Just once, I figured

Ritz wrote:
> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>> KJ.Kate wrote:
>>
>>> "Rich" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> **snip**
>>>
>>> I figured I hit 260kph or around 158mph.
>>>
>>> *cough*
>>> bull****
>>
>>
>> I gotta call possible BS on an '88 LX 5.0L clocking in at 160 mph.
>> Back when I was invincible and had a long, empty, slightly downhill
>> stretch of I-66 I managed to get my slightly modified '89 LX hatchback
>> up to 135-140 mph and that was about all it could muster. Getting
>> another 20 mph out of it would have taken some serious horsepower.
>> Also, the stability of the car was absolutely horrible at 135 and even
>> if it could have gone to 160 mph I'm not sure I would have had the
>> guts to do it. Also, the conversion factor from kph to mph is 0.621 so
>> his 260 kph is closer to 162 mph.
>
>
> There's no way a stock or even moderately modified '88LX is going that
> fast. The aerodynamics of the Fox body are about as brick-like as they
> come. As speed increases, the power requirements just to overcome the
> air resistance are enormous.

I have a factory sunroof in my LX and at 135 mph it sounded like it was
on the verge of being sucked off the car. Combine that with the feeling
the car was going airborne at any second and it was a performance I have
not cared to repeat since then.

> All that aside, I agree with Warman (oh my). Only a complete tool would
> do something like that on a public roadway. Wanna go fast? Go to the
> track. That way, there are plenty of bystanders at a safe distance to
> scrape your entrails off the walls when you screw up.

There's a time and place for everything. I the USA there are places,
and times, when a driver can open up their vehicle and be of no danger
to anyone but themselves. If someone is on an interstate highway in a
remote area with no one in sight then I really don't care if they want
to dance with the Devil. Doing top speed runs in a metropolitan area or
on highways that are not restricted access isn't very wise and endangers
innocent people and property. The top speed run I referenced was on a
deserted stretch of I-66 and there was not a car visible for as far as I
could see either in front or behind me. If I had wrecked then the worst
I could have done was to take out a road sign or two. I would likely be
dead from the crash too.

Well, all ya'll are calling bull**** on the LX, I'm still calling it on the
Mach.

wrote:
> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>> KJ.Kate wrote:
>>
>>> "Rich" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> **snip**
>>>
>>> I figured I hit 260kph or around 158mph.
>>>
>>> *cough*
>>> bull****
>>
>>
>> I gotta call possible BS on an '88 LX 5.0L clocking in at 160 mph.
>> Back when I was invincible and had a long, empty, slightly downhill
>> stretch of I-66 I managed to get my slightly modified '89 LX hatchback
>> up to 135-140 mph and that was about all it could muster. Getting
>> another 20 mph out of it would have taken some serious horsepower.
>> Also, the stability of the car was absolutely horrible at 135 and even
>> if it could have gone to 160 mph I'm not sure I would have had the
>> guts to do it. Also, the conversion factor from kph to mph is 0.621 so
>> his 260 kph is closer to 162 mph.
>
>
> Can you read? Its his 2004 Mach-1 he's talking about. Also, at those
> speeds, factory speedometers are (historically anyways) notoriously
> inaccurate.

Ummmm... yes I can. Can you? At the bottom of his post he states the
following:

"It's not something I'd do again anytime soon, the most I'd
ever gone was 248kph in a 1988 LX 5.0."

My factory speedometer wasn't off 20+ mph and I seriously doubt his is,
or was, either.

> Given a factory gear ratio and the high revving DOHC in his car I
> wouldnt necessarily say bull****. I'd be more interested in knowing what
> his tach said. Ever better would be if he had a quality aftermarket tach
> as you should be able to closely calculate speed based on an accurate
> tach reading.

The Mustang isn't a very aerodynamic vehicle and the Mach I engine is
around 280 rwhp stock so 160 mph runs are somewhat a stretch unless he
was going down a relatively steep incline or had a very stiff tail wind.
Besides, I was commenting on an '88 LX going 160 mph not a 2004 Mach I.

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:03:53 GMT, " >
wrote:

>Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>> KJ.Kate wrote:
>>
>>> "Rich" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> **snip**
>>>
>>> I figured I hit 260kph or around 158mph.
>>>
>>> *cough*
>>> bull****
>>
>>
>> I gotta call possible BS on an '88 LX 5.0L clocking in at 160 mph. Back
>> when I was invincible and had a long, empty, slightly downhill stretch
>> of I-66 I managed to get my slightly modified '89 LX hatchback up to
>> 135-140 mph and that was about all it could muster. Getting another 20
>> mph out of it would have taken some serious horsepower. Also, the
>> stability of the car was absolutely horrible at 135 and even if it could
>> have gone to 160 mph I'm not sure I would have had the guts to do it.
>> Also, the conversion factor from kph to mph is 0.621 so his 260 kph is
>> closer to 162 mph.
>
>
> Can you read? Its his 2004 Mach-1 he's talking about. Also, at those
>speeds, factory speedometers are (historically anyways) notoriously
>inaccurate.
>
>Given a factory gear ratio and the high revving DOHC in his car I
>wouldnt necessarily say bull****. I'd be more interested in knowing what
>his tach said. Ever better would be if he had a quality aftermarket tach
>as you should be able to closely calculate speed based on an accurate
>tach reading.
>
Well if you read his original message he claimed 6600rpm in 4th.
--
Zombywoof

Si vis Pacem, Para bellum

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 14:52:24 GMT, Backyard Mechanic
> wrote:

>We've all probably succumbed at least once to that temptation.
>And Rich's body of posts points out that he writes the incident, not in
>boastfulness but as a stream of conciousness report.
>
>But I'm reminded of something I learned through observation, as a kid.
>
>I had occasion to stay with my aunt and uncle and she was driving me
>somewhere .. I forget where.. and I noticed that she steered her car much
>like you see done on TV comedic skits... constantly moving the steering
>wheel, left and right. Now it was a NEW car, they never kept a car more
>than 3 years, so it couldnt be play in the steering.. which I knew of
>because I was a farm kid and DID have experience in driving, if only off-
>road.
>
>But I was smart enough not to ask her why she did that... instead I
>reasoned it out. And the answer I came up with was that she was
>LITERALLY DRIVING the car, instead of looking down the road and guiding
>the car toward a point, she was actually ACTIVELY KEEPING the car in the
>proper lane.
>
>I think we've all ridden with someone who does that. And therein lies
>the danger of speeding to excess.
>
A long time ago 60 Minutes did a segment on driving where they
attached a measuring device to see how many times a minute the average
driver corrected their glide path. Supposedly the less number of
changes made on a straight lane the better the driver. I can't
remember all of the details since it was such a long time ago (Mike
Wallace was young).

--
Zombywoof

Si vis Pacem, Para bellum

ZombyWoof > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 14:52:24 GMT, Backyard Mechanic
> > wrote:
>
>>We've all probably succumbed at least once to that temptation.
>>And Rich's body of posts points out that he writes the incident, not
>>in boastfulness but as a stream of conciousness report.
>>
>>But I'm reminded of something I learned through observation, as a
>>kid.
>>
>>I had occasion to stay with my aunt and uncle and she was driving me
>>somewhere .. I forget where.. and I noticed that she steered her car
>>much like you see done on TV comedic skits... constantly moving the
>>steering wheel, left and right. Now it was a NEW car, they never kept
>>a car more than 3 years, so it couldnt be play in the steering.. which
>>I knew of because I was a farm kid and DID have experience in driving,
>>if only off- road.
>>
>>But I was smart enough not to ask her why she did that... instead I
>>reasoned it out. And the answer I came up with was that she was
>>LITERALLY DRIVING the car, instead of looking down the road and
>>guiding the car toward a point, she was actually ACTIVELY KEEPING the
>>car in the proper lane.
>>
>>I think we've all ridden with someone who does that. And therein lies
>>the danger of speeding to excess.
>>
> A long time ago 60 Minutes did a segment on driving where they
> attached a measuring device to see how many times a minute the average
> driver corrected their glide path. Supposedly the less number of
> changes made on a straight lane the better the driver. I can't
> remember all of the details since it was such a long time ago (Mike
> Wallace was young).
>

What was interesting upshot of that... is that while I was in Navy, I was
a very ordinary guy in both boot camp and schools. Until tests that
looked on how you actually DID something.

I had to test for an on base driver's license, and during the 'school',
the instructor pointed out how I drove as the way to do it, he was
watching for signs of 'looking down-road'.

Come, now... you KNOW that's impossible. But at least it isn't life
threatening.


> wrote in message ...
>
> Shut up warman.
>

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:03:53 GMT, " >
wrote:

>Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>> KJ.Kate wrote:
>>
>>> "Rich" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> **snip**
>>>
>>> I figured I hit 260kph or around 158mph.
>>>
>>> *cough*
>>> bull****
>>
>>
>> I gotta call possible BS on an '88 LX 5.0L clocking in at 160 mph. Back
>> when I was invincible and had a long, empty, slightly downhill stretch
>> of I-66 I managed to get my slightly modified '89 LX hatchback up to
>> 135-140 mph and that was about all it could muster. Getting another 20
>> mph out of it would have taken some serious horsepower. Also, the
>> stability of the car was absolutely horrible at 135 and even if it could
>> have gone to 160 mph I'm not sure I would have had the guts to do it.
>> Also, the conversion factor from kph to mph is 0.621 so his 260 kph is
>> closer to 162 mph.
>
>
> Can you read? Its his 2004 Mach-1 he's talking about. Also, at those
>speeds, factory speedometers are (historically anyways) notoriously
>inaccurate.

Well, I've compared my 03 cobra with a gps to see how accurate the
speedo is and I must tell you that up to 100 mph it is right on. I am
not sure what happens above that but it probably is still pretty
close.
I doubt the mach-1 does 160mph though but that's another issue.

>
>Given a factory gear ratio and the high revving DOHC in his car I
>wouldnt necessarily say bull****. I'd be more interested in knowing what
>his tach said. Ever better would be if he had a quality aftermarket tach
>as you should be able to closely calculate speed based on an accurate
>tach reading.

well, who knows. I'm not saying I never speed, but doing 160mph on
public roads is not a good idea in my opinion.
Take it to the track I say.

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 12:10:47 -0500, ZombyWoof >
wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 14:52:24 GMT, Backyard Mechanic
> wrote:
>
>>We've all probably succumbed at least once to that temptation.
>>And Rich's body of posts points out that he writes the incident, not in
>>boastfulness but as a stream of conciousness report.
>>
>>But I'm reminded of something I learned through observation, as a kid.
>>
>>I had occasion to stay with my aunt and uncle and she was driving me
>>somewhere .. I forget where.. and I noticed that she steered her car much
>>like you see done on TV comedic skits... constantly moving the steering
>>wheel, left and right. Now it was a NEW car, they never kept a car more
>>than 3 years, so it couldnt be play in the steering.. which I knew of
>>because I was a farm kid and DID have experience in driving, if only off-
>>road.
>>
>>But I was smart enough not to ask her why she did that... instead I
>>reasoned it out. And the answer I came up with was that she was
>>LITERALLY DRIVING the car, instead of looking down the road and guiding
>>the car toward a point, she was actually ACTIVELY KEEPING the car in the
>>proper lane.
>>
>>I think we've all ridden with someone who does that. And therein lies
>>the danger of speeding to excess.
>>
>A long time ago 60 Minutes did a segment on driving where they
>attached a measuring device to see how many times a minute the average
>driver corrected their glide path. Supposedly the less number of
>changes made on a straight lane the better the driver. I can't
>remember all of the details since it was such a long time ago (Mike
>Wallace was young).

Well, I think the steering system has a lot to do with it too. Some
systems are so overpowered that you need to correct it constantly.
Then things like tire wear, alignment and the road itself also add up
to that.

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 14:52:24 GMT, Backyard Mechanic
> wrote:

>We've all probably succumbed at least once to that temptation.
>And Rich's body of posts points out that he writes the incident, not in
>boastfulness but as a stream of conciousness report.
>
>But I'm reminded of something I learned through observation, as a kid.
>
>I had occasion to stay with my aunt and uncle and she was driving me
>somewhere .. I forget where.. and I noticed that she steered her car much
>like you see done on TV comedic skits... constantly moving the steering
>wheel, left and right. Now it was a NEW car, they never kept a car more
>than 3 years, so it couldnt be play in the steering.. which I knew of
>because I was a farm kid and DID have experience in driving, if only off-
>road.
>
>But I was smart enough not to ask her why she did that... instead I
>reasoned it out. And the answer I came up with was that she was
>LITERALLY DRIVING the car, instead of looking down the road and guiding
>the car toward a point, she was actually ACTIVELY KEEPING the car in the
>proper lane.
>
Of course, it might also be reasoned that someone might have needed to
see an optometrist : 0 )

Defensive driving is the key, and it's not just how far down the road
one looks, but all around. I've had to chase people with reds and
siren for several miles before they realize there is someone behind
them. And seen accidents in the middle of nowhere with essentially
unlimited visibility, where someone pulls out directly into the path
of another vehicle (or train). Among some of the reasons for the
constant correction could be attributed to a) steering system b)
vision problem c) insecure/timid/nervous diver d) weather (gusting
cross winds).

There are many drivers who, no matter how long they have been driving,
never become comfortable behind the wheel and it's often a case of
fighting to be in control, even when there is no need. And I've found
the cause to vary. For example, someone who is used to driving in the
country becomes this way in city traffic, and vice versa. In some you
can see it increase as the traffic around them increases.

My grandfather, who, in his much younger days, drove cargo trucks
through the Grapevine when it was 2 lanes was this way. Later in life,
he'd take his old Buick Roadmaster and bust 100mph on country roads
around the town where he lived. Yet, when it came time to sign up for
social security, it was an extreme effort for him to drive the 9 miles
to the next town where the Social Security Office was located.
--
Spike
1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy
w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok;
Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich
gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound
audio-video...
See my ride at....
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/d..._11_05_002.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/E...ebuild_006.jpg