>300+ mph in 1978
>wet weight of ~3,850
>V8
Why did people lose their shit over the veryon a few years ago when theres always been much better ((and cheaper)) cars that go just as fast, even with a smaller engine?
300+ mph in 1978
Leo Morales
Andrew Kelly
300 really? Sources
Gabriel Morris
No. 70s tires could never take that speed and those aerodynamics would cause it to fly. 200, maybe.
Elijah Taylor
Because manlets like to geek out over specs that they will NEVER get to test out, let alone use in a real world setting. Usually as a way to compensate for cock size/poor mental health.
Charles Harris
Because fuck you, Commie
Nicholas Clark
The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
Joseph Collins
You're a fucking retard op
A 70s charger would barely make 130mph. Even the average ferrari at that time wouldn't make it passed 140.
Dominic Green
Superbirds were brutal for their time. They were banned from nascar because they were winning every race by several laps, stock.
Benjamin Jenkins
Colton Martin
This car looks like a fucking dildo
Dominic Evans
OP's picture is a 1970 Plymouth Superbird hardtop coupe. Engine was a 6.9 litre V8 producing 425bhp. Top speed was 200 mph
>Source - topspeed.com
For comparison, my 4.7 litre Aston produces 420 bhp and tops out at 170 mph.
Jeremiah Smith
>They were banned from nascar because they were winning every race by several laps, stock.
No.
>Petty won eight races in 1970 from within the Superbird, while placing well in several others.
Source as here
Josiah Jackson
293 mph at salt flats exactly, my granddad was a test driver for Plymouth back then.
they actually could, but it was pretty much one ride and they were done with bulges and threads almost coming off. Aero is true what you say, at 290-ish car was pretty much uncontrollable and wobbly as if it was going off the ground according to what my grandie said about that test run. Pretty much this is why 293 was the top and final recorded speed. Car could technically go past 300 mph as there was still a bit of a power reserve, but aero was bad and tires wouldn't hold much longer so he deployed the chutes at 293.
David Richardson
>my granddad was a test driver for Plymouth back then.
explain the official stats, then
Carter Jenkins
I call bullshit. 216 mph over a flying mile was a record in 1971
>roadandtrack.com
Aaron Campbell
>top speed is a function of bhp
typical shitbox lux owner.
Ethan Russell
The test car wasn't the official build. Basically sort of Plymouth testing the chassis and suspension capabilities and limits. Can't phone my granddad for the details now (timezone difference) but I rember he talking about a V8 but with circa 600 or 650 bhp. The V8 wasn't even Plymouth's build.
Like there is nothing stock in a stock car racing, there was pretty much nothing stock in terms of engine in that car. Just the frame and suspension was stock (and well, tires). Car got crashed (rollover) but they have rebuilt it and now is on display on one of the Ply's or muscle car museums in the US. Fun fact: they did put a standard V8 after rebuilt in it. Like to cheat people that it could run this fast on stock engine which is bullshit.
Jaxson Cruz
So what you're saying is that it wasn't a Plymouth Superbird, then. Thanks for confirming
Samuel Perez
that car wouldn't hit 300 with 2000 horsepower.
it's literally a flying brick.
>deployed the chutes at 293
so, on a top speed car with 'stressed tires' he deployed the chutes with no coast-down?
that'd lead to a blow-out.
Josiah Mitchell
>top speed is a function of bhp
Of course it is. Along with rolling resistance and CdA. Your point?
Jason Moore
Cause there’s still difference between an engineering and design work of art and a fast piece of shit.
Liam Martinez
my point, and you just sorta proved it, is that the main factor in top speed back in the days was gearing.
150 horsepower GP cars were going 180. How do you think that happened?
Justin Rodriguez
aero analysis past down-force generation wasn't a thing until CFD of the 80s.
in other words : race cars made a lot of df, but had terrible cda deltas.
Sebastian Ward
Low air resistance (or rather small frontal footprint that was needed to the pushed through the air), very little mass (thus mass to hp ratio was fucking amazing)
Aiden Martinez
>that the main factor in top speed back in the days was gearing.
No, it was power,CdA and rolling resistance. Put tall gearing on a low-powered car and it isn't going to go faster; the key to correct gearing is to hit Vmax at max power.
Jackson Butler
mass to hp only affects acceleration; mass has an effect on rolling resistance but mass is not a factor in Vmax
Chase Reed
>mass not a factor in Vmax
true I agree, but a low powered engine in a heavy car with tall gearing will take you nowhere. You need to balance everything out.
David Roberts
Holy shit i made a good post
Logan Adams
Good god, leave it to faggot OP, to make a Superbird annoying.
Jace Stewart
that car doesnt do close to 300 mph
Evan Miller
A superbird was pretty fast for its time but i would never ever made it to 400kmh with stock intestines.
Easton Stewart
>it just doesn't sound possible with even 650hp. Think about it, a ~1,500 lb indycar with ~650hp has a top speed of ~240mph. There is no way in hell a ~4,000lb chunk of 'murican steel with relatively brick-like aerodynamics goes 50mph faster.
I can believe I wasted my time on your bait, you bastard.