(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

Answer about my 150 MPH 55 Chevy

N

NCWayne

Well-known Member
OK, Cockshutt Mike asked me a question and here's my answer. First, yes, my friend was real, just as the speed I listed was real as close as I could estimate at the time. In fact the guys name was Jeff Murette. At the time we were stationed together in Charleston, SC aboard the USS William V Pratt (DDG-44)and had taken the weekend to go to Hickory to visit an extreemly HOT redhead he knew and go to a party on Sat night.
As for the speed Mike got me curious since it had been so long ago. The car got severly damaged in a towing accident in '89 and has been sitting every since so I walked out and made a few measurements and did a few calculations and thought I'd pass them on for the skeptics. One tire is off of the car and still inflated so I got a direct measured circumference of it. That measurement is 84.5 inches or 7.0416666 feet, and the rear I had in it at the time (it got changed to a 3.73 later on in life) was a 3.23 ratio as I did alot of highway driving. Just for 'because' I'm allowing myself a 500 RPM deviation on the tach and using 6000 to calculate here because I know for sure it was over 6000 and close to but maybe not all the way to 6500, but hey what's a few RPMs.

So, here goes the math----6000 RPM driveline speed / 3.23 axel ratio = 1857.5851 RPM axel speed. OK taking the axel speed of 1857.5851 RPM x the wheel circumference of 7.0416666 feet that works out to 13080.4949 FPM. Since we know that 60 MPH equals 5280 FPM you then divide 13080.4949 FPM by 5280 FPM which works out to 2.477366458. Now take 2.477366458 and multiply it by 60 and it gives you the MPH traveled at 13080.4949 FPM which works out to 148.6419875 MPH. If I did it again using all of the decimal places brought up by each equation it would probably give me another MPH or so but I think given the circumstances 148+ is good enough for here....

OK, I'll admit I was wrong about the speedo on the 55 as I checked and it pegged at 110 MPH but I know for sure the tach was reading over 6 grand as I watched it way more than I ever did the speedo. As such I know when I backed off of it and it was between 6000 and 6500. In other words the math don't lie so if I wasn't running 150 or dang close to it then I guess ya'll can all start calling by buddy Jeff by his nickname "Harvey"...LOL Like the old saying goes, OLD CHEVIES NEVER DIE, THEY JUST GO FASTER...
 
while I don't despute your clames I am going to try and head off any nay-sayers to give you a chance to build a case.

1. Are you sure that the car was in a direct drive gear (i.e. not passing gear or even o.d. if that gear does not equate to one RPM engine to one RPM driveline)?

2. If the car was an automatic, what about torque converter slippage? Is that even enough of a factor to consider?


Some don't think my '98 silverado can do 120 either. Got the ticket to prove it!!!!!
 
Wayne:

A 55 Chevy has the aerodynamics of a brick. It takes LOTS of HP to push one to 150 MPH.

Back in the day there were few if any street driven small blocks (or big blocks for that matter) with enough HP to do it.

Dean
 
I had a 4 speed Saginaw that was direct drive or straight through in 4th gear, no OD, so driveline speed was equal to engine speed all, day long.
 
I could only believe 150mph if it had an awful lot done to it. Brother in law had a 56 i saw it do maybee 110 or 115 after it dropped off a hill . I don't think they were capable of doing much more than that without much extra engine work.
 
This happened around '87 and the engine was not stock. If you remember when the 283 came out it was one of the first V-8's from GM to produce 1HP per cubic inch. So, basically in stock form mine would have had around 283 HP. Take that and add a hipo, sollid the cam out of a Vette (around .519 lift from what I remember), a set of ported and polished power pac heads, a high performance intake and exhaust, electric fan, etc and it was probably pushing 300HP or more. Like I said I never had it dynoed, I just knew what it would do. As far as the aerodynamics your right, like the saying goes, it was a shoe box Chevy, so it did take alot of power to push it through the air. Even so I was actually turning more RPM on the tach than I figured the speed for so taking that into account along with aerodynamics I was still pushing really close to 150 if not there....
 
Like I said the speedo went to 110 and I routinely hran it over 100 and dropped a gear just messing with guys wanting to race me on the interstate. Heck dad used to take it out when I was at sea and race the new 5.0 Mustangs light to light. He said if you want to see someone embarrassed watch what happens when a kid in a new 5.0 Mustang gets beat by an 'old man' in a station wagon.
 
Forgot to mention that even it had been an automatic most of them I know of, when used in a nonstock aplication like I had, are desinged to lock up the convertor past a certain speed so there is no slippage. Then if it kicks into overdrive then the output/driveline speed would actually be greater than engine speed. That's why the engine RPM drops off when you go into OD but you don't lose speed. Just thought I'd throw that out there.....
 
your tire circum is a bit suspicious.. a truck tire is only 82 inches and the chevy came with 14 inch rims and factory circum would have be closer to 72 inches based on a 195/60 14 sub for the 700-14 give or take.actually a 185 is a closer match. The corvette for that year would have come closer with a 205/75-15 current day replacement. Chevys ran 14 inch rims into the the mid 60s, so on chevelles and impalas and other large cars. Was this a corvette??

I seen em run 118 and 122,, and a roadrunner with 308 rear ends would run 132mph.. but that was a much newer car and it took a long long long time to get there....these were all at about 6 grand to 6200..

sure you weren't running alcohol, and a supercharger?
 
Aerodynamics of a brick??? Come on now, take a close look at this picture. Where do you see a brick in this picture? The nose is high, so the air flows under to keep the old gal light on her feet. The fuel tank out front diverts the air down and up and over as well as left and right creating less drag. How about that windshield? See those curves? OK I must admit the headlight eyebrows probably suck in a little bit of air and causes it to loose a few MPH's but come on now.............150 isn't really hard to imagine now is it?
chev.jpg
 
Wayne - something that stuck in my mind from your previous post - you mentioned your '55 Chevy having electric wipers. I had a '55, and I keep thinking it had vacuum wipers. Not disputing you - just trying to remember.

Paul
 
I've built many SB Chevys, Wayne.

In the late 60s I street raced a 64 Impala SS (an aerodynamic brick like your 55) with a 327 (originally a 300 HP), Muncie M-21 four speed, 4.11:1 positraction differential and M&H slicks.

The engine had ported and polished Mondello 2.02, 57 CC heads, a Crane SS 330 cam (more cam than the oft mentioned but rarely seen 327/375) with associated hardware, an Edelbrock C36 2x4 intake with 2, 500+ CFM AFB carbs, TRW 12.5:1 forged pistons, Doug Thorley headers, Mallory ignition, my own homemade cold air package using a 409/425 air filter and 2 6" inlet tubes to very large air inlets below the bumper. Though never dynoed, the engine likely produced in excess of 450 HP at around 7,000 RPM.

I routinely shut down 396 Chevells, all GTOs, Road Runners, Super Bees, GTXs, etc. I also took 3 out of 3 from a 69 Mach I Mustang with 428 SCJ and 45?:1 Detroit locker differential.

The engine made HP to 7,500 RPM and I power shifted at 7000 RPM. There is NO WAY that that car would approach 150 MPH reagardless of gearing.

Dean
 
Vacuum wipers were standard through 57 but electric wipers were optional in 57, and probably in 55 as well.

Dean
 
Lock up torque converters were developed in the late 1970s and did not become commonplace for OEM applications until about 1980.

GM did not produce OEM automatic transmissions with OD until the mid 1980s.

Dean
 
Thats wrong!I had a Chevelle,a 1964 SS that would go 140 with a 327 and a 4 speed,solid lifter cam,Edelbrock Manifold,dual point distributor, 780 Holley,headers,L 60 15s on the back,American mags.Plus I beat a Charger with a 440 through the quarter 2 out of 3 races with it.Charger was stock,but a 327 and a 440 is a lot of difference in Horsepower.My gears were better for the quarter,cant remember what they were now,maybe 3:90 gears,maybe higher.I had a 1963 Ford Police Interceptor that raced a Vette,top end,and it was a real close race,and the Vette speedometer said 160.It had a solid lifter cam 390 and a 5 speed automatic transmission.Yes it really had a 5 speed,overdrive, automatic transmission that was made out of cast iron instead of aluminum.With the solid lifers,it would wind way up there.It was a cop car and all they did was take the lights and siren and spotlight off of it.I wish I still had that old car.
Lots of cars would go faster than that.In high school I had a friend who had a Plymouth GTX with either a 383 or 440,and it had 180 on the speedometer,and pegged it.We figured 180 or close to it,by running it a distance and seeing how long it took.Like 16 miles in 5 minutes and had to slow down to 100 or lower for some curves.Probably the most scared Ive been in a car at about 16 years old.It had modifications,but I dont remember what for sure.I know it didnt have headers,maybe cast iron headers,but it was long ago,not sure.
You can even get an automatic transmission car way up there going downhill with a long hill and a solid lifter cam.Even a long hill goes by quick at 160.The 4 speed would pull down going up hills with a small block,but a big block would not pull down as bad.One of the fastest cars I ever was in was a Chevelle with a 4 speed and a 454.I dont know how fast it would go,but it would go,and get there first,if racing about anything around.If he didnt run off the road taking off.It would burn rubber as much as you wanted to.Another fast car was a 426 Hemi Roadrunner,and just about anything a 426 Hemi was ever put in,was wicked.Even 440s were fast,rubber burning machines. 340s too.289 and 390 Ford Mustangs would go too.Most of it has to do with the rear end gears and solid lifter cams.A car with high gears will eventually outrun a car with low gears if there is enough road.The low gears get you off the line quick,but the high gears let you go fast top end.Overdrive like the cop car had, helps on a long distance high speed.It would take it a mile to get up there,but it would fly,and actually would come clear off the ground,way off the ground, on a short hill if you didnt know when to get out of the gas.Stiff suspension,high speed, and you can come off the ground,and land, and live, if you are lucky and nothings under you when you land,and you dont turn the wheel any, while in the air.
I even had a 1956 Ford car that had 120 on the speedometer and I put a solid lifter cam 352 engine out of a cop car,and a 3 speed transmisson,and pegged that 120 MPH speedometer.At least 140 MPH and going up still when I got off of it.
GTOs would fly.Where I live there is another town 13 miles from this one,I made it from main street here to the square there in 5 minutes,and still have witnesses who rode with me with a stopwatch in my cop car.There are 7, 45 MPH curves,not to mention a couple of miles inside the city limits of the towns to get to the square and out of town from main street,with turns and stop signs and Railroad tracks. I had to slow down to about 65 for the 45 MPH curves with bias ply tires and 3 inch wide drum brakes.I was with a guy in a GTO that did it faster than that.I dont remember what he did to it,but it was a hot rod.I know he went faster through the curves than I did.
Plus the most horsepower any of them had was maybe 500,but thats doubtfull.The 454 Chevelle maybe had more than 500 horsepower.Most had about 350 maybe 400 horsepower,even with carbs,cams and headers.Its more the gears and cam than anything.More horsepower lets it hang in there better on the hills,and gets you fast quicker,but the old cars would still run,real good.
 
The only 283 HP 283s were fuel injected. A 270 HP 2x4 engine was offered in 1957. The highest HP 283 produced was a 315 HP version available only in 1961 Corvettes.

Dean
 
Sorry, Trucker, but I've built far too many engines, done far too much street racing and far too much engineering for GM to believe much of that top speed stuff. Muscle cars of the vintage were quick but most were not particularily fast.

Speedometers were wildely optimistic in the era, especially at high speed. Burying a vintage speedometer is one thing. True 130 or 140 MPH is a different thing all together. Aerodynamic drag is a cubic. It takes much more HP to reach 150 MPH than it does 140.

Dean
 
I had a 1956 Ford car with a inline 6 cylinder engine,Maybe 272 cubic inch,stock,that would run 110 by the speedometer.Are you all trying to say through the quarter,or long distance?
Lots of cars would go faster than 140 MPH.Even through the quarter mile.Newer Police interceptors than mine,like in the 1970s would go 180 or more.I owned one of them for a couple of weeks before I sold it,never ran it wide open though but it would get to 120 quick.Some kind of Plymouth,cant remember what ,maybe a Fury and about a 1978 model.My 1964 Impala with a 350 and a 4 speed,headers and Torker manifold 650 double pumper would do 110 0r more through the quarter and a guy with a Z28 Camaro around here could out run me,and I raced a stock Vette that beat me by a little,so Maybe they were going 115 or 120 through the quarter mile.No drag strips around here,but we used stopwatches and measured the quarter mile.All of those cars would do 140 by mathematics,and probably more.My cars had 15 inch tires,and most people ran 15 inch tires.14 inch tires on cars with a inline 6 maybe.Newer cars like in the 1970s maybe had 14s on them stock.It wouldnt be hard to find an old Chevy with 15 inch tires and bias ply tires were probably quite a bit taller than polyglass wide ovals that came on most hot rods.Also there are higher gears than he mentioned.There are 3:30 and even gears down into 2 somethings.I dont know what the cop car had for gears except they were high,not stock.
 
Holy cr@p it's getting deeper and deeper in here all the time............the bull that is!
Trucker, come on..........180mph in a GTX.........are you on glue? There's no way that car, or any muscle car of that era could even hope to hold the road at that speed, even if it did have the HP to do it........and they didn't. It's too bad we can't take your fond memories and have them dynoed and run down a track with radar! But if you could be proven wrong then you'd have nothing more to carry on about.........endlessly.

Someone mentioned their Silverado would do 120.........it might, my '98 has a governor that cuts the throttle at 100 but it's gaining speed right up until the governor kicks in.
 
Oh, and 16 miles in 5 minutes works out to just under 193mph..........car must have had wings............'cause if it had a set of wings man I know she could fly.............she's my little deuce coupe............ :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
The king of muscle cars/sports cars maybe. A 427 SC Cobra in full race set up, set the speed record on a track at 198 mph. Dick Smith was the driver. I don't know what the top speed of a street version was but I kind of doubt 180mph. The 5.5 million dollar Super Snake Cobra could probably do 180 but no one will ever attempt it. Other than that, I don't think any other muscle cars of the 60's or 70's were that fast. Dave
 
Ill bet you that if you rode with me in that cop car,you would know better.Way better.Im not talking about a quarter mile or even a mile.It would take a mile to get the old Ford wound up.You had to play with the footfeet to stay on the ground.You didnt dare hit those quick little hills very much over 120 by the speedometer.Also with drum brakes that would fade,well its just hard to describe.I could burn rubber with that thing until it roasted the tires off of it,if I could get it spinning in a little loose gravel or something,it was way high geared.I was only 16 when I had that car,and I drove the heck out of it.People were afraid to ride with me,it was really wild.I bet you have not even seen very many solid lifter cam engines,but at one time there were lots of them.They will blow up,Ive done that too.Thats part of it,plus higher gears.Everybody is always talking 4:11 gears well try some 3:30s,or some 2:92s.I think thats what the cop car had was 2:92s.Seems like I remember that for some reason.Tell me how fast you would have to go,to get 13 miles down the road in 5 minutes?Thats real fast with bias ply tires and drum brakes,and 45 MPH curves and thats not all of the curves,but some I would slow down to 100 for,7 at 65,tires squeeling.Plus I know that car was fast,but it was not,by a long shot,the fastest car around here.I rode in that GTX and some other stuff like a 409 Chevy Convertable that went faster.I dont even remember all the cars that people had around here.Other people had newer Police Interceptors than me being a 16 year old kid,I just never rode with them,or knew them very good.There was a guy here who sold old cop cars for a living.They didnt do very much to them,like took off the lights and stuff and that was about it.The alternator went out on mine and it cost me 125 dollars back then to get another one when for 15 you could get a normal one.
There was a guy that had a Roadrunner with a 440 in it that got killed.I dont remember how long the skid marks were but they estimated his speed at 160 MPH when he hit a car head on in a curve.His girl friend who was with him, flew a long ways and landed on a railroad track and killed her.It looked like half a quarter mile to me.All that was left of the car that you could recognize was one Crager Mag and tire.The rest of it was in little pieces.
What it is,is that you dont think old cars would run that fast.Old cars would run real fast.Studebakers,stock, in the 50s would run 140 if I remember right.Dragsters would go over 200 MPH in 1970 in the quarter mile.So we could go,and once they had disc brakes we could stop.
Even Nascar cars ran faster than now.They made those winged things and some other stuff and ran up there in speed.Seems like more engines blew up,but the ones that survived averaged higher MPH than nowdays,and mostly were big blocks if I remember right.

Things have improved for sure,Engines dont burn as much oil,or as much gas,as back then,and last longer now.We have way better cams now and other stuff.But maybe the new stuff will get there a little quicker,but I dont thinks its any faster,maybe not as fast unless you spend a lot of money for some special engine.
 
I think that was 6 minutes maybe.Hey it was 1970,thats 40 years ago!I remember my 5 minute record,that was somebody else,but I was there,so were others,one kid was saying the Lords Prayer,I remember that!I remember getting out and kissed the ground.
 
120 is about all a pickup will do.Horsepower is not what gets you speed,its gears and RPMs.Most of this stuff had a different Carburetor,different intake,headers,and other stuff.Even a 454 Chevy pickup from the 1970s with a standard transmission will only run 120 or a little more.Its got lower gears stock from the factory than a car is why.Pickups and station wagons had lower gear ratios for pulling trailers and just for heavy loads in general.Ive been 110 a lot of times in a pickup.High geared cars will go faster.Then when you wind them up to 5500 or 6000 or 7000 RPMs,with high gears,you are moving.Look at Nascar cars they go close to 200 mph,and they did go over 200 MPH except they wouldnt stay on the ground.
As far as stock,right off the showroom floor,you might find some cars back then that would run 140.Once you do a few modifications,you can get more MPH.Cars now probably have a rev limiter,but I dont know.I have a Lincoln with a 4.6 4 cam V8 engine that will get to 100 MPH real quick.Thats about all I can stand any more,but I bet it will do 110 or 120,and if I knew how to get some more RPMs out of the computer,or put a different firing system like on dragsters,there is no telling how fast it would run,and get there quick.4 valves for every cylinder,its almost like a motorcycle engine,or a Indy race car engine.
If you can think of it,and have enough money,you can do about anything,go however fast you want to.There are high dollar cars that will run way over 200 MPH,Probably wind higher than 10000 RPMS.
 
My brother had a '57 that would get up to the 140 MPH range. Those cars when shipped with an automatic had a lower ratio rear axle so when the transmission was replaced with a manual shift one the speedometer read about 20 percent low. It would go about 110 MPH in second but it needed a LONG road to get wound out in third.
 
You are wrong,or there was something wrong with it.Gears are everything.If you took a little lawnmower engine like 15 horsepower,and hooked it to enough gears and transmissions,you could pull 80000 pounds with it 70 miles per hour.You might have to shift 4000 times and it might take a couple of hours to get there,but it would be possible with enough gears on flat ground.I have a gear reduction wrench that I put a socket on one side and a ratchet on the other side and it multiplies the torque of the ratchet 4 times,to tighten head and main bolts that are 300 ft pounds and over on big diesel engines.So about 75 pounds of torque on the ratchet side gives you 300 pounds on the socket side.Your engine at 7000 RPMs through 3:30 to 1 gears will be over 150 mph.I dont have a calculator,but it will be more than 150 MPH.What makes you think it wouldnt?

Maybe you wouldnt want to be in it that fast,but somebody is wild enough to drive it as fast as it will run.It wont do it in a quarter mile,but it will in a mile or more.You probably would be surprised how quick it will do it too.

You do know that rails and funny cars go over 300 mph in the quarter mile now?
 
I made a slight mistake. A full race Cobra did 198 mph on a track. An SC Cobra could do 180 mph. The street version could go 165 mph and the super snake Cobra with 800 HP was rumoured to do 200 mph. This was in a car that weighed less than 2300 lbs. and was somewhat aerodynamic. For other cars of the era(maybe a vette) to be in the same speed range does seem rather unbelievable. I'd agree that maybe 140 mph tops for most muscle cars. The same reason a jet fighter needs so much power to go supersonic. Once you get to a certain speed, it takes way more HP to gain a little more speed. Dave
 
With 6500 HP they go 300 mph! Your 15 HP lawnmower would use up all its power with all the gears. Even a semi can lose a couple hundered or more HP by the time it gets to the rear wheels. Dave
 
55 thur 57 came out with electric motor , cable driven wipers. I replaced enough cables to last me 2 life times.

Keith
 
I'm no mechanic, like you say you are, (I'm starting have my doubts now), and even I know you can't keep adding gears and not lose power due to all the friction. Your 15HP motor example is crazy, as well as untrue.

Now go back and qualify your answer by saying you'd have some kind of make believe space aged weightless alloy gears and a lubricant that removes all friction to make that scenario work.

Makes about as much sense as your political rants.
 
Actually HP IS what it takes to get top speed.

Torque produces accelleration (lower ET) but HP is essential for high top speed to overcome aerodynamic drag, especially when pushing a brick.

Dean
 
135:

The AC Cobra was much more than a muscle car. It was essentially a high torque engine in a go-kart. Very quick and fast and also VERY rare. In the 1960s I saw only one 427 Cobra.

Yes, a 427 AC Cobra, properly geared would top 150 but it would not do so if geared for drag racing as the 427 simply did not produce the necessary RPMs to do so.

There were a FEW stock Corvetts that would approach 150 in the 1960s but very few. The ultra rare L-88s and ZL-1s would do it if properly geared as might the 425s and 435s IF properly geared. Keep in mind that not too many of these cars were geared for top speed in the day as ET was much more desireable and few cared about MPG in the era.

Dean
 
Sorry, but aerodynamic drag limits top speed, regardless of gearing.

As I said in an earlier post, aerodynamic drag is a cubic. The laws of physics state that it requires MUCH more power to reach 150 than it does to reach 135 or 140.

Yes, top fuel cars exceed 300 MPH in less than 4 seconds but these ultra light cars are not aerodynamic bricks and the engines produce well in excess of 3000 HP for a few seconds.

Dean
 
That's why one needs to change the speedometer drive gear in the transmission tailshaft to match the rear axle ratio and tire size whenever the transmission and/or rear axle ratio is changed.

Even so, OEM speedometers were wildely optimistic in the era, especially at high speed.

Dean
 
(quoted from post at 23:02:04 07/24/10) You are wrong,or there was something wrong with it.Gears are everything.If you took a little lawnmower engine like 15 horsepower,and hooked it to enough gears and transmissions,you could pull 80000 pounds with it 70 miles per hour.You might have to shift 4000 times and it might take a couple of hours to get there,but it would be possible with enough gears on flat ground.I have a gear reduction wrench that I put a socket on one side and a ratchet on the other side and it multiplies the torque of the ratchet 4 times,to tighten head and main bolts that are 300 ft pounds and over on big diesel engines.So about 75 pounds of torque on the ratchet side gives you 300 pounds on the socket side.Your engine at 7000 RPMs through 3:30 to 1 gears will be over 150 mph.I dont have a calculator,but it will be more than 150 MPH.What makes you think it wouldnt?

Maybe you wouldnt want to be in it that fast,but somebody is wild enough to drive it as fast as it will run.It wont do it in a quarter mile,but it will in a mile or more.You probably would be surprised how quick it will do it too.

You do know that rails and funny cars go over 300 mph in the quarter mile now?
Click to expand...
Trucker, I don't know what you're smoking but there has to be a market for it.
 
Just goes to show that some people will believe anything!

I remember a lot of things from my childhood that seemed really cool and really fast. Age and experience have taught me that some of the things I held true back then simply could not have been.
As I read your story Trucker one more thing came to mind. You claim that you and some other kids witnessed this from inside the car. That makes it that much more unbelievable because of the extra weight from the passengers.
Tell me, if you could pull 80,000lbs at 70mph with a 15hp engine, you must believe also in machines that make more power than they consume right? Clearly no grasp of physics.
 
there were alot of fast cars in the 60's and 70's. My dad has told me unbelievable stories and got tickets to prove them. I myself have never driven faster than what my big old boat(1976 I think olds 98or88 royale with 455 in it)That car sould do over 130 but took a long time to get there and by then I was taken my foot of the gas.I don't know what it would do if a guy had the guts to hold it down for 5-10 miles but I didn't.My dad got tickets in the mid 70's for doing 115 mph with a pickup truck(now your going to say the radars didn't work)I know when the vehicle feels like your no longer touching the ground it's time to let off the gas and you know you were going fast.I hade a 88 escort gt and it was still speeding up at115mph that was with a 4 cylender took probebly over 5 miles to get there and at that point it was suicide if I would have hit a small bump that car and me would have been totaled
 


You have no idea.Plus lots of people did this stuff.Even back in those days there were people like you,who said what you are trying to say,until they took a ride!
Why do you think a 1963 Ford cop car would run 160 mph?Because a lot of cars would run 150 mph THEN.Thats why it was an Interceptor.There were cop cars then that would only run as fast as the regular cars or a little faster.All of them didnt have 5 speed automatics,and most didnt have a solid lifter cam.Plus the lopey sound of that cam would get your adrenaline flowing.I had a guy who was a little kid and saw me backing into a parking space one time tell me that it got him interested in racing.
Every time there were other kids in the car.Plus I said that there were faster cars then.Those Interceptors of the 1970s would go faster than my old Ford.
I really dont care if you believe me or not.There are lots of people around here,and my brother and cousin who were with me on some famous rides.Plus there are people that went faster.
Study up on a solid lifter cam of the time.An engine with a solid lifter cam will wind as far as it will go,until it blows up if you keep your foot in it.Cars with hydraulic lifters will float out.Thats why my 1956 inline 6 Ford would only go 110 MPH,the lifters would float out above that and you would loose power and slow down.Plus higher rear end gears meant higher top speed.There were speed machines in those days.Ambulances would bury a 120 MPH speedometer,Not a ambulance made out of a van,but an ambulance made out of a station wagon.Lots of cars would bury a 120 MPH speedometer with hydraulic lifters in the engine.
Some things are confusing to people who dont know,Like rear end gears with bigger numbers like 4:11 to 1 are lower than rear end gears with lower number like 3:33 to 1,which is a lot higher than a 4:11.Lots of people ran lower,bigger number gears for better take off,but it cuts the top end.Top end is all wound out.
 
Friend of mine has a 66 nova with 1500 hp, turns in the 5s in the 8th. I had a 1970 cj cobra 429cu, that I really dont know how fast it would go on top end, I stopped at 140, but anything would beat it out of the whole, exspecally the dodge dart with the 318, but I could beat alot on top end. now the six pack mo par had the entire package.
 
There is loss due to gears,maybe 20%.I dont know the exact amount,but a semi doesnt loose 200 horsepower to the ground.Maybe 50.So a 450 HP semi can put 400 HP to the ground,geared right.

Way back in the past like a steam engine or something,they didnt have a lot of horsepower.Seems like a steam engine might have 100 horse power,but it will pull a 10 bottom plow.It will only go 5 mph top speed.So its gears put more power to the ground,but loose speed.

If you want speed,you gear it up,so for every turn of your 15 horse engine,you want it to turn whatever is driving it faster.Say your 15 Horse engine turns 1200 RPM you want it to turn 3000 rpm out put into the trans mission,so you drive a gear that turns roughly 3 times faster that goes into the transmission.That means a big gear on the engine to a gear a third as big on the transmission,then you have an over drive trans mission.Probably a 30 speed transmission,geared right would do it,maybe 3 speed rear ends,which would give you 90 speeds.You would have to have a real low gear to get it started,might not barely see it move,all the way up to over drive.It would never climb a mountain,but it could move a load on flat ground.Lots of things do this every day.Like a crane.A 40 ton crane with an electric motor and some chains and gears moves 80000 pounds at a fast walking speed with whatever horsepower those electric motors have.It would surprise me if they were even 15 horse electric motors.
 
I was just using a 427 Cobra as example of a car that could go the speeds in question. It was even described as having the aerodynamics of a brick. It made up for that by having a ton of HP and being super light. Although it was listed as at 425 HP, the actual HP was at least 500. Kind of the like the 426 Hemi was a lot more than 425 HP. Dave
 
Loosing power due to friction is true,so you would want to not use any more gears than necessary.The thing is that momentum has to be figured in.Even you yourself can pull a big load on flat ground and get it going with momentum.Get a hand jack,put it under a thousand pound pallet,and raise it up,push it,real slow at first,but once you get it moving you arent doing a lot to move it.Its that getting it started that is hard to do.If you can gradually increase the speed,you are going to have lots of gears,but with a transmission you are only using the minimum number of gears to direct the power through the transmission.Input gear,idler gear,out put gear,is all you are turning every shift you make.You arent turning 90 gears at one time,you are turning 5 or 6 gears,each shift.
 
Hey trucker 40,... why did external_link spend over 1 million $$$$ to have ALL of his records SEALED????

What is he hiding?????????????
 
Even if you weren't turning 90 gears at once, any extra gearing adds extra weight.
There are frictional losses in the engine, transmission, rear end, every bearing, and where the tire meets the road. Of course the heavier the vehicle, the more load there is on EVERY previously mentioned part. The faster you go the more you lose to air drag. The more your engine, transmission and all the bearings heat up the more you lose to friction.
If you could eliminate any one of these losses you might have something.
The engines in the high HP drag racing cars only have to perform for seconds at a time and even at that they don't last very long.

Your point about being able to move a large item simply by putting it on a pallet jack is valid as you have reduced one thing significantly and that one thing is friction. But even with friction reduced you are still limited to a certain speed when you move something in that manner. Larger tires and better bearings may help but you will still be limited by horsepower.
Even if you were able to pull it at a higher rate of speed then air drag would kick in. What could overcome that? Well a couple of things, horsepower and aerodynamics.
 
Yes drag and weight will limit your top end,but say that is probably 5 mph,different than a more aerodynamic body.Even if its 10 or 15 mph,a car with the potential to go 180 by gearing is going to actually run 165 MPH if you can get a long enough straightaway to get it wound out.I doubt that aerodynamics would slow something down 15 MPH even.Weight would be more of a factor on acceleration,but I have seen heavy cars beat light cars because the heavier car got better traction.Going fast,I had more trouble keeping the thing on the ground.You dont just go floor it at first,you drive the road,figure your shutdown points for the curves,and then you go faster and see what happens.Aerodynamics figures in to how the car handles and stays or doesnt stay on the ground.Older heavier cars actually are better to go fast in the straightaway because they are not lifting off of the ground as bad.Light cars are easier to wreck especially in a curve because there is not as much weight per wheel on the ground.By using the wind to your adavantage with a spoiler or something you can make a light car perform like a heavier car.Just look at Nascar,they have all of that figured out,and still can come off of the ground.Look at outlaw stock cars,they are some sheet metal welded together,even more square than a 55 Chevy.They go fast,arent real aerodynamic,and stay on the ground because they use the wind to help them.
If you raced and built engines,surely you know about gears?I dont care if a car is made like a brick,if it will stay on the ground at high speed,and it has the gears for high speed,it will get there if it has enough road to wind it out on.Wind resistance is a big deal,and more power helps,but it is not a real big number over all the different stock cars that are at least modern styled.
 
I used to be into the drags decades ago, not today though. But last year a friend from Route 66 Dragway over in Joliet invited me to stop over during the nationals, you know, John Force and all of those guys, so I stopped over. He took me to the top of the tower behind the starting line, like 5 or 6 stories tall, and I was standing at the rail looking down as they took off below me. Beyond loud, the pressure coming out of the headers from the rails clear up there would part your hair. Impressive from way back when. Times and technologies have changed. Today they fire them up out by the trailers and a guy is hooked up to a module on them with a laptop, and give it time, they won't even be hooked up anymore, will be doing that wireless...if they don't already.

Seperately, when I watch a NASCAR race these days and hear how a 13 second pitstop was slow and cost positions, and then I see old film footage from the '60's when Richard Petty would climb out of his car in the pits so that his crew could change tires using 4 way tire irons...yes, technologies sure have changed, and that's in part why I'm so fat. Grin.

Mark
 
Clearly, you do not understand that aerodynamics is a cubic function, Trucker. The faster you go the more HP it takes to go just a bit faster.

Like I've said in two earlier posts, it takes much more HP to push a body to 150 MPH than it does 140 MPH. It takes much much more to push the same body to 160.

Dean
 
Nostalgic drag car is cool. Air flowing UNDER it to keep it on it's feet? High speed with lots of air going under it? And why do the NASCAR folks put all that stuff on a car to keep the air on top pushing down on it? Want to think about that statement again?
Definitely a neat looking car. Aerodynamic? Maybe if compared to something like a Model A Ford.
 
Hello NCWayne,
Here is my calculations per your posted values.
Here is the formula that i used.
Speed = RPM'S x TIRE DIA. / 3.23 x 336.
26.910828 is the tire diameter.
336 is a constant.
6000 RPM'S X 26.910828= 161464.96
3.23 x 336 = 1085.28
161464.96 / 1085.28 = 148.77723 M.P.H.
Guido.
 
Most 55's did come with vacuum wipers and the electrics were an option. I liked the electrics because they would maintain a fairely constant speed regardless of what the engine was doing. On the other hand the vacuums would slow or speed up depending on the amount of vacuum in the intake and they really didn't work too well with my engine setup.
 
Thanks for thr backup. One thing I can't understand through this whole thread is that so many different variables get tossed out and in a case like this is it straight math. If the engine was turning at 6000 it makes no difference about wind resistance, or anything else as the each RPM was being transmitted through to the ground. The only time wind resistance, etc could be considered vs engine speed would be if the clutch disc were to start slipping or the tires weren't getting traction. Unlike where you can set still and burn the rear tires and be going 60 MPH on the speedo and not be moving, when you are in fact moving and the RPM's are being transmitted to the ground then you are, in fact going at said speed. If there was too much wind resistance, etc to get to that speed then the engine would stall out and die. In this case Mike got my curiousity up over a story I've told for nearly 20 years so I did the calculations to make sure it was not just some tall tale. Granted I was a little off on where the speedo pegged but I know what gear ratios were involved and did a direct circumference measure off of the tire and the numbers backed me up. Whether anyone believes it or not I don't really care because I can assure everyone that the feat will not be duplicated by me anytime soon as I got older and smarter than I was way back then.........
 
Hello NCWayne.
You're welcome! Math is math. My calculatios was based on 8 decimal points. I took the tire circumference and did the colulations on 3.14.
Any how Here is a picture of my 1959 opel kadet .
that was my secod pass.Look ahead of the car.
The engine was 1.5 liter engine maybe 50 H.P.?
Any hoo............ The picture says it best!
Guido
a19260.jpg
 
I agree with your calculations.

I had a '64 Chevelle with a 283, a Powerglide, and some TALL rear tires, combined with some sort of "airplane gear" in the rear end, as we used to call it. [Car had all this stuff when I traded for it...including the chrome reverse wheels and the coil-over lifts on the rear shocks for tire clearnace. Swapped a bone-stock '46 International pickup in gray primer title-for-title.] Speedo was badly off, so I mounted my tach. Since the car would turn 6000 rpm, and 3000 rpm was 80 mph, THEORETICALLY it would top out at 160. But the only time I tried to see what it would actually top out at, we never made it.

It was around 3 am, and it was on a long stretch of new concrete highway. We were winding it up, and at about 5250 rpm--a calculated 140 mph--we tossed a driveshaft. Actually, best I can tell the rear U-joint broke, the driveshaft got in a bind, and twisted itself in two. The rear half got thrown out from under the car, while the front half stayed connected to the tranny at the slip yoke, beating the everlasting hell out of the floorboards. The two guys riding with me were wide-eyed, with the guy in the middle of the front seat screaming, "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!" while putting a death grip on my right knee and the other guy's left knee.

When we had coasted down to about 40 mph, I let the engine idle and put the tranny in PARK as I slowed to a stop.

So here we are, 3am, a nearly abandoned stretch of highway, with a disabled car. Faintly, in the distance, we say a set of headlights approaching. We flaggged the guy down, and it turned out to be one of our stoner friends trying to make it home. He gave us a ride back to town.

I got a replacement driveshaft in the Chevelle, and THEN discovered that the tranny tailhousing was cracked a dozen ways and had to replace it. But I never tried to see if the car would do the "theoretical" 160 MPH again. I figured I'd pressed my luck on that ONCE already.
 
No.I only ever used one other name and that was Trucker.I got sick and almost died and didnt post for a year or more and my name wouldnt work so I changed it to trucker 40 around 4 years ago.
 
Hello buzzman 72,
I had a 1960 plymouth that broke the tail shaft on the tranny, and the rear's spider gears at the same time? 170 cu. in. slant 6 101 H.P.
What was i doing? may have been trying to brake the sound barrier!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ha! Ha!
Guido.
 
Hello buzzman 72,
I had a 1960 plymouth that broke the tail shaft on the tranny, and the rear's spider gears at the same time? 170 cu. in. slant 6 101 H.P.
What was i doing? may have been trying to brake the sound barrier!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ha! Ha!
Guido.
 
Hello buzzman 72,
I had a 1960 plymouth that broke the tail shaft on the tranny, and the rear's spider gears at the same time? 170 cu. in. slant 6 101 H.P.
What was i doing? may have been trying to brake the sound barrier!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ha! Ha!
Guido.
 
Hey trucker 40,.... why don't you answer the question I've been asking you for the last month????

Why did external_link spend over a million $$$$ to have ALL his records SEALED????

What is he hiding????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RedMF40
Chainsaw is high-speed "dieseling"
Replies
5
Views
583
RedMF40
RedMF40
Ultradog MN
Chevy pickup tires
Replies
15
Views
523
DoubleO7
DoubleO7
3
My 05 F 150 oil leak
Replies
7
Views
315
Hobo,NC
Hobo,NC
Majorman
Monday Tractor Extra 2 18/3
Replies
0
Views
275
Majorman
Majorman
H
2003 f250 transmission heat up
Replies
6
Views
273
T in NE
T in NE
Tractor Parts Tractor Manuals

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top