doubt that either Bill Cosby or Carroll Shelby
will turn loose of theirs ;-)
JUDGE DREDD
>And speaking of Phoenix, how 'bout them Suns? ;-)
>>I don't know about that... It may well be able to do it if only because
>>of its superior braking.
>>The Supra is not that far off the mark performance wise...
>>
>>6/93 Motortrend:
>>
>> Supra Cobra
>>----------------------------------------
>>1/4 mi 13.5/106.6 13.2/105.5
>>braking 60-0 109 feet 131 feet
>That's not the 427 Cobra S/C; it is quicker and faster than the
>regular street Cobras--they were, after all, race cars sold as street
>cars (basically). These figures indicate that the Toy Supra will be
>hitting 100mph closer to 12 sec, which means that it has to go from
>100mph to zero in _1.8_seconds._ Remember, we're talking 100-0 here;
>the braking distances are going to be on the order of 350 feet or so,
>extrapolating from known data (60-0mph and 80-0mph figures) and giving
>them the benefit of superior braking.
I'm fairly sure the Chevy "snake eater" L88 '67 Stingray 'Vette is capable
of similar performance. A fully rollerized aluminum block 4-bolt 427 which
was supposedly capable of 535 horsepower and able to "haze" the tires at
100 miles per hour would most likely be able to match the acceleration
figures of the Cobra, and the 'Vette's disc brakes (all 4 corners, if I
remember correctly) were/are probably capable of stopping in that time.
I'm also fairly sure the '67 SS/RS Camaro I used to own was capable of
the acceleration (475 hp 383, 2.02 Dart II heads, Holley tunnel ram and
carb, Crane 305/302 duration "street/strip" cam, 3600 RPM stall converter,
Turbo Hydromatic 350 with manual valve body, 4.11 posi rear, Mickey Thompson
Sportsmans on a 4-link suspension) since it ran a best of 10.35 @ 141 mph
at the local strip, and had enough torque to lift the front end about 8 or
so inches of the ground and split 2 sets of quarter panels...
But I'm not so sure of the braking capabilities of the stock drums. I'd
assume something with four-wheel discs and anti-lock braking would be the
best bet for a test of this nature. I doubt very much that there are a
large number of current "muscle" capable of this feat, probably a few tho.
>So, if we figure that it takes the Supra 12 seconds to hit 100mph
>and 350 feet to stop from 100mph, we get a braking time of 2.37 seconds,
>for a total elapsed time of 14.37 sec. Not bad, not bad at all.
>Much closer than I thought.
>Of course, to be fair here, we'd have to throw in the dual-Paxton
>Cobras, which went 0-60 in 3 seconds with top speed in excess
>of 200mph, but I doubt that either Bill Cosby or Carroll Shelby
>will turn loose of theirs ;-)
I also had a friend with a '68 Camaro much more heavily modified than mine
(are we limiting this to _stock_ vehicles?) with an 8-71 BDS blower atop
496 cubes of Chevy Rat block. 2.19 heads, all the goodies, 8 point roll
cage, tubbed, slicked, the works. The engine was dyno'd at 1100 horsepower,
and the car ran mid 8's in the quarter. Dual disc brakes in the rear would
probably had a fairly good chance of stopping in the alloted 10 seconds. :)
Wonder how a late 60's 440 six-pac Hemi 'Cuda would fare...
But if we're limiting this to "stock" vehicles of the era, then my vote
for similar performance would go to the '67 L88 Vette or the '69 L96 Camaro.
Both had aluminum block 427's with similar performance to the Shelby Cobra.
I'm sorry, but I just can't see a modern car in stock configuration
equalling the performance of the Cobra. My '89 GT Mustang (laugh if you
want) which was "chipped" only, ATE Vettes, MR-2's, Porsches, 300ZXs, and
a couple big block Camaros, but I doubt it would even come close. There is
a lot to be said for the driver of the vehicle. I definitely got a quicker
quarter mile out of the 'Stang than the boys at Ford said it was capable
of.
Jim LaBreck - n874...@henson.cc.wwu.edu
Ken Lui
about what an F1, Indy car, or an IMSA GTP car will do instead?
What about stock exotics like: F40, Vector, XJ-220, McLaren F1,
the list can go on and on and on...
Ken
--
Kenneth K.F. Lui, kl...@corp.hp.com 3000 Hanover Street MailStop20BJ
Corporate Administrative Information Systems Palo Alto, CA 94304-1112 USA
Core Application Technologies 1.415.857.3230 Fax 1.415.852.8026
Runqing Du
midwest. Please help me.
It is a MAZDA 626,4 Dr,luxury, auto,AC,power window, breaks, steering, cruise
control,runs and looks good, body not flawless tho. 173K miles with 22K on the
rebuilt engine.
Thanks a lot!
R Du
JUDGE DREDD
>Ugh, this thread is getting a little out of hand. Why not talk
>about what an F1, Indy car, or an IMSA GTP car will do instead?
>What about stock exotics like: F40, Vector, XJ-220, McLaren F1,
>the list can go on and on and on...
The vehicles you listed have nothing to do with 0-100-0 times, and in
fact, all are semi (and I use the term loosely) sluggish in the low end
and don't shine performance-wise until higher rates of speed are reached.
They are all designed for high top speeds, or in other words, to be "fast"
while the thread concerning 0-100-0 times only includes vehicles which
are "quick". There is a distinction between the two terms, and one does
not necessarily exist merely because the other exists. In order to attain
high top speeds, the "super" cars have gearing and engines designed to be
more effective at the top end, but not necessarily off the line. The 1/4
mile times/speeds of most of the so-called "super" cars are pathetic.
All the vehicles I included in my follow-up were semi-cheap new, if not
now. By comparison, IF you could find an original L88 aluminum block circa
1967, it would probably cost you five thousand dollars, and that's for the
block alone. I shudder to think what an intact L88 '67 Vette would cost, or
worse yet, the L96 '69 Camaro, of which only 14 were produced. The Vette
more closely fit the theme of the thread, and like the Cobra, was a race-
bred vehicle. Creature comforts were at a minimum, and no radio, heater, or
other "excess" weight was included in the car. It was capable of "hazing"
or breaking loose it's tires at 100 mph in 4th gear, and rated at what at
today's standards would be roughly 535 gross horsepower. It was designed to
firmly trounce Shelby's Cobra at the race track, and found it's way into
consumer production, if in limited quantities. What does this have to do
with F1s and the Jag XJ220?
In fact, my '67 Camaro, for which I had a grand total of about $14k
invested, would be quite capable of the 0-100-0 performance in 10 seconds
with a little modification of it's braking system. Although the car was
no longer "stock", can you really consider Shelby's Cobra stock? So I
included a coupld non-stock options, and a couple that were factory stock
even though they had a semi-unfair advantage. My '67 Camaro ran a best of
10.35 seconds in the quarter @ 141 mph... I'm fairly sure that it would
blister the paint of an F-40 from a standing start, but the top end is a
different story. Whereas the Camaro, because of gearing and engine design,
maxed out at around 150ish mph in 3rd gear @ ~8200 RPM, an F-40 is designed
to come into it's own around the point that my Camaro would be getting short
of breath. The Camaro is "quick", the F-40 is "fast". There is no possible
comparison.
I think you are the one who deviated from the orginal thread :) but I do
understand your point of view. If we were to limit this thread to modern
day muscle capable of the 10 second 0-100-0 feat, I think a) the list would
be miserably short if non-existant, and b) boring. I like to compare apples
to apples and oranges to oranges, which is why I listed all mid to late 60's
"muscle" cars in comparison to the Cobra's performance. Trying to compare
modern counterparts like the "new" Cobra or a Supra Turbo to the Cobra or
other vehicles in it's "class" is futile. I love my muscle cars and the
images I still carry with me, and I doubt seriously that most modern day
sports cars are capable of the performance of that day and age. But it has
been interesting thinking about it...
Have a good one.
Jim LaBreck - n874...@henson.cc.wwu.edu
Issa El-Hazin
>>6/93 Motortrend:
>>
>> Supra Cobra
>>----------------------------------------
>>1/4 mi 13.5/106.6 13.2/105.5
>>braking 60-0 109 feet 131 feet
>That's not the 427 Cobra S/C; it is quicker and faster than the
>regular street Cobras--they were, after all, race cars sold as street
>cars (basically). These figures indicate that the Toy Supra will be
>hitting 100mph closer to 12 sec, which means that it has to go from
>100mph to zero in _1.8_seconds._ Remember, we're talking 100-0 here;
>the braking distances are going to be on the order of 350 feet or so,
>extrapolating from known data (60-0mph and 80-0mph figures) and giving
>them the benefit of superior braking.
>So, if we figure that it takes the Supra 12 seconds to hit 100mph
>and 350 feet to stop from 100mph, we get a braking time of 2.37 seconds,
>for a total elapsed time of 14.37 sec. Not bad, not bad at all.
>Much closer than I thought.
It is even closer than that.
The Supra Turbo (according to Car And Driver, 3/93) needs only 11.1 seconds
to hit 100mph (and not 12sec's). So, according to your calculation the Supra
will accomplish the 0-100-0 task in about 13.47sec's (within the 13.8 the
poster was inquiring about.) Not bad at all especially for a stock 2+2.
Issa
(Note, I'm not comparing the Supra to the Cobra - they are different type
of cars with different reasons for existance.)
JUDGE DREDD
>>So, if we figure that it takes the Supra 12 seconds to hit 100mph
>>and 350 feet to stop from 100mph, we get a braking time of 2.37 seconds,
>>for a total elapsed time of 14.37 sec. Not bad, not bad at all.
>>Much closer than I thought.
>It is even closer than that.
>The Supra Turbo (according to Car And Driver, 3/93) needs only 11.1 seconds
>to hit 100mph (and not 12sec's). So, according to your calculation the Supra
>will accomplish the 0-100-0 task in about 13.47sec's (within the 13.8 the
>poster was inquiring about.) Not bad at all especially for a stock 2+2.
>Issa
>(Note, I'm not comparing the Supra to the Cobra - they are different type
>of cars with different reasons for existance.)
Not to start an arguement, and I could be wrong since the book isn't in
handy reach right now, but I'm sure my copy of the Guiness Book of World
Records published sometime in the mid-80's listed the Cobra's 0-100-0
time at 10 seconds. This is a HUGE difference from 13.47 seconds, which
I'm sure a fair number of current models could achieve. Mostly twin turbos
with anti-lock braking capabilities probably. All vehicles in my posts I
referred to, I did so under the impression that they were (and most likely
are) capable of 0-100-0 in 10 seconds. Most production cars don't pump out
the horsepower and torque required to get a car moving that quickly,
although there are probably quite a few that could stop quickly enough.
Jim LaBreck - n874...@henson.cc.wwu.edu
Scott Fisher
fairly quick to start and stop...
Scott.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Scott Fisher [sc...@psy.uwa.oz.au] PH: Aus [61] Perth (9) Local (380 3272).
_--_|\ N
Department of Psychology / \ W + E
University of Western Australia. Perth [32S, 116E]--> *_.--._/ S
Nedlands, 6009. PERTH, W.A. v
Joy is a Jaguar XJ6 with a flat battery, a blown oil seal and an unsympathetic
wife, 9km outside of a small remote town, 3:15am on a cold wet winters morning.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Fisher
>kl...@corp.hp.com (Ken Lui) writes:
>>What about stock exotics like: F40, Vector, XJ-220, McLaren F1,
>>the list can go on and on and on...
>The vehicles you listed have nothing to do with 0-100-0 times, and in
>fact, all are semi (and I use the term loosely) sluggish in the low end
>and don't shine performance-wise until higher rates of speed are reached.
>They are all designed for high top speeds, or in other words, to be "fast"
>while the thread concerning 0-100-0 times only includes vehicles which
>are "quick". There is a distinction between the two terms, and one does
>not necessarily exist merely because the other exists. In order to attain
>high top speeds, the "super" cars have gearing and engines designed to be
>more effective at the top end, but not necessarily off the line. The 1/4
>mile times/speeds of most of the so-called "super" cars are pathetic.
Ha! ya recon?...the XJ220 and friends...
bhp ft/lb 0-60 Max Mph
Jag XJ220 542@7000 475@4500 3.85 212
Porsche 959 450@6500 369@5000 3.90 196
the other good thing about these cars is that they go around corners too :-)
>All the vehicles I included in my follow-up were semi-cheap new, if not
>now. By comparison, IF you could find an original L88 aluminum block circa
>1967, it would probably cost you five thousand dollars, and that's for the
>block alone. I shudder to think what an intact L88 '67 Vette would cost, or
>worse yet, the L96 '69 Camaro, of which only 14 were produced. The Vette
>more closely fit the theme of the thread, and like the Cobra, was a race-
>bred vehicle. Creature comforts were at a minimum, and no radio, heater, or
>other "excess" weight was included in the car. It was capable of "hazing"
>or breaking loose it's tires at 100 mph in 4th gear, and rated at what at
>today's standards would be roughly 535 gross horsepower. It was designed to
>firmly trounce Shelby's Cobra at the race track, and found it's way into
>consumer production, if in limited quantities. What does this have to do
>with F1s and the Jag XJ220?
>In fact, my '67 Camaro, for which I had a grand total of about $14k
>invested, would be quite capable of the 0-100-0 performance in 10 seconds
>with a little modification of it's braking system. Although the car was
>no longer "stock", can you really consider Shelby's Cobra stock? So I
>included a coupld non-stock options, and a couple that were factory stock
>even though they had a semi-unfair advantage. My '67 Camaro ran a best of
>10.35 seconds in the quarter @ 141 mph... I'm fairly sure that it would
>blister the paint of an F-40 from a standing start, but the top end is a
Dream on :-) ...
bhp ft/lb 0-60 Max Mph
F40 478@7000 427@4000 4.10 201
>different story. Whereas the Camaro, because of gearing and engine design,
>maxed out at around 150ish mph in 3rd gear @ ~8200 RPM, an F-40 is designed
>to come into it's own around the point that my Camaro would be getting short
>of breath. The Camaro is "quick", the F-40 is "fast". There is no possible
>comparison.
The F40 is both "quick" and "fast"
>I think you are the one who deviated from the orginal thread :) but I do
>understand your point of view. If we were to limit this thread to modern
>day muscle capable of the 10 second 0-100-0 feat, I think a) the list would
>be miserably short if non-existant, and b) boring. I like to compare apples
>to apples and oranges to oranges, which is why I listed all mid to late 60's
>"muscle" cars in comparison to the Cobra's performance. Trying to compare
>modern counterparts like the "new" Cobra or a Supra Turbo to the Cobra or
>other vehicles in it's "class" is futile. I love my muscle cars and the
>images I still carry with me, and I doubt seriously that most modern day
>sports cars are capable of the performance of that day and age. But it has
>been interesting thinking about it...
Jim, I think you should go for a ride in one some day...
James P. Callison
>kl...@corp.hp.com (Ken Lui) writes:
>
>>Ugh, this thread is getting a little out of hand. Why not talk
>>about what an F1, Indy car, or an IMSA GTP car will do instead?
>>What about stock exotics like: F40, Vector, XJ-220, McLaren F1,
>>the list can go on and on and on...
>
>The vehicles you listed have nothing to do with 0-100-0 times, and in
>fact, all are semi (and I use the term loosely) sluggish in the low end
>and don't shine performance-wise until higher rates of speed are reached.
>They are all designed for high top speeds, or in other words, to be "fast"
>while the thread concerning 0-100-0 times only includes vehicles which
>are "quick". There is a distinction between the two terms, and one does
>not necessarily exist merely because the other exists. In order to attain
>high top speeds, the "super" cars have gearing and engines designed to be
>more effective at the top end, but not necessarily off the line. The 1/4
>mile times/speeds of most of the so-called "super" cars are pathetic.
There are exceptions (like the Cobras, and, from what I've heard, the
GT-40, which is surprisingly driveable for a 200+mph race/street car).
>All the vehicles I included in my follow-up were semi-cheap new, if not
>now. By comparison, IF you could find an original L88 aluminum block circa
>1967, it would probably cost you five thousand dollars, and that's for the
>block alone. I shudder to think what an intact L88 '67 Vette would cost, or
>worse yet, the L96 '69 Camaro, of which only 14 were produced.
What's your definition of "cheap?" I don't know what the 'Vettes cost,
but the Cobras cost upwards of $16,000, which was more than most
people made in a year...Of course, that's nothing compared to what
they go for now...
>In fact, my '67 Camaro, for which I had a grand total of about $14k
>invested, would be quite capable of the 0-100-0 performance in 10 seconds
>with a little modification of it's braking system. Although the car was
>no longer "stock", can you really consider Shelby's Cobra stock?
Yes, you can consider the Cobra stock. Although it was limited production,
it was still a stock production car. There were a few non-stock Cobras,
but they were one-offs (like the Daytona Super coupe, which sported
a 500+hp 427, or the two "Cosby 200+mph" Cobras, or the only Shelby
Mustang coupe (a '67 'Stang coupe capable of "hazing" the tires at
100mph, which didn't even get a Shelby serial number)).
>So I
>included a coupld non-stock options, and a couple that were factory stock
>even though they had a semi-unfair advantage. My '67 Camaro ran a best of
>10.35 seconds in the quarter @ 141 mph... I'm fairly sure that it would
>blister the paint of an F-40 from a standing start, but the top end is a
>different story. Whereas the Camaro, because of gearing and engine design,
>maxed out at around 150ish mph in 3rd gear @ ~8200 RPM, an F-40 is designed
>to come into it's own around the point that my Camaro would be getting short
>of breath. The Camaro is "quick", the F-40 is "fast". There is no possible
>comparison.
Then we have the Cobras; quick _and_ fast. :-)
JUDGE DREDD
>but the Cobras cost upwards of $16,000, which was more than most
>people made in a year...Of course, that's nothing compared to what
>they go for now...
My 1967 RS/SS 350 Camaro originally sold for roughly $3900 in 1967. Today
you couldn't touch an original with matching numbers for under $20k or so.
Haven't been in the market lately, so I don't know what it's like. A 1967
Z-28 with matching numbers would set you back about $45k in mint condition.
The 1969 L96 Camaro (not to mention the infamous Yenko "super" Camaros)
would have gone for somewhere in the ballpark of $5700 in 1969, and today
I don't even want to think of it. Of the 14 originally made, I believe there
are still 5 in existance. Not exceedingly rare, but rare enough. :)
The L88 1967 Corvette would have set you back about $5600 in 1967 I believe,
could be mistaken, and I don't have info handy to back this one up. I think
production was limited to 47 units, again could be mistaken. At today's
prices however, this one would be VERY expensive. However, a 1967 Stingray
(old body style, L88 was the first of the newer style which lasted until
1979) with a normal 427, matching numbers, in mint condition, would set you
back about $65k at today's prices. I believe the original Cobras are going
for quite a bit higher than this, last I heard was in the $250k ballpark.
I suppose that in 1967 dollars, the Corvette would have been just as
expensive as it would be today. Still a LOT cheaper than an F-40 or the XJ
220...
>Yes, you can consider the Cobra stock. Although it was limited production,
>it was still a stock production car. There were a few non-stock Cobras,
>but they were one-offs (like the Daytona Super coupe, which sported
>a 500+hp 427, or the two "Cosby 200+mph" Cobras, or the only Shelby
>Mustang coupe (a '67 'Stang coupe capable of "hazing" the tires at
>100mph, which didn't even get a Shelby serial number)).
I wouldn't consider it truly stock. Even if it was "factory" stock, it was
still a highly specialized car, much like the 959 is today. I believe the
Cobra was offered with three different engines, but I've never been a Ford
buff, and tended to despise the Mustang line (Can you blame a Camaro owner?)
The 427, the infamous 428 Cobra Jet, and a 429 of some flavor or other.
I think my version of stock would consist of a mass produced factory vehicle
with comfort options. Neither the Cobra or the L88 Vette had much interior
wise. I also believe there were three models of Shelby Mustang coupe, with
the 500something being the rarest and therefor the most valuable.
>Then we have the Cobras; quick _and_ fast. :-)
I'll agree with that. Of course the 150ish top speed of my '67 Camaro could
also be considered fairly fast, but the car was more on the "quick" side.
I have no clue how fast the thing actually went, since once the needle
passed the 120 mark, passed the oil warning indicator, and the right turn
signal indicator and started back around towards 0, it's anybody's guess
how fast I was actually going. The modified IROC Camaro I was soundly
trouncing indicated 147 miles per hour as I was pulling away. I guess the
view was good tho, since I had quite a bit of flame spitting from the tips
of my header mufflers. Damn Holley 850 double pumpers... I actually watched
the gas gauge dip from 1/2 to 1/4 during the run. :)
Jim LaBreck - n874...@henson.cc.wwu.edu
JUDGE DREDD
>>They are all designed for high top speeds, or in other words, to be "fast"
>>while the thread concerning 0-100-0 times only includes vehicles which
>>are "quick". There is a distinction between the two terms, and one does
>>not necessarily exist merely because the other exists. In order to attain
>>high top speeds, the "super" cars have gearing and engines designed to be
>>more effective at the top end, but not necessarily off the line. The 1/4
>>mile times/speeds of most of the so-called "super" cars are pathetic.
>Ha! ya recon?...the XJ220 and friends...
> bhp ft/lb 0-60 Max Mph
>Jag XJ220 542@7000 475@4500 3.85 212
>Porsche 959 450@6500 369@5000 3.90 196
>the other good thing about these cars is that they go around corners too :-)
Yep, they certainly go around corners. You didn't list any 1/4 mile times
though, and 0-60 times aren't always a good indicator of what 1/4 mile
acceleration and performance would be like. I was referring in particular
to the Countach and Testarossa which have pathetic times/speeds if you
consider the cost involved in owning/maintaining one. I believe the 25th
anniversary Countach was listed as having a high 12 second quarter, maybe
even low 13. I'd have to look it up, but I know that my fairly inexpensive
'67 Camaro would definitely have been able to trounce one in the quarter
mile. I don't know of a single "super" car with a sub 10 second quarter,
and most don't break the 11 second barrier, massive horsepower or not.
>>In fact, my '67 Camaro, for which I had a grand total of about $14k
>>invested, would be quite capable of the 0-100-0 performance in 10 seconds
>>with a little modification of it's braking system. Although the car was
>>no longer "stock", can you really consider Shelby's Cobra stock? So I
>>included a coupld non-stock options, and a couple that were factory stock
>>even though they had a semi-unfair advantage. My '67 Camaro ran a best of
>>10.35 seconds in the quarter @ 141 mph... I'm fairly sure that it would
>>blister the paint of an F-40 from a standing start, but the top end is a
>Dream on :-) ...
> bhp ft/lb 0-60 Max Mph
>F40 478@7000 427@4000 4.10 201
475 horsepower @ 7200 RPM, 525 ft/lbs torque @ 6200 RPM, dyno tested.
Gearing of both the manual valve body Turbo Hydromatic 350 and the posi
12 bolt rear with 4.11 gears, coupled with a 3600 RPM stall converter
and B&M strip shift kit all add up to a MASSIVE amount of power unleashed
at launch. Before I connected the uni-body frame rails, I destroyed 2
sets of quarter panels with the chassis twist the torque created. I also
went through two motor mounts on the driver's side. They didn't chain the
big Camaro blocks to the frame for good looks... :) The front end also
lifted somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 inches on take-off, something
I've never seen a super car do. Usually they have a hard time getting
traction for all that horsepower despite the P335 Bridgestones and Pirelli
P-Zeros they're outfitted with. Watch NHRA Pro Stock action if you want
an example of what my Camaro was capable of, if on a somewhat reduced
scale... unfortunately I didn't have 750 cubic inches of bottle fed
mountain motor to play with. :) The launches look exactly the same tho.
>>different story. Whereas the Camaro, because of gearing and engine design,
>>maxed out at around 150ish mph in 3rd gear @ ~8200 RPM, an F-40 is designed
>>to come into it's own around the point that my Camaro would be getting short
>>of breath. The Camaro is "quick", the F-40 is "fast". There is no possible
>>comparison.
>The F40 is both "quick" and "fast"
More fast than quick, much like my Camaro was more quick than fast. You
can't truly have both qualities, although there is a median where the
compromise isn't as great. It's all in the gearing. I once read that in a
super car challenge, most of the "super" cars broke down or failed to break
the 170 mph barrier... the winner? A 206 MPH 1969 Camaro. :)
>Jim, I think you should go for a ride in one some day...
I have, thanks for the offer. I've also installed alarm and stereo
components in one, although it was hardly fun. The Ferrari 348 I did last
week was a trifle more interesting.
Have a nice one.
Jim LaBreck - n874...@henson.cc.wwu.edu
Jim Moore
>more effective at the top end, but not necessarily off the line. The 1/4
>mile times/speeds of most of the so-called "super" cars are pathetic.
>All the vehicles I included in my follow-up were semi-cheap new, if not
>now. By comparison, IF you could find an original L88 aluminum block circa
Actually, the L88 had an iron block with aluminum heads, you might be thinking
of the ZL1. The ZL1 had an all aluminum block topped off by the L88's aluminum
heads. note: 69 1969 ZL1 camaros were produced.
>1967, it would probably cost you five thousand dollars, and that's for the
>block alone.
At the puyallup corvette swap meet three years ago, there was a ZL1 engine with
a sold sign on it. Rumoured price, $12,000. This I heard from two independant
reliable sources. But with all swap meet stories, take this one with a grain
of salt.
>worse yet, the L96 '69 Camaro, of which only 14 were produced. The Vette
I'll be damned if I can find a definition of the L96 '69 camaro option, I'd
really like to know what it is.
[stuff deleted]
>bred vehicle. Creature comforts were at a minimum, and no radio, heater, or
>other "excess" weight was included in the car. It was capable of "hazing"
>or breaking loose it's tires at 100 mph in 4th gear, and rated at what at
I think I hear an Aeorosmith song in the background(dream on, dream on... :-)
I seriously doubt that this feat was possible, for one thing, 4th gear is a 1:1
ratio and let's say that the rear axle ratio is 4.56:1. With a tire height of
26", the motor would be buzzing aprox. 5892rpms, at this point there isn't
a whole lot of engine left to produce the kind of power needed to break the
tires loose at this speed. Was it raining? :)
>today's standards would be roughly 535 gross horsepower.
I'm not sure what you mean here. In standard trim the '68-'69 L88 42's that
were put into corvettes were rated at 435 horses, but this mill could be
modified to produce 535+hp.
>In fact, my '67 Camaro, for which I had a grand total of about $14k invested
Is this car running around Bellingham? I sure would like to see it, I'll bet
its's choice.
>different story. Whereas the Camaro, because of gearing and engine design,
>maxed out at around 150ish mph in 3rd gear @ ~8200 RPM, an F-40 is designed
8200!!!! geez, about 7500 I'd be gettin' worried, that's way over red line :)
>to come into it's own around the point that my Camaro would be getting short
>of breath. The Camaro is "quick", the F-40 is "fast". There is no possible
>comparison.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (Great description!)
Agreed.
>Jim LaBreck - n874...@henson.cc.wwu.edu
-Jim Moore ji...@henson.cc.wwu.edu
Hey!, I didn't know there was somebody else at Western that
was into cars. I thought everyone here was trying to outlaw
my hobby :)
-'68 454 4spd camaro
-'68 400HO 4spd firebird
JUDGE DREDD
>n874...@henson.cc.wwu.edu ( JUDGE DREDD) writes:
>>high top speeds, the "super" cars have gearing and engines designed to be
>>more effective at the top end, but not necessarily off the line. The 1/4
>>mile times/speeds of most of the so-called "super" cars are pathetic.
>I agree.
Cool. :)
>>All the vehicles I included in my follow-up were semi-cheap new, if not
>>now. By comparison, IF you could find an original L88 aluminum block circa
>Actually, the L88 had an iron block with aluminum heads, you might be thinking
>of the ZL1. The ZL1 had an all aluminum block topped off by the L88's aluminum
>heads. note: 69 1969 ZL1 camaros were produced.
My mistake. The L96 1969 Camaro had an aluminum block, the L88 had a 4 bolt
main iron block. I have no clue what setup was included in the '69 ZL1, but
I do know that only 14 L96 Camaros were produced, all on special order.
>>1967, it would probably cost you five thousand dollars, and that's for the
>>block alone.
>At the puyallup corvette swap meet three years ago, there was a ZL1 engine with
>a sold sign on it. Rumoured price, $12,000. This I heard from two independant
>reliable sources. But with all swap meet stories, take this one with a grain
>of salt.
>>worse yet, the L96 '69 Camaro, of which only 14 were produced. The Vette
>I'll be damned if I can find a definition of the L96 '69 camaro option, I'd
>really like to know what it is.
Limited edition model offered to dealers only. Comparable to the Yenko
"super" Camaro of the same year. Vette engine designation, 4 speed M22 (?)
Muncie transmission, and gearing somewhere in the 4's. I'll see if I can
dig up more, if you want.
>[stuff deleted]
>>bred vehicle. Creature comforts were at a minimum, and no radio, heater, or
>>other "excess" weight was included in the car. It was capable of "hazing"
>>or breaking loose it's tires at 100 mph in 4th gear, and rated at what at
>I think I hear an Aeorosmith song in the background(dream on, dream on... :-)
>I seriously doubt that this feat was possible, for one thing, 4th gear is a 1:1
>ratio and let's say that the rear axle ratio is 4.56:1. With a tire height of
>26", the motor would be buzzing aprox. 5892rpms, at this point there isn't
>a whole lot of engine left to produce the kind of power needed to break the
>tires loose at this speed. Was it raining? :)
Dunno. I think they were driving on wet leaves. :) Dealer propaganda? Could
be...
>>today's standards would be roughly 535 gross horsepower.
>I'm not sure what you mean here. In standard trim the '68-'69 L88 42's that
>were put into corvettes were rated at 435 horses, but this mill could be
>modified to produce 535+hp.
Rated at that era's standards, they were 435 horsepower. By today's
standards, 535+hp at the flywheel. The big rat motors were generally under-
rated in that day and age as well.
>>In fact, my '67 Camaro, for which I had a grand total of about $14k invested
>Is this car running around Bellingham? I sure would like to see it, I'll bet
>its's choice.
Running around my hometown of Aberdeen, Washington, sporting a black and
metallic blue Z-28 paint job, since it'd been through so many paint jobs
since it's birth, and let's face it... Marina Blue is BORING. :)
This is, of course, if the punk who bought it hasn't wrapped it around a
telephone pole by now... it was a trifle too much for everyday driving and
cars barking through the gears, loping to a heavy 302 duration intake and
exhaust, and burbling contentedly through Hedmann headers and 18 inch glas-
paks tend to draw attention from the local law enforcement. :) Can you guess
why I got rid of it? Heh heh heh.
>>different story. Whereas the Camaro, because of gearing and engine design,
>>maxed out at around 150ish mph in 3rd gear @ ~8200 RPM, an F-40 is designed
>8200!!!! geez, about 7500 I'd be gettin' worried, that's way over red line :)
For a stock engine. Bored and stroked to 383 cubic inches, fully rollerized
(cam, lifters, rockers) Crane set up, and 2.02/1.59 Dart II heads ported and
polished, let the thing breathe just a tad bit better than stock. I am
fairly sure the 1967 Firebird 302 block was rated for max horsepower at
8600 RPM stock, so it's definitely possible, besides I saw it with my own
eyes... I won't say that I wasn't beginning to float my valves tho... :)
>>to come into it's own around the point that my Camaro would be getting short
>>of breath. The Camaro is "quick", the F-40 is "fast". There is no possible
>>comparison.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (Great description!)
>Agreed.
Thanks, that's one distinction that really seperates the boys from the men.
It takes massive amounts of horsepower to accomplish both, but the
difference is in the gear ratios, and the suspension setup of the vehicle
in question. The Camaro got superior traction due to a narrowed rear end,
four link rear suspension with coil over shocks, and 10/90 drag shocks in
front to transfer weight instantly to the rear, causing it to squat. Still
had to heat the tires a bit to make 'em bite tho. It's high end speed was
limited by that same gearing tho, and four link suspensions are mainly
suited to straight line acceleration, not hard cornering. Thank God for
air dams and rear spoilers, or I probably would have become air born at
least once or twice. I did hear a rumour once that the stock Camaros ('67
thru '69) were so unstable at high speeds, that if you were travelling
alongside at say 120 mph and reached out and gave the door handle of the
Camaro a good upward tug, it would roll the car... nice rumour. :)
>>Jim LaBreck - n874...@henson.cc.wwu.edu
>-Jim Moore ji...@henson.cc.wwu.edu
> Hey!, I didn't know there was somebody else at Western that
> was into cars. I thought everyone here was trying to outlaw
> my hobby :)
>-'68 454 4spd camaro
>-'68 400HO 4spd firebird
Yep, unfortunately a long string of tickets forced me to get rid of all my
toys... the Camaro, my "chipped" '89 Mustang GT, my Porsche 944...
So now I've got to live with a '93 Mazda B2600i Cab Plus that probably has
a top speed of 70something and a 0-60 time of 12.9 light years. However, I
am considering the idea of dropping the drive train of a new Camaro into it
just for laughs. :) Everything else is being so heavily modified that I
might as well...
If you think they're trying to outlaw you're hobby... check out the laws
against mine (my main hobby, anyway) sometime... :)
Jim LaBreck - n874...@henson.cc.wwu.edu
Installer/Technician/System Designer/Salesman/Muscle Car Lover
Can Am Mobile Audio Video - Bellingham, Washington
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'm currently working on shoving sixteen Earthquake 12" subs and roughly
3000 watts into the truck, which was bought for demo purposes and stereo
competing only. I would have opted for a nice 911 turbo, but I still have
3 tickets to wait out... *sigh*
Have a good one.
ez00...@shep.ucdavis.edu
stuff deleted...
>I'm sorry, but I just can't see a modern car in stock configuration
>equalling the performance of the Cobra. My '89 GT Mustang (laugh if you
>want) which was "chipped" only, ATE Vettes, MR-2's, Porsches, 300ZXs, and
>a couple big block Camaros, but I doubt it would even come close. There is
>a lot to be said for the driver of the vehicle. I definitely got a quicker
...
I'm sure an F40 would come close. In fact, I'm sure it can do 0-100-0
in 13.8 sec. As I recall, it does 0-100 in around 10 sec. Its 60-0 braking
distances is one of the best for any stock car, past or present. (It's
got those pizza-sized disc brakes.) And how about a 959?
Now, a slightly tweaked F40 can do 0-100-0 in under 13.8 sec, for sure.
Some people have raised its boost pressure to get over 500bhp net.
Issa El-Hazin
>> Supra Cobra
>>----------------------------------------
>>1/4 mi 13.5/106.6 13.2/105.5
>>braking 60-0 109 feet 131 feet
>That's not the 427 Cobra S/C; it is quicker and faster than the
>regular street Cobras--they were, after all, race cars sold as street
>cars (basically).
From Car and Driver:
Cobra! The car you've lusted after... and how to satisfy your urge, 12/91.
Snakes Alive! Cobra Meets Viper, 7/92.
Shelby Cobra 427SC (1965)
--------------------------------------
0-60 4.1
0-100 10.1
1/4 mile 12.6 @ 110mph
Top speed 134.0 mph
Price (today) $500,000 (estimated)
Considering that the Cobra needs all 10 seconds (plus 0.1) to hit 100mph,
I am suspicious of the 0-100-0 in under 10 seconds claim. (I thought it
was supposed to be in under 15!!)
O.K., here is a small paragraph from Car and Driver 12/91 about this:
"Way back then, we pointed out that the 427 Cobra was the quickest car
in the world from 0-to-100 mph and back to 0. The Cobra we tested back
in '65 managed that feat in just 14.5 seconds. Today's more accurate,
computerized test gear would probably reveal that number as optimistic -
but not by much."
I'd guess, the Cobra would need to do 0-100mph in about 7 seconds to
accomplish the 0-100-0 in under 10 seconds and according to the above
numbers the 427SC [stock] didn't do it that fast.
(note: the above numbers are for the 427SC 427/428 cu in 7011cc real deal
Cobra and not for the small block 289 cu in 4728cc "street" version Cobra.)
Issa
Grayson Walker
>>What about stock exotics like: F40, Vector, XJ-220, McLaren F1,
>
>fact, all are semi (and I use the term loosely) sluggish in the low end
A
I guess it's all a matter of perspective. One of today's top rank F1 cars
will probably do 0-100-0 in the 4 second range. Similarly, the
0-150-0 will probably be on the order of 8 or 9 seconds. One may wish
to contrast this with a top fuel dragster with 0-300 <5 seconds and
probably 0-300-0 in perhaps 15 seconds. On the other hand, the F1 car
could do this trick continuously while the dragster could not.
--
FORZA!
GWA...@RTFM.MLB.FL.US "Big brown river. . ." Tuli Kupferberg, 1963
Sesh Murthy
|> Remember, we're talking 100-0 here;
|> the braking distances are going to be on the order of 350 feet or so,
|> extrapolating from known data (60-0mph and 80-0mph figures) and giving
|> them the benefit of superior braking.
|>
|> So, if we figure that it takes the Supra 12 seconds to hit 100mph
|> and 350 feet to stop from 100mph, we get a braking time of 2.37 seconds,
|> for a total elapsed time of 14.37 sec. Not bad, not bad at all.
|> Much closer than I thought.
(average) which is pretty close to 2g!!
Actually if you are calculating 350 feet to stop, then if you assume uniform
deceleration, then you will be decelerating at 9.5 m/s/s/ and
taking 4.8 seconds. Seems suspiciously like twice your figure.
Sesh Murthy
Ken Lui
>The vehicles you listed have nothing to do with 0-100-0 times, and in
>fact, all are semi (and I use the term loosely) sluggish in the low end
>and don't shine performance-wise until higher rates of speed are reached.
You have to remember the fact that those cars don't have any
emissions controls. In addition, today's cars are more
structurally sound and require conformance to government
regulations--whatever that means--and I'll assume (I know, a bad
thing to say) this adds more bulk than necessary to today's
cars. If emissions and crash-test safety aren't really an issue,
then let's take a look at race cars (F1, Indy, IMSA GTP, LeMans
cars--hmm, what's the correct term?). After all, that's where I
see this thread going. First the Cobra, then Ford GT-40s...
Let's check out a Vector W8 TwinTurbo as an example
(Road & Track 8/92):
0-100 8.3 seconds
60mph-0 145 ft = 3.30 sec
80mph-0 250 ft = 4.27 sec
100mph-0 (linear interpolation) 431 ft = 5.88 sec
I've only interpolated the distance required and recalculated
the seconds required.
The above times for 60 and 80mph to 0 times are assuming a
constant acceleration. I've never studied car mechanicals in
detail so I'm not certain if auto braking systems decelerate at a
constant _a_--correct me if I'm mistaken. I've used your
standard x = 1/2vt equation.
Total 0-100-0 14.18 seconds
Not bad, I would say. Given that the Jaguar XJ-220 does 0-100 in
7.5 seconds (Car 8/92) with less horsepower (542 versus 625 for
the W8), I'm assuming the Jag would be lighter, which translates
to less time to stop from 100-0.
I don't have a lot of specs on an F40, except from Road & Track's
summary:
1/4 mile 11.8 seconds
60mph-0 119 ft = 2.70 sec
I would really be interested to see how the '60s muscle cars
would do with today's emissions standards bolted on or remove the
stuff from the aformentioned cars and compare.
More than once, the subject of "performance" has been brought up;
and, I'll say again that performance is different depending on
who you're talking to. I'd like a slalom course set up with
0-100-0 as a more realistic "performance" comparison than a
straight-line 0-100-0 test. You've mentioned "fast" and
"quick"--I'd like to add "agile" to this list. Cars have come a
long way, and I would say that cars made today perform better
than their counterparts 30 years ago given consideration to
acceleration, deceleration, handling, safety, reliability, and
comfort.
Grayson Walker
but that was with Autostrada gearing for a 175+ top speed. With the
stock but optional tighter gearing, stock Daytona's would run 1-100 in
the 11 second range. 0-100-0 in less than 13.8 would have been very
doable for the stock Daytona.
The normal Daytona was the 365GTB/4. The lightweight and stock version
was the 365GTB/C. This car was more than 500 lbs lighter and made
an extra 75 bhp. Again, with the stock available short gearing, one of
these would pull the 0-100 into the 9 second range. With their extra
braking power and lighter weight, the 100-0 would have been quicker
than the ordinary 365GTB/4.
>But if we're limiting this to "stock" vehicles of the era, then my vote
>for similar performance would go to the '67 L88 Vette or the '69 L96 Camaro.
>Both had aluminum block 427's with similar performance to the Shelby Cobra.
The L88 would have to work very hard -- it's still 1,000 lbs heavier than
the Cobra. The Camaro - forget it - too heavy, inadequate brakes, and
archaic suspension.
The stock F40, with optional shorter gearing, would handily beat the time
of the Cobra. The F40 makes more power and has about the same weight,
plus better traction and brakes.
Roy Matthew Thigpen
In answer to your question, I remeber reading somewhere that the Viper
was made to try to break this record. As I recall, the best time they had
achieved at the time was 14.1 sec. They still have a ways to go....
.
JUDGE DREDD
An F1 doing 0-300-0... now that I'd like to see. As for the 0-100-0 in 4
seconds... NO WAY. I think you've got an overinflated opinion of the F1's
performance capabilities. Do you know what G forces the driver would be
subjected to in a 0-100-0 run in 4 seconds? Drive that top fuel dragster
some time... you'll see what G force is truly about. The dragster, by the
way, is NOT designed to stop quickly... it's designed accelerate VERY
quickly in a 1/4 mile, then use dual parachutes and braking to slow from
that rate of speed in another 1/2 mile... if it doesn't, then hello sand
pit... The F1 is designed to run at high rates of speed for long periods
of time, not to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible. I'd
like to see what 1/4 mile speed and time for an F1 would be... anyone have
that information?
Jim LaBreck - n874...@henson.cc.wwu.edu
av8r
> ji...@honeydew.cc.wwu.edu (Jim Moore) writes:
>
> >n874...@henson.cc.wwu.edu ( JUDGE DREDD) writes:
> >>high top speeds, the "super" cars have gearing and engines designed to be
> >>more effective at the top end, but not necessarily off the line. The 1/4
> >>mile times/speeds of most of the so-called "super" cars are pathetic.
> >I agree.
>
> Cool. :)
>
> >>All the vehicles I included in my follow-up were semi-cheap new, if not
> >>now. By comparison, IF you could find an original L88 aluminum block circa
> >Actually, the L88 had an iron block with aluminum heads, you might be thinki
> >of the ZL1. The ZL1 had an all aluminum block topped off by the L88's alumi
> >heads. note: 69 1969 ZL1 camaros were produced.
>
> My mistake. The L96 1969 Camaro had an aluminum block, the L88 had a 4 bolt
> main iron block. I have no clue what setup was included in the '69 ZL1, but
> I do know that only 14 L96 Camaros were produced, all on special order.
>
> >>1967, it would probably cost you five thousand dollars, and that's for the
> >>block alone.
> >At the puyallup corvette swap meet three years ago, there was a ZL1 engine w
> >a sold sign on it. Rumoured price, $12,000. This I heard from two independ
> >reliable sources. But with all swap meet stories, take this one with a grai
> >of salt.
>
> >>worse yet, the L96 '69 Camaro, of which only 14 were produced. The Vette
> >I'll be damned if I can find a definition of the L96 '69 camaro option, I'd
> >really like to know what it is.
>
> Limited edition model offered to dealers only. Comparable to the Yenko
> "super" Camaro of the same year. Vette engine designation, 4 speed M22 (?)
> Muncie transmission, and gearing somewhere in the 4's. I'll see if I can
> dig up more, if you want.
>
> >[stuff deleted]
> >>bred vehicle. Creature comforts were at a minimum, and no radio, heater, or
> >>other "excess" weight was included in the car. It was capable of "hazing"
> >>or breaking loose it's tires at 100 mph in 4th gear, and rated at what at
> >I think I hear an Aeorosmith song in the background(dream on, dream on... :-
> >I seriously doubt that this feat was possible, for one thing, 4th gear is a
> >ratio and let's say that the rear axle ratio is 4.56:1. With a tire height
> >26", the motor would be buzzing aprox. 5892rpms, at this point there isn't
> >a whole lot of engine left to produce the kind of power needed to break the
> >tires loose at this speed. Was it raining? :)
>
> Dunno. I think they were driving on wet leaves. :) Dealer propaganda? Could
> be...
>
> >>today's standards would be roughly 535 gross horsepower.
> >I'm not sure what you mean here. In standard trim the '68-'69 L88 42's that
> >were put into corvettes were rated at 435 horses, but this mill could be
> >modified to produce 535+hp.
>
> Rated at that era's standards, they were 435 horsepower. By today's
> standards, 535+hp at the flywheel. The big rat motors were generally under-
> rated in that day and age as well.
>
> >>In fact, my '67 Camaro, for which I had a grand total of about $14k investe
> >Is this car running around Bellingham? I sure would like to see it, I'll be
> >its's choice.
>
> Running around my hometown of Aberdeen, Washington, sporting a black and
> metallic blue Z-28 paint job, since it'd been through so many paint jobs
> since it's birth, and let's face it... Marina Blue is BORING. :)
> This is, of course, if the punk who bought it hasn't wrapped it around a
> telephone pole by now... it was a trifle too much for everyday driving and
> cars barking through the gears, loping to a heavy 302 duration intake and
> exhaust, and burbling contentedly through Hedmann headers and 18 inch glas-
> paks tend to draw attention from the local law enforcement. :) Can you guess
> why I got rid of it? Heh heh heh.
>
> >>different story. Whereas the Camaro, because of gearing and engine design,
> >>maxed out at around 150ish mph in 3rd gear @ ~8200 RPM, an F-40 is designed
> >8200!!!! geez, about 7500 I'd be gettin' worried, that's way over red line :
>
> For a stock engine. Bored and stroked to 383 cubic inches, fully rollerized
> (cam, lifters, rockers) Crane set up, and 2.02/1.59 Dart II heads ported and
> polished, let the thing breathe just a tad bit better than stock. I am
> fairly sure the 1967 Firebird 302 block was rated for max horsepower at
> 8600 RPM stock, so it's definitely possible, besides I saw it with my own
> eyes... I won't say that I wasn't beginning to float my valves tho... :)
>
> >>to come into it's own around the point that my Camaro would be getting shor
> >>of breath. The Camaro is "quick", the F-40 is "fast". There is no possible
> >>comparison.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (Great description!)
> >Agreed.
>
> Thanks, that's one distinction that really seperates the boys from the men.
> It takes massive amounts of horsepower to accomplish both, but the
> difference is in the gear ratios, and the suspension setup of the vehicle
> in question. The Camaro got superior traction due to a narrowed rear end,
> four link rear suspension with coil over shocks, and 10/90 drag shocks in
> front to transfer weight instantly to the rear, causing it to squat. Still
> had to heat the tires a bit to make 'em bite tho. It's high end speed was
> limited by that same gearing tho, and four link suspensions are mainly
> suited to straight line acceleration, not hard cornering. Thank God for
> air dams and rear spoilers, or I probably would have become air born at
> least once or twice. I did hear a rumour once that the stock Camaros ('67
> thru '69) were so unstable at high speeds, that if you were travelling
> alongside at say 120 mph and reached out and gave the door handle of the
> Camaro a good upward tug, it would roll the car... nice rumour. :)
>
> >>Jim LaBreck - n874...@henson.cc.wwu.edu
>
> >-Jim Moore ji...@henson.cc.wwu.edu
> > Hey!, I didn't know there was somebody else at Western th
> > was into cars. I thought everyone here was trying to out
> > my hobby :)
>
> >-'68 454 4spd camaro
> >-'68 400HO 4spd firebird
>
> Yep, unfortunately a long string of tickets forced me to get rid of all my
> toys... the Camaro, my "chipped" '89 Mustang GT, my Porsche 944...
> So now I've got to live with a '93 Mazda B2600i Cab Plus that probably has
> a top speed of 70something and a 0-60 time of 12.9 light years. However, I
> am considering the idea of dropping the drive train of a new Camaro into it
> just for laughs. :) Everything else is being so heavily modified that I
> might as well...
>
> If you think they're trying to outlaw you're hobby... check out the laws
> against mine (my main hobby, anyway) sometime... :)
>
> Jim LaBreck - n874...@henson.cc.wwu.edu
> Installer/Technician/System Designer/Salesman/Muscle Car Lover
> Can Am Mobile Audio Video - Bellingham, Washington
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I'm currently working on shoving sixteen Earthquake 12" subs and roughly
> 3000 watts into the truck, which was bought for demo purposes and stereo
> competing only. I would have opted for a nice 911 turbo, but I still have
> 3 tickets to wait out... *sigh*
>
> Have a good one.
I guarantee ya that if the Car and Driver guys were drving their own
cars, even in a aracem the time required to do ANYTHING would be a lot
slower. They majorly rag those cars to get the times that they do!
--
_______________________________________
\ |_| /
---|*|---
/ | \
O O O
l8r May your days be clear and tailwinds be strong
flyboy Altitude is your frined -- fly high!!
JUDGE DREDD
[My inarticulate ramblings deleted]
>I guarantee ya that if the Car and Driver guys were drving their own
>cars, even in a aracem the time required to do ANYTHING would be a lot
>slower. They majorly rag those cars to get the times that they do!
I'll agree that they probably wouldn't put their OWN cars through such
abuse, but sometimes I tend to think they could be pushing the cars they
test a little harder. If I remember correctly, my '89 Mustang GT 5.0 was
supposedly capable of a mid to low 13 second quarter mile. I _know_ I've
surpassed that performance, but my philosophy has always been:
"It's a unit. If it breaks, replace it." :)
>--
> _______________________________________
> \ |_| /
> ---|*|---
> / | \
> O O O
>l8r May your days be clear and tailwinds be strong
>flyboy Altitude is your frined -- fly high!!
Jim LaBreck - n874...@henson.cc.wwu.edu
cameron ing
: I recall seeing an old ad for the Shelby AC Cobra indicating
: the car (427cid) could accelerate from a dead-stop to
: 100mph and then come to a complete stop in 13.8 seconds.
:
: Have any of you out there with high-performance cars attempted
: to determine how well your car would perform such a test?
: If so, what was your time?
:
: jp
:
: -----------------------------------------------------------------------
: Opinions are those of j...@vllyoak.resun.com (Jeff Perry).
An article in an issue of Autocar (UK) last year had the Caterham Super 7
JPE do the exact same thing in roughly 12.7 seconds.
--
Cameron Ing
Internet: t921...@arcadia.cs.rmit.edu.au
James P. Callison
>call...@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (James P. Callison) writes:
>I believe the original Cobras are going
>for quite a bit higher than this, last I heard was in the $250k ballpark.
Somewhere around there; the last figures I saw predicted that the
427 Cobras would be nearing th $500,000 mark by the end of the
century...
>I suppose that in 1967 dollars, the Corvette would have been just as
>expensive as it would be today. Still a LOT cheaper than an F-40 or the XJ
>220...
Hmm...that says something in itself; the 'Vette is still about as
expensive as it was when new; the Cobra has appreciated astronomically...
;-)
>>Yes, you can consider the Cobra stock. Although it was limited production,
>>it was still a stock production car. There were a few non-stock Cobras,
>>but they were one-offs (like the Daytona Super coupe, which sported
>>a 500+hp 427, or the two "Cosby 200+mph" Cobras, or the only Shelby
>>Mustang coupe (a '67 'Stang coupe capable of "hazing" the tires at
>>100mph, which didn't even get a Shelby serial number)).
>
>I wouldn't consider it truly stock. Even if it was "factory" stock, it was
>still a highly specialized car, much like the 959 is today. I believe the
>Cobra was offered with three different engines, but I've never been a Ford
>buff, and tended to despise the Mustang line (Can you blame a Camaro owner?)
>The 427, the infamous 428 Cobra Jet, and a 429 of some flavor or other.
The original Cobra had a 260, but most had the 260 replaced with a
289. These leaf-spring Cobras were quite impressive (in their first
race, a 289 Cobra opened up a 1/4mi. lead on the 'Vettes it was racing
against before it broke a half-shaft), but they aren't the Cobras
that posted the serious numbers; those were the 427 Cobras, which were
coil-sprung big-block beasts with Ford 427 NASCAR engines--although
some had 428s while the 427s were in short supply.
The 428CJ/SCJ and the 429s didn't exist until '69 ('68?), while
Shelby ceased Cobra production in '67 (or was it '65?). The
aforementioned Shelby Daytona Super Coupe was slated to be the next
generation Cobra, but Shelby went with Ford on the GT program, so the
Cobras ended...
>I think my version of stock would consist of a mass produced factory vehicle
>with comfort options. Neither the Cobra or the L88 Vette had much interior
>wise. I also believe there were three models of Shelby Mustang coupe, with
>the 500something being the rarest and therefor the most valuable.
There were _no_ Shelby Mustang Coupes (other than "Little Red,"
a '67 test car, which didn't get a Shelby number); the Shelby American
GT-350/GT-500 'Stangs were all either fastbacks or convertibles.
There were the GT-350, the GT-350R (raced by the Shelby American
team; there were 33 built in '65), GT-350H (for Hertz, they were
rental vehicles), GT-500, and GT-500KR (King of the Road; they were
named such to steal the thunder of GM's planned Camaro "King of the Road" :-).
Most of the Cobras were produced for street consumption. If that's
not stock production, I don't know what is...
Grayson Walker
>gwa...@rtfm.mlb.fl.us (Grayson Walker) writes:
>
>>I guess it's all a matter of perspective. One of today's top rank F1 cars
>>will probably do 0-100-0 in the 4 second range. Similarly, the
>>0-150-0 will probably be on the order of 8 or 9 seconds. One may wish
>>to contrast this with a top fuel dragster with 0-300 <5 seconds and
>>probably 0-300-0 in perhaps 15 seconds. On the other hand, the F1 car
>>could do this trick continuously while the dragster could not.
>>--
>
>seconds... NO WAY. I think you've got an overinflated opinion of the F1's
Do a little reading. You'll understand. One of today's F1 cars is also
theoretically capable of driving across the ceiling -- of course one
probably couldn't make the initial start.
The Top Fuel has little choice about making a stop fairly quickly. They
deploy the chutes and stop. If they don't stop, they run off the end
of the track.
Not too long ago, Road & Track had Phil Hill drive a late 1970's F1
Ferrari. The 1/4 was something less than 9.5 seconds in the mid 150s.
Phil complained that the car was bogging on the line because it had
long course gearing. This was the older 3.0 liter atmospheric F1. Today,
the cars are 3.5 Litres and make a bit more power than WAY back in the
1970s. More recently, R&T drove a Benetton-Hart (1.5l turbo). It was
a bit quicker in acceleration than the old Ferrari.
At the peak of the turbo era, the qualifying engines made 1500 bhp and
moved around a car weighing about 1250 lbs. Today's weights are just
a bit higher but power is down to around 800-900 (If you're lucky
enough to have a Renault).
Silver spoon, and a paper plate. How sad.
>In article <ereddy.740407237@morgan> ere...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Ed Reddy)
writes:>>Yeah. The new Toyota Supra Turbo.
>>(Or the mini F-40?)
>The Toy Supra Turbo turns in a quarter mile of 12-ish seconds at 100-110mph,
>right? So, you're saying that it came come to a dead halt from 100mph
>in under 4 seconds (being generous, and figuring that it took two
>seconds to get from 100 to 110, or whatever the top speed was).
>Uh-huh. Sure. And I've got 100 acres of prime ocean front property
>in suburban Phoenix for sale cheap.
I think you've got the wrong Supra. He's talking about the 94 dual
turbo. 0-60 in 5.2 seconds (or something like that) blows away
the Rx7, corvette, and just about any other car, even many
costing twice its $38K tag.
Top speed is estimated to easily be over 180mph.
Ron
Silver spoon, and a paper plate. How sad.
>I'm sorry, but I just can't see a modern car in stock configuration
>equalling the performance of the Cobra. My '89 GT Mustang (laugh if you
>want) which was "chipped" only, ATE Vettes, MR-2's, Porsches, 300ZXs, and
>a couple big block Camaros, but I doubt it would even come close. There is
>a lot to be said for the driver of the vehicle. I definitely got a quicker
>quarter mile out of the 'Stang than the boys at Ford said it was capable
>of.
I forgot to add some others in my last post about the 94 Supra Dual Turbo:
Ruff Turbo 911
Porsche 930 Turbo
Porsche 959
various other assorted exotics, mostly from Europe.
(Renault Alpine?)
(You gotta admit, Hyundia, being what it is, has an exotic looking
HDL [that is its designation, I think] with a power plant
to boot)
Ron
ez00...@elroy.ucdavis.edu
>
>I forgot to add some others in my last post about the 94 Supra Dual Turbo:
>
>Ruff Turbo 911
>Porsche 930 Turbo
>Porsche 959
>various other assorted exotics, mostly from Europe.
>(Renault Alpine?)
>
If I understand you right, you are saying that a 94 Supra can beat a 959?????!
!!!!?!??!??!!
And various assorted exotics? Certainly not a Diablo, XJ220, or F40.
Not a twin-turbo Ruf 911, either.
Those cars do 0-60 in the high 3 sec to low 4 second range. The Supra
cannot be compared to those cars, as a buyer who is considering an F40
or a Diablo wouldn't even look twice at a Supra (or RX7 or 300ZX or LT1).
They are not in the same class.
171...@msu.edu
You car guys need to get out more. Most any Japanese 650 or 750 motorcycle
will do the 0-100-0 in the 13.0 sec time limit. The big sports bikes will
probably do the deed in 10 seconds if you can find a way to hang on. Plus
they corner better than anything mentioned (other than maybe the F1 cars)
AND cost less than $10000. Take your wimpy cars and go home to play with
them.
Roger Hupfauer - AutoCAD QA Ext. 4487
> can't truly have both qualities, although there is a median where the
> compromise isn't as great. It's all in the gearing. I once read that in a
> super car challenge, most of the "super" cars broke down or failed to break
> the 170 mph barrier... the winner? A 206 MPH 1969 Camaro. :)
>
highway. Of all the cars (Porsche, Corvettes, Ferrari, Mustang, Jags, BMWs,
MB) the winner was R.J. Gotteliebs (sp?) '69 Camaro called Big Red. Undoubtly
the baddest '69 Camaro ever. Top speed on the straight aways was 220 mph! Blew
everyone else away, including his dad's vette. You can purchase the tape of this
event at any Grand Auto or Kragen. This may be what your are refering to above.
SGT. ROCK
You are correct, the majority of street bikes will out-accelerate the
majority of sports cars, but what happens to your wimpy bike when one
of our wimpy cars runs into it??? :) Just for your info, my Camaro
equalled the acceleration of a 650 Honda Interceptor from a rolling
30 mph start... I was just pulling away when I saw the squad car in
my rear-view mirror. :)
The Honda CBR 900RR is argueably the quickest bike on the market, as
opposed to the Kawasaki ZX-11 Ninja which is arguably the fastest. The
900RR in stock configuration is capable of a 9 second quarter mile...
IF you can hold on. I'm sure they're both capable of astonishing 0-100-
0 times, but that wasn't the point of this thread, was it. Once again,
we're comparing apples to oranges...
Jim LaBreck - n874...@henson.cc.wwu.edu
Ken Lui
>> I once read that in a
>> super car challenge, most of the "super" cars broke down or failed to break
>> the 170 mph barrier... the winner? A 206 MPH 1969 Camaro. :)
>the baddest '69 Camaro ever. Top speed on the straight aways was 220 mph!
This was 3 years ago. The R.J. Gottlieb Big Red with 800+
horsepower finished averaging 189.25mph with a top speed of
208mph. "Turbo & Hi-Tech Performance" 11/91.
The next year's event was cancelled when Terry Herman died while
driving a highly-modified Porsche. It reached speeds approaching
240mph before it left the road. Terry was a driving instructor
and an ex-Daytona winner. "Turbo & Hi-Tech Performance"
9/92.
Last year's event was won by Charles Wilson in a '71 Pantera with
an average speed of 173.08mph. "Turbo & Hi-Tech Performance"
3/93.
Ken
--
Kenneth K.F. Lui, kl...@corp.hp.com 3000 Hanover Street M/S 20BJ
Corporate Financial Systems Palo Alto, CA 94304-1112 USA
Dennis Lou
In article <20...@autodesk.COM>, rog...@autodesk.com
|> highway. Of all the cars (Porsche, Corvettes, Ferrari, Mustang, Jags, BMWs,
|> MB) the winner was R.J. Gotteliebs (sp?) '69 Camaro called Big Red. Undoubtly
|> the baddest '69 Camaro ever. Top speed on the straight aways was 220 mph! Blew
|> everyone else away, including his dad's vette. You can purchase the tape of this
|> event at any Grand Auto or Kragen. This may be what your are refering to above.
I remember reading about this event in Motor Trend. From what I gather,
almost anyone can enter almost any car. Anyone have any info on this?
It'd be interesting to see how fast my '81 Accord can make the run :-)
Or maybe I can talk my cousin into entering his 911SC :-)
--
Dennis Lou || "But Yossarian, what if everyone thought that way?"
dl...@ucsd.edu || "Then I'd be crazy to think any other way!"
[backbone]!ucsd!dlou |+====================================================
dl...@ucsd.BITNET |Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak went to my high school.
--
Dennis Lou || "But Yossarian, what if everyone thought that way?"
dl...@ucsd.edu || "Then I'd be crazy to think any other way!"
[backbone]!ucsd!dlou |+====================================================
dl...@ucsd.BITNET |Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak went to my high school.
Issa El-Hazin
Oh, don't give me that implication about the car being a trasnportation
device for the body while the motorcycle cary the soul. Trust me, a lot
of cars today feel as good as motorcyles when pushed (while giving the
driver the benefit of [more] saftey when 'others make mistakes.) You
wouldn't know anything about that since you probably need to get out
more often :)
A car don't have to be able to out accelerate/corner a motorcycle to
give you similar kind of rush when you push it. (and of course, you
can drive a car year round and while it is snowing/raining... )
Issa
Bob Pitas
>
>An F1 doing 0-300-0... now that I'd like to see. As for the 0-100-0 in 4
>seconds... NO WAY. I think you've got an overinflated opinion of the F1's
>subjected to in a 0-100-0 run in 4 seconds? Drive that top fuel dragster
>some time... you'll see what G force is truly about. The dragster, by the
>way, is NOT designed to stop quickly... it's designed accelerate VERY
>quickly in a 1/4 mile, then use dual parachutes and braking to slow from
>that rate of speed in another 1/2 mile... if it doesn't, then hello sand
>pit... The F1 is designed to run at high rates of speed for long periods
>of time, not to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible. I'd
>like to see what 1/4 mile speed and time for an F1 would be... anyone have
>that information?
>
>Jim LaBreck - n874...@henson.cc.wwu.edu
Some magazine or other did just such a test last year. They took an F1 and
put it through the same tests they put new cars through. The 1/4 for the
car was pretty bad, like high 12s to low 13s. The braking generated over
1G though, and I think I remember it stopping from 60 in like 60+ feet...
(A new RX7 or Z28 or Vette will be in the 105-120' range)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
___
/ _ \ '85 Mustang GT Bob Pitas
/ /USH 14.13 @ 99.8 bp...@ctp.com
/ /| \ Up at NED, Epping, NH (Cambridge, MA)
"" - Geddy Lee (in YYZ)
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, obviously, since they end with my .sig!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Keller
>171...@msu.edu writes:
>
>>
>>You car guys need to get out more. Most any Japanese 650 or 750 motorcycle
>>will do the 0-100-0 in the 13.0 sec time limit. The big sports bikes will
>>probably do the deed in 10 seconds if you can find a way to hang on. Plus
>>they corner better than anything mentioned (other than maybe the F1 cars)
>>AND cost less than $10000. Take your wimpy cars and go home to play with
>>them.
>
>You are correct, the majority of street bikes will out-accelerate the
>majority of sports cars, but what happens to your wimpy bike when one
>of our wimpy cars runs into it??? :) Just for your info, my Camaro
>equalled the acceleration of a 650 Honda Interceptor from a rolling
>30 mph start... I was just pulling away when I saw the squad car in
>my rear-view mirror. :)
Let's see, most big bore sport bikes 0 to 30 < 1 sec.
0 to 60 < 3 sec.
0 to 100 < 6 sec
This is of course with professional riders at the track, and the best
of the runs. But even without trying too hard you can do 0-60 in less
that 4 seconds. Your Camaro wouldn't stand a chance against a modern
big bore bike. The power/weight is just too good for the bike.
I am sure that your Camaro is a fast *car*. Is it street legal???
Just don't race a ZX11 for pink slips.
>
>The Honda CBR 900RR is argueably the quickest bike on the market, as
>opposed to the Kawasaki ZX-11 Ninja which is arguably the fastest. The
>900RR in stock configuration is capable of a 9 second quarter mile...
>IF you can hold on. I'm sure they're both capable of astonishing 0-100-
>0 times, but that wasn't the point of this thread, was it. Once again,
>we're comparing apples to oranges...
>
So go out and spend another $5K and get a mister turbo kit for the ZX-11
and it will turn a 9 sec quarter mile and have a top speed of 215!
And not only that, it will perform quite well for commuting and city driving.
Now where were we?
Was the 959 faster than the Diablo, or was the Viper overpriced???
Stephen Derrick Miller
John R. Daker
In a previous article, n874...@henson.cc.wwu.edu (SGT. ROCK) says:
>171...@msu.edu writes:
>
>>
>>You car guys need to get out more. Most any Japanese 650 or 750 motorcycle
>>will do the 0-100-0 in the 13.0 sec time limit. The big sports bikes will
>>probably do the deed in 10 seconds if you can find a way to hang on. Plus
>>they corner better than anything mentioned (other than maybe the F1 cars)
>>AND cost less than $10000. Take your wimpy cars and go home to play with
>>them.
>
>You are correct, the majority of street bikes will out-accelerate the
>majority of sports cars, but what happens to your wimpy bike when one
>of our wimpy cars runs into it??? :) Just for your info, my Camaro
>equalled the acceleration of a 650 Honda Interceptor from a rolling
>30 mph start... I was just pulling away when I saw the squad car in
>my rear-view mirror. :)
A Honda 650 Interceptor, eh? A custom job? A figment of your imagination?
But, I know what you mean. I let people in cages (cars for the ignorant)
feel like they're a match for me 'n my bike. Especially Camaro drivers.
Hey, if it make syou feel macho to _think_ you can out accelerate a motorcycle,
what do I really care?
--
DoD #650<----------------------------------------------------------->DarkMan
The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of
thinking we were at when we created them. - Albert Einstein
___________________The Eternal Champion_________________
Tim Keller
>In article <issa.740732661@cwis>, is...@cwis.unomaha.edu (Issa El-Hazin) writes:
>> 171...@msu.edu writes:
>>
>>>
>>>You car guys need to get out more. Most any Japanese 650 or 750 motorcycle
>>>will do the 0-100-0 in the 13.0 sec time limit. The big sports bikes will
>>>probably do the deed in 10 seconds if you can find a way to hang on. Plus
>>>they corner better than anything mentioned (other than maybe the F1 cars)
>>>AND cost less than $10000. Take your wimpy cars and go home to play with
>>>them.
>>
>>
>> Oh, don't give me that implication about the car being a trasnportation
>> device for the body while the motorcycle cary the soul. Trust me, a lot
>> of cars today feel as good as motorcyles when pushed (while giving the
Not even close. Take a litre bike for a ride sometime, and I mean you have
to ride the thing for 6 months before you can really use the upper range
of the tach. I've ridden in supercharged Z28's, Porche 928's, to mention
2 fast cars. There is nothing in a street legal, or even borderline legal
car that even comes close to a bike. Whack the throttle open on the freeway
and fast forward the scenery without even downshifting. Drop it down
a couple of gears and pull the front wheel off the ground from 55mph.
Hold it for 3 seconds and you are going 90. Keep it spinning near red
line and you'll be doing 140 (170 on a ZX11) before you can say "Holy shit
this thing is fast!!"
The bike accelerates as fast from 60-100 as it does from 0-60.
Want to merge onto the freeway from a dead stop? No problem, open the
throttle up, keep in first gear until 60, you'll get there in about
3 seconds.
>> driver the benefit of [more] saftey when 'others make mistakes.) You
>> wouldn't know anything about that since you probably need to get out
>> more often :)
>>
>> A car don't have to be able to out accelerate/corner a motorcycle to
>> give you similar kind of rush when you push it. (and of course, you
>> can drive a car year round and while it is snowing/raining... )
>>
I can ride my bike year round, but I'm in Hawaii. If you have ever
seen the Star Trek movies, when they engage warp drive, and everything
blurs as the ship accelerates, that is how it feels when you open up
a litre bike. You really need to experience it, because even riders
of smaller bikes have no idea of what it is like. Trust me :-).
TJK
'85 FJ1100 "The Beast"
Silver spoon, and a paper plate. How sad.
>From: ez00...@elroy.ucdavis.edu ( )
>Subject: Re: 0-100-0 in 13.8 seconds, what's your time?
>Date: 21 Jun 93 23:14:20 GMT
>In article <bense.202...@oasys.dt.navy.mil> be...@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Silver spoon, and a paper plate. How sad.) writes:
>If I understand you right, you are saying that a 94 Supra can beat a
959?????!>!!!!?!??!??!!
No, I was listing some other cars that qualified to be considered
for this thread. Namely, stock (mostly stock) cars capable, perhaps, of
making the 0-100-0 qualification. I believe the Ruf Turbo 911 is the
fastest (or just barely the second fastest) car in the world from
0-60 that you can buy as a pseudo-production car. (ie., you can get
them brand new from the place of manufacture, even though it is
an add-on process)
Ron
SGT. ROCK
>In article <1993Jun22....@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n874...@henson.cc.wwu.edu (SGT. ROCK) writes:
>>171...@msu.edu writes:
>>
>>>You car guys need to get out more. Most any Japanese 650 or 750 motorcycle
>>>will do the 0-100-0 in the 13.0 sec time limit. The big sports bikes will
>>>probably do the deed in 10 seconds if you can find a way to hang on. Plus
>>>they corner better than anything mentioned (other than maybe the F1 cars)
>>>AND cost less than $10000. Take your wimpy cars and go home to play with
>>>them.
>>
>>You are correct, the majority of street bikes will out-accelerate the
>>majority of sports cars, but what happens to your wimpy bike when one
>>of our wimpy cars runs into it??? :) Just for your info, my Camaro
>>equalled the acceleration of a 650 Honda Interceptor from a rolling
>>30 mph start... I was just pulling away when I saw the squad car in
>>my rear-view mirror. :)
>Let's see, most big bore sport bikes 0 to 30 < 1 sec.
> 0 to 60 < 3 sec.
> 0 to 100 < 6 sec
>This is of course with professional riders at the track, and the best
>of the runs. But even without trying too hard you can do 0-60 in less
>that 4 seconds. Your Camaro wouldn't stand a chance against a modern
>big bore bike. The power/weight is just too good for the bike.
>I am sure that your Camaro is a fast *car*. Is it street legal???
>Just don't race a ZX11 for pink slips.
No, my Camaro wouldn't stand a chance against a big bore bike. The bike
in question was a 650 Interceptor, not exactly the fastest or quickest
bike in it's class (not even close) but still fairly quick to accelerate.
The Camaro, god bless it's departed soul (sold), was barely street legal,
and I was harrassed continually by the local law enforcement. I believe
that in the state of Washington (I have no idea what other state laws say)
that the most horsepower you can legally street is 700. My friend with the
8-71 blown 496 '68 Camaro was given a worse time than I was, and eventually
had to restrict his engine so much (it dyno'd at 1100 horsepower) that it
ran like crap and stumbled due to it's dual Holley Dominator setup.
>>The Honda CBR 900RR is argueably the quickest bike on the market, as
>>opposed to the Kawasaki ZX-11 Ninja which is arguably the fastest. The
>>900RR in stock configuration is capable of a 9 second quarter mile...
>>IF you can hold on. I'm sure they're both capable of astonishing 0-100-
>>0 times, but that wasn't the point of this thread, was it. Once again,
>>we're comparing apples to oranges...
>So go out and spend another $5K and get a mister turbo kit for the ZX-11
>and it will turn a 9 sec quarter mile and have a top speed of 215!
>And not only that, it will perform quite well for commuting and city driving.
>Now where were we?
>Was the 959 faster than the Diablo, or was the Viper overpriced???
Heh heh. I've learned enough on rec.autos not to touch a statement like that
with a 10 foot pole... the view is great, but crucifixion still SUCKS. :)
Jim LaBreck - n874...@henson.cc.wwu.edu
SGT. ROCK
>In a previous article, n874...@henson.cc.wwu.edu (SGT. ROCK) says:
>>171...@msu.edu writes:
>>>You car guys need to get out more. Most any Japanese 650 or 750 motorcycle
>>>will do the 0-100-0 in the 13.0 sec time limit. The big sports bikes will
>>>probably do the deed in 10 seconds if you can find a way to hang on. Plus
>>>they corner better than anything mentioned (other than maybe the F1 cars)
>>>AND cost less than $10000. Take your wimpy cars and go home to play with
>>>them.
>>You are correct, the majority of street bikes will out-accelerate the
>>majority of sports cars, but what happens to your wimpy bike when one
>>of our wimpy cars runs into it??? :) Just for your info, my Camaro
>>equalled the acceleration of a 650 Honda Interceptor from a rolling
>>30 mph start... I was just pulling away when I saw the squad car in
>>my rear-view mirror. :)
>A Honda 650 Interceptor, eh? A custom job? A figment of your imagination?
Nope, just a stock 650 Interceptor, and nope, definitely not a figment of my
imagination, I know the guy who owns it. It did surprise the shit out of me,
but then again, the dual strips of black coming out from under a rolling car
probably scared the shit out of those behind me, especially when the rear
end kicked as first gear hit like a freight train...
>But, I know what you mean. I let people in cages (cars for the ignorant)
>feel like they're a match for me 'n my bike. Especially Camaro drivers.
>Hey, if it make syou feel macho to _think_ you can out accelerate a motorcycle,
>what do I really care?
Well, I don't have to _think_ I did it, and no I didn't really feel macho at
the time. Too bad I don't have the car anymore, maybe you could come over
for a ride... roll at about 30 miles per hour, you can lean forward if you
want, and then I'll slam 1st gear... then we'll go to the hospital to see
about your back.
I never said it was a match for the big street bikes, but if you don't
believe that the acceleration in a pro street vehicle can equal that of a
lower displacement street bike, then you're ignorant. If you don't believe
that the acceleration of a pro street vehicle can snap you back in your
seat so hard that you'll have bruises the next day, then you're just plain
stupid. Apparently you know nothing about pro street vehicles. One listen
to my engine loping away and a rear-end view of the "Sticky Mickey's"
under the rear end, and most people would say "no thank you, sir". Just
because it looks like a '67 Camaro doesn't mean it isn't capable of warp
speed... remember that. Now if it was an IROC, _then_ I'd understand your
statement about Camaros... :)
>--
>DoD #650<----------------------------------------------------------->DarkMan
> The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of
> thinking we were at when we created them. - Albert Einstein
> ___________________The Eternal Champion_________________
Jim LaBreck - n874...@henson.cc.wwu.edu
John Navitsky
think of the Peter Farrell Supercars RX-7. I saw an artical in the April,
'93 issue of Automobile and knew that it was *the* car. Hopefully someday
I'll be able to get one. I've added the basic specs to the table below
and some specs below. Any thoughts? How would it do on the 0-100-0 test?
Anybody have one of these? Driven one? Ridden in one? Touched one? Seen
one? I'm not obsessing am I?! :-) Anyone have additional specs?
In article <> n874...@henson.cc.wwu.edu (JUDGE DREDD) writes:
>call...@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (James P. Callison) writes:
>>>I don't know about that... It may well be able to do it if only because
>>>of its superior braking.
>>>The Supra is not that far off the mark performance wise...
>>>6/93 Motortrend:
>>>
>>> Supra Cobra [Peter Farrell Supercars RX-7]
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>1/4 mi 13.5/106.6 13.2/105.5 12.9/109
>>>braking 60-0 109 feet 131 feet 115 feet**
** Stock RX-7 figure. The PFS RX-7 has larger Brembo brakes and larger,
wider tires.
>>So, if we figure that it takes the Supra 12 seconds to hit 100mph
>>and 350 feet to stop from 100mph, we get a braking time of 2.37 seconds,
>>for a total elapsed time of 14.37 sec. Not bad, not bad at all.
>>Much closer than I thought.
Peter Farrell Supercars RX-7
330 bhp @ 6500 rpm
torque SAE net 265 lb-ft. @ 4300 rpm
0-60 4.6 sec.
1/4 mi. 12.9 sec @ 109 mph
top 167 (I'd rather a "quick" to fast)
$48,850 as tested conguration (April '93 Automobile)
"Stock" RX-7 numbers - taken from Motor Trend, vol 44, no 8
(just for fun)
60-0 115 feet
.94g skidpad
67.1 mpg slalom
0-60 5.4
1/4 mi. 14.00 @ 102.3
255 bhp @ 6500
217 @ 5000
--
,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,
,`,`John Navitsky`,`,`,`,`Exercise a right today,`,`,`,`,jo...@eskimo.com`,`,
,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,
Shazad Barlas
>turbo. 0-60 in 5.2 seconds (or something like that) blows away
>the Rx7, corvette, and just about any other car, even many
>costing twice its $38K tag.
>
>Top speed is estimated to easily be over 180mph.
>
>Ron
Hey! I wanna car like that!
Andrew Lavigne
ak...@yfn.ysu.edu (John R. Daker) writes:
>>In a previous article, n874...@henson.cc.wwu.edu (SGT. ROCK) says:
>>>171...@msu.edu writes:
< ... stuff deleted ...>
>>>You are correct, the majority of street bikes will out-accelerate the
>>>majority of sports cars, but what happens to your wimpy bike when one
>>>of our wimpy cars runs into it??? :) Just for your info, my Camaro
>>>equalled the acceleration of a 650 Honda Interceptor from a rolling
>>>30 mph start... I was just pulling away when I saw the squad car in
>>>my rear-view mirror. :)
>
>>A Honda 650 Interceptor, eh? A custom job? A figment of your imagination?
>
>Nope, just a stock 650 Interceptor, and nope, definitely not a figment of my
>imagination, I know the guy who owns it. It did surprise the shit out of me,
>but then again, the dual strips of black coming out from under a rolling car
>probably scared the shit out of those behind me, especially when the rear
>end kicked as first gear hit like a freight train...
I think what he's trying to say is that there is no such thing as a 650
Interceptor, and if this guy had one, 'stock', as you put it, he was lying.
Interceptors came in 500, 750, and 1000 cc sizes. No 650.
Andrew
alav...@bnr.ca
SGT. ROCK
>< ... stuff deleted ...>
We already settled this off camera, but just for everyone else's
information, the bike said Honda on it, it was red, white, and blue, said
VF Interceptor on it, and unless my memory is faulty had a 650 plastered
on it somewhere. I was unaware that this wasn't a stock configuration,
and never entertained the thought that this guy might have plastered that
sticker on himself, just like those mini truck idiots who put 500SL tags
on their trucks. :) gold plated, no less.
>Andrew
>alav...@bnr.ca
Jim LaBreck - n874...@henson.cc.wwu.edu
Albion H. Bowers
In a previous article, j...@vllyoak.resun.com (Jeff Perry) says:
>I recall seeing an old ad for the Shelby AC Cobra indicating
>the car (427cid) could accelerate from a dead-stop to
>100mph and then come to a complete stop in 13.8 seconds.
Actually, it was bettered by a 427 Cobra with modern rubber on it. I think
the new record was like 13.47 seconds...
>Have any of you out there with high-performance cars attempted
>to determine how well your car would perform such a test?
>If so, what was your time?
Ducati: about 13 seconds flat.
Alfa Romeo: about 27 seconds.
Kinda hard to run the stopwatch and drive/ride at the same time while doing
this... :-)
[kids, don't try this at home...]
--
Al Bowers DOD #900 Alfa Ducati Hobie Kottke 'blad Iaido
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Dryden Flight Research Facility
Lead Aero F-18 HARV Chief Engineer SR-71 work: bow...@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov
"Take up an attitude with the sun behind you..." -Miyamoto Musashi
Albion H. Bowers
In a previous article, RZA...@email.sps.mot.com (Jim Chott) says:
>In article <wgoa6B...@vllyoak.resun.com>, j...@vllyoak.resun.com (Jeff
>Perry) wrote:
>> I recall seeing an old ad for the Shelby AC Cobra indicating
>> the car (427cid) could accelerate from a dead-stop to
>> 100mph and then come to a complete stop in 13.8 seconds.
>Hot Rod magazine did a shootout of about 25 cars a few years ago
>for the 0-100-0 thing. Nothing came close to the Cobra. They
>tested a Calloway Vette, a Ferrari of some type, Mustangs, a wide
>variety of cars. Some took >20 seconds, with the next best in the
>16-17 second range if I remember right.
A Ferrari F40 should be able to do it in less than 12 seconds. Anyone have
one just laying around they'd like to check out in this sort of test? ;-)
Unknown
Hmmmmm,
rec.autos?
$0.02
;^)
Ericy
Gareth Husbands
(none of the seem to do 0-100-0 tests) figures of modern high performance
road cars, these are some that I found :-
Westfield 330V8 ,4.3 litre V8, 0-60 3.6s, 0-100 7.7s
New Aston Martin Vantage 5.4 litre twin Supercharged V8
0-60 4.6s, 0-100 10.1s
Porsche 959 ,2.85 litre twin turbo, 0-60 3.7s, 0-100 8.3s, 0-125 12.8s
The new aston also has the largest front brake discs in production at
14' in diameter and 12.25' at the rear aswell as ABS
rich...@sdl.ug.eds.com
>>>It did surprise the shit out of me,
>>>but then again, the dual strips of black coming out from under a rolling car
>>>probably scared the shit out of those behind me, especially when the rear
>>>end kicked as first gear hit like a freight train...
>
Now please excuse my ignorance (I'm English, and don't know a lot about your
`muscle cars'), but I find this hard to believe. The car being talked about is
(if I remember correctly) a Camaro. Admittedly I don't know what engine this'll
have in it, or indeed what kind of transmission it has, but the thought of
dropping into first gear at 30mph (which was what the guy said he was cruising
at when this occurence took place), and then still having enough torque left to
spin what I'd guess are pretty thick wheels, amazes me.
Can this be right? :)
Rich
--
Richard King [ Internet: rich...@sdl.mdcbbs.com ]
David Lin
#Now please excuse my ignorance (I'm English, and don't know a lot about your
#`muscle cars'), but I find this hard to believe. The car being talked about is
#(if I remember correctly) a Camaro. Admittedly I don't know what engine this'll
#have in it, or indeed what kind of transmission it has, but the thought of
#dropping into first gear at 30mph (which was what the guy said he was cruising
#at when this occurence took place), and then still having enough torque left to
#spin what I'd guess are pretty thick wheels, amazes me.
#
#Can this be right? :)
YES!!
If this Camaro has the same engine, tranny, and performance rear gear ratio
with my ex-Trans Am, it can go up to 40 mph in the first gear. The engine
touches the red line at 5500 rpm. Driving at 30 mph in the first gear will
rev the engine to (30/40)*5500=4125 rpm. So that still leaves the engine
plenty of torque to spin the tires. Now, that is assuming this Camaro has
a perfermance rear gear ratio. If it doesn't have the perfermance rear
gear ratio, it can go faster than 40mph in the first gear. ( Note: For
those who want to get a Camaro/Firebird, do get the performance rear
gear ratio. You will be happy that you have it, especially when a Mustang
is revving at you at a stop light. :)
David
--
K. David Lin, Ph.D. | IEEE & NRA Member, KD6EYN, 'Vette LT1 Owner
Information Services | "If 'Vettes were outlawed, only outlaws
U S WEST Advanced Technologies | would have 'Vettes."
E-mail: kd...@advtech.uswest.com | Defend your life in STEREO - Beretta & SIG
Ken Lui
>The new aston also has the largest front brake discs in production at
>14' in diameter and 12.25' at the rear aswell as ABS
It needs it because it's so damn heavy. I don't remember the
figures, but it was close to 4000lbs or some outrageous figure.
Robert Ansaldo
> <stuff deleted>
>
> The new aston also has the largest front brake discs in production at
> 14' in diameter and 12.25' at the rear aswell as ABS
Fourteen feet and twelve feet in diameter!?!?! Wow. How big are the tires?
:^) sorry...I couldn't resist.
JUDGE DREDD
>Wads deleted...
Sure is. 475 horsepower and 520 ft/lbs torque (dyno'd) will do funny things
to a vehicle when it is applied forcefully. The engine in question was a
tunnel-rammed 383 stroker (400 crank and rods in a 350 block) with a bullet
proof TurboHydromatic 350 automatic transmission (converted to manual valve
body, and with B&M transbrake and B&M "strip" shift kit installed) to back
it up. The rear end is/was a 12 bolt posi-traction unit rolling 4.11 gears
and turning Mickey Thompson sportsmans on 15 x 14 Centerline rims. The car
was indeed a Camaro, 1967 RS/SS to be exact, but as you can see, nowhere
near it's stock configuration... what we in the states call Pro Street. 520
ft/lbs of torque will pull houses down, let alone break wide tires loose
under a fairly light vehicle, especially when applied almost all at once.
I eventually snapped the rear-end yoke, behind the U-joints in the same
manner, and that's a fairly beefy chunk of metal. I have another friend with
a tunnel-rammed 470 in a '69 Chevelle running the Mickey Thompson sportsman
I-treads, and he sheared 5 teeth of his gears hammering his throttle in the
same manner. It's possible, believe me it's possible.
Another story you may also call "bullshit" on happened when I was telling
my now brother-in-law but then friend that my transmission was bullet proof.
I told him I could jam the transmission into reverse at 30 mph forward
motion and we'd break traction, slow to a stop, and eventually begin smoking
in reverse. He, of course (needless to say, and don't try this at home)
didn't believe me. There's a perfect J-shaped "candy cane" burnout on his
street that is still there to this day, and the car performed exactly as I
had expected. Not something I'd do everyday, but if you understood my "It's
a unit, if it breaks, replace it" moto, you'd understand why I put my car
through this kind of abuse. Not especially bright, but hey, I have fun. :)
Jim LaBreck - n874...@henson.cc.wwu.edu
JUDGE DREDD
>In article <1993Jun25...@sdl.ug.eds.com> rich...@sdl.ug.eds.com writes:
>#Now please excuse my ignorance (I'm English, and don't know a lot about your
>#`muscle cars'), but I find this hard to believe. The car being talked about is
>#(if I remember correctly) a Camaro. Admitedly I don't know what engine this'll
>#have in it, or indeed what kind of transmission it has, but the thought of
>#dropping into first gear at 30mph (which was what the guy said he was cruising
>#at when this ocurence took place), and then still having enough torque left to
>#spin what I'd guess are pretty thick wheels, amazes me.
>#
>#Can this be right? :)
>YES!!
>If this Camaro has the same engine, tranny, and performance rear gear ratio
>with my ex-Trans Am, it can go up to 40 mph in the first gear. The engine
>touches the red line at 5500 rpm. Driving at 30 mph in the first gear will
>rev the engine to (30/40)*5500=4125 rpm. So that still leaves the engine
>plenty of torque to spin the tires. Now, that is assuming this Camaro has
>a perfermance rear gear ratio. If it doesn't have the perfermance rear
>gear ratio, it can go faster than 40mph in the first gear. ( Note: For
>those who want to get a Camaro/Firebird, do get the performance rear
>gear ratio. You will be happy that you have it, especially when a Mustang
>is revving at you at a stop light. :)
The entire drive train was heavily modified, and nowhere near anything you
might find in a stock configuration. The engine was completely rollerized,
including cam, lifters, and rocker arms, and had a redline in the vicinity
of 8 grand. I have hit 70 miles per hour in first gear before (remember, I
take my vehicles to their performance limit) and the rear gear ratio was
4.11:1. Measured (dyno tested) torque was 520 ft/lbs, very capable of
breaking free the rear tires, especially at fairly low rates of speed and
when applied almost immediately, that is, when you don't need it to pull
down any trees or a house or two... :) No Mustang EVER gave me a run for
my money, or IROC, or Vette, and the list goes on. There were a select few
cars in town faster than my Camaro, the 470 rat '69 Chevelle, my friend's
8-71 blown 496 '68 Camaro, another friend's Nitrous fed 355 '69 Nova, and
a sneaky underhood blown Chevy lowrider with a heavily modified 302.
Jim LaBreck - n874...@henson.cc.wwu.edu
Mark Walsh
> How about any car? Let's see, we'll start with the car on the
> edge of a cliff about 336' high, push it off and start timing.
> Although it would probably factor in a little bit toward the end,
> we'll assume wind resistance is negligible. You'll probably
> find that it'll take around 4.5 seconds to accomplish your
> 0-100-0 sequence (if I did the math right). You didn't say
> that you have to be able to drive the car away after the
> test! :-)
At the 1986 Bug O'Rama, they had a lot of neato quarter-milers
that were somehow based on air-cooled VWs. Their were creations
like a VW bus with a 700 hp American V8, a Fiat 600 with a
radical turboed VW engine, a squareback with two air-cooled
engines in it, a bug with a 930 engine, etc.
A couple of times during the day, the announcers bragged that
we were going to see the fastest ever VW bus, one that could
do the quarter miler in six seconds. I thought no way, the
air-cooled dragsters weren't even going that fast.
Then we heard this "wop-wop-wop-wop" sound, and a helicopter
appeared on the horizon. It was carrying a VW bus! Most of
us thought, "Wow, what a neat display." As the helicopter
was near the end of the dragstrip, the announcer said something
to cause us to look again at the approaching helicopter.
The beast then released its load, and the bus did a 1.0g
acceleration from a quarter of a mile high. Velocity at
the end of the quarter was reportedly 200 mph, and it
decelerated to zero very quickly, but it did leave quite
a nice crater behind!
--
Mark Walsh (wa...@optilink.com) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- AOL: BigC...@aol.com -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
"I'm gonna crush you!" - Andre the Giant, 1946-1993
R. Craig Dodson
> I can ride my bike year round, but I'm in Hawaii. If you have ever
> seen the Star Trek movies, when they engage warp drive, and everything
> blurs as the ship accelerates, that is how it feels when you open up
> a litre bike. You really need to experience it, because even riders
> of smaller bikes have no idea of what it is like. Trust me :-).
>
> TJK
> '85 FJ1100 "The Beast"
>
Amen. Spoken like someone who *knows* what they are talking about. There is
simply nothing like engaging "warp drive" on a litre bike. I've been in some
fast cars too (500+ hp 455 Cutlass running 13.0 1/4 mile times) and they
simply aren't even close to a litre bike.
Ride on !
Craig Dodson (Stratus Computer)
1992 FJ1200A
cdo...@beast.cac.stratus.com
Julian Haddrill
: In article <C91GG...@news.Hawaii.Edu> kel...@hubble.ifa.hawaii.edu (Tim
: > I can ride my bike year round, but I'm in Hawaii. If you have ever
: > seen the Star Trek movies, when they engage warp drive, and everything
: > blurs as the ship accelerates, that is how it feels when you open up
: > a litre bike. You really need to experience it, because even riders
: > of smaller bikes have no idea of what it is like. Trust me :-).
: >
: > TJK
: > '85 FJ1100 "The Beast"
!
What a boring bike! How about something frightening fast
Like a Kaw ZZR1100 or Suzuk GSX-R 1100?
: >
:
: Amen. Spoken like someone who *knows* what they are talking about. There is
Henri R Helanto
Sometimes it feels like they really should tune up those
bikes a bit - my Vette eats ZZR 1100's for breakfast.
10.200 @ 127mph on street tires / smokes them at fourth
gear at 110mph / 195mph top speed is way too much for
non-Yoshimura street bike. Trust me, I've done that quite
a few times. They just can't believe it when a car leaves
a lot harder than their hi-tech thingys... and outcorners
them, too.
In Keith Black & Dick Guldstrand we trust. *HUGE grin*
(Dyno says 810kW NET - so be it :)
ps. 500+ hp on a Cutlass should do a lot better than 13.0...
-Henri
--
Henri Helanto - SysOp | 'MY LAST SONY! THE TOY THAT BROKE UP!'
hhel...@vipunen.hut.fi <-> m40...@puukko.hut.fi
-+*> Call MyBBS (+358-0-485067/485068/485968/485918/488139, 24h) ! <*+-
R. Craig Dodson
> Sometimes it feels like they really should tune up those
> bikes a bit - my Vette eats ZZR 1100's for breakfast.
> 10.200 @ 127mph on street tires / smokes them at fourth
> gear at 110mph / 195mph top speed is way too much for
> non-Yoshimura street bike. Trust me, I've done that quite
> a few times. They just can't believe it when a car leaves
> a lot harder than their hi-tech thingys... and outcorners
> them, too.
> In Keith Black & Dick Guldstrand we trust. *HUGE grin*
> (Dyno says 810kW NET - so be it :)
>
> ps. 500+ hp on a Cutlass should do a lot better than 13.0...
Wake up man, you're dreaming ! For instance, how do you get a Vette to
launch hard enough to attain a (claimed) 10.2 et yet only go through
the traps at 127 ? The ZZR1100 (Zx-11 in the states) you mention goes
through the traps at 135mph while turning 10.3-10.5 1/4 mile times.
And what's to prevent the bike owner from spending a miniscule $3k for
a turbo setup, allowing 1/4's in the 9's and 200mph top speed ? Read the
mags - it's been done. Dollar for dollar, your (dream) car will never match
a superbike.
FYI - the Cutlass was a '68 with a heavily modified 455. The 13.0 was on
street tires and he hadn't yet installed traction bars. He's now working
his way down into the 12's.
Craig Dodson (Stratus Computer)
cdo...@beast.cac.stratus.com
Francis Chiu
: In <20s72n$i...@transfer.stratus.com> cdo...@beast.cac.stratus.com (R. Craig Dodson) writes:
: >Amen. Spoken like someone who *knows* what they are talking about. There is
: >simply nothing like engaging "warp drive" on a litre bike. I've been in some
: >fast cars too (500+ hp 455 Cutlass running 13.0 1/4 mile times) and they
: >simply aren't even close to a litre bike.
: Sometimes it feels like they really should tune up those
: bikes a bit - my Vette eats ZZR 1100's for breakfast.
: 10.200 @ 127mph on street tires / smokes them at fourth
: gear at 110mph / 195mph top speed is way too much for
: non-Yoshimura street bike. Trust me, I've done that quite
: a few times. They just can't believe it when a car leaves
: a lot harder than their hi-tech thingys... and outcorners
: them, too.
: In Keith Black & Dick Guldstrand we trust. *HUGE grin*
: (Dyno says 810kW NET - so be it :)
: ps. 500+ hp on a Cutlass should do a lot better than 13.0...
: -Henri
Are you even serious? Are you sure the guy on the bike even KNOW you
were trying to race him/her? Not knowing what's under the hood on your
vette, I'm not going to question the 195mph top speed, but I'd pay money
to see you out corner a bike or to smoke one at forth gear.
-Frank