Zonsolo Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 what year is that z28? isnt that about stock HP for the new ones with the 350? and dont get an ego because lower 300 HP is nothing to brag about my friend. thats barely enough power to call a car fast, IMO. back to the original subject, ive had my 3.1 (89 cutlass supreme 2 door, if that helps) up to 115 with a little bit more room to go but it was slowly accelerating, i took the vette out last weekend and had 'er goin 135 no sweat with tons of room for more. that was fun...! 2002, yep, pretty much stock HP, just exhaust & lid. Not getting an ego either, I know its slow and that's my whole point. If it can't be done with 375 HP flywheel it isn't getting done with 100-150 less HP. My reference to my camaro was for comparison only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantomFE3 Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 oh, lol sorry if i came off as an asshole.. i love camaros, i have a 67, we have alot of cars at my house, that camaro, an 87 mustang, 88 vette, f-bodys are my favorite cars, along with the old mopars, hemi... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4spdz34 Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 3.4s will shift to od at wot, i wish i knew how fast i've had my car going. anyone whos smart with math wanna tell me. i was just shifted out of 3rd gear which is a 1:1 ratio, i shifted out at 6700, and that was with my old gearing so i had a 3.43 final drive. i wish my speedo didn't end at 120. i was on m-53 and it was 4 am so i figured what the hell i got scared as i shifted into fourth and shut her down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeorge Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 What mods you have? Wow, you really need to stop exaggerating, 0-50 in a few car lengths? 60 to speedo gone time = about 3 seconds? Top speed = 142? Do you even have any idea? My god, mathmatically it takes well over 220 Horsepower at the ground to push a 3500 lbs car to 142 with a drag coef of .29. And with nominal 15% drivetrain loss (should be much higher for auto and higher yet for FWD), that means you need to be pushing 258HP flywheel. Oh, and look at this: 0-50< 3 car lengths = 60ft, so good drag cars can do 60ft in about 2 seconds, so your 0-50=2 seconds, and 60-120=3 seconds so your stating you go from 0-120 in about say oh... what 5 seconds? (unless your car takes 18 seconds to go from 50-60) LOL man. You crack me up. BTW, I have a 313 RWHP Z28 (roughly 370-375HP) that based on your observations would be passed like its standing still by your TSTE of doom. I can't hit 50 in a few car lengths and I can't go 60-125 in 3 seconds either. Quit posting such crap, someone might believe you. I said in a Few as in like 4-5 my 60' is about 2.1 secs and my HP to the Ground is 207.8HP acourding to the Dyno and 28x.x ftlb TQ dont have the slip right in front of me those are the numbers I remember. and I did 3 runs on the Dyno and all at operation temp.... and I can only get that Quick short 0-50 if I Rip the tires loose and Spin them and when they Grab Im going 50 like bam right now. and the 60-speedo gone in 3 secs it may be 3-5 sec but not very long at all.. and my car is all top end with a some-what quick accel....the low RPM suck in the STE.. but once your past the Lag its really Quick.. and like I said lets stop pissing up the Rope.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4spdz34 Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 when does your speedo end 85? theres no way a ste can go from 60 to 100 in 5 secs. it takes a 1999 z28 ss camaro 7 secs to go from 60 to 100. and they run 13.5 in the quarter mile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaroonRegal Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 (should be much higher for auto and higher yet for FWD) I agree with your entire post except the FWD part. I much prefer RWD, but you should know (seeing that you have some considerable basis in Physics, or at least Math) that you lose more horsepower in a RWD car than a FWD car. Transverse engine mounting makes power loss a lot smaller than in a typical RWDer where you need to mount the engine longitudinally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay3800 Posted October 14, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Man talk about getting off the subject. All I wanted to know when I started this thread was how fast my car can go, lol. Actually a lot of the posts have been quite interesting. So based on what I've read, am I safe in assuming that my top speed is somewhere between 115-125 mph in top gear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaroonRegal Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Man talk about getting off the subject. All I wanted to know when I started this thread was how fast my car can go, lol. Actually a lot of the posts have been quite interesting. So based on what I've read, am I safe in assuming that my top speed is somewhere between 115-125 mph in top gear? Every thread on the subject of top speeds ends up something like this. Someone always calls BS, and then rather than saying "Oh, I made a mistake." The person on whom BS is called always makes up excuses and tries to defend their original position. Then it ends up like this. Here's what ya know: W-Bodies don't go much faster than 100 mph. If you get it over 120, I wanna see the radar screen, or at the very least a picture of your speedo. Here's what ya do if you really care how fast yours can go: Try it. Yes it's stupid. Yes it's dangerous. And yes, it could be very expensive. But if you really want to know, you pretty much have to try it. Every car is different, according to threads such as this one. EDIT: I do not want to see a picture of you in a Speedo. I want to see a picture of your speedometer. I apologize for any potential confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay3800 Posted October 14, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 LOL don't worry. My girl friend would kill me if I even got near one of those things. Not that I would ever want to any ways. I have to disagree about W's not going faster than 100 mph. I personally cruised for about ten minutes at 100 even. That was in 4th gear but I don't remember the RPMs. I know pedal position isn't that important in regards to top speed, but the gas pedal wasn't even half way down (maybe about half way). Based on the responsiveness of the engine at that speed, I think 120 mph may be possible. I doubt anything above that and 120 may be a stretch. However, I would never say 100 is tops for all W-bodies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaroonRegal Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 I'm sorry, that was misleading. I said: W-Bodies don't go much faster than 100 mph. I meant that, when compared with many cars, even of similar performance to a faster W-Body, the top speed is governed relatively low. 108 is the slowest governer I remember seeing here on the board. But most of the people who've tried it say they don't get much faster than 115 or so. You also must remember that your car could have serious pull right on up to 112, and then cut off. It's powertrain might be a factory freak capable of carrying your 3200+ pound car in excess of 150mph. (I doubt it, but hey, anything's possible.) However, even if this is true, the computer will not let your car go much faster than 100 miles per hour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay3800 Posted October 14, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 The speed governor topic is an interesting one. Its funny to me that a manufacturer like GM thinks its ok to go 108 or 115 or whatever the governor speed is, but not 120 or whatever the power/drag limited top speed is. Whats the difference of 10 mph or so? Also, does my car actually have a governor? I knew newer cars do, but I didn't think '90 model year cars like mine came so equipped. Like said, I've never tried to go fast enough to actually test it out. Does my car have one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaroonRegal Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 I think so. I'm certainly not the most knowledgeable member of the forum, I'm probably closer to the bottom of that list. But I think almost all fuel-injected cars are governed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TurboSedan Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 The speed governor topic is an interesting one. Its funny to me that a manufacturer like GM thinks its ok to go 108 or 115 or whatever the governor speed is, but not 120 or whatever the power/drag limited top speed is. Whats the difference of 10 mph or so? Also, does my car actually have a governor? I knew newer cars do, but I didn't think '90 model year cars like mine came so equipped. Like said, I've never tried to go fast enough to actually test it out. Does my car have one? just try it then in the right place - a nice 3-5 mile straightaway. put your seat belt on, and have a good alignmeat & good tires. joshua Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay3800 Posted October 14, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 just try it then in the right place - a nice 3-5 mile straightaway. put your seat belt on, and have a good alignmeat & good tires. joshua Put your seat belt on......thats great. Pretty good advice actually. Thats the reason this subject is kinda dumb. None of our cars was ever designed for speeds like 100 and above. The only reason the engines are powerful enough to produce those speeds, is to make passing at legal highway speeds fast and efficient. But since I'm a stupid kid (as my dad would say), I'll try it somewhere I can only kill myself, and not anyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeorge Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 when does your speedo end 85? theres no way a ste can go from 60 to 100 in 5 secs. it takes a 1999 z28 ss camaro 7 secs to go from 60 to 100. and they run 13.5 in the quarter mile. OKAY to get the Reight number I went out and DID it last night both in OD and in Drive.... I was going 60 Floored it and got to the 120 in 8.5 secs in Over-Drive.... Then I slowed down to 60 again and did it in Drive and it only took 7.53 seconds accourding to the Stop watch that my Buddy had in his hand... so okay I was a couple of seconds off but acctually not that far off being I never used the stop watch for that before.. and if you dont belive me GOOD FOR YOU..but thats the numbers that came up last night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay3800 Posted October 14, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Those are still extremely fast numbers for a STE Turbo. No doubt you have a fast, rare car, but come on. I'm tempted to call BS on that, but since I've never actually driven one and I'm sure others will call you on it, I won't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeorge Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Call BS all you want I dont really care...thats what I Ran and thats all I have to say...I dont have a Digi video cam to record this and show you. Im not going to Fight about who has what...because no matter what you or I Drive there is always someone out there who is Faster....it may be a pinto with a 428 SCJ or a yenko nova or that AMX Jav....there will always be someone out there who's faster.... Shit mine and my buddies 83 mustang LX would stomp the shit out of my ste... I know I Raced it....but then again thats what happens when you put a 84 mustang cop car suspention, brakes, and a built 460 with a C6 in a 1100lb car and holding the road are 275's or when Racing 10.5 slicks. as I said before lets just stop pissing up the Rope and get back to the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay3800 Posted October 14, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Like I said, I didn't call BS. It doesn't really matter any way. Whether or not your car will do what you claim doesn't change the fact that the STE Turbo is a sweet car to people like you and me. Sure, someone who is into beer cans like the Honda Civic might disagree, but to us and fellow GMers, we don't really give a shit. We like our cars no matter what the 0-60 time or top speed is, and that is the bottom line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TurboSedan Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Yes the 5spd 3.1 is "almost" as quick as a TSTE on acceloration, almost...I have Driven both and well I would love a 5spd 3.1L hell If I found one I would Trade my STE for a STE 3.4L 5spd in a heartbeat. but then again who wouldnt....LOL i'd take your Turbo STE over a DOHC/5-speed STE anyday!!!! the '90 Turbo STE is the ULTIMATE factory W-body IMO (i'm a sedan fan). joshua Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairdo12 Posted October 16, 2003 Report Share Posted October 16, 2003 Would it be wrong to bring up the possible percentage of error in the speedometer at high speeds? I think I remember a couple posts from the past claiming 7-10% error at speeds that high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay3800 Posted October 16, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2003 I'd be surprised if the error percentage was that high, but I do believe it was around 5%. I know from what I've read in magazines that GM speedometers are among the most accurate in the industry with far less error percentages than other manufacturers. Still, the only way to accurately messure top speed is with a gun, or better yet, GPS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99RegalGS Posted October 16, 2003 Report Share Posted October 16, 2003 My speedometer is not accurate. You know those things cops set up by the road that tell you how fast your going. Well two weeks ago I drove by one it said I was doing 34 when my speedometer said I was doing 38. BTW: I have stock size tires. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robby1870 Posted October 16, 2003 Report Share Posted October 16, 2003 It all depends on when the thing actually reads your speed. If you were accelerating while approaching it, then the speed when you pass it will not be the same it reads Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zonsolo Posted October 16, 2003 Report Share Posted October 16, 2003 I agree with your entire post except the FWD part. I much prefer RWD, but you should know (seeing that you have some considerable basis in Physics, or at least Math) that you lose more horsepower in a RWD car than a FWD car. Transverse engine mounting makes power loss a lot smaller than in a typical RWDer where you need to mount the engine longitudinally. Quite possible, and no argument there, just keep in mind that all horsepower losses are based on total distance and number of components between the flywheel and drive wheel. So since most FWD applications should be shorter, you could quite possibly be correct. Just that most sport compact mags use 18-20% loss while RWD guys (stangs, f-bodies, and vettes) use 15% for sticks and 18% for autos. Guess it might just be the honda guys trying to claim a higher horsepower number out of the engine. Wheel horsepower is all that really matters anyway Would it be wrong to bring up the possible percentage of error in the speedometer at high speeds? I think I remember a couple posts from the past claiming 7-10% error at speeds that high. Wouldn't matter for the arguement at hand, because no w-bod I know of has a speedo that would read 142 anyway. Plus he says he was clocked at that speed. I used to have old g-bod (1984 nutless with 305) and it had an 85 MPH speedo, but I was clocked at 92 when I was reading 80-85 (yep got a ticket too). And that was with stock dimension tires. There used to be old myths (60's and 70's) that US carmakers purposely made speedos start to read incorrect above 80 or so, to keep the old musclecar guys thinking they were going alot faster than they were. Somethign to the tune of what you state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zonsolo Posted October 16, 2003 Report Share Posted October 16, 2003 My speedometer is not accurate. You know those things cops set up by the road that tell you how fast your going. Well two weeks ago I drove by one it said I was doing 34 when my speedometer said I was doing 38. BTW: I have stock size tires. My 1999 mustang Gt had a "test" mode that you could do that would show digital readouts for tach/mph and such, and it was cool because you could see the difference in the speedo needle vs. the digital one. Needle was always slightly higher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.