jackh@zehntel.UUCP (jack hagerty) (10/16/84)
OK, we'll go one more round then let's call a truce. (You say tomato and I say tomaato ...) Before I start, I'd like to remind everyone that your original posting claimed that an absolutely box stock (except for tires) 1965 big block Corvette could accellerate from 0 to 55 in 2.6 seconds *and* would have a top speed of 175 mph. You said "and". You may have meant "or" but you said "and", and I'll hang you on semantics. ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Yes, I'll admit I exaggerated a little to catch attention. I should say so! > The figures you > quote were STREET TIRE equiped! I specifically said change the tires. I specifically addressed that in my chart. > I did not draw these figures out of thin air. My '66 rat-motored > Corvette does 0-60 in 5.3 sec. with street tires. With 10" M&H slicks > it takes 2.92 seconds to reach 60 MPH (uncapped at sea level). What's your definition of "Rat Motor"? To me that means "massaged." Also, I do not consider running uncapped (i.e. open exhaust) to be stock. No dealer worth his Chamber of Commerce certificate would let a car out of the showroom that way. > Assuming > the gears were 5.13 and the 2.52 low M-20 transmission in the 1965 > Corvette, (all factory show room stock stuff), and assuming you > disconnected the tail pipe from cast iron exhaust manifold, probably > the 1965 375 horse could do 0-55 in 3.0 instead of the 2.6 I claimed. A lot of assumptions which were not stated in the original posting. > The real absurdity in your chart is only allowing 10% for non-stock > tires! If you're putting more than 10% of that 375 HP into the tire structure rather than on the road then I doubt if they'd last a quarter mile. At least you're admitting that I took non stock tires into account. > Apparently you only are familiar with little put-put cars > that don't have the ponies to turn their stock tires, much less > big slicks. True, but my tires last for 70,000 miles of fairly entertaining driving. Also, there's more to recreational driving than straight-line ear bleeds! > You make reference to Cart and F1 racers "with gummy tires in the > back". I SAID the 'Vette would have to have non-stock tires to do > those times! And I ACCOUNTED for that in my table! > On the other hand, the 175 MPH top end shot probably is more out of > line, but only because of the poor aerodynamics of the Vette. You're finally seeing to reason. > a test on a bone stock 1985 Corvette did 155 MPH, > and it's smog-motored ultra low performance engine puts out maybe > 2/3 the HP of the no-smog hi-perf 396 rat motor. Put the 1965 motor > in the 1985 body and I'll bet it would do 175. Sure sounds stock to me! :-) In any case, steady-state power requirements go up with the *cube* of velocity. To go from 155 to 175 requires 50% more HP, not 30% The 136 MPH test figure is ridiculous considering the data on the 1985 > Vette. That 136 MPH was probably gear limited! You are probably right, but that's what they got stock from the dealer. > Naturally my 175 MPH assumed the proper gearing as did the 2.6 reference. Another unstated assumption. > You say " fancy tires aren't going to affect top speed". True, > but gearing sure will! No way could the Vettes in your table be that > slow if they had the optimum rear end gears, like 3.08 or 2.73, > both showroom stock gears. What do you want, low ETs or high top end? You can't have both with one set of gearing, and you never mentioned swapping rear ends in your original article. To sumarize, I really do appreciate your attempt to be fair, > but you are comparing apples and oranges. Thank you, but you selected the fruit stand, not me. > I specified non-stock tires (slicks) > and you disprove me by showing me times on cars with street tires! For the last time: I TOOK NON STOCK TIRES INTO ACCOUNT! Thank you, Jeff, for this most entertaining exercise. Jack Hagerty, Zehntel Inc. ... !ihnp4!zehntel!jackh
alan@drivax.UUCP (Alan Fargusson) (10/18/84)
I cannot look it up right now, but I remember reading about the car
that you guys are talking about in moter trend around 1966. It was a
one off car with 4wd. It also had a very strange transmission that
was automatic with two torque converters, one for front weels and one
for back weels. It was also fuel injected, but not supercharged. I think
that is produced about 600 hp. When I get my garage cleaned out (maybe
around 1988) I will try to find the article.
PS: the claim was 0-60 in 2.7 sec. which is exactly 1G acceleration. At
the time this was the mark that racers were shooting for.
--
---------------------
Alan Fargusson.
{ ihnp4, sftig, amdahl, ucscc, ucbvax!unisoft }!drivax!alanzemon@felix.UUCP (Art Zemon) (10/26/84)
alan@drivax.UUCP (Alan Fargusson) writes: >I cannot look it up right now, but I remember reading about the car >that you guys are talking about in moter trend around 1966. It was a >one off car with 4wd. It also had a very strange transmission that >was automatic with two torque converters, one for front weels and one >for back weels. It was also fuel injected, but not supercharged. I think >that is produced about 600 hp. When I get my garage cleaned out (maybe >around 1988) I will try to find the article. > >PS: the claim was 0-60 in 2.7 sec. which is exactly 1G acceleration. At >the time this was the mark that racers were shooting for. >-- Alan, you are absolutely right. An amazing head for figures and stats! The car you are discussing, should any of you care to look at it, is sitting in the Briggs Cunningham Automotive Museum right here in Costa Mesa. I highly recommend the Museum to all car buffs with an afternoon to spare. -- -- Art Zemon FileNet Corp. ...! {decvax, ihnp4, ucbvax} !trwrb!felix!zemon