What's the top speed on your car?
 

I was wondering how fast your car will go top speed? 1/4mile not being a factor.

Top speed:

Gear ratio:

Tire heighth:

------------------
95gt 80k, MSD 6AL, MSD coil, pulleys, fpr, cold air kit, off road h-pipe, flowmasters, 3.73, fluidampener, 9mm wires, mega bite jr lowers, kennybrown subframe connectors, edelbrock performer intake, 70mm TB, Aluminum Driveshaft, Tri-Ax shifter.

Also does anyone now if my car has a top speed regulator in my computer? If so, can I fix it with a chip?

------------------
95gt 80k, MSD 6AL, MSD coil, pulleys, fpr, cold air kit, off road h-pipe, flowmasters, 3.73, fluidampener, 9mm wires, mega bite jr lowers, kennybrown subframe connectors, edelbrock performer intake, 70mm TB, Aluminum Driveshaft, Tri-Ax shifter.

Also does anyone now if my car has a top speed regulator in my computer? If so, can I fix it with a chip?

Top speed: 135

Gear ratio: 3.73

Tire height: 24

------------------
95gt 80k, MSD 6AL, MSD coil, pulleys, fpr, cold air kit, off road h-pipe, flowmasters, 3.73, fluidampener, 9mm wires, mega bite jr lowers, kennybrown subframe connectors, edelbrock performer intake, 70mm TB, Aluminum Driveshaft, Tri-Ax shifter.

I'm not sure what your askin, for the theoretical top speed? i believe that the top speed on an 87-93 fox manual hardtop is about 135 (most people get it up to about there), and yours is a 94-95, a little heavier, so it'd probably be a little lower. your gears would affect that. now, the theoretical top speed is different:
say you go all the way to the redline (5800 rpm) in 5th gear (.68:1). ((5800/.68/3.73)
(24*pi)/12/5280)*60 == 163mph. that does *not* account for wind drag, though, so your actual top speed may be lower.

The only way to test and find actual top speed though, is with a long strip of road airstrip or highway. doing so will usually result in donut eaters being called, but you have to think (gonna take some more math...) if your going that fast (90mph, say), that in the time it takes the officer's (i use the term lightely) car to reach that speed (crown vic runs the quarter in 15.5 for sake of discussion at 85) is 16.5 seconds, and thats just to MATCH your speed, not to gain on you. by the time he gets to 90 (you will have continued to accelerate, right?) you will be another .4125 miles from him (probably more, given your still accelerating), and given you are driving a modified vehicle, he will never gain on you. so just get off at the next exit, make a bunch of turns and hide. have fun!

[This message has been edited by dinomite (edited 07-20-2001).]

i have had mine at 140 sp far but i have 4`10 gears so i am wound out pretty good but i get there in a hurry http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/smile.gif...302 88lx some mods

With 2.73's at 5500RPM in 4th gear, I saw 139. The fastest I've had it with the 3.55's is 125, and it was in 5th somwhere around 3800RPM.

My suspension is mostly stock, and not stable enough for those kind of speeds. Though it's heavy, so it was'nt floating like some coupes and hb's I've ridden in, it still did'nt feel safe.

That's with 225/60/15's I think they're 24.25" tall.

------------------
90LX Ragtop.
14.7@95.3
Strut tower brace, K&N, 2.25'' Flowmasters, Hollow cats, Crank pulley, Crane 2031, Crane rockers, Holley FPR, 155lph, Heavy duty clutch, and alum quadrant.
Need Gears Bad!!!

[This message has been edited by jeb (edited 07-21-2001).]

i've had mine up to 130 but then i ran outta road to go faster http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/biggrin.gif

------------------
SHaFTed

91GT, 2 chamber flows, dumps, 70MM BBK TB, K&N conical, Robert Shaw tstat, Hurst short throw, T5, 17" Lexani Roma wheels, 235/40/R17 on front, 255/45/R17 on back, mach1 hood, LX tail lights, bright red!

At 5500rpm in 4th gear with 225/60 15's, you'd be running at 153mph.

Rated top speed for the Fox is 131mph, SN95 137mph. They will do a little more than that speed stock though.

With light it's light mods, my car will probably do about 140mph normally, and on a cold *** day in MN winter, it pulls way harder, probably good for another 5mph anyway.

"173" but that was with 3.08 in the rear between Halifax and Moncton on a race schedualed event i have been thinking about the silver state classic though.

In my sales broucher for my 89 it say's top speed 230 Kmph about (144 mph) but who realy knows. it wasnt stock for long

------------------
89 with 395 single stage n2o .garret t3. 373's Suspention worked out finnaly . need cage .

Weight actually doesn't have anything to do with the top speed of a vehicle. Drag has everything to do with it. Frontal area is a biggie and afterwards how well turbulence is managed (minimizing aerodynamic drag) probably has the biggest effect.

Now run a car in a defined amount of space (ie; a drag strip) and thats where weight has an effect and aerodynamics come into play. Weight initially effects the rate at which the vehicle accelerates, then as aerodynamic forces build agaisnt the vehicle and create excessive drag also effecting acceleration.

Run two cars in an open space without any predetermined end to where they must accelerate with the same amount of power, but with differing aerodynamics and weight (the lighter car with poor areodynamics, and the heavier car with better aerodynamics) and eventually the car with better aerodynamics will catch up and pass the other car.

[This message has been edited by MiracleMax (edited 07-21-2001).]

I'm not stupid enough to find out....top speed on public riads??? Are you crazy? According to my dyno figures, and the car tester software on here, and my ratio, aerodynamics, and car height, it says I should hit 183, but I will never see it.



------------------
Dustin
Saleenized 89 GT,428 rwhp,TFS Street Heat Intake,TFS TW Heads,TFS #2 cam,BD-11A 9 psi,FRPP 1.6 rr's,BBK 70mm TB,Pro-M 75mm Bullet,MSD 6BTM, FMS 9mm wires,BBK longtubes,BBK Short H-pipe,American Thunder cat back,3.55's

12.3@119

http://www.mustangworks.com/rides/pictures/Listing1549-slot1.jpg

I'm not a big fan of street racing in populated public areas, or making top speed runs down the same, but if its a long straight road and you can see for miles and nobody's around (and your in the car yourself) and the only bug you squash is yourself, then I don't see to much of a problem?

Aerodynamics is a bigger factor than weight in top speed, but think of it this way: What is *your* top speed? now put on a 50 lb. backpack.....

According to calculations, I have hit 145mph in my '88GT with 2:73's and stock tires.
I was doing 5200rpms in 4th
For some reason, I didn't experience any "floating" at that speed and my suspension is stock with 75K miles on the clock.


------------------
'82 GT 351W C-4,BBK headers,Carter 625 carb,Comp.Cam,Flowmaster exhaust.
1988 GT...T-5,bone stock

dinomite, you are fighting a losing battle.

Let me illustrate.

1998 Panoz AIV Roadster. 305hp 2500lbs.
0-60 4.6sec, 1/4 mile 13.3@101.5, Standing mile 35.1sec@129.9, Top speed 134.0mph.

1998 Porsche 911 Carrera. 296hp 2900lbs.
0-60 4.9sec, 1/4 mile 13.4@105.2, Standing mile 33.0@150.3mph, Top speed 174.8mph.

1998 Aston Martin DB7. 335hp 3800lbs.
0-60 5.7sec, 1/4 mile 14.3@98.1mph, Standing mile 35.2@142.4mph, Top speed 163.5mph.

Breaking down those performance's on Ford's AZ 5mi Testing track you can see the trend. HP vs Weight vs Aerodynamics.

The Panoz, by far the lightest of the 3 managed to outaccelerate both the Porsche and the Aston Martin (which get's killed thanks to ta 3800lb curb weight) in both 0-60, and 1/4.

If you look at the 1/4 mile trap speeds though, you can see the Porsche is pulling on hard on the Panoz at the end of that stretch. The Aston Martin is still getting stomped.

At the end of the Standing mile, it's a totally different story though. The Panoz is now dead last amongst the three and the Aston Martin is overtaking the Porshe in accleration from the end of the 1/4 to the end of the standing mile with it's additional 40hp. Dispite being 900lbs heavier. That span is where the real transition from weight being the major factor to aerodynamic drag being the factor is the most noticeable.

Then as you can finally see, the Porsche's eventual terminal velocity beats the Aston Martin because of aerodynamics, and the Aston Martin dispite a 1300lb deficit, KILLS the Panoz, which hits a brick wall at about 130mph. You can argue that the Aston Martin has more top end because of more hp, but the Porsche has less hp than either, yet weighs 400lbs more than the Panoz, and it beats both.

From 0-60 power:weight is the most important feature, again for the 1/4 mile, but it begins to get tight at the end, between the 1/4 mile and the standing mile, drag becomes more important and weight goes out the window. By the end, drag wins the contest, even versus significant hp differences.

That is hard to see that Unit 5302 because the all have different gears and That makes a Huge difference too. The 1998 Panoz AIV Roadster. 305hp is that a 4.6 in that.
weight does not matter Much at all
Infinti Q45 01 4050lb 340HP 150MPH and That is only because it has a limiter on that and it hits it in 4th&5th gear.

82 GT Is that on your stock tach they are WAY off above 4000RPMS. I can get mine over 7,000+ And my Auto Meter is at 6,000 At 145 you WILL feel it!

i wondered what you were talking about when you told phil i was gonna loose an argument....but i have to say that thos figures don't tell much because of the greatly different body styles (drag), different powerbands, and how the car's gearing works with the powerband. The only way to really show this would be to take 2 identical cars (or do to tests) and throw 200 lbs worth of weight into one of them. When you are testing final velocity, yes, drag is a much bigger factor, but weight still matters. the simplest portrayal of this is the backpack thing i said earlier. if you want something more accurate, do it on a bike.

I just had mine upwards of 130mph with 3.73 gears and it still had a bunch left to go I'd guess another 25-35mph faster with a bit longer stretch of road.

------------------
Gunning for 12's!
http://www.indianastangers.com/2Fast..._brd_logo2.gif
Buy your parts here
ICQ# 42269241

You could argue the gearing theory, but since all 3 cars have similar powerbands, it's not as important for the powerband arguement.

I hate to get theoretical, but none of those cars is poorly designed, and none of them have poor gearing. There are only so many times you shift gears, and gearing makes a hell of a lot less difference after the 1/4 mile. This isn't a comparison between drag setups and street setups, these are all production cars. Now, I'm not saying these cars couldn't be toyed with to produce greater acceleration from one section of the results to another, but as much as you'd like to dismiss the numbers shown, I hardly think it's that easy to do.

I could have included other cars into the comparison, such as the 3200lb 345hp, 174mph C-5 Corvette tested, but I think the general rule has been shown.

As far as weight being a factor in top speed, you can apply physics. As long as there is ANY force being applied to an object, no matter how small that force eclipses the drag upon the object, it will accelerate. It will just accelerate slower. Using a human being in comparison to a car is a very poor example. Humans are not drag limited, we are gear limited, furthermore, do to the way our stride works, adding 50lbs throws off our center of balance, and our ability to run in stride.

If you'd like, I'd offer up the fact that the fastest my 88GT had ever gone was with 5 people in it. It took a long time to get there, but I think all the extra weight lowered the car and produced better aerodynamics.

Of course, ultimately, you may not have enough force to be able to accelerate a larger mass because of inconsistancies in the acceleration force, so weight can play a factor in a non controlled environment.

Of course, drag and hp are really the main factors, gearing plays into the hp part.

One more thing to add to the " human with 50 lbs on his back " factor is fatigue. Engines won't experience this in one high speed run. ( they will over time though, Its called wearing out! http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/wink.gif )

------------------
B.R.
L.X. 5.0 coupe
Cruise control,power mirrors,...and Thats it!

My '77 403 LeSabre w/ 2.83's &
L60's pegged out the 160 speedo, but that was a few years ago.

Take care
~Chris

------------------
Retired Moderator
MustangNet

My site: JimPorterRacing

RACECAR spelled backwards is RACECAR

HEY !!! Are you ASE Certified ??? If you are, ask me about iATN. The best tool you'll ever have, and it's free !!!

Assuming that the backpack didn't alter my aerodynamic profile then I would still be just as fast but not as long if I were unladen http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/biggrin.gif

Your analogy is correct if your are indicating it takes a certain amount of power to maintain a particular rate of acceleration.

Throw your buddy in the car with you and you'll still have the same terminal velocity although it will take you longer to get there, throw him on the roof, and not only will it take you longer to get there, but you will also slow down (unless screaming buddies have some aerodynamic enhancing property not known to modern science http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/smile.gif )

stang runner, that 5200rpm was with an autometer tach.
I was hauling a$$
It took a long time to get stopped too...wow!

Gotta agree with Unit. What determines your top speed is drag, which is a combination of aerodynamics and friction. Aero drag increases exponentially with speed, so aero drag is the biggest factor that determines how fast you can go.

More weight might may mean more rolling friction, but it has minimal effect on top speed. It just takes longer for the heavier vehicle to get to terminal velocity.

------------------
Russ L
'91 LX
Procharger, 3 row intercooler, extrude honed Cobra intake, Mac full Length Headers, 30# inj., 73mm C&L, 75mm tb, E303 cam, 289 rods, ported E7 heads, MSD, T-Rex w/255 lph Walbro, 5 lug conversion, Cobra R wheels, 3.27 gears and Moser Axles.

i'm not saying that it has a big effect, just that it does have an effect. if you don't trust me, go ask your college physics professor. i knew that the backpack thing was a bad analogy, just trying to get my point across.

Incorrect. If you look at the physics in running, your legs must "push" your body up and forward. Completely different force diagram.

Weight has little to do with top speed. Although I guess if you got real picky you could argue that a higher downward force would contribute to higher frictional forces which would lower your top speed. But then again, the same would be true if you put on wider tires, softer rubber tires, etc. http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/smile.gif

Unit has the correct analysis here.

------------------
1995 Mustang GT

ok lets try this go to the top of a very steep hill now run down .drive ride take you time getting up be well rested put that 50lbs on now run down which will be faster ? my geuss me falling with the 50 lbs.


------------------
89 with 395 single stage n2o .garret t3. 373's Suspention worked out finnaly . need cage .

drag smag, he just wanted to know top speed of our vehicles, and if he has a limiter on his. chill pill time for some of us, i've had mine to 135 with more to go, that was fast enough for me 4:10's stock suspension 235/60/15 BTW isnt drag some rope sucker dressed in girls clothes

------------------
89 Notch: ASP Pullies,
K&N Air,Transgo shiftkit,Trans. cooler,FMS 3 core Radiator, FMS 4:10's, 1.5" cowl, cold air kit, hooker equal length shorties(jet hot coated), O/R H-Pipe, ASP solid mounts, Energy Sus. Trans. Mnt. BBK 70mm TB, MSD 6al, Dual elec. fans

According to my stock speedo, I was going just under the 140 mark (maybe 137) and could go no faster - I was in 5th gear and had been accelerating for about 3 miles chasing a buddy on a motorcycle (I did not catch him!). As for the limiter question, you probably don't have one, but even if you did, I don't see why you would need to remove it unless you found yourself hitting it.

Top speed has everything to do with the mass of your car. In order to reach top speed, you need to generate enough force to accelerate the mass of your vehicle to that velocity. Force = Mass x Acceleration.

Let's say that your engine can generate a constant force, which it can't do. The mass of your vehicle will remain constant. As the velocity of your vehicle increases, the force of drag on your vehicle will increase (quadruples for every time the velocity doubles). The force of drag can be subtracted from the force your engine is able to generate and then you can divide it by your mass to determine the rate of acceleration. Your acceleration will constantly decrease until, for all intents and purposes, it reaches zero.

Now factor in the fact that engines don't generate a constant force and force drops off significantly at higher RPMs.

------------------
351W 89 Mustang GT Convertible

[This message has been edited by jimberg (edited 07-23-2001).]

Actually, it doesn't really matter how fast your car can go. A better question would be "How fast can you drive?"
A car that can go 200mph means nothing if you don't have the guts or experience to drive that fast....correct me if I am wrong.
Most people wouldn't be able to just hop into a Winston cup stock car and expect to go 200mph.
These peolpe that buy these corvetts, Ferrari's and Porche's and brag about how fast their car is clocked at cracks me up!
Let see those guys get out there and drive that fast. My money says a majority of them won't have the balls to go much faster then 140-150 if even that fast.


------------------
'82 GT 351W C-4,BBK headers,Carter 625 carb,Comp.Cam,Flowmaster exhaust.
1988 GT...T-5,bone stock

lol! they have drag races of that type in dc.

http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/smile.gif Actually, according to the equation above, top speed is not determined by mass. According to force = mass x acceleration, two cars of different mass will reach the same top speed, all else being equal. The main difference is that the car with greater mass will take more time.

With a greater mass, acceleration is less. But the car will still accelerate until the power it delivers (force) equals the forces of aero drag + friction.


------------------
Russ L
'91 LX
Procharger, 3 row intercooler, extrude honed Cobra intake, Mac full Length Headers, 30# inj., 73mm C&L, 75mm tb, E303 cam, 289 rods, ported E7 heads, MSD, T-Rex w/255 lph Walbro, 5 lug conversion, Cobra R wheels, 3.27 gears and Moser Axles.

Yeah, you're right. Sorry about that. I realized that when I thought about it more on the way home. But hey, it settled the argument. http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/smile.gif Weight has nothing to do with top speed. http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/smile.gif

The backpack of weight argument is more akin to that of a parachute. Yes, if you add more weight to a parachute it will fall faster but that's because the added mass times the acceleration of gravity creates more force which in turn would create a higher terminal velocity.



------------------
351W 89 Mustang GT Convertible

i really dont want to carry this thing on but yes there is a governer on your car , if you have a 5 sp then its a two wire connector on top of the trans , its tripped by fifth gear , it limits the revs to 3800 in fifth , the other gears are only limited by the rev limiter of 6250. pull the connector off and have at it.

I was under the assumption that mass increased as velocity increased and this ties in with the theory of relativity (all joking aside), hence the super destructive power of meteors, asteriods, ect

but I digress http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/biggrin.gif

I can see where drag/friction limits top speed, and the relativistic effects of accelerating the mass from one velocity to another would support the statement that mass is a limiting factor,

however it seems to me that the speed attainable by most if not all vehicles niether have the mass or the speed to make mass by itself a consideration in limiting the top speed of the vehicle (hope that sounds right?) and aerodynamic forces (drag/friction) ultimately play the greatest role in limiting the top speed of a vehicle?

MiracleMax, yeah, you had it right to begin with. Mass has nothing to do with top speed. It only determines the time that it takes to reach top speed.

------------------
351W 89 Mustang GT Convertible

Well I gave the mass/velocity statement a thought, If say for instance your car was able to operate in a vaccum, and had unlimited gearing so that engine speed nor drag was an issue, then eventually the relativisitc mass of the vehicle would become so high, the power produced by the engine would be unable to accelerate the vehicle from one velocity to another. Making the statement true in the that mass does have an effect on terminal velocity, but only in the relativisitic sense.

On a more practical level a car or any car is unable to generate suffcient velocity through gearing or power, for mass to have a substantial effect on terminal velocity. Hence aerodynamic forces (drag/friction) are the limiting factor here on terra firma.

I never dabled with physics in school, so I can't say if newtonian physics indicated an increase in mass as speed increased, but instead held mass as a constant depite the velocity of the vehicle.

I've had my stock '95 gt with 3:08's and 245/45's at 141 and it would go much higher than that, but due to the wind that day, th car was taking flight. I want to top out my car again when I get fresh ZR tires. Does anyone know if the SN95's computer limits top speed?

------------------
Blueneonman - '95 5.0L Mustang GT Convertible | K&N Custom Cold Air Intake | FMS 9mm Wires | Hollow Cats | Flowmaster 2 Chambers | BBK Subframes | 6-pt Rollcage | King Cobra Clutch | FMS Adjustable Clutch Cable | B&M Short Throw | Coolest Neon Lighting on a Mustang EVER!

Homepage: http://www16.brinkster.com/blueneonman/

Guys, Guys , guys
How long ahs it been since you guys took physics? In reply to Jimberg, gravity puls every object down at the same speed, NO EXEPTIONS!!!!!!!! Secondly mass has so much to do with top speed, it is not even funny. Example: a 250 hp engine can propel a 3000lb car to a speed of lets say 140miles. Now the same 250hp engine will propel a 3500 lb car to only 135miles. My rig is capable of 90 miles per hour top speed when loaded with 10 000 pounds. When I got 30 000 lb on the back of my trailer, my top speed is only 80 miles. Aerodynamics along with wieght are very important when dealing with top speed. You will never run as fast with a 50lb bag on your back as you would without it. Porche is fast because it is relatively light, but most of all it has very low wind resistance. So pull up those old physics books and review the formulas. Horsepower is also calculated bases on the vehicle weight and the time it takes to travel a certain distance. Hope I put your minds at rest.

Everything falls at the same rate of acceleration (approximately 10 meters per second per second). Objects will, however, reach a terminal velocity because of drag. If you add mass to the object without altering it's aerodynamic properties, its terminal velocity will rise because your creating more force.

[quote]
Secondly mass has so much to do with top speed, it is not even funny.

We just proved it doesn't with the formula Force = Mass x Acceleration.

If the amount of force the engine puts out remains constant and only the mass of the car changes, you can see that only acceleration will go up or down to make the formula work.

This is more because of the friction caused by the load on your wheel bearings, axles, and such. That frictional constant is simply multiplied by the velocity of your vehicle. Aerodynamic drag is multiplied by square of your velocity.

So now I guess we can say that mass plays a very small part of top speed.

With a 300% increase in the payload of your trailer you are claiming an 11% drop in top speed. With a 15% increase in the weight of your car, you're claiming a 3.6% drop in top speed. This doesn't seem to add up.



------------------
351W 89 Mustang GT Convertible

MiracleMax,

Good thought. It's been a while since I've had time to play around with physics, but I believe the rule states something like as you approach the speed of light, mass increases exponentially. Good point.

That being the case, in order to accelerate a larger mass, you need a larger force. Such that to reach 1/2 the speed of light, it would take more fuel than there is matter in the universe.

I'm a little rusty, so jump in and tell me where I'm wrong.

--nathan

------------------
--silver_pilate

'91 GT, Built 306, Wolverine 1087 cam, ported Windsor Jr. Irons, and all the goodies...click the link to the left to see a full list of my mods...

Tried and True 302 Being Built to Outrun You! heh heh heh...
--Texas Panhandle--
Check out my site

Oh...I just read your next post, MiracleMax. That's what I was thinking.

--nathan

------------------
--silver_pilate

'91 GT, Built 306, Wolverine 1087 cam, ported Windsor Jr. Irons, and all the goodies...click the link to the left to see a full list of my mods...

Tried and True 302 Being Built to Outrun You! heh heh heh...
--Texas Panhandle--
Check out my site

Thanx, for all the responses. The reason for the question is on the top speed analyzer it says my car is capable of 168 at 6000rpm's.
I installing a stage 2 NOS kit and was wondering how the 150 shot was going to effect my top speed.
From what I've been reading, Are you guys saying that you could top out your gear given enough straight away? I always thought HP came into play. I didn't think certain cars could reach thier gears top speed because they didn't have the power to.

------------------
95gt 80k, MSD 6AL, MSD coil, pulleys, fpr, cold air kit, off road h-pipe, flowmasters, 3.73, fluidampener, 9mm wires, mega bite jr lowers, kennybrown subframe connectors, edelbrock performer intake, 70mm TB, Aluminum Driveshaft, Tri-Ax shifter.

Like I said before, How many people have the skill or balls to drive as fast as their car is capable?
Who cares if your car is able to reach 180mph if you are to scared to drive that fast? Just like HP, it's no good if you can't use it!


------------------
'82 GT 351W C-4,BBK headers,Carter 625 carb,Comp.Cam,Flowmaster exhaust.
1988 GT...T-5,bone stock

Objects will, however, reach a terminal velocity because of drag. If you add mass to the object without altering it's aerodynamic properties, its terminal velocity will rise because your creating more force.

Jimberg, objects falling down can only decrease in velocity, not increase. As you said 10m per second drop is the maximum gravitational pull, which means that objects can only decelerate based on their aerodynamical shape. Regarding my truck speed, every load is distributed over the area differently, putting more weight on the tractor wheels creating more drag. But lets not forget that mass is very important in determining top speed. Every racer works with the weight of their car to determine how much horsepower his engine needs to produce to reach a certain speed. As long as we live on earth, mass will be important. Now once we conquer space, that will be an other question.
Salud to you all.

The acceleration of gravity is 10m per second per second (not a typo or 10m/s^2). This means that for every second an object falls 10m per second will be added to its velocity. Without air, this would mean that the object is going faster and faster as it falls. With air, though, the force of air resistance will build which in turn reduces the acceleration of gravity until the point that acceleration is zero. The velocity that the object was able to obtain will be the terminal velocity. If you add mass to the object, force increases since we know that acceleration of gravity is a constant. Since the force of the falling object is greater, the amount of air resistance that builds must also be greater for the object to stop accelerating. This occurs at a higher velocity.



------------------
351W 89 Mustang GT Convertible

Racers do not work with the weight of their cars to get top speed. They try to drop weight to obtain maximum accleration.

The weight of a car will not affect it's top speed. Perhaps your rig, since the inconsistancies in the road as it rises and falls and the inability for the truck to accelerate with any zeal at that kind of speed makes it impossible to reach a top speed as though you were unladen. Also, adding 30,000lbs to the load adds friction to the 18 wheels your running. Commercial trucks already have significantly higher contact patches than cars, do to the need for extra loadbearing capacity. Making every one of those tires squat, even the slightest bit creates more scrub and friction. That could reduce your speed a little.

Put solid tires on your truck, and take it to a perfectly smooth road, and it wouldn't care about the 30,000 lbs very much.

We currently have the technology to accelerate us to 97% of the speed of light. It's quite simple. It uses a nuclear fisson reactor. Creates a nuclear split, and forces the waste out the back. Unfortunately, the compartment would have to be heavily shielded, and about 2 miles away from the reactor.

If you are saying that weight does not effect the top speed of a car then. You should be able to take your theory to the extremes and it would still hold true.

Once I overloaded the back of the work truck with cement a (96 F-350 1 ton with a 460) the truck would barely move and when it did get going it would not exceed 65 MPH. The cement did not affect the aerodynamics so was it not the weight that slowed the trucks top speed.

If weight is not a factor then why do cars and trucks have a tow rating. According to your theory if you can get the load to move then you can take it all the way up to your vehicles top speed taking the wind drag of the trailor into account of course.

So you are saying that if a car is topped out at 150 MPH and all of the sudden you throw an extra 2000 lbs of weight in the car that it will slow down but will eventually regain its speed of 150 MPH.

If you are saying that weight does not effect top speed but does effect acceleration
then (Force = Mass * Acceleration) it appears to me that if I could effect the acceleration of a car with weight then I would also effect the force or speed since force is a buy product of mass times acceleration....

[This message has been edited by 5.0 HO (edited 07-24-2001).]