OMG i got a kill

I was out last night at a fraternity rush event, and on the way back, i got into a drag race with a fellow member. I had two other members i my car, and he had 2 rushes in his car. He has s port neon, mid 90's i think, not sure of the year exactly, and its a quick little car (at least feels quick, and i had my 91 buick park ave. I beat him up to about 60, where i let off as we were coming into a small downtown area where teh cops are known to be well, asses. i barely won, at 60 his front bumper was at my driver door, i got a very slight jump off the line, and it grew to that through first, and he didnt gain in second, which im kinda supprised abotu actually.... I honestly didnt think id win, woohoo. On a somewhat different topic, i am thinking of a 50 shot of nitrous for my car, so i can actually stand how little power this car makes, in comparion to my older lincoln towncar. And yes i do know its a buick, ive had that convo many times, both with friends and my dad (i talked to him about it seriously about a year ago) but imthinking of it again.

Nitrous would be fun.
get the engine checked out first though.
nice thing about nitrous is when you sell the car, you can take the kit with you to the next car, and DON'T TELL THE OWNER IT WAS THERE!
my advice.
good kill against a lighter car.
but the 3 people probably didn't help.

Ya i know, teh engine can handle it, ive already talked with an engineer who helped design teh 3.8V6, and he said as long as it wasnt more than 100 shot for over 4 seconds, it should be just fine. at a 50 shot, it would be a bit more powerful then the supercharged park aves, and would make it respectable to drive, unlike it is now. also, it only has 65k miles on it, 45k of those miles were put on by and old man and lady, the otehr 20k by me, with good and documented maitence by them,a dn i took good care of it. I think im gonna save up for a new 300C Hemi for 3 years from now, and sell this then... so this would give me more ooompmh in teh mean time. Then, like i said, i could actually respect my car again,a dn a 50 shot nitrous should be somewhat inexpensive.

LoL I can see the look on peoples faces now when you press the N2O button...priceless!

Gotta love a Buick :biggrin:

i definatly dont.., i miss my lincoln, about teh same weight with 90 ft-lbs torque more, at alot lower revs, my lincoln had 270 ft-lb to teh wheels at 2000 rpm..... embaressed many cars, when teh new acura 3.2 tl came out, embarrssed one of their owners by just edging him out to 80... and a 50 shot would bring the buick close to what my lincoln was.

good kill! i also own a 1993 lincon continental but nice kill and g/l on the n2o :evillol:

my lincoln had 270 ft-lb to teh wheels at 2000 rpm.....



Unless you modified your motor, Your Lincoln didn't have 270ft-lbs to the wheels at 2000rpm. Sure she made peak torque at 2000rpm. What you put to the ground is totally different, probably around 200-210ft-lbs. Stupid drivetrain loss... it owns us all. :(

From Edmunds.com (http://www.edmunds.com/used/1990/lincoln/towncar/13940/specs.html?tid=edmunds.u.prices.leftsidenav..6.Lin coln*)
1990 Lincoln Towncar
V8 - 5L
HP - 150 @ 3200rpm
TQ - 270 @ 2000rpm
4025lbs

She's no doubt a torquey motor, look how low down in the range it makes peak power. Pushing a good amount of weight as well. Gotta love big cushy cars though, can't go wrong for long highway cruises.

It suprisingly doesn't do bad on gas milege either (17/24) considering what the car is. Probably has some tall final gear ratio like a Cadillac... like a 2.46:1 or something random.

Hmm now that I think about it, It's a classic Ford 5.0... you could actually make a sweet motor for a old land barge like the Towncar. Just like you can with the Chevy Caprice's with the 350s. Up the compression a hair, better flowing intake, heads and camshaft and you've got a comfortable highway cruiser with a hellacious passing gear and the power to pull it to 140mph. :lol:

I htought of that more than once, but those dreams died with the tranmission, i also had a somewhat larger dream than a built 302. Also, in 89 tehy were still rated at the wheels, they changed in the mid 70's from rating at the crank to rating at the wheels (youll see huge power drops on every manufacturer from the year before) and then in the erarly 90's, they go back to rating them at the crank. Also, based on general engine equations and an engine compression test, the engine torque is calculated roughly at 330. If i can find teh equation i used, id post it, but i know it relates engine compression to torque... i also wonder if i can still find my compression sheet from teh compression test that was done on it at 165k miles... i think i kept it..... And when i say bigger dreams, im talking about a Ford 460 crate, there are people that have put those into 80's lincolns and crown vics, that would be a gun sleeper that could take out most cars.

oh ya,the formula iused to calculate teh torque was out of a published book, i just need to find it.

Also, in 89 tehy were still rated at the wheels, they changed in the mid 70's from rating at the crank to rating at the wheels (youll see huge power drops on every manufacturer from the year before) and then in the erarly 90's, they go back to rating them at the crank. Also, based on general engine equations and an engine compression test, the engine torque is calculated roughly at 330.



Actually... no car manufacture to my knowledge has ever claimed Wheel Horsepower. Wheel horsepower from almost any car is usually embarrasing. What would you rather buy? A 160hp Honda Civic Si or a 130hp Honda Civic Si?

You're getting SAE Gross horsepower and SAE Net horsepower confused... really confused.

I'll quote Musclecarclub.com (http://www.musclecarclub.com) to better explain it.

There are three basic types of horsepower, SAE Gross Horsepower, SAE Net Horsepower, and Wheel Horsepower. Each is the result of measuring the same engine in different ways. These standards were established by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The SAE is a group responsible for setting various standards within the automobile manufacturing industry. Founded in 1905, the SAE publishes many new, revised, and reaffirmed standards each year in three categories: Ground Vehicle Standards, Aerospace Standards, and Aerospace Material Specifications. Standards allow entire countries to talk to each other in a common language.

SAE Gross Horsepower or Brake horsepower (bhp) was the standard horsepower measurement by the automotive industry up until 1971. Brake Horsepower Power is measured at the flywheel with no load from a chassis or any accessories and with fuel and ignition operations under ideal conditions. An accessory is anything attached to the engine, by any means, which is not required for basic engine operation. By this definition, this would include a power steering pump, smog pump, air conditioning compressor and an alternator. Ideal conditions, often called laboratory conditions, are standardized settings for use during horsepower measurement. During the 1960s they consisted of a barometric pressure of 29.92 Hg and a temperature of 60 degrees F.

SAE Net Horsepower became the standard measurement in 1972, and is still used today. SAE Net horsepower is the horsepower generated by the engine at the flywheel with all accessories attached. This change was made to reflect the numerous energy sapping accessories that cars began to have, such as an A/C Compressor and alternator, and thus was a better representation of the actual power generated by the engine. This number is always lower than the SAE Gross horsepower. Therefore, the same engine could have been rated in 1971 as 360 SAE Gross Horsepower and in 1972 as 300 SAE Net horsepower without any reduction in "power."

Wheel horsepower is horsepower measured at the actual drive wheels, taking into account the load from the chassis and all accessories. It is the most accurate measure of the amount of energy that the car actually generates to move it forward. Wheel horsepower is measured using a dynamometer. This is done by placing the vehicle's driven wheels on a large roller and accelerating the wheels up to redline in first or second gear. The vehicle's ability to turn this roller is measured and calculated (formula below) to come up with a figure that represents how much horsepower is actually available to move the vehicle around. Because a frictional loss between the engine and the driven wheels is unavoidable, wheel-driven horsepower will always be less than SAE Net Horsepower. How much less wheel-driven horsepower will depend on how many mechanical parts exist between a vehicle's engine and its driven wheels. This is usually measured as a percentage loss due to the "friction" of the intermediate components between the flywheel and the actual wheel. For a Rear Wheel Drive car, engine power has to travel through a transmission, driveshaft, rear-differential, and two axle shafts (one for each rear wheel). That's four separate mechanical components taking a bite out of the car's horsepower before the rear wheels even begin to turn. Front-wheel drive cars with transverse-mounted engines usually have a lower frictional loss because horsepower only has to travel from the engine, through the transmission and down two short driveshafts before reaching the wheels. Typical "powertrain" losses run between 15-22% but vary greatly between cars.


Well, that about sums it all up.

That does some it up, and i do know those definations, but i will still disagree with you. i didnt post this here, but a while ago, i was at a light with a new 02 Monte next to me. I was in the left lane and he was in teh right lane. THe right lane ended about 150 feet past the light. As the light kept going, he kept lurching foreward, so i could tell he was going to try to cut me off before his lane ended so he could get infront of me. I hate it when people do that, so i decided to race him so he would have to merge behind me. i got a bit of a jump on him, but he never gained any ground, it was a dead even race and he was forced to merge behind me since i got the jump. if you look at power ratings, my 91 buick had 170 hp, and his monte had 200 hp. My car is bone stock with no mods. There is no way it could have been dead even with a 30 hp difference when the cars have simaliar weight and the same engine size. If you add 20% to 170, you get 204, a bit more than the 200 that the new monte is rated at. Either i got a very strong buick, or he got a very weak monte, i dont think either are the case. and yes he was racing me, as he tried to get a jump on me, he almost ran the light and had to slam on his breaks a split second before the light went green.

That still doesn't mean your car(s) made their rated power at the wheels.



Since you say you got the jump on him, most people will tell you that even if a slower car gets ahead of you or gets a slight head start. Unless you've got a wickedly fast car it'll take sometime to make up the difference. Which was probably your case, you got a bit of a jump on him and caught him off guard. Thus you both stayed pretty much even.


Almost the same thing happened to my buddy in his '70 Camaro with a very healthy 355ci V8. He was behind a Northstar V8 Caddy with custom exhaust, the guy in the Caddy mashed out at the light. And my friend said he had a hell of a time catching up. Even with a slight head start making up that advantage isn't easy. Even though a Northstar Caddy isn't all that slow, they rally pretty good actually.


Plus you stated that you only raced for about 150ft... Most cars these days have fairly steep gearing stock in their transmissions with a low final drive, that's why when you mash out they respond well yet cruise at a decently low RPM. 150ft isn't that far, you probably weren't out of 2nd gear which on most automatics is a good strong gear to accelerate in.

heh, wow i was misinformed, i finally made the connection this morning when i stopped trying to do things in a completely sleep deprived state (i had about 6 hours of sleep over 48 hours and in those 48 hours, had about 30 hours of work, makes for some not so great thinking). I still feel though, that the way power was rated changed in like the mid 90's as the hp made a big jump of many cars. I think that is closer to what my original point was. Otherwise, there should be no way i got some of the kills i did with my lincoln. Also that one drag race was about 150-200 feet after the intersection, and it was a 5 lane road we had to cross, then the lanes merged abotu 150 feet after that, so it was liek 250-300 feet. I was prob the close to the end of first (so approx 40-45 i think, i dont remember this was like a year ago). he didnt gain and i didnt pull, it was just a constant gap. and now i forget where i was going with that as im still too sleep depreivewd for my own good.

heh, wow i was misinformed, i finally made the connection this morning when i stopped trying to do things in a completely sleep deprived state (i had about 6 hours of sleep over 48 hours and in those 48 hours, had about 30 hours of work, makes for some not so great thinking). I still feel though, that the way power was rated changed in like the mid 90's as the hp made a big jump of many cars. I think that is closer to what my original point was. Otherwise, there should be no way i got some of the kills i did with my lincoln. Also that one drag race was about 150-200 feet after the intersection, and it was a 5 lane road we had to cross, then the lanes merged abotu 150 feet after that, so it was liek 250-300 feet. I was prob the close to the end of first (so approx 40-45 i think, i dont remember this was like a year ago). he didnt gain and i didnt pull, it was just a constant gap. and now i forget where i was going with that as im still too sleep depreivewd for my own good.

Anything can happen on the streets

I still feel though, that the way power was rated changed in like the mid 90's as the hp made a big jump of many cars.



What large gap? Show me some examples of cars that had a dramatic increase in power.

Some car's I can see where you may think they changed the way horsepower was measured...

For instance, the 1992 Camaro IROC came with a 245hp TPI 5.7L V8 and would run on average a 15.2 in the quarter. In 1993 the Introduction of the 4th generation Camaro also brough the new LT1 motor to it's line up which was rated at 275hp and would run 14.4 in the quarter mile. Considerable jump in power, but only cause the LT1 is a badass motor. Also because for the first time in years you could get the LT1 which is a 5.7L V8 or (350ci) mated with a manual transmission, a six-speed at that. Before you could never get a manual tranny in a 3rd gen F-body equiped with the 5.7L motor, unless you got the very rare pursuit package.

That helped tremendously in performance.



There's also the cases of car's being Underated. One car that is famous for being Underated is the 4th Gen F-body (Camaro/Firebird) equiped with the LS1 GenIII 5.7L V8 ('98-02'). Since it was the same motor as the Corvette, which was rated at 350hp... Chevy underated the motor at 305-320hp (depending on year/model) to make the Corvette look better. But they were the same motor. It wasn't uncommon for a Camaro to produce on a dyno what it was nearly rated at from the factory. Meaning a stock '98 Camaro Z28 rated at 305hp could very well put down 295-300hp or more in some cases.

Other recent cars that are famous for underating are the '03 Mustang SVT Cobra, the Dodge SRT-4 and Geo Metro. :smokin:

Other recent cars that are famous for underating are the '03 Mustang SVT Cobra, the Dodge SRT-4 and Geo Metro.

Damn RED you know your suspost to get the G-Unit on the down low :smokin: