Faster

Discussion in '2001 B.Engineering Edonis' started by car lover101, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. Re: Faster

    so looks are every thing now
     
  2. Re: Faster

    Its' topspeed isn't bad for its' engine output. It's 0-60 however...Let's not even talk about that.
     
  3. Re: Faster

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from 550WOLVES</i>
    <b>Its' topspeed isn't bad for its' engine output. It's 0-60 however...Let's not even talk about that.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->lame!<!-- Signature -->
     
  4. Re: Faster

    Two thumbs up. You know your cars. I like it when someone on this incredibly large site actually knows what they're talking about.<!-- Signature -->
     
  5. Re: Faster

    Hey, mpritz, about the Callaway. Aerodynamics on the car are quite good, not only being researched at GM's test facilities, but also refined further by Callaway. Now, about not being able to reach it's top speed, it probably could. I am not saying that Callaway ever brought it up to that speed, probably closer to 220, but it could technically reach something like 240-250. I might be wrong, but not only do aerodynamics come into play, but weight and gear ratios have all to do with speed tests. Even though the stated final drive for the car is around 3.45:1, it was probably closer to 3.08:1 or taller for the high speed test runs. Not only that, the gear ratios were quite close to stock Corvette running gears at the time for the proposed street cars. In all actuallity, the gears, from first to sixth, where most likely much taller for the car. Also, remember, during the mid 80's to the early 90's the speed wars were going on between the manufacturers. So, Callaway put everything he could into making this car as fast as possible. 800+ horsepower will do the trick just fine to push a car up to 250mph, depending on the gearing. Porsche was stuck using stock gear ratios, and that would inhibit any speed gains greatly. Remember, overdrive transmissions usually have direct drive in fourth or fifth gear, meaning that to find the true final drive ratio, as in the ratio of the differential gearing, you are going to have to times the final drive ratio by something like .70 or .65. So, saying you have a final drive ration of something like 3.73, with a five or six speed transmission it would be possible to have a final drive of 2.61:1, thus enabling a car to hit a considerably higher speed. Sorry about the length, and you are pretty much correct about Porsche and the fact that Callaway never brought the car up to those speeds. But, however, the 'Vette was capable of reaching at least 240, if not even going over 250.
     
  6. Re: Faster

    226 is not fast enough.....wow, thats amazin you would think that. o-60 could be fast though
     
  7. Re: Faster

    Yeah, 226mph, that's so slow. Please, let's be serious here, 226 is amazing. If you look around supercars.net you'll find numerous cars with top speeds quoted as in the 220's to 230's etc. Most of these are engineering estimates, mostly all of them were untested. The Edonis was designed to go 230mph, and it will be tested to reach that. Remember how Mclaren said for a long time that the f1 could do 240mph? Well when Mario Andretti tested it in America it was clocked at a max of 219. The point is this, companies lie. The Lamborghini Diablo was such a great car because it was a production car that was actually capable of breaking 200mph, and it did it. On supercars.net the corvette sledgehammer is listed as having a top speed of 255mph, which is impossible for that car, even with its 880hp. I seriously question the legitimacy of the information given under the car about its testing date. A few years ago Porsche was testing the 911 turbo and trying to increase it's top speed. They found that even though the 911 was pretty aerodynamically efficient as cars go, it would have taken an extra 50hp to make it go soemthing like 3mph faster then it's claimed top speed of 186mph. The wind force at that speed is so great that you would need a ton of extra horsepower to make it go just a few miles per hour higher.
     
  8. I think for a car that looks like that it should be faster
     
  9. Re: Faster
     
  10. Re: Faster
     
  11. Re: Faster
     
  12. Re: Faster
     
  13. Re: Faster

    A car magazine said that its 0-60 was 3.2, but its weight was about
    1250 kg. And to me, it seems a little strange that a car with more
    horsepower than weight in kilos does a such slow 0-60.
     
  14. Re: Faster

    hey buddy find a real reason to post or just shut up!
     
  15. Not a good reason?

    Isnt this a good enough reason? Evrybody is talking about the bad topspeed, but what if isnt that bad? If that isnt a good reason, i will shut up. End of discussion.(<A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/angry.gif"></A>)
     

Share This Page