How Is Top Speed Gained - Page 2

vetteeatr · 11-07-2002, 08:01 PM

Actually i was thinking i could be near 193 in a sams parking lot...

give or take

chico · 11-07-2002, 08:05 PM

In case anyone is interested...John Boscema ,the owner of the 97 s/c cobra has some very interesting comments on SCOA .he has allready broken the 200mph mark with his cobra and is willing yo share this experience. Yes, he has hit 8000rpm while racing ..

go to 96-98 forum and look for TOP SPEED OF COBRAS

srv1 · 11-07-2002, 08:08 PM

all i know is that the faster you go, the more calculations it is. thier is alot of factors to go 200mph in any vehicle. just remember when you compare your HP numbers to a neew vette and the Vette can do 200, just keep in mind that the engineers had this funny thing called a wind tunnel. this is where your math skills have a big roll if you want to do 200mph. as for me, i dont have these math skills, but my friend has a PHD in math and is a professor at Mansfield. so when i have some tough calculations, i go directly to him.

why would you want to go 200 mph in a fox body anyway? you can lift that sucker right off the ground if you hit 200. the fastest i went in my Stang was past the 140 mark, lets say around 143. i never felt a car "float" so much as i did that day. if i hit a crosswind, i wouldnt be here writing this.

a good example of frontal area is airplanes. look at various ones and you will see some examples.

Agent_4573 · 11-07-2002, 08:10 PM

Ok i read most of the posts here and there pretty much right on. THe one that said he was making 550 horses w/ 4.10 gears though isn't really helpful though because horsepower is defined as work done per second and work is force multiplied by distance. Because you have a higher gear ratio, your rear wheel horses will be higher than someone with 2.73's or 2.40's.

Once you get up to speed, aero dynamics plays the biggest role of all. First off your gonna need to basically take a formula 1 approach to the car. The underside is going to have to resemble an upside down wing or else the car will fly off the road. As for the frontal area of the car and the drag co-efficient, lets explain that now...

The resistive force from air is .5*density of air*drag coefficien*frontal area*velocity^2

the density of air at sea level 1.25 kg/m^3, so if you do this in the mountains it will become a little easier, but your also gonna lose horse power. the drag coefficent is anywhere from .5 for a sphere up to 2 for irregular objects. I'm going to assume around .8 for the front of a fox body stang. someone also said the the frontal area of a stang is 32 square feet. 200 mph is also equal to 89.4 meters a second(it makes it easier to do calculations in metric)

So at 200 mph you need close to 900 horses at the wheels. Things you can do to bring this figure down?
Lessen the frontal area, this means anything that will hit the wind straight on, including rear view mirrors, ground effects, fog lights, etc. Then you can lessen the drag coefficien(eg make the car more areodynamic) this may include a "rounder" front bumper, if you wanna cut the roof, you can slope the windshield more so its not so high. Completely sealing off the underbody will also make the car more aerodynamic. One huge sheet of aluminum bolted underneath to make the car "smooth" on the underside will help dramatically. With an overdrive of .67 in the t-5's you can turn 200 mph at 6000rpm with 3.37's in the rear end. I would suggest doing this cuz the higher the rear end gear the less flywheel horses your gonna need. Since ford makes 3.27's this may be the gear for you. If you lower the car, more air will flow over the car instead of under it, letting the air hit the more aerodynamic part of the car, this will also help. I'm not sure on how to computer flywheels horses to rearwheel horses with gear ratios, so maybe someone else can help me out there... hope this helps....

Agent_4573 · 11-07-2002, 08:15 PM

btw, ,if you want really detailed calculations, get me an exact frontal area of the stang, I'll find the rest, do some calculations on paper and scan en em for ya. That way you can see exactly what I'm doing with the math and formula's and all.....

vetteeatr · 11-07-2002, 08:59 PM

Ok how about this aero wizards.

I kidna want a lighter old mustang in the mid 60's

What about a 65- 70 fastback?

I guess the 69 and 70 models were actualyl sllgihtly lower on teh roof however there are wider as are teh 67and 68

67 and 68 had a more longer back to it but the 65-66 had more of a shorter back slopping down quicker.

The 65-66 in theory shoudl in teroy have less fonrtal area due to teh the 3 inches less in width right?

I would htink the new cobras are alot wider then those cars were as well.

So Would the older msutangs actualyl have less frontal area then the newer cobras?

I woudl lower it to the ground and have a mods to keep the thing planted as well.

With all those mods how comparable coudl i get it to be to a "super car"

Such as instead of maybe 900 RWHP for a new cobra what about 700 do to less fontal area and some aero mods?

Give me some estimates?

Will the fastback actaully help my goal or should i jsut get a coupe and slap some spoiler on it?

vetteeatr · 11-07-2002, 09:10 PM

well i was right but not by mucht eh diffrence is this 65-66 stangs were at 68.2 width

fox body was at 69.1

67-68 were at 70.9

so by goign wiht the older one i woudl save a whopping 0.9 inches wow thats huge!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ....

chico · 11-07-2002, 09:23 PM

You guys are all right on..You need to lower and completly seal the underneath of the vehicle to prevent air from allowing the lift factor to take place.. along with all the required suspension...But...if you do not have the HP and the right gears, it will take you forever to achieve your top speed. John Boscema hit 188 mph with I believe 440 rwhp..He needed the additional HP to achieve the 200 mph mark. He has since accomplished this. But you need the lower gears to hit your mark.

HotRoddin · 11-07-2002, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Agent_4573

The resistive force from air is .5*density of air*drag coefficien*frontal area*velocity^2
the density of air at sea level 1.25 kg/m^3,

Oh God here comes that math headache again !!! Wheres my slide rule ...get me my slide rule !!

Heres your 200 MPH mustang:

jim_howard_pdx · 11-07-2002, 10:18 PM

Shelby's race team drove mustangs from 1965 all the way to the 70s. Not one of them ever hit 200 mph.

You are kidding yourself to think it can. The front end is all wrong, the windshield is all wrong, the floor pan is all wrong, and the rear end is all wrong.

So when Ford decided they would win Lemans, they built a cobra coupe that did 188 mph with a 427, and the GT 40 that could hit 200 mph if it had a long straightaway. Most of the straights these GT's hit 175 to 195 mph. Remember they needed to conserve brakes so pushing a car way fast into a corner is just a receipe to lose.

The Pantara I got a chance to work with was a 4 speed ZF with a custom machined 1.7 gear ratio, a 302 Boss stroked to 331 cubic inches, and twin turbos. The car dyno'd at 900+ mph and hit 214 one direction on Bonneville and 197 the other way. Next year it came back and turned 222 one way and 209 the other direction.

The only reason it needed so much horsepower was that you have only 1/2 mile to hit speed, then you have to hold it for 1/2 mile. Then you have to repeat it in the opposite direction.

This car had 25,000 into the engine alone. The zf was pretty plain but the 1.7 gears cost about 10,000 to fabricate to the ZF transaxle.

The modifications to the car to keep it glued took a wind tunnel and that development time cost around 10 grand.

To take a crew to Bonneville IS PRICELESS

Hope you see the cost of speed.

But this is a fun what if kind of a thread

Eric4Nitrous · 11-07-2002, 10:55 PM

My 89 GT Tube chassis car hit 199.96 mph in the 1/4. And even though it had all the special chassis touches to it..it was kinda hairy on the big end. I had people tell me that front end was pushed in due to the downforce and wind. It was really hairy from the 1/8th mile mark on. It was like trying to run a marathon in high heel shoes.

PKRWUD · 11-07-2002, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Eric4Nitrous
It was like trying to run a marathon in high heel shoes.

Done that before, have you Eric?

lol. okay, now we're even.

Eric4Nitrous · 11-07-2002, 11:53 PM

haha yeah were even. But i'm gonna get ya back.

Between you Kevin, and Ryan you guys are gonna kill me.lol

PKRWUD · 11-07-2002, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Eric4Nitrous
haha yeah were even. But i'm gonna get ya back. Between you Kevin, and Ryan you guys are gonna kill me.lol

LOL. I'd never kill ya. I'd like to see you race sometime, and if you're dead, you're not going to be very fast.

Take care,
ÅChris

Eric4Nitrous · 11-08-2002, 12:03 AM

I'll PM you a list of where i'm racing this year. Maybe you can find a few days to get away this year.

PKRWUD · 11-08-2002, 01:04 AM

Cool!

drudis · 11-08-2002, 09:10 AM

Speaking of aerodynamics, I hope to do some testing before winter sets in... Mostly just testing several rear wings.

We'll see if I can get the companies to reply to me.

Agent_4573 · 11-08-2002, 01:20 PM

trying to get an old fastback up to 200 is pretty much outta the question. I mean it could vbe done one a full out drag car that wasn't really much of a fastback anymore. Even if it isn't as wide as the new cobra's, the new cobras are more round and aerodynamic. Think of it as trying to pull a brick through water and a baseball through water. The baseball is gonna go alot easier cuz it rounder. Also, just slapping a rear wing on the car that has the most downforce will have some negative effects. To much downforce on the rear wheels will increase the friction between them and the road, slowing you down. It may also contribute to the nose becoming airborne. The harder you push down behind your rear axle, the easier it will be to lift the nose off the ground. What your looking for is a complete balance of downforce between the front and rear of the car.

0h n0 5.0 · 11-08-2002, 02:09 PM

i beleive the conclusion is yes, in theory it could happen.(anything can happen ,its the variables that contribute to its conception an and execution that are the trick... primairily moolah.

it would require creating a whole new brethern of race car based on a oe factory design chasis if you want to get the credit for its conception. complete frame redesign, relocation of engine, wind tunnel testing an many trials an errors to acheive it.

but hell i say go for it

vetteeatr · 11-08-2002, 03:14 PM

Thanks For All The Help Guys.

I htink I will jsut use it as a drag car actualyl as it sounds liek to much of a pain in teh *** to screw with when i gotta bust out 900 Horses to get hat hgih.

I was lookign at the new porsche GT2 specs last ngith and thtese things are cool they didnt have as much power as i expected though.

But for like 462 horsepower they top out at 196 or 198 one of those. Thats just amazing. I would have thought they would have had more power actualyl beign a 3.8 with twin turbo's but you coudl probalyl bump some stuff up a bit easily.

I was raeding on it as well and it seems they have something similar to the V-TEc system did thy jstu rip it off of honda or vice versa?

11-07-2002, 08:01 PM	#21
vetteeatr Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Olney, Illinois, USA Posts: 212	Actually i was thinking i could be near 193 in a sams parking lot... give or take __________________ !988 GT World Windsor Sr.'s, Harland sharpe rockers, 3.73 gears, pulleys, no ac, hurst shifter, 10:1 pistons, BBK full length headers and H-pipe with flows. Under extensive work for porting and fly cutting to accept my new cam and to match my soon to have systemax intake DROOL Best E.T. 13.20 with edelbrock RPM intake and 70mm TB

11-07-2002, 08:05 PM	#22
chico Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Manteca,Ca. Posts: 114	Top Speed In case anyone is interested...John Boscema ,the owner of the 97 s/c cobra has some very interesting comments on SCOA .he has allready broken the 200mph mark with his cobra and is willing yo share this experience. Yes, he has hit 8000rpm while racing .. go to 96-98 forum and look for TOP SPEED OF COBRAS __________________ 98 cobra convt. 515 rwhp 421 torque..554 rwhp on 98 octane..635 rwhp this summer

11-07-2002, 08:08 PM	#23
srv1 Get down..... Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Room 103 Posts: 2,095	stang 200? all i know is that the faster you go, the more calculations it is. thier is alot of factors to go 200mph in any vehicle. just remember when you compare your HP numbers to a neew vette and the Vette can do 200, just keep in mind that the engineers had this funny thing called a wind tunnel. this is where your math skills have a big roll if you want to do 200mph. as for me, i dont have these math skills, but my friend has a PHD in math and is a professor at Mansfield. so when i have some tough calculations, i go directly to him. why would you want to go 200 mph in a fox body anyway? you can lift that sucker right off the ground if you hit 200. the fastest i went in my Stang was past the 140 mark, lets say around 143. i never felt a car "float" so much as i did that day. if i hit a crosswind, i wouldnt be here writing this. a good example of frontal area is airplanes. look at various ones and you will see some examples. __________________ Cobra brakes are on! Finally..... ------------------------------------------------

11-07-2002, 08:10 PM	#24
Agent_4573 Registered Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: New Jersey Posts: 375	Ok i read most of the posts here and there pretty much right on. THe one that said he was making 550 horses w/ 4.10 gears though isn't really helpful though because horsepower is defined as work done per second and work is force multiplied by distance. Because you have a higher gear ratio, your rear wheel horses will be higher than someone with 2.73's or 2.40's. Once you get up to speed, aero dynamics plays the biggest role of all. First off your gonna need to basically take a formula 1 approach to the car. The underside is going to have to resemble an upside down wing or else the car will fly off the road. As for the frontal area of the car and the drag co-efficient, lets explain that now... The resistive force from air is .5density of airdrag coefficienfrontal areavelocity^2 the density of air at sea level 1.25 kg/m^3, so if you do this in the mountains it will become a little easier, but your also gonna lose horse power. the drag coefficent is anywhere from .5 for a sphere up to 2 for irregular objects. I'm going to assume around .8 for the front of a fox body stang. someone also said the the frontal area of a stang is 32 square feet. 200 mph is also equal to 89.4 meters a second(it makes it easier to do calculations in metric) So at 200 mph you need close to 900 horses at the wheels. Things you can do to bring this figure down? Lessen the frontal area, this means anything that will hit the wind straight on, including rear view mirrors, ground effects, fog lights, etc. Then you can lessen the drag coefficien(eg make the car more areodynamic) this may include a "rounder" front bumper, if you wanna cut the roof, you can slope the windshield more so its not so high. Completely sealing off the underbody will also make the car more aerodynamic. One huge sheet of aluminum bolted underneath to make the car "smooth" on the underside will help dramatically. With an overdrive of .67 in the t-5's you can turn 200 mph at 6000rpm with 3.37's in the rear end. I would suggest doing this cuz the higher the rear end gear the less flywheel horses your gonna need. Since ford makes 3.27's this may be the gear for you. If you lower the car, more air will flow over the car instead of under it, letting the air hit the more aerodynamic part of the car, this will also help. I'm not sure on how to computer flywheels horses to rearwheel horses with gear ratios, so maybe someone else can help me out there... hope this helps.... __________________ '89 LX 5.0, off-road h pipe, flowmaster muffs, underdrive pulleys, rebuilt WC T-5, King Cobra Clutch, 65mm throttle body, Explorer Upper/GT40 lower, Lakewood Rear Lift Bars. 76mm C&L Mass air w/ inlet pipe, Twisted wedge heads w/ stage 2 port,polish, MAC equal length shorties, Billet AFPR, 255LPH fuel pump, fresh low end w/ 10.5:1 compression. If anyone ever wants to go to Raceway Park in Englishtown New Jersey, give me a shout. RICER HATERS CLUB MEMBER 87! www.ricehatersclub.com

11-07-2002, 08:15 PM	#25
Agent_4573 Registered Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: New Jersey Posts: 375	btw, ,if you want really detailed calculations, get me an exact frontal area of the stang, I'll find the rest, do some calculations on paper and scan en em for ya. That way you can see exactly what I'm doing with the math and formula's and all..... __________________ '89 LX 5.0, off-road h pipe, flowmaster muffs, underdrive pulleys, rebuilt WC T-5, King Cobra Clutch, 65mm throttle body, Explorer Upper/GT40 lower, Lakewood Rear Lift Bars. 76mm C&L Mass air w/ inlet pipe, Twisted wedge heads w/ stage 2 port,polish, MAC equal length shorties, Billet AFPR, 255LPH fuel pump, fresh low end w/ 10.5:1 compression. If anyone ever wants to go to Raceway Park in Englishtown New Jersey, give me a shout. RICER HATERS CLUB MEMBER 87! www.ricehatersclub.com

11-07-2002, 08:59 PM	#26
vetteeatr Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Olney, Illinois, USA Posts: 212	Ok how about this aero wizards. I kidna want a lighter old mustang in the mid 60's What about a 65- 70 fastback? I guess the 69 and 70 models were actualyl sllgihtly lower on teh roof however there are wider as are teh 67and 68 67 and 68 had a more longer back to it but the 65-66 had more of a shorter back slopping down quicker. The 65-66 in theory shoudl in teroy have less fonrtal area due to teh the 3 inches less in width right? I would htink the new cobras are alot wider then those cars were as well. So Would the older msutangs actualyl have less frontal area then the newer cobras? I woudl lower it to the ground and have a mods to keep the thing planted as well. With all those mods how comparable coudl i get it to be to a "super car" Such as instead of maybe 900 RWHP for a new cobra what about 700 do to less fontal area and some aero mods? Give me some estimates? Will the fastback actaully help my goal or should i jsut get a coupe and slap some spoiler on it? __________________ !988 GT World Windsor Sr.'s, Harland sharpe rockers, 3.73 gears, pulleys, no ac, hurst shifter, 10:1 pistons, BBK full length headers and H-pipe with flows. Under extensive work for porting and fly cutting to accept my new cam and to match my soon to have systemax intake DROOL Best E.T. 13.20 with edelbrock RPM intake and 70mm TB

11-07-2002, 09:10 PM	#27
vetteeatr Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Olney, Illinois, USA Posts: 212	!!!!!!! well i was right but not by mucht eh diffrence is this 65-66 stangs were at 68.2 width fox body was at 69.1 67-68 were at 70.9 so by goign wiht the older one i woudl save a whopping 0.9 inches wow thats huge!!!!!!!!!!!!!! .... __________________ !988 GT World Windsor Sr.'s, Harland sharpe rockers, 3.73 gears, pulleys, no ac, hurst shifter, 10:1 pistons, BBK full length headers and H-pipe with flows. Under extensive work for porting and fly cutting to accept my new cam and to match my soon to have systemax intake DROOL Best E.T. 13.20 with edelbrock RPM intake and 70mm TB

11-07-2002, 09:23 PM	#28
chico Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Manteca,Ca. Posts: 114	Top Speed You guys are all right on..You need to lower and completly seal the underneath of the vehicle to prevent air from allowing the lift factor to take place.. along with all the required suspension...But...if you do not have the HP and the right gears, it will take you forever to achieve your top speed. John Boscema hit 188 mph with I believe 440 rwhp..He needed the additional HP to achieve the 200 mph mark. He has since accomplished this. But you need the lower gears to hit your mark. __________________ 98 cobra convt. 515 rwhp 421 torque..554 rwhp on 98 octane..635 rwhp this summer

11-07-2002, 10:18 PM	#30
jim_howard_pdx Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Portland Oregon Posts: 247	Shelby's race team drove mustangs from 1965 all the way to the 70s. Not one of them ever hit 200 mph. You are kidding yourself to think it can. The front end is all wrong, the windshield is all wrong, the floor pan is all wrong, and the rear end is all wrong. So when Ford decided they would win Lemans, they built a cobra coupe that did 188 mph with a 427, and the GT 40 that could hit 200 mph if it had a long straightaway. Most of the straights these GT's hit 175 to 195 mph. Remember they needed to conserve brakes so pushing a car way fast into a corner is just a receipe to lose. The Pantara I got a chance to work with was a 4 speed ZF with a custom machined 1.7 gear ratio, a 302 Boss stroked to 331 cubic inches, and twin turbos. The car dyno'd at 900+ mph and hit 214 one direction on Bonneville and 197 the other way. Next year it came back and turned 222 one way and 209 the other direction. The only reason it needed so much horsepower was that you have only 1/2 mile to hit speed, then you have to hold it for 1/2 mile. Then you have to repeat it in the opposite direction. This car had 25,000 into the engine alone. The zf was pretty plain but the 1.7 gears cost about 10,000 to fabricate to the ZF transaxle. The modifications to the car to keep it glued took a wind tunnel and that development time cost around 10 grand. To take a crew to Bonneville IS PRICELESS Hope you see the cost of speed. But this is a fun what if kind of a thread __________________ 1966 Customized for daily street and highway domination. 358 Windsor running 425 HP C-4 Auto and 3.25 Posi

11-07-2002, 10:55 PM	#31
Eric4Nitrous Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Va Posts: 1,122	My 89 GT Tube chassis car hit 199.96 mph in the 1/4. And even though it had all the special chassis touches to it..it was kinda hairy on the big end. I had people tell me that front end was pushed in due to the downforce and wind. It was really hairy from the 1/8th mile mark on. It was like trying to run a marathon in high heel shoes. __________________ 68 Camaro Gene Fulton 632ci Two stages of Jug 8.41 164mph Rockingham 1-26-03

11-07-2002, 11:53 PM	#33
Eric4Nitrous Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Va Posts: 1,122	haha yeah were even. But i'm gonna get ya back. Between you Kevin, and Ryan you guys are gonna kill me.lol __________________ 68 Camaro Gene Fulton 632ci Two stages of Jug 8.41 164mph Rockingham 1-26-03

11-08-2002, 12:03 AM	#35
Eric4Nitrous Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Va Posts: 1,122	I'll PM you a list of where i'm racing this year. Maybe you can find a few days to get away this year. __________________ 68 Camaro Gene Fulton 632ci Two stages of Jug 8.41 164mph Rockingham 1-26-03

11-08-2002, 01:04 AM	#36
PKRWUD Junior Member Join Date: Mar 1999 Location: Ventura, California Posts: 8,981	Cool! __________________ Webmaster: Rice Haters Club Jim Porter Racing Peckerwoods Pit Stop Support Your Local RED & WHITE!

11-08-2002, 09:10 AM	#37
drudis Moderator Join Date: Dec 1999 Location: Livonia, MI, USA Posts: 1,194	Speaking of aerodynamics, I hope to do some testing before winter sets in... Mostly just testing several rear wings. We'll see if I can get the companies to reply to me. __________________ Darius Rudis, Moderator Corner Carvers Delight 1989 Mustang LX - Open Track Car http://www.dariusrudis.com

11-08-2002, 01:20 PM	#38
Agent_4573 Registered Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: New Jersey Posts: 375	trying to get an old fastback up to 200 is pretty much outta the question. I mean it could vbe done one a full out drag car that wasn't really much of a fastback anymore. Even if it isn't as wide as the new cobra's, the new cobras are more round and aerodynamic. Think of it as trying to pull a brick through water and a baseball through water. The baseball is gonna go alot easier cuz it rounder. Also, just slapping a rear wing on the car that has the most downforce will have some negative effects. To much downforce on the rear wheels will increase the friction between them and the road, slowing you down. It may also contribute to the nose becoming airborne. The harder you push down behind your rear axle, the easier it will be to lift the nose off the ground. What your looking for is a complete balance of downforce between the front and rear of the car. __________________ '89 LX 5.0, off-road h pipe, flowmaster muffs, underdrive pulleys, rebuilt WC T-5, King Cobra Clutch, 65mm throttle body, Explorer Upper/GT40 lower, Lakewood Rear Lift Bars. 76mm C&L Mass air w/ inlet pipe, Twisted wedge heads w/ stage 2 port,polish, MAC equal length shorties, Billet AFPR, 255LPH fuel pump, fresh low end w/ 10.5:1 compression. If anyone ever wants to go to Raceway Park in Englishtown New Jersey, give me a shout. RICER HATERS CLUB MEMBER 87! www.ricehatersclub.com

11-08-2002, 02:09 PM	#39
0h n0 5.0 Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Birmingham, Alabama Posts: 371	i beleive the conclusion is yes, in theory it could happen.(anything can happen ,its the variables that contribute to its conception an and execution that are the trick... primairily moolah. it would require creating a whole new brethern of race car based on a oe factory design chasis if you want to get the credit for its conception. complete frame redesign, relocation of engine, wind tunnel testing an many trials an errors to acheive it. but hell i say go for it __________________ 0h n0 5.0 Alias:94five0, Vr00m, Black Shuck 1994 GT 5.0l

11-08-2002, 03:14 PM	#40
vetteeatr Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Olney, Illinois, USA Posts: 212	Thanks For All The Help Guys. I htink I will jsut use it as a drag car actualyl as it sounds liek to much of a pain in teh *** to screw with when i gotta bust out 900 Horses to get hat hgih. I was lookign at the new porsche GT2 specs last ngith and thtese things are cool they didnt have as much power as i expected though. But for like 462 horsepower they top out at 196 or 198 one of those. Thats just amazing. I would have thought they would have had more power actualyl beign a 3.8 with twin turbo's but you coudl probalyl bump some stuff up a bit easily. I was raeding on it as well and it seems they have something similar to the V-TEc system did thy jstu rip it off of honda or vice versa? __________________ !988 GT World Windsor Sr.'s, Harland sharpe rockers, 3.73 gears, pulleys, no ac, hurst shifter, 10:1 pistons, BBK full length headers and H-pipe with flows. Under extensive work for porting and fly cutting to accept my new cam and to match my soon to have systemax intake DROOL Best E.T. 13.20 with edelbrock RPM intake and 70mm TB

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Toploader 4 speed VS FMX auto	Metal396	Classic Mustangs	6	03-16-2003 10:00 AM
Speed Secret # 3	jim_howard_pdx	Windsor Power	13	11-09-2002 10:35 AM
Please Comment of Speed Secret # 2	jim_howard_pdx	Windsor Power	20	11-06-2002 11:44 AM
First ticket. Sucks, sucks bad.	zepherman	Blue Oval Lounge	46	12-16-2001 07:24 PM
3 speed Manual to a 3 speed Auto in a 66	T-N-T	Classic Mustangs	0	08-04-1999 08:45 AM