Re: Just once, I figured

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:03:53 GMT, "cprice@xxxxxxxx" <cprice@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>> KJ.Kate wrote:
>>
>>> "Rich" <none@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:bqj8m1d6ogk7lm128gvu14tpp3enhfqfla@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> **snip**
>>>
>>> I figured I hit 260kph or around 158mph.
>>>
>>> *cough*
>>> bull***
>>
>>
>> I gotta call possible BS on an '88 LX 5.0L clocking in at 160 mph. Back
>> when I was invincible and had a long, empty, slightly downhill stretch
>> of I-66 I managed to get my slightly modified '89 LX hatchback up to
>> 135-140 mph and that was about all it could muster. Getting another 20
>> mph out of it would have taken some serious horsepower. Also, the
>> stability of the car was absolutely horrible at 135 and even if it could
>> have gone to 160 mph I'm not sure I would have had the guts to do it.
>> Also, the conversion factor from kph to mph is 0.621 so his 260 kph is
>> closer to 162 mph.
>
>
> Can you read? Its his 2004 Mach-1 he's talking about. Also, at those
>speeds, factory speedometers are (historically anyways) notoriously
>inaccurate.
>
>Given a factory gear ratio and the high revving DOHC in his car I
>wouldnt necessarily say bull***. I'd be more interested in knowing what
>his tach said. Ever better would be if he had a quality aftermarket tach
>as you should be able to closely calculate speed based on an accurate
>tach reading.
>
Well if you read his original message he claimed 6600rpm in 4th.
--
Zombywoof

Si vis Pacem, Para bellum
.

Quantcast