What kind of G's (force) can a protouring firstgen put out?
- Thread starter THX 138
- Start date
Pure stock suspension on bia-ply tires I'd say around 0.65 or so. With a high dollar race setup on racing tires 1.1 should be about the practical limit.
What HH was saying is the same answer to the question of "what's the best 1/4 mile time" or "absolute top speed"...how much money do you have?
Mustangs don't have the strict "generation" thing like Camaros and Vettes do, but in general the 65-73 are the classics, the 74-78 is the Mustang-II, the 79-93 are Foxes, 94-2003 are SN95s and 2005+ are SN197s.
What HH was saying is the same answer to the question of "what's the best 1/4 mile time" or "absolute top speed"...how much money do you have?
Mustangs don't have the strict "generation" thing like Camaros and Vettes do, but in general the 65-73 are the classics, the 74-78 is the Mustang-II, the 79-93 are Foxes, 94-2003 are SN95s and 2005+ are SN197s.
65up2d8
Member
Edbert said:
I am dated in my knowledge on this subject, and I'm sure Edbert has done his homework on this subject, as he has on every subject I've seen him interject on. It may have been nothing more than marketing claims they couldn't back up, but Global West claimed in or around 1997 that a '65 Mustang with their full suspension would do better than 1.0. I certainly do not know the veracity of that statement, but I do know that there have been numerous innovations since that time.
Logic tells me that Edbert is correct, though, as 1.1 g's is unbelievable even for exotics. From what I've been able to ascertain, and although you will, undoubtedly, get some PR claims, I would contact Grigg's Racing with your question if it means that much to you. From what I can tell, they are pretty much the undisputed leader in this area. BTW, their prices reflect that opinion too. I will add, as others have already said, it is a matter of how much you want to spend.
65 fastback
Founding Member
Billgear posted on VMF that he ran a Race Technology Performance meter in his car on the track at Infineon Raceway. The meter evidently measures g-forces in all directions. In his post he has a link to the screen shot data from the RTP meter.
His best G-readings:
Right side G - 1.024
Left side G - 1.032
Breaking G - 0.877
Here's a link to his post - http://forums.vintage-mustang.com/f...ords=+Billgear&topic=&Search=true#Post1299964 - I hope I'm not stepping on his toes by posting this information here, but I found it very interesting and quite impressive.
Tim
His best G-readings:
Right side G - 1.024
Left side G - 1.032
Breaking G - 0.877
Here's a link to his post - http://forums.vintage-mustang.com/f...ords=+Billgear&topic=&Search=true#Post1299964 - I hope I'm not stepping on his toes by posting this information here, but I found it very interesting and quite impressive.
Tim
Stop that, I'm blushing here. I don't consider myself an expert on much, more like knowing a little about a lot.
Race cars often get past the 1.1 figure, but we're talking about purpose-made cars costing in excess of $250,000.00...LOL.
You can sink $5-7K into your classic's suspension and embarass many a ricer or Vette owner, particularly those who underestimate your car, which most ricers and Vette drivers do as a matter of routine.
Race cars often get past the 1.1 figure, but we're talking about purpose-made cars costing in excess of $250,000.00...LOL.
You can sink $5-7K into your classic's suspension and embarass many a ricer or Vette owner, particularly those who underestimate your car, which most ricers and Vette drivers do as a matter of routine.
65 fastback said:
i believe that Billgear is also running a 275/40-17 tire in front and a 315/40-17 in the rear, or at least something close to that. i'm not 100% sure on the aspect ratio but i'm quite certain on the widths 275 front and 315 rear. that's a bunch of tire and he has the fender flares to prove it.
somehow i seem to remember that the boss 302 TA cars were capable of something like 1.2 G's in the cornering department
HistoricMustang
Active Member
It depends on the track and especially the banking.
The most I felt in the seat of my pants was at Lowes.
HistoricMustang
www.historicmustang.com
The most I felt in the seat of my pants was at Lowes.
HistoricMustang
www.historicmustang.com
krash kendall
Active Member
If the car breaks free at 1.1 right G on the flat it will break loose at 1.1 right G in a bank. It will just be travelling alot faster when it reaches that limit. Banking moves the vector of the side force down towards the normal axis of the car converting them into positive vertical G's in relation to the car and occupants. Therefore in a theoretical enviroment, if the bank was increased to 90 degrees the car would not be exposed to any right of left G's.
HistoricMustang
Active Member
krash kendall said:
OH yea? What about this:
Forgive a small amount of math, but if this turn is made at constant altitude and at constant forward speed we can calculate that the lift required to support the weight of the aircraft is:
L = W / Cos x , where W is the weight and x is the bank angle.
Also, the centripetal force, which is the horizontal component providing the turning force is:
T = W / Sin x , where W is the weight and x is the bank angle.
We could also express these relationships in terms of acceleration units, or "Gs". A "G" is simply the accleration due to gravity. Force is mass x acceleration, so if the mass of the aircraft is m, and the acceleration due to gravity is G, then we can restate the first relationship as:
m LA = mG / Cos x, where LA is the net acceleration perpendicular to the surface of the wing.
Note that the mass term may be divided out of both sides of the expression which leaves us with:
LA = G / Cos x
And this?
HistoricMustang
www.historicmustang.com
Just talkin' trash!
Attachments
krash kendall
Active Member
Now, now, we all know cars don't make coordinated banked turns and the driver isn't constantly being reminded to "Keep the ball in the centre!". Actually your cool IMG illustrates my earlier point as I'm sure you already know. I was going to edit in "Blah, blah, blah.." because I caught myself rambling on again. And, yes I am also a pilot. I think there are quite a few on the site here.
also depends a lot on tires, surface, etc etc.
tires will be the biggest determining factor in terms of equipment. i don't see any problem getting 1-1.1 on race tires with proper setup. i don't think you could hit 1.2, but i wouldn't rule it out (take a lot of money to get there though).
tires will be the biggest determining factor in terms of equipment. i don't see any problem getting 1-1.1 on race tires with proper setup. i don't think you could hit 1.2, but i wouldn't rule it out (take a lot of money to get there though).
If you look at Bill Gear's sig pic, besides being huge those are racing tires too. Obviously you can't tell from a pic if they're D.O.T. legal, but if they are then they would last about 10,000 miles on the street, at best. In round figures that would come to about ten cents per mile in tire costs.bnickel said:
The December 2005 Car & Driver has a comparison test of the Z06 Corvette and the Viper Coupe. Both registered 1.01 g on the 300' skidpad.66StangFastback said:
FYI, the Z06 weighs 3147 lbs and runs Goodyear Eagle F1 Supercar EMT 275/35-18's and 325/30-19's. The Viper weighs 3470 lbs and runs Michelin Pilot Sport Zero Pressure 275/35-18's and 345/30-19's.
Kind of puts a 1.00 g claim in perspective, doesn't it? I think it's safe to say a standard Vette would be a little slower, and a Mustang -- '06 or '66 -- a lot slower.
Similar threads
