- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
- Messages
- 66,566
- Reaction score
- 22,189
- Location
- Portlandia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
This is why I bought my 2000 Z28. I sold some stocks for something like $36k, and decided to busy a new car for the first time. Initially, I wasn't looking for a new one, but I was set on a US car with power. In the end, I settled for then Z28 for two reasons. Legroom front and rear, and the simplicity of the engine design. I loved the fact that the sputtered iron into the aluminum block rather than having wet or dry sleeves. I like the "forged everything" and traditional rocker arm rather than overhead valve and four valves. May seem odd to most, but 4 valves aren't needed past a certain diameter. Two smaller valves can have less airflow than a single larger one, just because of how fluid dynamics work.I've sat in the C6, not enough leg room.
Its not losing weight, its losing downforce and the suspension is unloading.OK, we have a miscommunication. Floating to me is when the car loses weight to the road from speed. To you, it's the road not being flat enough for those speeds.
Cars will "float" on a perfectly flat road. The shape acts somewhat like an aircraft wing. Cars designed for high speed compensate with a tail wing, air dam, and other shapes to act as a counter effect to the lift.
This is also why in an earlier post, I mentioned I have never seen a stretch on a US freeway that I would go more than 130 MPH on. Our roads just aren't flat enough.
2000 Z28, of which I bought a new one also, came with a LS1 and vettes of that year had LS3s. Virtually the same engine. I have yet to see any Grand Sports for anywhere near you can get a Z28 for. Kind of apples and oranges.This is why I bought my 2000 Z28. I sold some stocks for something like $36k, and decided to busy a new car for the first time. Initially, I wasn't looking for a new one, but I was set on a US car with power. In the end, I settled for then Z28 for two reasons. Legroom front and rear, and the simplicity of the engine design. I loved the fact that the sputtered iron into the aluminum block rather than having wet or dry sleeves. I like the "forged everything" and traditional rocker arm rather than overhead valve and four valves. May seem odd to most, but 4 valves aren't needed past a certain diameter. Two smaller valves can have less airflow than a single larger one, just because of how fluid dynamics work.
Just another matter of terminology...Its not losing weight, its losing downforce and the suspension is unloading.
a body's relative mass or the quantity of matter contained by it, giving rise to a downward force; the heaviness of a person or thing.
I know it’s going to be tough for you to follow this, but try a bit harder than you have so far, OK?joko said:SO... your complaint is that my car can only stop in only HALF the distance rather than ONE THIRD the distance you claimed?
Let’s quote the whole section of braking, shall we?joko said:Here's 127 feet at 60 mph for OEM tires. Mine actually are a bit wider and sticker. I think you said what, 234 feet from 70 and 10 miles from 170 or something like that.
http://www.motorweek.org/reviews/roa...benz_cl_65_amg
I wonder what happens to that shimmy at 170mph. Reckon it just goes away, or something?MotorWeek said:After the handling display, braking performance was a slight letdown. With lightweight two-piece cast iron/aluminum front hubs and rotors, complete with 8-piston calipers, and 4-piston calipers in the rear, certain stops were not an issue. But our average distance from 60 of 127 feet was not exceptionally short, and there was noticeable front end shimmy and very soft pedal feel.
Citation, please, from a neutral, objective source, and I would prefer test results for all kinds of driving conditions.joko said:Not mentioned in the article is the CL65 of that particular two years has dual totally independent brake systems powering two independent sets of brake pads and calipers. Redundancy. No brake fade even at that level of stress. The 05-06s specifically designed to go a continuous 186 mph on the German highway with 4 passengers.
99.99% of all cars on the road are not built to go anywhere near 170mph. Do you think there should be different speed limits for high-performance vehicles? Please keep in mind that at 170mph you are going to need a safety clearance of over two football fields distance, and at that speed most other drivers will have no idea you are anywhere around until you are right on top of them. Also, it won’t go over too well to suggest the speed demons get a whole lane to themselves, so don’t even try it.joko said:I probably would be agreeing with some of this about high speed danger until I actually started researching (and driving) modern cars, and modern performance cars with modern tires and modern brakes and modern suspensions. Cars aren't what they used to be.
A ZR1 going 170 on open road is safer than a 1960s car doing 100. And I'm not a Vette fan. I just recognize what they can do.
If no one would be endangered on a open road by a car doing 170mph then how come thousands of people get hurt every year in open road accidents where no one was driving half that fast, and weren’t texting or messing with the radio, either?joko said:That ZR1 driver is more likely by a factor of 1000 to be killed by someone coming thru an urban intersection in an SUV while texting or messing with the radio. No one else is endangered on an open road.
130mph to 70mph was not the comparison I made. I guess I have to repeat the whole damn thing or you will be confused again. Read it carefully this time:joko said:Absolutely I would prefer a sober person doing 130 in a car suited for it than a drunk doing 70 in ANY vehicle.
Bad on the speed, good on the sobriety, now go ahead and sign up for that reading comprehension course.joko said:I've driven very fast (never 170), but I have NEVER driven DUI even slightly. Not in my life.
I know it’s going to be tough for you to follow this, but try a bit harder than you have so far, OK?
You said in reply #330: "My CL65, a relatively heavy car, will come to a stop from 70 in under 150 feet. From 170 in 1/3rd the distance you claim (distance I "claim" = 1381feet. 1/3 1381 = 460 feet).
The 1381/460 feet does not include reaction distance. I will assume below that the under 150 feet does include reaction distance.
The state of Florida suggests a reaction distance of 11 feet per 10mph speed. That would be 77 feet at 70mph and 187 feet at 170mph. See link: Florida Drivers Handbook
77 x 3 = 231 feet = drunk driver reaction distance adjustment at 70mph.
So driving drunk at 70mph You can stop your CL65 in about 380 feet (149 feet driving sober braking distance + 231 feet added reaction distance for drunkenness). Add a bit more for the drunkenness and call it 400 Feet.
And driving sober at 170mph you can stop your CL65 in about 647 feet (187 feet reaction distance + 460 feet braking distance). Call it 650 feet.
Ergo it takes you 250 feet more to come to a stop sober from 170mph than it does to come to a stop drunk from 70mph.
Let’s quote the whole section of braking, shall we?
(from link, emphasis added):
I wonder what happens to that shimmy at 170mph. Reckon it just goes away, or something?
Citation, please, from a neutral, objective source, and I would prefer test results for all kinds of driving conditions.
99.99% of all cars on the road are not built to go anywhere near 170mph. Do you think there should be different speed limits for high-performance vehicles? Please keep in mind that at 170mph you are going to need a safety clearance of over two football fields distance, and at that speed most other drivers will have no idea you are anywhere around until you are right on top of them. Also, it won’t go over too well to suggest the speed demons get a whole lane to themselves, so don’t even try it.
If no one would be endangered on a open road by a car doing 170mph then how come thousands of people get hurt every year in open road accidents where no one was driving half that fast, and weren’t texting or messing with the radio, either?
130mph to 70mph was not the comparison I made. I guess I have to repeat the whole damn thing or you will be confused again. Read it carefully this time:
(from reply #322): "In order to compare the hazards of DUI and driving 100mph over the speed limit it is necessary to imagine equal infraction rates and environments- in other words for every person driving home drunk at 30 in a 30 from the neighborhood bar there is one person driving home sober at 130. Please don't try to tell me you would feel safer with the sober guy doing 130."
The exact comparison in question was a drunk driving through your local neighborhood at 30mph in a 30mph zone, or a sober driver driving through your neighborhood at 100mph over the speed limit = 130mph.
Bad on the speed, good on the sobriety, now go ahead and sign up for that reading comprehension course.
That is a nice car, but I don't want any more convertibles. I love the front end on the '68 300.
I am definately a Chrysler guy. I still have my first car. 1963 Plymouth Fury.
Won't go thru all of it. Comparing the safety of a DUI at 70 compared to someone going 170 in a car built for it who isn't drunk or on drugs is absurd. Braking distance is irrelevant to drunkenness or being stoned.
The shimmy would likely go away at 170. The car has independent brake systems (not mentioned in the article) and that can cause a "shimmy" at lower speeds as there are dual ABS systems. I've never slammed on the brakes at 70 or 170, though.
It would appear your reasoning is that the speed limit should be based upon the fastest any car on the road can travel with perfect safety. So then what? 30? 35?
What do you think is the fastest speed everyone can safely ride a bicycle and how low a speed limit should be on that?
Not my style.
Here's my project.
View attachment 67155516
Dang, forgot to edit the old plates, oh, well, their not mine and won't be on the car when done.
I'm still not certain on the whole anti-lock break thing. It is probably a good thing for people who haven't really learned how to control regular brakes or who have a tendency to maybe panic. I know I certainly don't have the experience with not locking up the brakes. I've read a lot that says the older brakes are better actually for stopping, but then, that is experienced drivers who have the means to practice and do so on a regular basis.
I'm still flip-flopping about adding them to my older projects.
My opinion? Adding disc brakes if you have drums yes. Anti-lock brakes no. I've never heard of anyone even doing so. They are fairly sophisticated and my be chassis and weight specific.
Adding anti lock brakes to a car that does not have them (as an option) would be horribly complicated and expensive. It would require a computer, sensors, brake modulators and I am sure many other things I have not mentioned. Meaning would be to expensive for anything but a full modification of a car using a modern one as a donor for nearly all its electronics and much of its mechanicals. Then as you mention, it would require a significant amount of calibration to ensure It worked well
Got a ways to go before I get that far, but probably just go with 4 wheel discs. Single piston rear, 2 or 4 piston front. I am already estimating 30K to build it. ABS would just be unnecessary, probably, costs.
What are you going to do with the car when it is done?
I have explained in considerable detail why there is nothing absurd about it. Go ahead and declare yourself the winner, though, if it would cause you self-esteem problems to do otherwise.joko said:Won't go thru all of it. Comparing the safety of a DUI at 70 compared to someone going 170 in a car built for it who isn't drunk or on drugs is absurd.
Citation, please.joko said:The shimmy would likely go away at 170. The car has independent brake systems (not mentioned in the article) and that can cause a "shimmy" at lower speeds as there are dual ABS systems.
Wouldn’t take long to have to at 170mph (249 feet per second), considering it would take you 650 feet to stop.joko said:I've never slammed on the brakes at 70 or 170, though.
I have not said or implied anything at all like this.joko said:It would appear your reasoning is that the speed limit should be based upon the fastest any car on the road can travel with perfect safety.
I think 20-35 is appropriate for most urban roads. I have not given much thought to the limit for rural roads and interstates. I do not recall the 1970s interstate limit of 55 (hardly enforced as far as I ever saw) being all that much of a bother, and I made one North Carolina to Texas round trip at a fairly honest 55.joko said:So then what? 30? 35?
I have not given much thought to it.joko said:What do you think is the fastest speed everyone can safely ride a bicycle and how low a speed limit should be on that?
Love the old Chevelles. 71 or 72?Not my style.
Here's my project.
View attachment 67155516
Dang, forgot to edit the old plates, oh, well, their not mine and won't be on the car when done.
Save some money and find a good running 5.3 LS motor. Plug and play with tremendous aftermarket support.Drive it.
Most of the cost is putting as much modern tech into it as I can. Multi-point Fuel injection with sequential injection capability, around $4600. Roller Cam, $1,000. Front Breaks, around another grand. Gear vendor, about 2k. Trans controller for 4l80e, around 1.5K if I remember right. Aluminum heads, about 2.4K. etc,etc.
I'm basically taking as modern as I can and putting it into a pre-emissions package just to see what the end results will be.
Love the old Chevelles. 71 or 72?
Save some money and find a good running 5.3 LS motor. Plug and play with tremendous aftermarket support.
Why would you need a GearVenors overdrive for an over drive transmisson?
71 Malibu, exterior is going to be changed to an SS clone.
8.1 is a 496 ci truck motor. Good choice if you want to run a big block on the cheap though. Just little harder to find. Come in alot of motor homes.5.3? Don't you mean an 8.1. Depending on state or where inspected, vehicle must meet EPA emissions standard for year of manufacture of the body/frame or engine block, whichever is newer. Do you know how expensive and difficult it is to do an exorcism of the demon EPA from a car?
Gear splitting and double overdrive for higher speeds.
I didnt think Texas was that strict.5.3? Don't you mean an 8.1. Depending on state or where inspected, vehicle must meet EPA emissions standard for year of manufacture of the body/frame or engine block, whichever is newer. Do you know how expensive and difficult it is to do an exorcism of the demon EPA from a car?
Gear splitting and double overdrive for higher speeds.
I didnt think Texas was that strict.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?