What's it make for MPGS as a function of peak drivewheel HP?

Bet it ain't CLOSE to an LS1 6 speed car. (19 city/28 highway, ~ 300 drive wheel HP).

The Z turns a flat 2,000 RPM @ 92 MPH in 6th gear.:wow:

And downshifting to pass at anything above 50 MPH is strictly optional.

Z:

((19 + 28)/2)/300 = .0783 MPG/DWHP

 

So, to keep this thread going on the orginal subject (?????), I hate to be the one to bring up that the equation is E=MC^2. It is Kinetic Energy that is KE=(MV^2)/2. Now that IS important!

 

Another ruined thread

 

You just don't get it, it has been explained to you so many times yet here you are ignoring what has been said to you and asking the same questions again.

Read replies made to you, go back, all your answers are out there, many times over. Read them, comprehend them and then maybe when you stop this insane repetition people might not consider you a complete nut case.

If after reading all of the many many responses you still don't get it, you never will.

 

Kinetic Energy is energy in motion.

The last I checked, engine parts (pistons, rods, valves, etc) are in motion when they're running.

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssc...rgy/u5l1c.html

 

LMAO! You spoke for just about everyone here!!!

 

I get that stock 1969 Chevelles didn't make "335 RWHP."

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by daviddww
So, to keep this thread going on the orginal subject (?????), I hate to be the one to bring up that the equation is E=MC^2. It is Kinetic Energy that is KE=(MV^2)/2. Now that IS important!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Kinetic Energy is energy in motion.

The last I checked, engine parts (pistons, rods, valves, etc) are in motion when they're running.

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssc...rgy/u5l1c.html

So even though a small displacement 4 cylinder has lighter parts and fewer of them, those parts are traveling at a much greater speed (feet/second).

That delta in speed (4 vs V8) gets SQUARED....

Hence, the 4 sucks a lot more fuel than many might be inclined to think.

 

Actually, from what I remember (though could've hazed over time), when the C5 debuted, it was advertised that it was designed to be a convertible, such that it didn't need heavy reinforcements, like other convertibles, that are retrofitted in. As such, I remember GM saying something like the convertible weighs less than one pound more than the coupe, or something, and showed that its performance numbers equaled the coupe in every category.

 

 

The C5 vert weighs ~ 3,250 pounds; that's ~ 300 pounds LIGHTER than the TL.

And the C5 produced ~ 25% more drivewheel HP....

 

Start your own thread about whatever you want in off-topic. It seems that every thread you enter turns into the same pissing match.

Shut Up

 

No....

It turns into people being unwilling to accept reality and resorting to personal attacks in a transparent effort to mask their own stupidity.

You are the latest example of that phenomenon.

 

True, but by using E instead of KE you are talking about rest energy. Specifically, E=mc^2, which relates the mass of a particle, and the amount of energy that mass contains when it is not moving. You must state kinetic energy when that is what you are talking about. Otherwise the engineers and physicists will probably lynch you. Which means I won the race because my mass was greater than his at rest so I had more energy in my car. Hurray! Victory! It all makes sense now where this whole entire 4 pages of posts was going! It was all about mathematical equations and I didn't realize it until just now! You ARE the top dog harddriven!

 

Shut up

 

I have a 2003 Corvette Convertible - six speed, only mods are a cat back exhaust and cold air intake (I also had a virtually identical 2001 coupe).

I have personally run 12.67 at 112 in the coupe, and 12.8 at 112.5 in the convertible (due to different suspensions, the convertible does not launch as well as the coupe did). Both of my cars dyno'd at 302 stock, and 317 with my mods. No C5 (97 - 04) has a governed top speed - they are all limited by redline in 5th gear (they won't "pull" sixth gear - they lose speed in 6th).

Now, as to the original post. I have a friend who was driving his wifes BMW 330. He pulled out of a parking lot ahead of me and nailed it. I was probably 2 seconds after him in nailing it in my car. In about a 1/8 mile run, I could not gain on him. That is testimony to how long it takes to make up for someone getting the jump on you.

BTW, I think the originator of this thread should not be flamed. I think he represented the facts properly, and considered it a thread just for fun - not to try to convince anyone he could stay with a Corvette in a heads up race.

 

I said ENERGY and subsequently produced the ENERGY formula that is applicable to moving engine components.

Torqueless wonders have to rev like nitro fed chainsaws in order to produce the power required to move the vehicle down the road at any given speed.

As a result, they generally don't produce the difference in fuel economy that many might "expect."

 

Shut up

 

LOL...

 

jjsC5, thanks for being the one to realize what I had stated. If you think about how acceleration works, My 2 second lead would be very hard to overcome by any car. By the time I was braking at 110 MPH (call it 14 seconds) the vette would just be reaching that speed because he would only have been accelerating for 12 seconds. He could have very easily been WOT and still not gaining on me for that reason.

 

Good point.

 

It all depend on what speed you were traveling when the "race" started.

Compare the 0 - 110 MPH times of a C5 Corvette and a TL....

That 'Vette wouldn't be overly challenged to make up 2 seconds.

 

It all depend on what speed you were traveling when the "race" started.

Compare the 0 - 110 MPH times of a C5 Corvette and a TL....

That 'Vette wouldn't be overly challenged to make up 2 seconds....

And the 'Vette will gain quicker as speeds rise...

 

Shut up

 

Shut up

 

If you had brains you'd be dangerous... instead you're just another loud mouth who can't read...

Ignorant twit, you're right about one thing though, non big block aluminum headed Chevelle's didn't make 335 GRWHP. I even left you yet another hint at what you've been missing for days. Will he pick up on it, nope, too damn stupid....

 

Aluminum heads don't make more power than iron ones.:wow:

http://www.worldcastings.com/docs/catalog/pg04.pdf

Now, WHO is "too damn stupid?"

 

 

http://chevyhiperformance.com/techar...38/index3.html

"Accepted cylinder-head theory contends that iron heads do not conduct as much heat away from the cylinder as aluminum does, so the iron heads should make more power—everything else being equal."

 

http://www.worldcastings.com/docs/catalog/pg04.pdf

http://chevyhiperformance.com/techar...38/index3.html

"Accepted cylinder-head theory contends that iron heads do not conduct as much heat away from the cylinder as aluminum does, so the iron heads should make more power—everything else being equal."

http://chevyhiperformance.com/techarticles/83858/

 

Shut up

 

Gentleman,

This thread has devolved into something this forum is not suppose to have, namely arguments with name calling, personal insults, etc. If you have personal issues with each other, the forum is not the place to attack one another.

So I would suggest that everyone return to the original subject, and stop with the aforementioned.

 

You are fogetting one important point here. The Corvette may get to 110 quicker than the TL (even with the TL getting the jump), but just because the Corvette gets to that speed quicker doesn't mean it has caught up with the TL yet.

When you race someone, you are not racing to a speed, you are racing to a geographical "finish line" - even if that means the finish line is one inch in front of the car you are trying to catch.

 

Compare the 60 MPH to 110 MPH (his figure) of those two cars.

The C5 runs from 60 to 110 MPH in roughly 8.0 seconds (assuming the C5 driver is AWARE that he's racing and knows how to drive).

A TL can't even TOUCH that.

And the faster the speeds get, the faster the C5 pulls away....

 

Hey half-wit, where did I say that they did??? Are you daft? Now go back to reading back articles of the magazines you copy, but don't just read, understand also and while you're at it read about what options were available in 1969.

No, because I know you'll post everything you find and you still won't get it. Just drop anything built back then, you won't get it even if someone jacks into that little brain and uploads it with instructions on how to understand it.

You, more and more with every word you post.

 

The moderator warned against personal attacks.

Didn't you read that?

 

NO stock 396 Chevy ever made anything CLOSE to "335 RWHP"

Period.

I doubt that a good running (but bone stock) 1969 COPO 427 Chevelle could produce that kind of power.:wow:

I know that MODIFIED big blocks can easily produce that kind of power...But that's not how they rolled off the dealer lots ~ 35 years ago.

 

 

Where was the personal attack? I was being nice, I held back on what I really thoguht about you. I'm sure the moderator should he decide I've broken the rules will let me know. Until then I still think you're a half-wit. Deal with it, report it, or better yet shut up.

 

This '69 COPO 427 Chevelle was making less than 335 RWHP.

And it got to 60 in 5.5, so it was putting down the power.

HALE:

FWHP = (105 MPH/234)^3 * 3,850 pound race weight

= APPROXIMATELY 348 FLYWHEEL HP

That's ~ 300 RWHP.

NEARLY INDENTICAL TO A NEW LS1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Explain how the 396, which was rated 50 HP LESS, made MORE RWHP.