Top Speed?

WHat is the top speed of a 91 stealth es? thanks

bout 140-145?

I'd give ya 140.

Is it that time of the month again? Search and you'll see a thread exacty like this many times over. BTW I hit 140 bone stock in my SOHC.

Fastest I have been is 127 and I was at the end of 3rd gear (4spd atx). It was still pulling well and obviously had plent of room to go.

Is it that time of the month again?

Apparenlty :banghead:


9.8M/sec^2 after it is dropped from a plane.

9.8M/sec^2 x 3600sec/hour = 35,280M/hr^2

35,280M/hr^2 divided by 1609.489M/mile = 21.92mph^2

21.92mph x 21.92mph = 480.4864mph +/- the effects of drag

I personally havn't tried it, but I bet it's a rush.

^^ terminal velocity :lol:

take a vid when you do that top speed run, IGO :icon16:

Igo,
Actually you are quoting acceleration of a falling object (9.8M/sec/sec). You have to account the actual speed of a falling object (32ft/sec/sec). Terminal velocity is usually between 53-56 m/sec.

Wow...you guys are too smart.......or im dumb..

Yes but one must also calculate wind resistance or the drag coeffiecient on your way down. As we know a feather does not fall at the usual TV not due to weight but wind resistance on such a light obeject. So weight is actually going to be a factor too unless you are in an environment in which most all of the air has been sucked out in which case a 22 ton boulder and a feather would fall at the same speed.

terminal velocity is terminal velocity. it does not take into consideration drag/wind resistance. terminal velocity = the fastest speed of a falling object. if there is wind resistance or drag then you aren't at terminal velocity.

^^ I realize that. I was just pointing out that that no object can truly achieve the exact point of TV unless it were to be in an environment without air. It can come so close that it could be hard to tell, but anything falling on this Earth's atmosphere is going to have some kind of drag which prevents it from falling at EXACT TV. A car (as in this case) would obviously be much closer to TV than a feather persay. That is all.

Wow...you guys are too smart.......or im dumb..

amen buddy

Igo,
Actually you are quoting acceleration of a falling object (9.8M/sec/sec). You have to account the actual speed of a falling object (32ft/sec/sec). Terminal velocity is usually between 53-56 m/sec.


Well that's what happens when your highschool gf is sitting next to you in Physics...the fact that I learned a single thing is a victory in itself :grinyes:



Yes but one must also calculate wind resistance or the drag coeffiecient on your way down.


21.92mph x 21.92mph = 480.4864mph +/- the effects of drag

I personally havn't tried it, but I bet it's a rush.

I did at least remember that :lol:

As we know a feather does not fall at the usual TV not due to weight but wind resistance on such a light obeject. So weight is actually going to be a factor too unless you are in an environment in which most all of the air has been sucked out in which case a 22 ton boulder and a feather would fall at the same speed.

intuition and common sense would lead us to this logical conclusion, except that is not how it happens. Galileo proved in the 16th century that objects of different sizes (yes, different masses and weights) fall at the SAME rate (speed). so if you drop a TV and a golf ball from a tower at the same time, they will reach the bottom at the same time.

and your scenario of a boulder and a feather: physically, they fall at the same rate. however, if you were to factor in air resistance (whether linear or quadratic, doesn't matter), you would find that it doesn't effect the final number that much at all.

Hey guys,

You are confusing acceleration due to gravity and terminal velocity...

Technically in a complete vaccum an object continues to accelerate due to gravity. The acceration actually increases the more massive the object and the closer the objects are together (this straight out of Newtonian physics). The reason Galileo did not realise this is that the mass of the earth is large when compared to the mass of object he was tossing off the tower which means this effect is negliable.

Terminal velocity is the fastest speed that an object will fall... This is due to wind resistance where the force of the air blowing past the object is equal to the force of gravity. So a more aerodynamic object will have a higher terminal velocity but have the same acceration if both objects fall in a vaccumn (well not exactly but close enough).

We are probably way off topic but I think this shows this is a rather pointless question because of mitigating circumstances.

The main question is... do you want to talk theoretical phisics (that occur in a perfect world) or actual phisics (that occur in our world which is full of confounding variables, this means things that cannot be controled and taint any data that you get, this happens when you have more than one variable)

Newton thought on a theoretical world... this is why his reasoning is so easily applied to space (the closest to a perfect world, mostly because of the lack of friction of gasses, therefore we can easily see the interaction of masses in space between each other only and with few variable thrown in.)

Galileo on the other hand though about our imperfect world... and he found that things of different masses will fall at the same rate, as long as air resistance is the same... so a brick of gold and a brick of the same size made of something less dense will reach the ground at the same time... the feather is different just like a parachute is different...

Now what people dont always realize is that gallileo was testing the similarities in the way two objects interact with the mass of the earth... it worked for him because he used a constant (the earth) and the mass of the constant was so much larger than the difference in the masses of the objects tested, a large difference in mass to a human isnt noticable to the earth...

What this means is that if he had tested this on a larger scale.. ie. the effect a black hole has on a 3000gt vs. the effect a black hole has on the earth, he would find that the huge mass of the earth will be pulled much faster to the center of the black hole than the small mass of the 3000gt (unless the kid who got Musashi was driving because he sucks! lmao seriously though, glad hes ok at least.)

This is because : the larger the mass of an object the stronger pull said object has on the masses surounding it, so the earth will also pull itself towards the black hole and the 3000gt will not have much of a pull itself...

In conclusion (finally sorry guys!) an object of larger mass would actually fall faster than an object of smaller mass, however on earth this doesnt work because of variable (like drag) and also because we would need a huge difference in masses to be able to measure it.

off topic but pretty entertaining! Anyway Igo... Your comment was funny as ....!

So... As a test to see if all masses pull toward each other hold your index fingers up close to each other and you can feel them pulling very gently closer together!


HAHA I know someone just tried it LMAO:evillol: :rofl:

Linbckr: A boulder and feather would fall at the same rate but only if they were in an environment which had no air. And as for a golf ball and television, they would not fall at the EXACT same rate because the weight to drag ratio would be different on each, once agian assuming you did this in a natural environment. Here is an example: The bould that weighs 22 tons has more drag than a feather yet falls faster on Earth. Why is that? Because it has much more mass to push though that. Which is why you would have to calculate the drag to weight ration. Many things like the golfball and television would be VERY close but NOT exactly the same.

SL3000GT.

talk talk talk. theory theory theory.

if you haven't tried it, go out to your local high school football stadium. try it. report back. i know, b/c i've done it (back in 7th grade). and with all the college physics i took, i know my stuff. 2old hit it right on the head, though. he explained things perfectly. and i'm not talking about absolutes, b/c almost nothing is absolute. but for some things, when you account for the error and accuracy, you will find that it doesn't change the final answer by more than a percent from the given value.

SL3000GT.

talk talk talk. theory theory theory.

if you haven't tried it, go out to your local high school football stadium. try it. report back. i know, b/c i've done it (back in 7th grade). and with all the college physics i took, i know my stuff. 2old hit it right on the head, though. he explained things perfectly. and i'm not talking about absolutes, b/c almost nothing is absolute. but for some things, when you account for the error and accuracy, you will find that it doesn't change the final answer by more than a percent from the given value.


I guess that is where we differ. I was talking about absolutes and what it is (even if it is a very small change) in a controlled environment (like inside a building with no changing wind speed or any of that jazz) with precise instruments to measure. I guess I just have always though of science/physics to be an exact on subject since a lot of things that have to do with this sort of study requires no room for error. I do know where you are coming from though.:smooch:

hmmm...3000GT has a drag coeficient of .33 or something like that right? im gonna go find the terminal velocity of my car. anyone know the cross sectional area??? lol

488.1 mph (at sea level)(assumed falling nose-down)


i used 3803lb as the weight (from my own '93 VR-4)
.30 as the coefficient of drag(between .29 and .33 for 3/s's)(from team3s.com)
altitude as sea level
and 20.83 sq.ft. as my own estimated cross sectional area

if anyone has a more accurate cross sectional area, i can re-do the calculation.

how is 53-56 m/s 488.1 mph? that's way way off.

how is 53-56 m/s 488.1 mph? that's way way off.


I dunno, but it's only 8mph off my original answer...so as a Mod, I say it's right! [/thread] :grinno:

I love how this thread actually took a turn for the educational and turned into something interesting.

I dunno, but it's only 8mph off my original answer...so as a Mod, I say it's right! [/thread] :grinno:

I love how this thread actually took a turn for the educational and turned into something interesting.
Not me. :lol: I hated science and algebra.

how is 53-56 m/s 488.1 mph? that's way way off.

Yeah, 488.1 mph is an order of magnatude off... The problem is that the coeffecient of drag isn't 0.33 because that was measured in "normal" velocities of about 60mph where laminar flow is more predominate.

When you are looking at velocities of 200 mph you are going to be looking at turbulant flow (unless you were in something that was designed to go that fast, like a plane) where the co-efficent of drag increases dramatically.

Unfortunately you aren't going to get a exact number unless you have a super-computer with some fluid dynamic analysis tool because turbulance is really hard to predict properly on a irregular surface like a car (why even fighter air craft designers still use wind tunnels).

Just a jab at SL3000GT: Even science isn't an exact science ;-P

you had me at laminar flow :smooch:

2old FTW!

i make a motion to nominate 2old as the official internet engineer/physicist of the 3S realm of AF.com!

intuition and common sense would lead us to this logical conclusion, except that is not how it happens. Galileo proved in the 16th century that objects of different sizes (yes, different masses and weights) fall at the SAME rate (speed). so if you drop a TV and a golf ball from a tower at the same time, they will reach the bottom at the same time.

and your scenario of a boulder and a feather: physically, they fall at the same rate. however, if you were to factor in air resistance (whether linear or quadratic, doesn't matter), you would find that it doesn't effect the final number that much at all.

Stop saying speed, that is not what he proved. He proved they accelerate at the same rate.

A feather and a boulder do not accelerate the same when factoring in air resistance. Go try it.

Its easier to think in terms of humans!

So... Take a fat guy (350 lbs) and a skinny guy (130lbs) and push them off a ledge at exactly the same time... they will fall at the same rate even though one is heavier (more mass)... though not quite perfect (the fat guy will still have more drag)

oh... and you have to tie them up first so they are more likely to fall the same way... its an ugly business to retry the expieriment :naughty:

A feather and a boulder do not accelerate the same when factoring in air resistance. Go try it.

I can only laugh because I can probably argue this on both sides:

Obviously a feather accelerates slower over any "normal humanly observable distance"... but if you actually look at the equations at the instance of time when the feather is dropped (IE: velocity=0) the boulder and the feather actually accerate at the same rate because drag is 0 when velocity is 0.

But at the same note: if you even drop something that is remotely round and weight even a couple pounds, the drag on an object falling 10 stories cannot be "humanly observable" to fall any different from an object that is several times it's weight because the drag on the object is only a fraction of a percent of the total force pulling down on the object.

But if you are going to argue that the do not fall exactly at the same rate... Well technically neither do 2 objects of the same mass because gravity is not uniform on the earth's surface, the object closer to the equator have greater velocity and therefore a greater centripetal force on it, the one closest to the dawn side of the earth has less gravity on it because Einstein proved (okay, "theorerised" as some people insist that evolution is "just a theory") that gravity is a warp of spacetime and therefore a moving object through spacetime warps spacetime depending if you are on the "leading edge" or "trailing edge" side.

Nevermind it's physically impossible to exactly measure gravity because of Heisenburg's Uncertaintiy Principle...

I think I have studied enough physics to come to the point that when I calculate something if it's "close enough" it's "close enough"... I just figured that people have different point where they think the calculations are "close enough".

um, exactly

I dunno, but it's only 8mph off my original answer...so as a Mod, I say it's right! [/thread] :grinno:

I love how this thread actually took a turn for the educational and turned into something interesting.


remember though, you were taking the acceleration of a falling object and squaring it, causing the number to be WAY OFF.

If you take 56 m/s and convert it, that is roughly 124 miles per hour. Some sources claim terminal velocity to be more around 70 m/s, which would be roughly 155 miles per hour.

It is safe to say then that terminal velocity of a free falling object is roughly 120-155 miles per hour.

I can only laugh because I can probably argue this on both sides:

Obviously a feather accelerates slower over any "normal humanly observable distance"... but if you actually look at the equations at the instance of time when the feather is dropped (IE: velocity=0) the boulder and the feather actually accerate at the same rate because drag is 0 when velocity is 0.

But at the same note: if you even drop something that is remotely round and weight even a couple pounds, the drag on an object falling 10 stories cannot be "humanly observable" to fall any different from an object that is several times it's weight because the drag on the object is only a fraction of a percent of the total force pulling down on the object.

But if you are going to argue that the do not fall exactly at the same rate... Well technically neither do 2 objects of the same mass because gravity is not uniform on the earth's surface, the object closer to the equator have greater velocity and therefore a greater centripetal force on it, the one closest to the dawn side of the earth has less gravity on it because Einstein proved (okay, "theorerised" as some people insist that evolution is "just a theory") that gravity is a warp of spacetime and therefore a moving object through spacetime warps spacetime depending if you are on the "leading edge" or "trailing edge" side.

Nevermind it's physically impossible to exactly measure gravity because of Heisenburg's Uncertaintiy Principle...

I think I have studied enough physics to come to the point that when I calculate something if it's "close enough" it's "close enough"... I just figured that people have different point where they think the calculations are "close enough".


I can agree with that. Like you said close enough can be close enough (ie the difference between the accel. of a golf ball and a rock that is slightly larger. Not close enough when comparig dropping a wide sheet (ie cardboard, paper,etc) or feather to a bowling ball. And "even science is not an exact science." Yes and no...depending on how look at it.

:grinno: lol and since we went from our top speed to terminal velocity

its time we close this