hey dep what is your daily driver? seriously......and really your shoulders are even brown now...... :P

 

What were some of the claimed top speeds for the end of the thread? I missed some of it.

 

I dunno but from what gkull has said in the past i believe, and i respect his words, it only takes about 500hp to get a vette to 200 mph.

 

Yes, I dont see why turtle and dep seem to believe the speeds being thrown around are silly. It just takes some hp, a proper setup and some crazy people.

 

I don't know what it has to do with anything, but my daily driver is a 2004 Chevy Silverado pickup.

Taking a certain amount of horsepower to reach a certain speed, and actually DOING it in a car that was never designed to go that fast, are two VERY different things. There is a good deal of shovelled on this forum regarding top speed, elapsed dragstrip times, and horsepower of engines. Most people who KNOW how hard it is to make HP, go fast, and go fast quickly, just ignore it or laugh at it without posting anything derogatory. You know...the old "my pecker is bigger than yours" stuff really occurs a lot here. Speeds above 140MPH are VERY difficult to achieve, even in modern cars with all the bells and whistles. It takes a LOT of work in a wind tunnel to achieve those speeds. The C3 Vette, no matter what year, is far from being aerodynamic enough to do so in any version anyone on the forum owns. I used to own a Suzuki Hayabusa. It was THE fastest stock motorcycle you could buy. I think it still is for top end. They spent a LOT of time and money to make it that way. It was so fast they actually had to put a speed limiter on it to limit it to 170MPH.
Prior to the limiter, it could reach 200MPH with a skilled rider.
In the time it takes to type this sentence I had it up to 100 MPH at the strip. I doubt if ANYONE on the forum has the car or the ability to drive a C3 Vette at 200MPH. It's a pipe dream.

Dep

 

This is completely false. Almost any large car with a decent amount of power can go 140 mph. Most C3's that are geared for it can also do so. Dead stock, many would redline before reaching that speed, but that's easy enough to change. There is, however, a massive difference between 140 mph and 200 mph. I would agree that nobody here has a C3 that can go that fast.

Comparisons to a bike are not valid. They have relatively poor top ends (compared to how well they accelerate at lower speeds) because they have very little power. Acceleration is about power to weight ratio, while tpp speed is about power to area ratio. Roughly speaking, this means that vehicles with similar shapes and identical power to weight ratios will go faster if they're physically larger. This is why small quick cars like the Elise have much lower top speeds than Corvettes and Porsches. This effect also applies to bikes...

 

With some of the speeds that were claimed explains the moisture entering into the "footwell" threads we have been seeing........ 170 MPH....give me a break....

 

At least I admitted I wasnt proud of what I did.

 

I don't see why people think that it's so difficult to get a C3 to high speeds..
With upgraded suspension and enough power, I don't see a reason why you shouldn't be able to go 170+ mph in a C3.. I'm not a person to make claims. I back everything that I say with time slips/videos etc... However, I don't have a video when I went 165 mph, but I did and the car would've gone a lot faster if I would've stayed on it. Back in 1990, I had my '86 Vette with 250 HP up to 150 mph... My '68 with the 383 had 470 HP and even more in cold weather.. My car also weights only 2850 lbs (3060 lbs with driver)..

 

170 is no great accomplishment. 200 is a lot worse but getting there and past are not the killers - it doesn't take THAT much power. Rigging a bike to do that is a LOT harder because you are dealing with the driver as part of the airframe.

The problem is control and stability, but even that is not that tough.

This is difficult to really address without tripping the censor - which I do understand and reluctantly agree with. Speeding at 75 or 175 is hardly a felony (except maybe in Kali), but liability and just common sense support not making claims to illegal acts in public. Aside from the Autobahn, Montana (they have speed limits now - no! say it ain't so!!!) and track events, we have sanctioned closed roadway racing both in Texas and Nevada where SUSTAINED speeds go well over that. This thing that the C3's are antique junk though just can't be let go....

There are plenty around here who have taken C3's way past 170. The 3.08's many came with and any engine over 300 hp can get that done (it may take a half a minute from a dead start...) I can't claim to have seen that yet, both because I haven't and because it wouldn't be PC here, but unless there was some magic wall I hadn't seen coming (very, very shortly) that was easily doable, although the stability issues concern me (as well as getting so close to my set redline on this far less than perfect engine.)

Some have the notion that C3's are like a cargo van, just because the C4's, C5's and C6's have even lower drags and COG's. C3's still have very good coefficients compared to most cars. People throwing up some silly ricer trash also forget the weight of a REAL car like a vette is a bonus in control at speed (at least for lift control), compared to some hollowed out 2200 pound hondacar that a stiff breeze nearly tumps over when it's parked.

A local around my area - an older driver - converted his to a dead rear axle because past 160 in his '76 the rear lifted up enough to cause the rear wheels to lose square with the ground. I'm sure for our purposes this was done in sanctioned racing events. The car is a great one, so I didn't ask why he didn't just add a small wing and a better front air dam. (That alone won't guarantee steering stability, but it's a big start on what he noticed.) I myself have yet to encounter that, but I have a few differences from his - such as the late C3 tiny rear spoiler and my "astroair" vents are straight through to the ground.

Folks, our cars are hardly Edsels. They are capable of a LOT more than many realize, and not with all that many modifications, if any. I guess it's the perspective of when you bought yours, what other cars you have or had and when you grew up to form baselines and expectations.

 

This Vette has been coming out to Bonneville for about 25 years. they come out as a group and they all take turns driving over 200 mph. We have always ended up pitted near them. Look these guys up on the web.

quote: Hey, you out there in Illinois, South Carolina or (heaven forbid) Texas; have you ever dreamed of going to the Bonneville Salt Flats — going really fast and setting a record? This is a good, clean, honest car guy’s dream.

The Sundowner Corvette coupe was the world’s fastest passenger car in 1981 at 240 mph.

 

Interesting read. Two years ago I went to bonneville with a group of 5 cars. The top speed one was right on the edge of 300 mph TT Transam. They lowered the ci of the motor to try for the under 260 ci turbo class record and still attained over 270 in testing for the big run when it blew completely apart.

http://www.twin-turbo-v8.com/im_SuperRod_Sept04.cfm

Here are the class records. You need to find the rules to see what the classes actually mean. My 383 ci vette would not have been competetive.

http://www.lubricationdynamics.com/records.html

 

First off it takes MORE than just power and gearing to go over 140.
If it didn't, you would see SUVs and other powerful vehicles going that fast. I think too many are arguing theory over practicality. You can NOT just bolt in tons of horsepower and expect to go over 140 AND SURVIVE.
My comparison to the bike involved aerodynamics. The frontal cross section of the Suzuki Hayabusa is much SMALLER than any other high performance motorcycle, and it was designed that way from the beginning. Less wind resistance. Wind becomes a major factor at high speeds. Even with TONS of horsepower, you will hit a "brick wall" if you don't have the proper aerodynamics. We AREN'T talking aceleration at all. We aren't talking about felt power or 0-60 or 1/4 mile times. We are talking TOP END. I think you will find that, while it appears relatively stock, the Bonneville race gkull shows pictures of is FAR from stock.
And I bet there is more to it than just a big engine with lots of power.

Dep

 

whats the point captain obvious? Its still a C3 that did well over 200mph

 

The point, General Malcontent, is that it is HIGHLY MODIFIED from any C3 you will ever find on this forum. It's a LOT MORE than just a big engine and special gear. That seems to be the two things people think are only required to go 200.

Dep

 

yeah it has those kick butt rims!

I agree that you have to have more than a big motor and alot of gear, but its most of it.

Im sure the areodynamics below the car have been altered quite a lot, but the upper portion of the car seems only to have minor mods. In fact Im suprised to see the stock front bumper/grills. I had a hard time finding any specifics on it though. Anyone know?

 

I have to agree top speed claims are grossly exagerated for several reasons:
1.) Speedometers are very inaccurate, even in new cars. You have an average variance + or - of 15%. At 150 on your speedo you could be going 130, maybe less.
2.) You just have no idea of the wind resistance at speed. Most modern cars are drag limited, and these are with modern wind tunnel designs. You can't just figure gearing and horsepower into the figure, you have to add wind friction which of course increases exponentially as you go faster. It's an overwhelming obstacle and that is the reason very few cars are able to go over 130 or 140 without serious horsepower or design modifications. Try walking into a 30 MPH headwind and see what I mean. Headwinds even significantly effect jet speeds at 30,000 ft.

 

I went by tachometer reading... I was at 5000 RPM in 5th gear which translates to 165 mph with my rear gears and overdrive tranny gear...

 

you could post your rear end ratio 5th gear ratio and tire size and we'll be glad to check your math.

 

You're comparing a vette to an SUV ? Most are not "powerful." They also have huge frontal areas and drag coefficients as bad as our C3's. The poor onroad suspensions and tires with low speed ratings (leading to electronic limiters) don't help either. Powerful (or even not so powerful) cars almost all top 140.

Yes, you do need more than power to this. The car can't have too much lift, and must have a compliant suspension and precise steering. Early C3's had lift problems, but a lowered and raked car with enough power and the right gearing will not have any trouble going 140 in relative safety.

Ok, fine. But what did that have to do with Corvettes? I'm well aware of how drag works.