Your post is pretty much spot on, but I had to point this out. A 1970 Hemi Cuda might have been fast back in its day, but today it is far from it.
And I've been in some horribly fast cars back in the day, such as a 1970 Hemi Cuda...was a passenger in that while street racing up in D.C.
really people..
a car is not doing top G's people can still move in fighter jets and hell the space shuttle..
only time i ever hear of this is as a setup for a joke. unless you are in very bad shape or a child you can do it.
Yeah, um... just kind of throwing that out there, but feel free to pat yourself on the back for 'winning' the 'debate.' (read: making yourself look like a pompous ass for no reason)
Also, possibly google 'modern F1 car' to have an idea of what I'm talking about. There is not a hell of a lot of room, nor any reason for, the driver's arms to leave the steering wheel.
Try ~3300 lbs curb weight. Add in a human and you're at 3450-3500 lbs. It's 92% of the weight of the current GT, 55% of the hp, 77% of the torque.
You're also confusing a single torque number with the acceleration ability of a car. I guess diesels with their astronomical torque values must be used for all high-acceleration applications
Stock 89 mustang gt manual took a whole 6.1s to reach 60 mph. That's a yawner. That's a camry these days.
It is just a ridiculous notion that a car could be so fast that you can't raise your arms under the acceleration.
Stock foxbody stangs run low 14's in the 1/4 mile. It's nothing to get an extra 30 horses out of them and also add 3.73 gears in the back which I've done with my 90. Not to also mention adding 30 hp and 3.73 gears can be done for under a grand. Find me another car where you can do that for the money. From 0-100 mine flies. Sure there are faster cars but you'll pay a minimum of double the price to reach that HP/weight ratio. And you're are comparing a 30k new gt to a foxbody which can be had in decent condition for 5k. Let me put 25k into the motor of my fox since your dead set on comparing it to a 30k new mustang and we'll have this discussion again.
I new someone would start this crap. Please note that every. single. post. I. made. explicitly. says. stock.
Oooh, 14s 1/4 mile... Again. That's a modern v-6 camry.
Yes stock. A car available for 5k vs one that would cost 30k is a perfectly fine comparison.
What car do you drive btw?
Stock 89 mustang gt manual took a whole 6.1s to reach 60 mph. That's a yawner. That's a camry these days.
I think there is something missing from this discussion. Everyone is talking about how easy it would be to reach out with the arm... but what if the coin was farther away than the arm can reach? In such an instance the person would have to lean forward for the extra reach. Who can keep their torso off the back of the seat during hard acceleration?
I have done this with my cars... ~500-550 whp.... you all are missing the point here. It isn't about the physics of it, it's about the psychological aspect. My cars are fast, but not "that" fast. They are fast enough that during a pull, your passenger will tense up and and kind of "hold" on... they are scared. Could they physically reach forward and touch the dash? Sure, but at that moment, they are overcome with what's going on.
This is a valid argument. And WAY to well thought out to be a part of this thread.
My question is... how did you make the coin stay on the dash?
If one G equals 9.8m/s^2 ... oh man, its been 10 years since I took highschool math... calling on JCH13
This is a valid argument. And WAY to well thought out to be a part of this thread.
My question is... how did you make the coin stay on the dash?
If one G equals 9.8m/s^2 ... oh man, its been 10 years since I took highschool math... calling on JCH13
Stock foxbody stangs run low 14's in the 1/4 mile. It's nothing to get an extra 30 horses out of them and also add 3.73 gears in the back which I've done with my 90. Not to also mention adding 30 hp and 3.73 gears can be done for under a grand. Find me another car where you can do that for the money. From 0-100 mine flies. Sure there are faster cars but you'll pay a minimum of double the price to reach that HP/weight ratio. And you're are comparing a 30k new gt to a foxbody which can be had in decent condition for 5k. Let me put 25k into the motor of my fox since your dead set on comparing it to a 30k new mustang and we'll have this discussion again.
1990-1994 eclipse/talon/laser.
exhaust($300)/boost controller($15)/intake($125) = ~50hp
16g turbo($500)/injectors and fuel pump($200) = another 40hp
i have a question about speed and power.
My experience is: 1987 Honda Hurricane 600 / 1989 Mustang 5.0 / 2001 Honda Blackbird 1100cbr). I understand power, i done it, enjoyed it. I have a fairly good understanding of speed/power. I know there is more and faster. but,..
I have a friend that claims, he had a street legal car that when he hit the gas, your arms could not pick up a coin off of his dashboard. He says, it had so much horse power, your arms were glued in down position. You simply could not reach for the coin, it was that fast, and had so much acceleration you couldn't reach for it.
Of course this car doesn't exist no more, this is a bud of mine telling me of old times. I'm calling bull on it big time.
No debates, just tell me how much power it takes to pull off this extreme power. I can see this as possible in Funny car and Dragsters, but a street legal car in the 80's, really.
Give me math examples, i know this is not possible back then.
It would have to pull a lot of g's for that.
An F1 car pulls about 1.5g on acceleration according to wiki, and an F1 driver can still reach controls and move his arms even at that.
An F1 car accelerates far more brutally than any street car.
If this is accurate (not saying it isn't; just can't verify), then I believe that answers the OP handily.
Also of note, think of the size/compound of the tires on those cars. Acceleration is not just a function of power, it's a function of grip.
Only argument would be that in an F1 car, your arms are rather locked in place, and most (all?) controls are wheel-mounted. So it's not like you're moving your hand from in your lap to (or past) the steering wheel.
But if your buddy is essentially trying to compare his wheel-driven, horizontally-moving street vehicle to a thrust driven NASA rocket taking off straight up...yeah, he's full of shit.
i have a question about speed and power.
My experience is: 1987 Honda Hurricane 600 / 1989 Mustang 5.0 / 2001 Honda Blackbird 1100cbr). I understand power, i done it, enjoyed it. I have a fairly good understanding of speed/power. I know there is more and faster. but,..
I have a friend that claims, he had a street legal car that when he hit the gas, your arms could not pick up a coin off of his dashboard. He says, it had so much horse power, your arms were glued in down position. You simply could not reach for the coin, it was that fast, and had so much acceleration you couldn't reach for it.
Of course this car doesn't exist no more, this is a bud of mine telling me of old times. I'm calling bull on it big time.
No debates, just tell me how much power it takes to pull off this extreme power. I can see this as possible in Funny car and Dragsters, but a street legal car in the 80's, really.
Give me math examples, i know this is not possible back then.
Pretty sure a 0-60 in 1s equates to about 3 g, that's about what a top fuel dragster will do
3 g might be enough to make it hard to reach for a coin
Impossible on a true street car in the 80s. My dad has friends that would tell the same story.
Try ~3300 lbs curb weight. Add in a human and you're at 3450-3500 lbs. It's 92% of the weight of the current GT, 55% of the hp, 77% of the torque.
You're also confusing a single torque number with the acceleration ability of a car. I guess diesels with their astronomical torque values must be used for all high-acceleration applications
Stock 89 mustang gt manual took a whole 6.1s to reach 60 mph. That's a yawner. That's a camry these days.