performance numbers

[Bryce]

I want to start a thread were we can all brag about our cars.

i will start a format and add to it as you see fit.

Car:

My daily driver 1995 mustang, I have an accelerometer in my car. i will have numbers for my 1965 falcon soon.

Lateral Acceleration:

0.96 G's

Forward Acceleration:

0.83 G's

Braking Acceleration:

0.74 G's

0-60 mph:

6.1 seconds

1/4 mile:

not known yet

60-0 mph:

not known yet

Horsepower:

225 rwhp and 300 torque

Weight:

3250 lbs

[DarkBuddha]

Which accelerometer? Probably doesn't matter much since most folks will not accept accelerometer data as accurate for providing hard performance numbers even if g-force indications are fairly accurate.

[Nessumsar]

The iPhone app. actually works pretty well; if you take the time to set it up correctly...

I have one of the gtech's, but haven't used it yet because my 12v plug isn't hooked up; and I'm lazy...

[Bryce]

Which accelerometer? Probably doesn't matter much since most folks will not accept accelerometer data as accurate for providing hard performance numbers even if g-force indications are fairly accurate.

I was using the autometer D-pic solidly mounted in the dash. We checked the results with my friends i-phone and they read within 5% of eachother.

[79-TA]

Accelerometers are great except that they cannot distinguish between acceleration and gravity. Body roll, nose dive, and lift all throw off an accelerometer's accuracy.



I'm baffled by your Mustang's acceleration and braking numbers. It accelerates more quickly than it slows down? At first I thought that is was a result of the initial impulse at launch and not anything sustained. But after doing a bit of math, the acceleration number makes sense:

Assuming your first gear ratio is 3.35 and you've got the stock 2.73's out back (which could be a completely wrong assumption, so feel free to scale the results accordingly) and your overall tire diameter is about 26 inches (erring on the small side in your favor), one can calculate the theoretical peak acceleration. Your 300 pound-fee would be multiplied 9.1455 times and then after going through the 13 inch wheel/tire radius would translate to 2532 pounds of force at the road. This would yield a peak acceleration of .779 G. This number is close to your measured number (6% error) and could be due to accelerometer error. Also, even a mild gear upgrade like 3.08's would make your number possible.

So maybe you could get a better braking number if you tried it again.




How did you get your SN95 to be so light? My fox body is 3250 with a full tank of gas and spare tire kit (and no driver.) I know the Fox and SN95 use the same basic platform, but I thought the later 'stangs were heavier.

[Bryce]

great calculation, I had already done that verification when i got the accelerometer just as a sanity check.

The stock stang was 3400 and i removed things, spare tire and jack. stock front seats are heavy so i put in some light race seats. i took of the stock side skirts. and a few other little things. like coilovers in the front to get rid of the stock springs. its just my daily driver. so i have to keep it streetable.