How fast is is your old GS?

[earlfor]

to accelerate 2700 lbs from zero to 60 mph in 3 seconds will require a power loading of 5lbs/hp, so for a 2700 lb car that would be about 550 rwhp.

Earl

Not too sure about the 0-60 in less than 3 seconds either.

 

[UncleMike]

to accelerate 2700 lbs from zero to 60 mph in 3 seconds will require a power loading of 5lbs/hp, so for a 2700 lb car that would be about 550 rwhp.

Earl

And since he claimed he had "dyno verified" 270 rwhp, I would consider that claim of 0-60 in 3 seconds a,...

...what do we call it kiddies?,...

...LIE!

Or at least a gross exaggeration.

So, what do we think? Column A or Column B?

 

[earlfor]

What can I say, its a question of power loading, mass and acceleration. Its pretty straightforward. 1+1=2.

Earl

And since he claimed he had "dyno verified" 270 rwhp, I would consider that claim of 0-60 in 3 seconds a,...

...what do we call it kiddies?,...

...LIE!

Or at least a gross exaggeration.

So, what do we think? Column A or Column B?

 

[UncleMike]

Exactly.

As Greg Graffin so eloquently put it, "I'll believe in god when one and one equals five."

For now, I'll stick with logic, and that just don't add up!

 

[KEITH KRAUSE]

to accelerate 2700 lbs from zero to 60 mph in 3 seconds will require a power loading of 5lbs/hp, so for a 2700 lb car that would be about 550 rwhp.

Earl

Not too sure about the 0-60 in less than 3 seconds either.

I love it when you get all technical Earl! Gives me goosey bumps!

 

[RacingJake]

You don't need love all you really need is Nitrous

 

[UncleMike]

I don't seem to remember a mention of nitrous though, just a lot of hot air.

Besides,...real men go "N.A.."

 

[earlfor]

Let me see now...................to accelerate Keith from zero to 60 mph in 3 seconds over a badmitten net with an arc apex of 9 feet will require a racquet with a 16 foot handle moving at a rate of ...............................

Earl

I love it when you get all technical Earl! Gives me goosey bumps!

 

[Anonymous]

to accelerate 2700 lbs from zero to 60 mph in 3 seconds will require a power loading of 5lbs/hp, so for a 2700 lb car that would be about 550 rwhp.

Earl

Not too sure about the 0-60 in less than 3 seconds either.

interesting, a mid 12 second car should be hitting 60 in around 3.5 seconds, traction being the major limitation, it is a proven fact that with the correct gearing all a 3000lb mustang needs is 200 true rwhp to get into the mid 12's with slicks, the simple act of swapping out the stock 2.73:1 ratio gears that came from the factory in my year and swapping in 4.10:1 gears along with slicks will take a basically stock mustang properly driven into the 12's, it is also a proven fact that with 400rwhp a light mustang such as mine can run 10's and even break into the nines when driven with impunity. You can't simply state such and such horsepower will equal such and such acceleration time, not without knowing gearing, tire sizes, rpm range, and torque output, horsepower simply being a derivative of torque and rpm, also there are many different types of horsepower measurement, if I took my mustang back to 1955 they would tell me it was a 500hp car, simply due to the differences in measurement standards

 

[UncleMike]

Interesting. The 1982 Mustang GT, which weighed in at around 3200lbs and had a hp rating of 225-230, depending on the source and car, would take about 6.5 seconds to make it from dead stop to 60mph. It'd do the 1/4 mile in about 15.

So you're telling me that if I shaved 200 lbs off of her and dropped thirty hp, I would have a mid-12 sec car that would go 0-60 in 3.5 secs?

Sorry, doesn't add up.

This ain't my first time out to the ballpark, Jack.

 

[Anonymous]

It's kind of sickening really, I have yet to find a single forum on any given topic anywhere that does not have an individual, or individuals that are just sitting waiting to prove a statement inaccurate, be it one made by myself, or some other hapless victim. I am not new to velocity math, or in fact any math for that matter, I am a mechanic, an electronic technician, an engineer, among many other things, and I am obsessed with understanding the physics that govern our existence, I daydream about theoretical physics on a daily basis. I have no need to lie or exaggerate, I can't even begin to understand how I could reap any egotistical gains from making a bunch of people I don't know(and more importantly, don't know me) believe that my car accelerates in such and such a time. How could I possibly benefit from that?

 

[Anonymous]

Interesting. The 1982 Mustang GT, which weighed in at around 3200lbs and had a hp rating of 225-230, depending on the source and car, would take about 6.5 seconds to make it from dead stop to 60mph. It'd do the 1/4 mile in about 15.

So you're telling me that if I shaved 200 lbs off of her and dropped thirty hp, I would have a mid-12 sec car that would go 0-60 in 3.5 secs?

Sorry, doesn't add up.

This ain't my first time out to the ballpark, Jack.

the 82 mustang gt had more like 140 raging thumping hp, if your reffering to the 92 then yes it is 225 BHP, on a dynojet that same car will usually put down about 180rwhp, there is a such thing as drivtrain loss, a mustang that puts down 200true rwhp will be making around 240 at the motor, also the only reason for such slow acceleration times as tested stock were a:2.73 gears, they kill a ton (literally lol) of the engine mechanical torque advantage b:extremely bad traction, as I stated previously I have no problem with traction, take your mustang to the track, put on some slicks and ice the intake, if you don't run 13's you simply don't know how to drive

 

[Anonymous]

also, a mustang gt weighs much more then a notchabck, over 400lbs more usually, so you would have to drop about 700 lbs at that, the weight alone is over a 50hp advantage

 

[UncleMike]

Yes, my apologies. '92.

It still doesn't add up. I'm just not buying your Mustang or your 650 going 0-85 in five seconds.

And thanks for the lesson, but I'm well versed in RWHP versus what they rate at the flywheel.

 

[earlfor]

I think its simply a natural human tendency to inflate performance in many things. I've lost count of how many times I have heard an 8 valve stock GS 750 was run down the road at 145 mph. By the numbers, that cant be true.
I dont insist my aproximations were spot on accurate, but I do insist they are reasonably within the ballpark. It isnt going to change my life if someone insists their Mach I will actually reach mach 1.

Earl

 

[UncleMike]

He did say from the beginning that he was approximating. I won't hazard to guess at the accuracy of timing yourself while attempting 0-85 in five seconds.

What a weird measure, anyway. Why not go with 0-60 or 0-100?

 

[Anonymous]

DARN FAST.....

DARN FAST.....

MY 82 GS1100E IS CURRENTLY RUNNING 9.20'S AT 152 MPH ON THE QUARTER....AND IT IS STREET LEGAL!!!!! THANK YOU A.P.E. PERFORMANCE AND N.O.S. :twisted:

 

[KEITH KRAUSE]

Boldsword, all I've said to anger you is I don't believe the '91 Notchback, equipped as you say, will do 0-60 in less than 3 seconds.
I don't know as much about Mustangs as you do, nor have I actually timed my '79 1000 with common mod's, but my bike quickly redlines at 60 in first gear/just hitting second and I have to believe it's right at or under 3 seconds. At least it feels that way. I remember from the late '70's/early'80's motorcycle mags that all the Japanese top guns ran right at or just under 3 seconds.
In the past I've read a few test drives on various exotic sports cars and the quickest of them was very close to 3 seconds or a hair over if I remember correctly. None of these production exotics were quite as quick as the bikes. Not 0-60.
My point is, the 0-60 reply had me immediately think to myself, "would that Notchback, as you described it, be dead even or even ahead of my 1000 at 3 seconds?" No, it wouldn't. So I don't believe it. That doesn't make me a bad guy or you either. It's a forum, so I just said what I believe. Please don't take it personal.

 

[earlfor]

There was a list posted on the GSR some months back of (if I remember correctly) 200+ currently manufactured cars worldwide with performance figures for them. There were very few that could accelerate from zero to 60 mph in 5 seconds or less.

He did say from the beginning that he was approximating. I won't hazard to guess at the accuracy of timing yourself while attempting 0-85 in five seconds.

What a weird measure, anyway. Why not go with 0-60 or 0-100?

 

[KEITH KRAUSE]

Phew!!! Sure am glad you stopped that hi-tech talk Earl.
I was about to have an organism! :lol: