🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 19:29:54 -0800, bryan <bryan@stuff.com> wrote:
>> Your car has 150hp.  Probably 135hp at the wheels.  The car weighs
>> 2780lbs (including a 150lb person).  Best case rough approximation
>> of the ET your car could get in the 1/4mi is 15.97s.
>> 
>> Check out http://www2.dsm.org/tools/calchp.htm
>
>what about torque and the cars aerodynamics?  don't those play a part? 
>I mean if you had a car with those specs but was a box shape its
>obviuosly going to be a lot slower.

Yes, but less now than in the past now that most cars have similar 
aerodynamics.  As far as torque, yes, the torque curve over all engine
speeds is even more important than the horsepower at a particular engine 
speed, and they always are equal at a particular engine speed.  He was
just talking about a very rough approximation, so saying "15.97s" and
implying that a formula will give you accuracy to the hundredths is wrong.
Gearing, torque, shift points, rubber, air temperature, surface type all
added together can make a big difference, but given all those the same
you can use formulae to get a pretty close approximation.  Oh yeah, don't
forget driving skill!  :)

>
> 
>> Believe me, a drive in a 12 second car or even a 13 second car
>> feels like a rocket compared to a 15 second car.  You would need
>> to double your hp to go 13s in the 1/4mi.
>> 
>> > > Believe me, it isn't very easy to knock 3 seconds off your 1/4mi time.
>> > > And to do it in a full-weight car is even less common.
>> > >
>> > > And yea, John Force may be fast.  But he is paid to be fast and uses
>> > > a car who's engine is designed to be torn down after every race.  Go
>> > > figure that he is 9 seconds faster than most of us.
>> >
>> >   i guess...but my friends blown 40' ford could do it pretty fast too I
>> > bet...and it didn't cost him too much.
>> 
>> Not sure what your point was here.  Anyway, a Viper is a 12.something
>> second car.  So is a Lotus Elise.  They just do it in different ways.
>> DSMs prefer to do it the turbocharged way, which turns out to be a
>> pretty good way at making a small displacement engine output big hp :-)
>> 
>> Josh Wingell
>> '97 Eclipse GSX
>> 
>
>
>oh my point was that his car costs nowhere near these new little cars
>but could probably smoke alot of them.

A good point.

>
>i guess given modern advances in technology anythings possible...but I
>just like the brute force and muscle of the bigger cars.  To me they are
>truly fast.

One of the car magazines tested whether a new Vette was faster than an
old Vette (big block '67 427).  The old one was marginally faster IIRC.
But the new one was much easier to drive fast, and handled way better.
My friends who have had both old and late models, as have I, virtually
all agree that the old ones _seem_ faster, but for actually driving the
newer ones are much better.  Especially on a winding mountain road where
the penalty for steering box failure is death. 

But you are right, there really isn't anything like hearing a bunch of
carbs sucking air and gas into 8 large displacement cylinders.  And then
stomping on it!

I must admit though, I once made the mistake of stoplight racing a mid-60's
V12 Ferrari with my '63 Vette.  As soon as I redlined and put in the
clutch to shift to 2nd, he blew me away.

jg
-- 
These opinions are my own. 
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/joel_garry   Remove nospam to reply.  
mailto:joel-garry@nospam.home.com  Available for Oracle DBA work.