TTopJohn

Now this is the kind of info I want to read in this thread. What about frontal area differences between the Camaro and the Challenger? Can a car with a .37 drag coeficient be more slippery from a top speed perspective than a .35 car if the aforementioned .37 car has a smaller frontal area?

Of course if the SS is .35 and the Challenger is .35, then barring some aerodynamic thing that can't be detected by untrained eye, it's looking like 173mph Challenger means a 173mph delimited Camaro isn't out of the question.

JakeRobb

Frontal area! I knew I was forgetting something in the drag equation.

My guess is that the Challenger has a bit more frontal area. I don't have numbers, though.

Such an undetectable aerodynamic thing would reveal itself in the drag coefficient. We just need to find out which Cd is correct and then determine the frontal area.

TTopJohn

JakeRobb, I would guess the same thing re the Challenger's frontal area - probably a skosh larger than the Camaro's.

I suppose you are right about cd revealing any aerodymanic quirk that would decrease top speed. I was thinking about how an early 3rd gen T/A looks less slippery than a 4th gen T/A, but the 3rd gen is actually better for top speed. But of course, now that I think about it further, an early 3rd gen T/A has a lower cd than a 4th gen T/A.

Logansneo

Thanks Just to clarify, the powerglide I had wasn't stock, and came out of the same drag Coevette that the engine did. I caught a glimpse of the patro
man's windshield mounted red light thinking it was a motorcycle going the other direction! The officer said he didn't hear my engine at first, but the massive amount of air my engine was sucking in, and what the car was displacing. He told me he was turned away from the road standing next to his Crown Vic, and by the time he turned to see what he was hearing my Camaro blew past and he said he had no idea what it was. He almost called it in as a racecar on the highway because it sounded like a NASCAR to him( mostly due to 2.5" 1-chamber FLOWMASTERS dumped straight before the axle) . The logic behind our estimate of 155-160 was that I had the engine at about 7300 rpm, as it continued to climb until I lifted ( 7300 rpm was what it read the last time I checked), and that his Crown Vic hit the limiter wall @ 138 mph. At that point he said my car was pulling away from him like he was sitting still, and then he lost me over the horizon. I lifted a braked for traffic shortly before he called for a roadblock!

As far as drag coeffecient I understand frontal area is needed for proper calculation, but if you lower a car substantially does that not also reduce drag?

King Moose SS

Vice-Versa to you Ohio-ains...... In Michigan, Ohio lisence plated cars aren't exactly welcome..... Especially during college football season

JakeRobb

Lowering a car would make a slight reduction in frontal area (less exposed tire), and can change the way air flows around the car (which would be represented as part of the Cd).

AdioSS

great story And despite Guy's criticism, with your explanation afterword, I believe you.

150+ wasn't bad at all in my Impala. It has a huge frontal area, but it also has only .34 Cd and a long wheelbase. It had wide speed rated tires, a lowered suspension, and added power. I hit 150+ on 2 separate occasions on a long stretch of interstate near where I live. I've only been caught going 100+ once, but I was in my Mom's car that had a 130mph governor.

guionM

I agree.

The only issue is the one poor person who happens to pop up because the guy flying at 150 wasn't paying attention for only a second or so, perhaps around a bend or hidden behind a rise in the road.

To say one should drive that fast on a public road is a given..... and in my case, I'd be a BIG hypocrite since I've done it... and know 155-160 in a 4th gen is a All-hands-on-deck affair.

However, I don't want to see ANYONE wind up dead, or just as bad, a parapalegic for the rest of their life.... innocent family on a drive or the person doing the run.

My reccomendation (a plea actually) is that you don't do anything like this unless you have a road that is close to perfect (again, straight, smooth, traffic and wildlife free, and at least a couple miles long) as possible.

Any 4th gen V8 can reach 140 in a short distance on a regualr freeway in between groupings of traffic, and can handle the speed and braking easily

But that extra 15+ mph is a whole different catagory, requiring a whole different type of road.

I may have disagreements with some of ya here, but I rather keep arguing with ya instead of reading about ya.

Ohio has been ****-land for speeders since the 1970s. They frequently exercise the right to pull over anyone going less than 5 mph over the speed limit... especially if you have out of state plates.

No criticism was given. I simply stated why that speed of 155-160 was highly unlikely based on the information given. I didn't critisize the guy, and in fact he actually said he believed he went that fast, not that he had dead on accuarate speed measurements of a special speedometer (the 67's speedometer only went up to 120). At the same time, I didn't doubt his story and in fact coimplemented it. If he didn't take offence, I don't think anyone else should.


About your own top speed.

If I recall, you have a Impala SS which has a natural top speed of about 145 mph. Between some simple mods, and the fact that I believe there is a speed governer that can be removed with a simple chip, going over 150 in an aerodynamic early-mid 90s Impala SS is easily done. The Caprices the CHPs were running had a top speed that varied between 145 and 148 in testing as I recall. Again, getting one over 150 is easily done, and good mods (intake, exhaust, tuning) could take one close to 155 since it has a similar drag coefficient to a 4th gen Camaro (believe it or not!!).

One last thing.

Early in this thread, a poster voiced a refusal about going extremely fast in a car as heavy as the new Camaro.

Actually, you WANT something that has some heft to it when you are moving along at 150 plus. Things like crosswind, pebbles, minute dips and rises in the road will convince you of that in a big hurry, especially to those who have actually driven at that speed.

A fox Mustang was a horror above 135. Yet, my SC felt better at 140 than it did at 80. I've read plenty from people who have ran their Impala SS at top speed who comment at it's stability where at the same speed in my Z28, my attention was cranked up to 110%.

As long as the new Camaro has sufficient downward force, I expect it to be light years more stable than the 4th gen Camaro at 155. The SRT Challenger has been reported to be stable near it's top speed as well.

Heft isn't an enemy when you are traveling that fast as long as aerodynamics and a planted suspension are done up right.

poSSum

I'm assuming you meant "shouldn't".

96SSConv#2033

B

Logansneo

Did you go out and do that just for us? Sweet.....CRAZY....but sweet!

P.S. To all moderators, everything from this moment forward CAN and WILL be held against you in a court of law!

And I promise to stop sharing stories from my childhood...where I come from this is considered contributing to delinquency!

trm0002

So you're doing 145 and taking a picture? You're either really stupid or the car's on a lift or there's another fool involved who instead of being "safely" (ok maybe it wouldn't matter anyways) belted in, has decided to put his life at risk and distract you by taking a close-up...

Just brilliant.

Oh by the way, you'd go faster if the gas tank was near empty and the car was yellow.

King Moose SS

hahaha, exactly what I was thinking. When I'm going 145mph, I'm definatly not thinking "Oh I should take a pic of this for the camaro guys" or "hey terrified passenger next to me, do you mind taking a picture of the speedometer"

HAZ-Matt

Or it could be on a dyno.

2010_5thgen

thats definately not on a dyno. i dont know of any dynos wherethey will let you do that.