What will it take for a LS1 Camaro to run 200 mph??
11-21-2006, 02:49 AM
#22
TECH Addict
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hanover, MD
Posts: 2,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Gunslinger09
Exactly.
There are so many people here calling bullshit without any knowledge of LSR cars out there running 200 plus out on the salt in Utah. There are big body Dodges with old school Hemi's and much less aerodynamics running 190MPH+ so it would be cake to do it in a 4th Gen Fbody, there may be people who are already doing it. Google SCTA or salt flats racing and see what you come up with.
To answer your question though I think you could do it with a M6 car with 3:23 gears a fully rollerized valvetrain, big cam and heads and some sort of forced induction. Spinning the motor 7500 in 6th would get it done.
There are so many people here calling bullshit without any knowledge of LSR cars out there running 200 plus out on the salt in Utah. There are big body Dodges with old school Hemi's and much less aerodynamics running 190MPH+ so it would be cake to do it in a 4th Gen Fbody, there may be people who are already doing it. Google SCTA or salt flats racing and see what you come up with.
To answer your question though I think you could do it with a M6 car with 3:23 gears a fully rollerized valvetrain, big cam and heads and some sort of forced induction. Spinning the motor 7500 in 6th would get it done.
11-21-2006, 06:20 AM
#23
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Tampa FL
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by parbreak
I'm calling bullshit to this kid who claims to have gone 205 MPH, not to a speed shop or someone with an unlimited budget. I don't think this guy was on salt flats either. SO I don't need to Google anything because we're not comparing apples to apples.
11-25-2006, 12:44 PM
#26
Originally Posted by Gunslinger09
Spinning the motor 7500 in 6th would get it done.
11-25-2006, 02:15 PM
#27
Originally Posted by Subliminal Hit
speed inc. went 199 mph in a standing mile with a 6 speed tt lt1 w/890rwhp. No body modifications. Ls1 f-body wouldn't be any different.
thank you. i was hoping i'd see someone else with this info....since one post has no credibility here i guess. but first of all....188 in these cars isn't that big a deal. and it is possible to hit 200 in these cars with no body modifications. most of the body modifications that would be made would be for safety reasons....not actual mechanical speed increasing reasons. bu ti forgot....everyone else knows everything....and if they haven't done it then i guess it just can't be done....
The following users liked this post:
Anthony Harden (03-05-2020)
11-25-2006, 05:53 PM
#28
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: MA
Posts: 1,401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by WstdIntllgnce
but i forgot....everyone else knows everything....and if they haven't done it then i guess it just can't be done....
11-26-2006, 01:11 AM
#30
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: MA
Posts: 1,401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CRAGER
Please go away and don't come back ricer boy! 
You guys need to read up before guessing. One guy here that can answer this is a Moderator:
NataSS Inc
...he got pretty close with his heads/cam.
Peace,
Craig.
You guys need to read up before guessing. One guy here that can answer this is a Moderator:
NataSS Inc
...he got pretty close with his heads/cam.
Peace,
Craig.
11-26-2006, 12:48 PM
#32
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Tampa FL
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MeentSS02
Dude, at least use a gear ratio calculator if you are gonna post something like this. That comes out to 344.5 MPH with 3.23s in the rear and stock T-56 gearing. Trying to reach top speed with a .5:1 6th gear would not be my first choice...
11-26-2006, 02:57 PM
#33
Originally Posted by Gunslinger09
I was mearly throwing something out off the top of my head guy. I didn't sit down with a slide rule to figure out all of the dynamics before I posted. But if it makes you feel better go ahead and jump on me.
And I hate to tell you, but if you think that you can pull the top speed out of a T-56 equipped car in 6th gear (with the .5:1 stock ratio), you need to spend a little more time learning about these cars. Seriously. It's rather unseemly.
11-26-2006, 03:04 PM
#34
TECH Resident
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Gunslinger09
I was mearly throwing something out off the top of my head guy. I didn't sit down with a slide rule to figure out all of the dynamics before I posted. But if it makes you feel better go ahead and jump on me.
11-26-2006, 03:10 PM
#35
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: MA
Posts: 1,401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jpat1023
The longer you are here the more you will realize that it is better to sit down and 'figure out all of the dynamics' rather than just posting whatever bs pops into your head...b/c you will be corrected, no doubt about it.
11-26-2006, 03:46 PM
#36
TECH Resident
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Shooter_Jay
I'll third that. Nothing personal I'm sure, just that this IS a tech site, so bogus attempted tech stands out like a sore thumb around us techies.
11-28-2006, 12:29 PM
#39
On The Tree
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dacula, GA
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow! All the arguements and all the tech junkies on this site and nobody posted any hard data on the gearing. Here is a liink to a gear/mph calculator...
http://www.f-body.org/gears/
For the record a stock geared M6 f-body would be turning 6700 rpm in 5th to hit 202 mph. (3.42 rear gears with 0.74 5th gear for a 2.53 final drive).
As has been stated there is very little chance you would want to try to do in in 6th gear. I agree. In a stock geared M6 f-body you would only be turning 4500 rpm to do it... but the real problem is probably even greater than the hp needed to drive the car that speed with only a 1.71 final ratio (3.42 X 0.50 = 1.71). You would have a heck of a time keeping the driveshaft from self destructing (9000 rpm driveshaft speed @ 200 in 6th).
Realistically it would seem your best bet would be to keep the stock gearing in the M6 car and try to make enough power to pull 6700 rpm in 5th. As far as how much power is need, I have to believe that with enough room (i.e. a long road) around 500 rwhp should be more than enough.
Consider that a C6 Z06 will do a factory claimed 198 mph with only around 450 rwhp and it seems that a stock bodied 4th gen should be aerodynamic enough to do it with a little more power considering the Cd (coefficient of drag) and the Frontal Surface Area is similar on both cars. Both cars report a 0.34 Cd from what I can find.
Considering the similarities between the aerodynamic drag of the new Z06 and the 4th gen (camaro anyway, I don't know about firebirds), and the fact that the Z06 can basically hit 200 mph stock, why would it be all that hard to believe a 4th gen couldn't do it with similiar power as the vette? Of course this means similar power in terms of same power at the same rpm. So a 4th gen with more peak power at a high rpm may not have the torque at a high enough engine speed (6700 in this case) to push the car to 200 mph. You would need to have the power in the right place to do it.
Finally, vehicle weight plays no role at all in determining overall top speed (terminal velocity). It has a huge impact on how long it will take to accelerate up to that speed, but once moving the weight largely just serves to hold the car to the ground (build in downforce if you will). Look at any of the physics equations for terminal velocity and you will not find mass anywhere. Just the amount of aerodynamic drag and power needed to overcome it. Now if you want to know how fast you can get to that speed you will need to know how much it weighs. Its why drag cars need to be light and land speed cars don't do any weight reduction. In fact in the stock bodied classes for land speed racing where you can not add spoilers to hold the car down, extra weight is considered a free downforce.
Everything I have stated here can be found on elsewhere on the net if you search for it. The question is really just simple physics.
Yes it is posible for our cars to do 200 mph. The question is do you have enough clear road/track to do it?
http://www.f-body.org/gears/
For the record a stock geared M6 f-body would be turning 6700 rpm in 5th to hit 202 mph. (3.42 rear gears with 0.74 5th gear for a 2.53 final drive).
As has been stated there is very little chance you would want to try to do in in 6th gear. I agree. In a stock geared M6 f-body you would only be turning 4500 rpm to do it... but the real problem is probably even greater than the hp needed to drive the car that speed with only a 1.71 final ratio (3.42 X 0.50 = 1.71). You would have a heck of a time keeping the driveshaft from self destructing (9000 rpm driveshaft speed @ 200 in 6th).
Realistically it would seem your best bet would be to keep the stock gearing in the M6 car and try to make enough power to pull 6700 rpm in 5th. As far as how much power is need, I have to believe that with enough room (i.e. a long road) around 500 rwhp should be more than enough.
Consider that a C6 Z06 will do a factory claimed 198 mph with only around 450 rwhp and it seems that a stock bodied 4th gen should be aerodynamic enough to do it with a little more power considering the Cd (coefficient of drag) and the Frontal Surface Area is similar on both cars. Both cars report a 0.34 Cd from what I can find.
Considering the similarities between the aerodynamic drag of the new Z06 and the 4th gen (camaro anyway, I don't know about firebirds), and the fact that the Z06 can basically hit 200 mph stock, why would it be all that hard to believe a 4th gen couldn't do it with similiar power as the vette? Of course this means similar power in terms of same power at the same rpm. So a 4th gen with more peak power at a high rpm may not have the torque at a high enough engine speed (6700 in this case) to push the car to 200 mph. You would need to have the power in the right place to do it.
Finally, vehicle weight plays no role at all in determining overall top speed (terminal velocity). It has a huge impact on how long it will take to accelerate up to that speed, but once moving the weight largely just serves to hold the car to the ground (build in downforce if you will). Look at any of the physics equations for terminal velocity and you will not find mass anywhere. Just the amount of aerodynamic drag and power needed to overcome it. Now if you want to know how fast you can get to that speed you will need to know how much it weighs. Its why drag cars need to be light and land speed cars don't do any weight reduction. In fact in the stock bodied classes for land speed racing where you can not add spoilers to hold the car down, extra weight is considered a free downforce.
Everything I have stated here can be found on elsewhere on the net if you search for it. The question is really just simple physics.
Yes it is posible for our cars to do 200 mph. The question is do you have enough clear road/track to do it?
12-09-2006, 05:29 PM
#40
On The Tree
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Colorado
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hate to disagree, but the C6's have a substantial advantage as far as aerodynamics and general vehicle construction. Honestly, there is absolutely nothing on the bottom of the f-car to create an smooth surface for less turbulence. None of the car has the rigidity to keep itself together at that speed in stock form. There's too many unstable variables in the F-body to do it safely.
My suggestion: Get a new goal, or get a new car.
My suggestion: Get a new goal, or get a new car.