Glad I'm not the only one. :) Anxious to see what might come out of this thread. I have already learned quite a bit of information that may prove handy in the near future.
Glad I'm not the only one. :) Anxious to see what might come out of this thread. I have already learned quite a bit of information that may prove handy in the near future.
^ that's all great but you failed to use commonsense in your initial calculations that a big ass wing hanging off the back, your open windows and gaping front end, may negatively affect drag/top speed:)Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Fast
Also, commonsense, to most people, not to use HIGHLY corrected whp for comparisons. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Fast
Out of curiosity, are you intending to do some sort of top speed competition or is it just analysis fun?
Matt M also made those runs at higher elevation than most and in NM there are literally roads that dont turn for miles and miles. I have no reason not to believe Matt considering how easily my car stuck the speedo past 180 down here at sea level. Literally on a highway paralleling the ocean.
No intentions of ever doing something like that again either.
Jason
Well, I knew the physics couldn't be defeated. It was easy to see the errors when I didn't get the results I anticipated. That's what data acquisition is for.Quote:
Originally Posted by familyMAN
This was more less a test of current capability before I start bolting aero components on. I actually anticipate approaching 185 miles per hour on the straight away at the racetrack Erron linked to. Obviously its less than ideal t do it with my vehicle setup like this :p .
I was curious as to whether or not anyone has ever really discussed what it takes to crack 200mph. I'm not that far off. I'm willing to give it a go in North Carolina or the desert.
I'm sorry but everyone models SAE for the sake of comparison. Bring your happy little 700 wheel horsepower cars here and get 550 :p .
I don't really care about discussing possibilities. I care about the data that came from my testing. It's invaluable to me and I'm happy to share.
Many will benefit from this data later.
There was a lot of really good stuff dropped in here by Jake. Anyone have thoughts on that? specifically the 2008 and 2011 GTR? I believe I have a side by side photo comparison. (Man, it's freaky how close to comparison my car is to my buddy Steve's gtr)
I did see some mixed results online regarding the drag coefficients for cars. Does anyone disagree with the information I'm using from the actual wind tunnel? Ayone have additional data or opinions regarding the drag coefficients for different model years and styles of 3/S?
Why not? :)
For comparisons sake, on Top Gear Clarkson hit 200 mph (speedo indicated) in a stock Porsche 997 turbo, with 473 bhp, which is about 415-420 wheel horsepower on those cars. The factory claim is 193, and has been verified with track telemetry. It weighs about 100 to 200 lbs less than a 3S. With an exhaust and flash tune only, several guys have hit 200+ with about 540 bhp, so about 480ish whp.
I know you mentioned your wider tires (that probably stick out past fenders) but have you thought about your wheel design? If I recall correctly, you have concave grids...bet you are taking a drag hit with those as well vs a stock vr4 wheel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mehrshadvr4
Yeah that's a fail. Reverse NACA ducts are for show. NACA ducts are designed (back before many of us were born, mind you) to be a source of air induction with minimal drag. They do not work in reverse when you flip them around (to vent). No such thing. If you wanted to vent air out of the hood, you would want to get a JGTC hood, or get some low profile louvered vents and rivet them to your hood. (or weld them if you want it relatively seamless)
Welcome to the wonderful world of aerodynamics. I was hoping that I could wow some people when I get my car back in town and in my garage to fab up a front splitter, underbody tray, and a diffuser (basically make the car as slick as possible) but it looks like you guys are onto it already...My guestimations lead me to believe that 200mph can be had with 550HP and a very well designed aerodynamic package. It would just take a bit of sense and patience to get everything ironed out.
You want the front of the car as low as you can, and the rear can be less so if you have a flat underbody. That in itself would cause a pressure differential and you would get downforce out of it without creating any additional drag like you would from adding a wing. A front splitter will increase this effect if it is actually built correctly (IE: Angled down and matching the rake of the rest of the car, not that skillard splitter that just sticks straight out and looks goofy)
PS: Remove mirrors plz. The lincoln mark 8 ran 181 mph with under 300 horsepower back in '93 with MINOR aerodynamic mods.
oh yeah, and spend lots of time on Time Attack Forums. Lots of good information.
Also, check out mulsannecorner.com. Literal goldmine of race engineering.
EDIT: Oh yeah, at higher altitude you make less power because the air is thinner...but you also suffer less from drag because the air is thinner.
A full weight Stealth that would run 10.90's and trap 130 at 3000 ft. elevation, (without the NOS) and you guys are telling me it didn't have the power to hit two bills...? And calling BS on Matt?
What the hell reason would Matt have to bullshit anyone...?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you guys think one of the mainstays of the entire community of the last 15 years is a liar....