speed limiter

Post by **smorison** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 1:33 am

GPXXX wrote:
now i can feel proud that my front spoiler / splitters are not just for rice factor

mikey i was going to say something really funny and witty but i think you said it all.

Post by **smorison** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 1:36 am

smorison wrote:you don't like to loose do you

dannyboyau wrote:
i thought that was made obvious by what i have done to my car

yeah well sometimes i like to state the frigging most obvious thing i can come up with just to state the obvious cause i like being

CAPTAIN OBVIOUS!!!!

hehe

dannyboyau · Post by **dannyboyau** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 1:40 am

smorison wrote:
smorison wrote:you don't like to loose do you

dannyboyau wrote:
i thought that was made obvious by what i have done to my car

yeah well sometimes i like to state the frigging most obvious thing i can come up with just to state the obvious cause i like being

CAPTAIN OBVIOUS!!!!

hehe

now now calm down

we dont need any more conflict in this thread

Post by **smorison** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 1:46 am

haha yeah well maybe i enjoyed that last post a wee bit too much...

i think it's time for bed!

GPXXX · Post by **GPXXX** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 1:52 am

i think Steve needs to change his forum title to Captain Obvious instead...

Theremin · Post by **Theremin** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 8:51 am

There is an article here on how to measure drag. It involves measuring the time it takes your car to slow down from 100 to 95 km/h in neutral.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/question497.htm

Maybe someone can give it a go and we can settle this once and for all.

ruchi · Post by **ruchi** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 1:11 pm

GPXXX · Post by **GPXXX** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 1:47 pm

Now that you've both made your point clearly, let's please move along now shall we...

No hard feelings ok fellas? *serenity now*

hmm, maybe i should remove my GT wing and cover my wheels with something... who's got a 17" frisbee i could borrow LOL..

dannyboyau · Post by **dannyboyau** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 11:44 pm

well that is why the electric FTO has 0.22 c/d

the 1996 eclipse has a c/d of 0.29 so i believe that a cd of 0.28 is quite possible as it not that much differant to the FTO

and as i said ruchi you imply by the comments you make, if your understanding of english is as good as your maths then you know exactly what and how you are saying it, so dont piss in my pocket

i made a statement that i stand by

that is that i hit the rev limiter in 5th gear

i am not certain what speed as the speedo goes to 180 so i diid some simple calculations that i knew would not be 100 % accurate, but should have been close

also have a look at the body kits on the V8 supercars, i have been told that they are all wind tunnell tested these days, they still have a spoiler that almost touches the ground. the formula you used is for a rear wheel drive, the FTO is a front wheel drive and mine is a manual, so it will have the least amount of losses through the drive train. physics as it is, means that that formula will not be correct on every car.

ruchi you have made statements i have shown you to be wrong about yet you continue to try and bait me, you pushed the c/d of the FTO up to 0.36 to try and keep it at 300 Hp, your pathetic give it up

ruchi · Post by **ruchi** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 12:47 am

GPXXX · Post by **GPXXX** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 1:11 am

guys, take it easy and don't make me lock this thread...

ruchi · Post by **ruchi** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 12:33 pm

TimmyD · Post by **TimmyD** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 8:51 pm

ruchi wrote:Due to the ..... Please help us.

easy tiger, someone would think that your taking this debate seriously.

PS. the chick from your adverage Joe is mighhhhhhhhttttttttyyyyyyyyyyy FINEEEEEEEE!!!!!!

FTO338 · Post by **FTO338** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 10:36 pm

Geeeeeee this is more hardcore then "itchy & scratchy", but it is educational about all the car stuff.

Very interesting.................

Post by **Supplanter** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 11:33 pm

I think the only way to end this argu... err i mean discussion is to have a drag between dannyboyau and ruchi, winner takes all.

Theremin · Post by **Theremin** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 2:59 pm

Ruchi - thanks for taking the time to work all that out and post it. Always good to see an argument backed up with facts and figures. Then again, we must remember that things can happen which defy the presently known laws of physics, such as when Newton's laws failed to explain events at the molecular level which lead to the discovery of quantum mechanics. Perhaps we should ask the likes of Steven Hawking to examine dannyboyau's car? Ok, just stirring.. don't want to start this up again

Umm, now... what was the guy's original question??

ruchi · Post by **ruchi** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 4:11 pm

GPXXX · Post by **GPXXX** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 4:20 pm

oh btw, did i mention i once had a plasma-injected flux capacitor installed on my engine? on a good day, it can produce enough power to achieve light-speed similar to the USS Enterprise... but then my Bridgestone Potenzas couldn't keep up within 0.0000005s of warp speed and it was chewing through my budget real quick so i sold it on eBay...

payaya · Post by **payaya** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 7:54 am

speedos are not accurate at high speeds, they can be so much off its not funny.

Also the FTO uses a 444 diff ratio and close gearbox ratios so it wouldnt be hard hitting rev limiter in theory.

250km/h is damn fast in anyones language, and imo i dont believe the FTO does have the equipment to get there.

http://www.j-garage.com/mitsubishi/FTO/spec94.html

Tire Width (mm): 205
Aspect Ratio: 55
Wheel Diameter (inches): 16
Rev Limit (RPMs): 8500
Overdrive Gear Ratio: 0.820
Final Drive Ratio: 4.312 (4.626)

Tire Circumference (inches): 78.1
Theoretical Top Speed (MPH): 177MPH

so does that make the FTO the fastest road car with the 444 diff ratio?