Trilogy top-end speed

[TechHeavy]

Do any of you other Trilogy guys know what the top-end speed of our MM with the Trilogy S/C and the stock 3:55 gears?
If not, how could this be tested... I mean, what kind of track would one go to find out?
I'd like to know just for comparison purposes with other high performance vehicles. For example, we all know the '03 Z06 top-end speed is around 180mph... I'm just curious how our Trilogy equipped MM compares to this.

Anyone know?
Thanks

[MI2QWK4U]

Dave, I had mine up to around 165 mph at Michigan International Speedway in the front staightway last year at a SAAC meet. There was a lot more left, seat of the pants guess was maybe 20-30 more mph. I was around 400 rwhp with 3:73 gears.

[MM2004]

Dave,

It seems I remember reading about the FHP MM's and one LEO had his just over 140, and was still pulling :eek: .

As far as an S/C'er, I have not heard.

I was a passenger once in a '68 GTX, doing 135. But that is a fast as I have been in a vehicle.

Mike.


Do any of you other Trilogy guys know what the top-end speed of our MM with the Trilogy S/C and the stock 3:55 gears?
If not, how could this be tested... I mean, what kind of track would one go to find out?
I'd like to know just for comparison purposes with other high performance vehicles. For example, we all know the '03 Z06 top-end speed is around 180mph... I'm just curious how our Trilogy equipped MM compares to this.

Anyone know?
Thanks

[Mikeenh]

With stock gears and a chip to remove the speed limiter, you will shift into fourth the width of the speedo needle past 140.

[TechHeavy]

Dave, I had mine up to around 165 mph at Michigan International Speedway in the front staightway last year at a SAAC meet. There was a lot more left, seat of the pants guess was maybe 20-30 more mph. I was around 400 rwhp with 3:73 gears.
Sweet. :D I wanted to go to MIS recently for the Red Cross drive, but they limited the track speed to only 35mph so I passed.
Good deal, this is the kind of feedback I was hoping for. I read about "this car" that goes 200mph, and "that car" that goes 195mph, and it made me wonder.

Hmmm... so in theory, maybe 180-195mph? Good Lord! :D

[TechHeavy]

Dave,

It seems I remember reading about the FHP MM's and one LEO had his just over 140, and was still pulling :eek: .

As far as an S/C'er, I have not heard.

I was a passenger once in a '68 GTX, doing 135. But that is a fast as I have been in a vehicle.

Mike.
Seems like the FHP needs a faster speedometer huh Mike? :)

[TechHeavy]

Dave, I had mine up to around 165 mph at Michigan International Speedway in the front staightway last year at a SAAC meet. There was a lot more left, seat of the pants guess was maybe 20-30 more mph. I was around 400 rwhp with 3:73 gears.
Dave, did you have the O/D engaged at 165mph?

[Jerry Barnes]

Virgil Woodward from Alabama said he took his stock Trilogy Supercharged Marauder with 3:55 gears on a new stretch of highway that was not open as yet and ran the car at 185mph. His good friend was a State Trooper and clocked him with a radar gun. Virgil said he asked the Trooper if he wanted to drive the car afterwards and the Trooper said, are you crazy! Virgil is a Wild Man!

If you need to speak to Virgil, I will post his telephone number later.

Thanks

[MI2QWK4U]

Dave, did you have the O/D engaged at 165mph?


Uhhh, don't remember! I was holding on to tight!

[CRUZTAKER]

Uhhh, don't remember! I was holding on to tight!
I wasn't there...but let me remind you Dave...

YES.

This car with an OEM trans needs shifted out of third somewhere between 132 and 142 depending on the final gears. No super duper blower of any sort changes this.

It doesn't matter if it has a trilogy or not. Yours, mine, and the next door neighbor's all run similiar top end speeds. Although the relationship between the two is indeed intriguing to the masses.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

What baffled me then, and still does now...how exactly did you (Dave) determine your top speed of 165? Was there a fellow at the track with a speed gun?

I'm not saying you didn't, I'm just wondering how you figured it? I did some tests myself but run out of road just above 140. Besides, the speedo stops there. With out equipment, it's ALL guess work from there.

[MI2QWK4U]

I wasn't there...but let me remind you Dave...

YES.

This car with an OEM trans needs shifted out of third somewhere between 132 and 142 depending on the final gears. No super duper blower of any sort changes this.

It doesn't matter if it has a trilogy or not. Yours, mine, and the next door neighbor's all run similiar top end speeds. Although the relationship between the two is indeed intriguing to the masses.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

What baffled me then, and still does now...how exactly did you (Dave) determine your top speed of 165? Was there a fellow at the track with a speed gun?

I'm not saying you didn't, I'm just wondering how you figured it? I did some tests myself but run out of road just above 140. Besides, the speedo stops there. With out equipment, it's ALL guess work from there.


Well Barry, I wasnt going by my speedo, I was going by the guy I passed in an AC Cobra. We were parked nearby in the pits and he came up and wanted to know what blew by him like he was standing still and sounded like a jet. He told me that he figured I was going 5-10 mph faster than he was, and he did have a decent enough speedo to register that high.
So dont give me this crap that you doubt my info, I could care less about how you test your equipment. My equipement (speedo) had nothing to do with determining my speed. I definitely had more top end than all the other Trilogy cars there, all had 4:10 gears, while I had slighly lesser gears at the time 3:73 or possibly still had the stock 3:55s in there , dont remember. So rest assured there was no guesswork involved Barry. I guess I will look for your next cheap shot and something I do. If you have a serious question ask, but dont make it sound like you solving the great mystery of the 21st century.

Almost forgot the pic....
http://www.mercurymarauder.net/gallery/data/500/medium/DSC_0159.jpg

[Tallboy]

I wasn't there...but let me remind you Dave...

YES.

This car with an OEM trans needs shifted out of third somewhere between 132 and 142 depending on the final gears. No super duper blower of any sort changes this.

It doesn't matter if it has a trilogy or not. Yours, mine, and the next door neighbor's all run similiar top end speeds. Although the relationship between the two is indeed intriguing to the masses.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

What baffled me then, and still does now...how exactly did you (Dave) determine your top speed of 165? Was there a fellow at the track with a speed gun?

I'm not saying you didn't, I'm just wondering how you figured it? I did some tests myself but run out of road just above 140. Besides, the speedo stops there. With out equipment, it's ALL guess work from there.

TechHeavy asked about Trilogy equipped cars and top speed. He didn't ask, nor did he imply if a Trilogy alters top-speed capabilities. A few of our members with Trilogy equipped cars were kind enough to answer. Since you don't have a Trilogy, and apparently have nothing constructive to add, perhaps you should just stay the hell out of it.

[Bradley G]

Everyone Sleep well? :P

[CRUZTAKER]

You're right. All of YOU.

I am not part of the 'Axis of Trilogy'.

I apparently have nothing to offer.

[Tallboy]

You guys...yes YOU GUYS OVER THERE are so freekin' insecure. You always think someone is throwing a cheap shot if it involves questioning your beloved Trilogy. Get over it already.

I have all the right in the world to add a little info to the question TechHeavy placed on the table. As much as it may disturb you, any blower will get you to top speed faster than not, but it won't give you a higher top speed than the car is physically capable of. PERIOD.



No one argued, even for a second, the top speed is affected by any blower of any sort. Your question of Dave's info was poorly worded. You started with "I wasn't there...", and you should've ended it there.

Barry, even when I disagree with you, I always think of us as "us." It saddens me you apparently see it as "you" and "them". :depress:

[MI2QWK4U]

You're right. All of YOU.

I am not part of the 'Axis of Trilogy'.

I apparently have nothing to offer.


Barry, with all due respect, the man asked a question about Trilogy cars in the Trilogy forum, I post a response and you attempt to cast some doubt on it. What do you expect?

[Bradley G]

I am not part of the 'Axis of Trilogy'.{quote}
New Movie?

[Tallboy]

I am not part of the 'Axis of Trilogy'.{quote}
New Movie?

I don't think so, but is has given me an idea for a new t-shirt design! :hmmm: :lol:

[MI2QWK4U]

Originally Posted by CRUZTAKER
You guys...yes YOU GUYS OVER THERE are so freekin' insecure. You always think someone is throwing a cheap shot if it involves questioning your beloved Trilogy. Get over it already.

I have all the right in the world to add a little info to the question TechHeavy placed on the table. As much as it may disturb you, any blower will get you to top speed faster than not, but it won't give you a higher top speed than the car is physically capable of. PERIOD.

Barry, I wasnt addressing the fact of what blower does what for top speed, all I can address is what my blower does for me with respect to Tech's question. You werent there to witness the great talk I had with that Cobra driver, he was in awe that a car as big as ours moved like that. I didnt quite believe the speeds, but he assured me his instrumentation was very accurate!
And as far as being insecure, trust me...its not me! I know what my car is capable of and am very secure in her ability to perform! Just to keep even with a Ford GT is an honor, let alone to edge it out... Yep... I am plenty secure! Perhaps its not insecurity, but envy? Who knows. All I do know is I have never questioned anything you have posted about your Marauder and its performance, which is nothing short of spectacular. I dont understand some people's need to criticize other peoples situations, posts, or vehicles. In my opinion, you post was a cheap shot to make me look stupid as to how in the world does he think his car ran that fast with a 140 mph speedo, I think thats what Chuck was alluding to. Have a good one...

[TechHeavy]

Virgil Woodward from Alabama said he took his stock Trilogy Supercharged Marauder with 3:55 gears on a new stretch of highway that was not open as yet and ran the car at 185mph. His good friend was a State Trooper and clocked him with a radar gun. Virgil said he asked the Trooper if he wanted to drive the car afterwards and the Trooper said, are you crazy! Virgil is a Wild Man!

If you need to speak to Virgil, I will post his telephone number later.

Thanks
Thanks Jerry! :D That's incredible! Man, the more I learn about this car, the more I have to love. It's good to know that I can "talk the talk" with the corvette guys now. Hee hee.... :)

[Bradley G]

If thier was, We wouldn't be short of Supporting Characters!:rasta:
I don't think so, but is has given me an idea for a new t-shirt design! :hmmm: :lol:PS. I want a shirt!;)

[Rider90]

So the fastest was 185 MPH with stock 3.55's, and I would assume, stock driveshaft? I'm impressed. What I am curious about, and I maybe we can drag a math guru into this thread, is how come when we do 4.10 gears some of us can only take our cars to 110-120 MPH before experiencing a vibration, that in some cases has done some transmission damage around the tailshaft? I've found posts talking about the vibration some people have after 4.10s at high speeds, but likewise I've found posts of people with 4.10s doing 120 MPH and not feeling any vibration. At 185 MPH, with stock gears, and a stock driveshaft, could this guy have been feeling the vibration that us 4.10 guys feel at a lower speed?

[MI2QWK4U]

So the fastest was 185 MPH with stock 3.55's, and I would assume, stock driveshaft? I'm impressed. What I am curious about, and I maybe we can drag a math guru into this thread, is how come when we do 4.10 gears some of us can only take our cars to 110-120 MPH before experiencing a vibration, that in some cases has done some transmission damage around the tailshaft? I've found posts talking about the vibration some people have after 4.10s at high speeds, but likewise I've found posts of people with 4.10s doing 120 MPH and not feeling any vibration. At 185 MPH, with stock gears, and a stock driveshaft, could this guy have been feeling the vibration that us 4.10 guys feel at a lower speed?

You bring up a great point, thanks. I never felt any vibration no matter how fast I went. I judged this against a Marauder Lidio was working on where you could feel the vibration especially on the trans well hump. what I finally found was that my driveshaft was badly out of balance, and caused the tailshaft seal to leak badly. I cant explain why I didnt feel any vibrations, but with the balance of, they should have been there. So take this advise, get a shaft loop and make sure whatever driveshaft you use is balanced for high speed.

Rider, does this help? Let me know if you want more details.
Dave

[Rider90]

You bring up a great point, thanks. I never felt any vibration no matter how fast I went. I judged this against a Marauder Lidio was working on where you could feel the vibration especially on the trans well hump. what I finally found was that my driveshaft was badly out of balance, and caused the tailshaft seal to leak badly. I cant explain why I didnt feel any vibrations, but with the balance of, they should have been there. So take this advise, get a shaft loop and make sure whatever driveshaft you use is balanced for high speed.

Rider, does this help? Let me know if you want more details.
Dave
I read in some other thread not too long ago that when putting the driveshaft back on you must line these two lines up, getting them to match because that is how the driveshaft is balanced. I have never heard of this. Are we to believe that our driveshafts are balanced in perfect harmony with the rear end in place? My thought is no matter where you bolt the driveshaft to the rear end, its going to spin in the same place on the same axis. Have you heard of this? Someone please shed some light. IIRC, it was the vibration after metco loop thread.

I don't hang around high speeds too often but nonetheless, this reason does not seem adequate to cut something off half-assed. What did it cost for the driveshaft to get rebalanced? And was it done by a reputable business? This may be something for me down the road, literally :rolleyes:

120 MPH / 4.10s = Vibration (For most)
185 MPH / 3.55s = Vibration???

I'm sure at 185 MPH the interior cabin is noisy, to say the absolute least. And at that speed any vibration could be easily confused with the wind on the floorboards, right? I suppose its possible he never felt anything. But I am curious, although not enough to call the guy myself. Not like this accomplishes anything anyways. Just a question.

[MM2004]

[QUOTE=Rider90]I read in some other thread not too long ago that when putting the driveshaft back on you must line these two lines up, getting them to match because that is how the driveshaft is balanced. I have never heard of this. Are we to believe that our driveshafts are balanced in perfect harmony with the rear end in place? My thought is no matter where you bolt the driveshaft to the rear end, its going to spin in the same place on the same axis. Have you heard of this? Someone please shed some light. IIRC, it was the vibration after metco loop thread.

Rider,

Pleae read posts #5 and #16. Hopefully, this will shed some light, . .

http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/showthread.php?t=21989&page=1&pp=15&highlight=driveshaft

[Rider90]

Rider,

Pleae read posts #5 and #16. Hopefully, this will shed some light, . .

http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/showthread.php?t=21989&page=1&pp=15&highlight=driveshaft
And a PM was sent back, Mike, thank you.

[MI2QWK4U]

I read in some other thread not too long ago that when putting the driveshaft back on you must line these two lines up, getting them to match because that is how the driveshaft is balanced. I have never heard of this. Are we to believe that our driveshafts are balanced in perfect harmony with the rear end in place? My thought is no matter where you bolt the driveshaft to the rear end, its going to spin in the same place on the same axis. Have you heard of this? Someone please shed some light. IIRC, it was the vibration after metco loop thread.

I don't hang around high speeds too often but nonetheless, this reason does not seem adequate to cut something off half-assed. What did it cost for the driveshaft to get rebalanced? And was it done by a reputable business? This may be something for me down the road, literally :rolleyes:

120 MPH / 4.10s = Vibration (For most)
185 MPH / 3.55s = Vibration???

I'm sure at 185 MPH the interior cabin is noisy, to say the absolute least. And at that speed any vibration could be easily confused with the wind on the floorboards, right? I suppose its possible he never felt anything. But I am curious, although not enough to call the guy myself. Not like this accomplishes anything anyways. Just a question.


That time at MIS was the only time I have had the car up to that kind of speed, they made us run with windows down so there was a lot off cabin noise, but I did take the time in the straitaway to feel the trans hump and didnt really feel any vibration that would have worried me. Lid and I have had the car up to 130-140 mph a couple of times for testing. I know that the shaft caused me some problems with the tailshaft seal, whos to say if it didnt do damage to the trans as well.

[Jerry Barnes]

I have only had my car(s) to about 150-155 mph the same day that we all went to MIS. I never felt any vibration and the car had a lot more power. But, I did have my drive shaft balanced recently by a shop that Lidio uses. It cost about $150-$200. Haven't notice any difference, but I did it because of all of the threads I have read here. I know Dennis sells the Metal Matrix Drive Shafts and a lot of people have bought them, so I am assuming there is truth to the comments people have been making about a vibration. Just never had the problem myself. And I don't want to find out at 150 mph that there is truth to the comments about a vibration. I also installed a Metco Drvie Shaft Loop and so far I have not need to use it, but it is an excellent peice of work. I would highly recommend it for you Land Speed Record Holders.

My 2 cents!

Oh, almost forgot! Virgil's number is (800)925-7723 at Maloy Ford/Lincoln/Mercury. He said I could send people to him anytime. He is the Parts Manager. Great guy!

[Jerry Barnes]

Now, to Barry's comment. Barry you and I have been good friends for some time. You stopped by our office frequently, in the past. We have always treated you with open arms and never treated you different then any other customers or friends. But, I take exception to you referring to Trilogy as a bunch of Elites Dip *****s, that don't waste their time talking to non-Trilogy people. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't care if you ever buy one of our products and we will still be Marauder Brothers! When you showed up at Marauderville III and our office I treated you with the same respect and friendship I treated everyone else.

I have a great deal of respect for what you have done with your car and your accomplishments at the track. They are nothing short of great! you have never heard me say you are part of the "Barry Axis".

But, if you ever refer to our company, our staff, our customers or our friends in that manner again, I will pull the supercharger off my car and come to Ohio and whip your sorry a$$ all over the country side! Am I clear. You name the time and the place and I will be there.


Now, that said. Stop by anytime!

Love Ya Big Guy!

These comments have been censored to remain on the Bright Side, and not be required to be moved to the Dark Side.

[Bradley G]

:fishslap:
Jealousy shows it's ugly head!:P

[Cobra25]

I've had my Trilogy Marauder over 130 MPH - 2 times and no hint of a drive shaft Vibration. Stock drive shaft & 410 gears.

[Bradley G]

Ditto on what Cobra25 said^^^
Only one time I went that fast, Before the blower.
The only vibe was the front end.
I've had my Trilogy Marauder over 130 MPH - 2 times and no hint of a drive shaft Vibration. Stock drive shaft & 410 gears.

[Smokie]

My top speed is a little over 108 mph.......

[BillyGman]

First let me say that with 4.56 gears in the rear of my S/ced Marauder, I'm not one to be offering any claims of serious top end. I also want to sat that I really don't think that Barry's comments were antagonistic. So I for one didn't mind his first post in ths thread at all. However, I will say that regardless of the fact that I didn't find fault with his tone, I must say that I disagree with him about a S/cer not adding any top end to a vehicle.

Most vehicles cannot reach the engine redline in top gear, simply because the engine doesn't have the power to carry the weight of the vehicle that fast. So when you add power to the engine, it will come closer to reaching it's redline in top gear. So a Trilogized Marauder, DOES have the potential for more top end than an N/A Marauder does.

I installed the 4.56 gears in my Marauder way before I installed the Trilogy S/Cer. And when the car was N/A, with the 4.56's it didn't have much left after it hit 100 MPH. Which didn't matter to me since I'm not into that top end stuff anyway, and my car was running 13.5's in the quartermile, with a 101 MPH trap speed. So the lack of performance above 100 MPH was not an issue for me at all.

However, I notcied that after I installed the Trilogy supercharger, the car now has a lot more left above 100 MPH. And my trap speeds now are 114 MPH in the quartermile. I've takn it to 120 MPH plenty of times, but I don't think it would ever hit even 135 MPH with the 4.56 gears. But the piont is, that I believe the top speed of the car has been enhanced because of the Trilogy supercharger alone, because the engine now has more power and torque to carry the weight of the vehicle faster in top gear.

Remember, you'll never reach redline with your Marauder in top gear even if you have all the room in the world to do that. And that's merely because the engine doesn't have the power to carry the weight that fast. So in top gear it isn't the engine redline that is the limiting factor, but the peak power of the engine. And that peak is made higher by a supercharger.

[TripleTransAm]

Okay, here comes the math answer...

I honestly used to have a hand-made program on my HP48SX calculator that I was pretty proud of: it could come within 1 or 2 mph of road test-reported top speeds EVERY time. All you needed to do was enter frontal area, Cd, vehicle mass, and horsepower at what RPM and gearing (total) and it would spit out the top speed.

Unfortunately, this was back in spring of 1992... and if anyone on here has ever owned a Hewlett Packard 48SX, they'll understand why almost 14 years later, I can't remember at all how to use that program. :(

But I can still remember most of the theory:
the car stops accelerating when the energy being produced by the powertrain (and delivered to the vehicle via pushing by the wheel) equals the energy being lost in aerodynamic drag at that speed and the actual energy to move the car at that speed (and other little things, like road friction, etc.).

These energy components in the equation ALL relate to velocity squared. Double the speed, you QUADRUPLE the energy required to deliver that speed. You can understand why once speeds reach ludicrous levels, it takes a GREAT amount of extra hp to get that speed (historical note: this is what gave birth to those aero-car wars of the late 60s in Nascar, since aero losses are ALSO a function of the square of the velocity - it was easier to make cars more aero friendly than to punch up the hp several hundred worth to get extra speed...).

At the car's top speed, the power the engine is producing at that RPM is equal to what's being robbed. Normally at this point you're already on the dropping side of the power curve but at higher speeds it can simply be a case of losses climbing faster than the power production curve if you happen to still be on the climbing side of the curve. Sometimes all it takes is a gear change to shift that RPM point for that given speed, and you might actually end up at a point where you have more power available and your top speed increases... sometimes it's the opposite.

A supercharger is likely to increase power across the whole range. Whatever power was being produced at the point where kinetic and aero losses caught up, there's bound to be more available at that same RPM when a supercharger is in place. That's why unless the top speed is electronically or RPM limited, I can't see how the top speeds can be the same as those of a stock motor.

Even modded, it depends on the nature of the mods. A mod to increase bottom end without ANY change to the top end won't do any good because chances are the gearing will be trying to put the top speed at a point fairly high in the RPM range. To grab better top speed from an engine that's been souped up in the low range, you'd need to gear up such as to keep the engine in the stronger lower RPM range (within reason, you'd get less torque multiplication with the numerically lower gears, so acceleration would suffer - this is the main reason Chevy used a 3.07:1 rear gear as an option in the '85 Vette, simply to get it to hit the magical 150 mph mark with an engine better suited to low-mid RPM torque).

Similarly, if all you've got is top end power, you'd need to use ridiculously low gears to keep revs high enough. And unbelievably high HP at 10000 RPM isn't going to help you if you're unable to creep past 5000 RPM in top gear because there aren't enough wheaties to overcome whatever losses are present at whatever speed that RPM works out to.

That being said, 185 mph in a heavy barn like our cars must demand a LOT of power being produced. I'm suspecting that car was putting out a lot more than the advertised mid 400-hp levels we hear about from the basic kits. 165 mph sounds feasible (175mph is attainable from a speed-limiter-free stock 1999 LS1 6-speed weighing about 3700 lbs with great aerodynamics, pushing 310-320 hp at the wheels). How much more is the question that can't be answered without actual instrumented testing, since the power requirements at those speeds are not linear but increasing at a sharper rate with each added MPH.

[the_pack_rat]

I certainly don't doubt the top speeds of our MM's.

I had the car below at 120.(yes a seemingly nothing GM luxocruiser coupe).

Was @ 14 yrs ago .....

Screwing around on the road with a guy I worked with, when we were thru for the day .....

He had a 71/2 Chevelle. 350 IIRC.

The Toro(1981) was originally a diesel car converted over to gas ..... a basically stock longblock 1976 350 4bbl Olds.(soild main webs vs the windowed webs of the 77-79 motors) - was how I bought it.

He had @ a front fender length on me down the highway .....

I never gained any more ... he never could pull away anymore.

Being I only had an 85mph speedo, I said to him the next day at work ......

"That was fun last night ..... how fast were we going ?".

Him -

"The last time I looked down we were doing @ 120".

Another time, I was messing with a late 80's Mustang GT on the highway .....

He could not shake me more than 1/2 a car length at top speeds ..... the passenger finally looked over at me & just shook his head with this look of like ...... "DAMN we give up - WTF is in that thing ?!?!?!!?!?" (they let off).

Where this happened .....

Anyone from back in the Langhorne PA - Trenton NJ area will really appreciate this(& know the DISTANCE).

I got on Route 1 at Oxford Valley.

I jumped on it merging onto the highway when the GT started playing with me.

I did NOT take my foot out of it till close to the toll bridge in Morrisville.

:eek:

Re-search my postings ......

I am NOT one to talk BS or off the wall stuff - I don't go around saying something happened unless it did in fact HAPPEN.

Damn the people that car suprised .....

I shall buy another & make it even MORE of a sleeper one of these days.

I miss that car something terrible.

I was just as suprised at the abilities of what was supposed to be a standard long block rebuild of a 76 350 than anyone else.

I should be SHOTfor selling that car.

A rare bucket seat Toronado with a moonroof & healthy engine ......

MORON.

:rolleyes:

[Bradley G]

I'll get her going faster than that!:banana2:
My top speed is a little over 108 mph.......

[Jerry Barnes]

I have had my car to 155 at Michigan International Speedway. No shakes, rattles or rolls. And it was still pulling hard. Virgil Woodward indicated that he was clocked by a State Trooper friend on a new stretch of highway(unopened) at 185 with just a Trilogy Kit and stock gears.

[jim geary]

Well said Chuck.

[G-Man]

I know that mine pulls 165 MPH in drive with no effort or vibrations. It's been tested that way. I have had it in O/D, wide open, but no one had a car who's spedo went over 150. So we don't really know how fast it does go. Runs like a go cart the whole way. Haven't found anything that I couldn't catch.

[Smokie]

I'll get her going faster than that!:banana2:

I'm hoping to increase that top speed to 110 mph* soon.....cool air has arrived.


* From a dead stop, not to exceed 1320 feet.;)

[Bradley G]

Good luck on that ! My friend!
I'm hoping to increase that top speed to 110 mph* soon.....cool air has arrived.


* From a dead stop, not to exceed 1320 feet.;)

[BigMerc]

What I like is that no matter WHERE you start at, you'll always end up in a supercharger argument. Its great like the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon except its six degrees of supercharger choices:

1) I think Darwin was all wrong

2)Darwins grandson met Henry Ford

3) Ford made the first mustang in the 60's

4) the newest mustang Cobras are fast because of their superchargers

5) Well they would have been faster if they used a _________ supercharger

(fill in your own brand)


ohh and only 5 moves to get to a supercharger argument......good Job!!!









By the way "Axis of Trilogy" is funny no matter what else went on.

[BillyGman]

What I like is that no matter WHERE you start at, you'll always end up in a supercharger argument. Its great like the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon except its six degrees of supercharger choices:

1) I think Darwin was all wrong

2)Darwins grandson met Henry Ford

3) Ford made the first mustang in the 60's

4) the newest mustang Cobras are fast because of their superchargers

5) Well they would have been faster if they used a _________ supercharger

(fill in your own brand)


ohh and only 5 moves to get to a supercharger argument......good Job!!!









By the way "Axis of Trilogy" is funny no matter what else went on.But I haven't noticed any S/cer arguments in this thread. Did I miss something? In fact, it sounds like you're trying to start one. :nono: Just because someone mentions something about S/Cer performance doesn't neccessarily mean that there will be a S/Cer war.

[SergntMac]

But I haven't noticed any S/cer arguments in this thread...Just because someone mentions something about S/Cer performance doesn't neccessarily mean that there will be a S/Cer war. Okay, who went home early...C'mon, fess up. Who had the watch and ducked...

Well, it looks like we're going to have to go back to schedules, sign out logs, and cube checks...Geeze, someone is always trying to get over on the company, bet it's someone under 30...

[Joe Walsh]

Most vehicles cannot reach the engine redline in top gear, simply because the engine doesn't have the power to carry the weight of the vehicle that fast. So when you add power to the engine, it will come closer to reaching it's redline in top gear. So a Trilogized Marauder, DOES have the potential for more top end than an N/A Marauder does.

But the piont is, that I believe the top speed of the car has been enhanced because of the Trilogy supercharger alone, because the engine now has more power and torque to carry the weight of the vehicle faster in top gear.

Remember, you'll never reach redline with your Marauder in top gear even if you have all the room in the world to do that. And that's merely because the engine doesn't have the power to carry the weight that fast. So in top gear it isn't the engine redline that is the limiting factor, but the peak power of the engine. And that peak is made higher by a supercharger.

You are right Billy.....If you don't have enough power (torque) to push the air out of your way, the car will NEVER reach redline in top gear.
The car's top speed is limited by aerodynamic drag NOT by RPM.

My stock 85 GT Mustang would run 138 MPH in 5th gear at 4400 RPM.....1600 RPM below redline. It just didn't have enough power to push more air out of the way and rev higher.
Once I added some simple mods for more power it would run 144 MPH in 5th gear, but still well below the engine's 6000 RPM redline.
I don't test my car's top speeds on the streets anymore...but I would love to know what my Marauder will do with the new engine!

[BigMerc]

did you read the thread? I did, maybe you should again, you were part of it

[BillyGman]

did you read the thread? I did, maybe you should again, you were part of itBecause your post above was ambiguous, then I can only guess who it was aimed at. So assuming that you're addressing me, then I have to ask where in this thread did you see an argument? I saw a very fair exhange of viewpoints with the exception of two posts. I read fair exchanges that didn't include insults nor down talking, nor junk talking until a certain two people jumped in here days later to attempt to provoke things. Catch my drift??? If you don't like supercharger discussions then perhaps you should stop reading them. The title of this thread is about a S/Cer, the Trilogy S/Cer, and it happens to be located in the TRILOGY Supercharger forum. So what's the big problem?

Did you read the title of this thread? And do you have any interest in the topic other than to play post sheriff? There was one or possibly two posts in this entire thread where things got a bit touchy with two members (neither of whom were me) and that was atleast two if not three pages ago. So you wait until things have calmed down and all peace prevailed about two pages ago, and then you jump in to stir things up again days later. And yet you claim to be pointing out the alleged problem, when you're starting a whole new one yourself after the other one had ended long ago and was very short lived anyway. Tell me, what do you have to add to the actual topic of this discussion? Surely you must have something that pertains to the topic. If not, then why re-hash a disagreement? Does this entertain you? I don't mean to disrespect you in any way, but it just seems as if though there are a certain few on this board who enjoy jumping into a discussion with nothing to offer at all about the topic at hand, but merely to provoke someone, so that when they respond and react to their provocation, they could then go and play post sheriff by reporting the "bad" post to the moderators just so they can get a thread deleted or locked that is about a topic that they themselves don't care for. I don't get it. I'm not saying that this is neccessarily a pattern with you, but it definately is with someone else.

[BillyGman]

You are right Billy.....If you don't have enough power (torque) to push the air out of your way, the car will NEVER reach redline in top gear.
The car's top speed is limited by aerodynamic drag NOT by RPM.

My stock 85 GT Mustang would run 138 MPH in 5th gear at 4400 RPM.....1600 RPM below redline. It just didn't have enough power to push more air out of the way and rev higher.
Once I added some simple mods for more power it would run 144 MPH in 5th gear, but still well below the engine's 6000 RPM redline.
I don't test my car's top speeds on the streets anymore...but I would love to know what my Marauder will do with the new engine!I hear ya Joe. I'm glad that atleast you and Steve (aka "TTA") understand the point I was making earlier in this thread about top speed and peak power.

[BillyGman]

.............................. ..

[BillyGman]

.............................. .......

[BillyGman]

Bigmerc, maybe I have you all wrong. In a certain way, I hope that I do. I'll attempt to make peace here by explaining to you and others the reasons for my comments. I simply fail to see why too often on this board, a few harsh words get thrown back and forth by two members in a thread, and then the complainers arrive a number of days and pages after the alleged "offense" took place, and by that time it had all settled down anyway, and was likely all forgotten about.

But then when the thread gets back on the topic that it was supposed to be about, and constructive things are then being exchanged, a couple pages and a matter of days later, someone has to jump in and pose as an alleged peace maker by stirring up the offense that was well in the past of that thread, and then the trouble begins all over again (that is assuming that there ever was trouble in the first place. Actually I don't really think there ever was much of any in this thread, but that's just my opinion). I hope you can understand my point and that you won't hold a grudge. But if you cannot, then hey, I tried.

[Mad4Macs]

:grouphug: :grouphug:

This is an interesting thread, let's keep it open :D

[SergntMac]

So assuming that you're addressing me, then I have to ask where in this thread did you see an argument? Actually, with few exceptions, arguments are the rule here. This thread, and 90 percent of the other threads here, are exactly that, arguments. It's what this, and almost every other board out there is about, whether the topic be specific to Marauders, or, Tupperware. Hell, the US. Supreme Court thrives on argument, yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument

So, rather than wish you "have a nice day", have a nice argument!

[SergntMac]

Because your post above was ambiguous, then I can only guess who it was aimed at. So assuming that you're addressing me...I don't mean to disrespect you in any way, but it just seems as if though there are a certain few on this board who enjoy jumping into a discussion with nothing to offer at all about the topic at hand, but merely to provoke someone, so that when they respond and react to their provocation, they could then go and play post sheriff by reporting the "bad" post to the moderators just so they can get a thread deleted or locked that is about a topic that they themselves don't care for. I don't get it. I'm not saying that this is neccessarily a pattern with you, but it definately is with someone else. This is almost a perfect example of subtle insinuation. A very ineffective strategy in making a point in any argument. Funny thing, it's a double-edged sword. Those who rely on subtle insinuation, are most often the most affected by it, when used against them.

http://work911.com/articles/insinuation.htm

[Tallboy]

This is almost a perfect example of subtle insinuation. A very ineffective strategy in making a point in any argument. Funny thing, it's a double-edged sword. Those who rely on subtle insinuation, are most often the most affected by it, when used against them.

http://work911.com/articles/insinuation.htm

Ok.

Wait a minute, Mac.

Stop right here.

Are you calling my friend, Billy, "SUBTLE"?

[Mad4Macs]

AHEM


:grouphug:

[Tallboy]

AHEM


:grouphug:


We're good. My post was meant as a joke. Mac knows me, and will not mis-interpret my good natured jab. You should listen in on our phone calls!!!:lol:

[gpfarrell]

I certainly don't doubt the top speeds of our MM's.

The Toro(1981) was originally a diesel car converted over to gas ..... a basically stock longblock 1976 350 4bbl Olds.(soild main webs vs the windowed webs of the 77-79 motors) - was how I bought it.


Damn the people that car suprised .....

I shall buy another & make it even MORE of a sleeper one of these days.

I miss that car something terrible.

I was just as suprised at the abilities of what was supposed to be a standard long block rebuild of a 76 350 than anyone else.

I should be SHOTfor selling that car.

A rare bucket seat Toronado with a moonroof & healthy engine ......

MORON.

:rolleyes:

Neat thing about marauder.net... I'm feeding my supercharger urges and you give me ideas for my father-in-law's pristine 1984 Eldo Barritz convertible with the mighty "Digital 4100" in it! Wonder if they make subrame connectors for those?

Didn't mean to hijack... back to hooper-chargers and nearly-seeing-God topspeeds.

[SergntMac]

Yes, it made me chuckle, but I'm still half asleep and could not think of the appropriate snappy come-back. That was a good one, Chuck.

[Tallboy]

Yes, it made me chuckle, but I'm still half asleep and could not think of the appropriate snappy come-back. That was a good one, Chuck.


Here's a hot cup-o-joe for ya, old buddy...:coffee:

[Bradley G]

I was wondering if The fastest recorded top speed is @ redline.
I doubt I could take my eyes off the track long enough to look at the tack.

[BillyGman]

Ok.

Wait a minute, Mac.

Stop right here.

Are you calling my friend, Billy, "SUBTLE"?LOL.....no way!!!!

[BillyGman]

I was wondering if The fastest recorded top speed is @ redline.
I doubt that very much, because of what Steve (TTA), Joe Walsh, and I were saying about the power of the engine not being able to carry the weight nor fight the wind drag forces (is thast the right term?) put upon the vehicle at top speeds. Personally I've never been in a vehicle to my knowledge that was able to get to redline in top gear because of that.But the more power that's added to the vehicle in question, then the closer it can get to top gear redline. That's why a S/ced marauder will have better top end speed capacity than a N/A Marauder does with the same gearing.

[Bradley G]

No doubt, that makes sense.
Just wondering if anyone has been able to redline it in high gear, How much power is necessary to achieve this?
I doubt that very much, because of what Steve (TTA), Joe Walsh, and I were saying about the power of the engine not being able to carry the weight nor fight the wind drag forces (is thast the right term?) put upon the vehicle at top speeds. Personally I've never been in a vehicle to my knowledge that was able to get to redline in top gear because of that.But the more power that's added to the vehicle in question, then the closer it can get to top gear redline. That's why a S/ced marauder will have better top end speed capacity than a N/A Marauder does with the same gearing.

[BillyGman]

No doubt, that makes sense.
Just wondering if anyone has been able to redline it in high gear, How much power is necessary to achieve this?Who knows? I think that up to a certain point, it would be more cost effective as well as more efficient in general, to re-shape the body style of a vehicle to give it better aerodynamics, as well as lighten it up to acheive a redline in top gear than it would be to attempt to add enough HP for that. I'm not saying that adding HP alone would never acheive that, but it would take a whole lot more than anyone here has I believe. Particularly with a 4,200 LB vehicle. You wouldn't only be fighting wind resistence(which is multiplied at top speeds as Steve and Joe were saying), but gravity also.

[BillyGman]

Hey, maybe instead of us meeting at the dragstrip, we should all get together with our Marauders at the Bonneville salt flats for a top speed contest. :D but I know that I sure wouldn't be the winner with the gears I have in my car.

[TripleTransAm]

I was wondering if The fastest recorded top speed is @ redline.
I doubt I could take my eyes off the track long enough to look at the tack.

Based on loose calculations (the kind that don't even need dinner and flowers before you can get 'em in the sack), it's about 220-230 mph at a redline of 6200 RPM.

By the way, it isn't really gravity that is a limiting factor here, but object mass. That means the same energy will be required to move a vehicle on the moon at a certain speed as on the Earth, neglecting any other friction (air, road friction, etc.).

I doubt I'd be able to find ANY of my notes from when I worked on the Ford hybrid electric vehicle challenge from 1991-1993, but here's about as close as I can remember:

You've got these components of energy:
kinetic energy (movement), air friction, road losses (tires, etc.), any other internal losses.

Kinetic energy is (if I recall) something like ½ x mass x speed²

air friction loss (aero losses) are something like ½ x frontal area x Cd x speed²

road losses are totally dependent on the car (tires, road surface, temperature, rubber compound). Internal losses... well, we're all pretty familiar with that as Marauder drivers...


So you see what kind of effect speed has on energy requirements. (side note: see how both frontal area and coefficient of drag have an effect on aero losses. That means you could theoretically have a VERY well engineered barn with excellent Cd but it would still be as BIG as a barn, and hence high losses. This is why sometimes you see large cars with excellent Cd, but they still aren't aerodynamically desirable because of their frontal area... and vice versa).

[Shankin]

The question i have is at 185 mph in 3rd gear at 1 to 1 with the convertor locked would be around 7800rpm with a 3.55 gear and a 28 inch tall tire. At this rate of speed i wouldnt think overdrive would even be a option due to the fact that the trans just wouldnt hold it. So what gear and what motor etc would be used to run 185 mph in as marauder? Not trying to start a war just asking because i have been thinking about it.

[SergntMac]

The question i have is at 185 mph in 3rd gear at 1 to 1 with the convertor locked would be around 7800rpm with a 3.55 gear and a 28 inch tall tire. At this rate of speed i wouldnt think overdrive would even be a option due to the fact that the trans just wouldnt hold it. So what gear and what motor etc would be used to run 185 mph in as marauder? Not trying to start a war just asking because i have been thinking about it. I don't know if I am helping you figure this out in any way, but here's a peek my at my personal third gear top end.

http://www.mercurymarauder.net/showcase/showimage.php?i=310

I cannot recall my tire size this day. It was either a Prielli 285/45, which is 28.10 tall, or, a Pirelli 255/50, which is 28.04 tall. Either way, with a 4:10 and third gear locked in, 6000 RPM and almost stock tire circumfrence, got me over 120 MPH. Push it a little harder and I may get a little more, and I did. EEC recorded 139 MPH, but my GPS was screaming at me "138 miles per hour!"

What ever...This is my personal "best" top speed, with a Vortech S-Trim centrifugal blower, 3.48 pulley, producing 9.5 PSI on my then stock engine, 4:10 gears and "28.something" tires. It's still in my EEC memory, which means I haven't gone faster since then, and I snapped a pic of my dash too. I don't have any better evidence, but this puppy was maxed out, K?

I've read some stories here, but I never saw this kind of proof. The print-out from my Davis Chip is an Excel sheet I can FWD anywhere if this gets critical, or, necessary. Hope it don't, because I'm tired of the "arm wresteling" here.

Gross vehicle weight and aerodynamics do play a very serious role here, and this is the best I have ever seen from a Marauder in real traffic. If Roots driven cars can do better, hand it to them. "HERE...HOLD THIS FLAG FOR ME, K?" Let the target of "top gun" stick to them for a while, see how they deal with it.

I really do not care about any of this. A Marauder moving down the highway over 120 MPH is seriously insane hardware just looking to bump into something. It's big, bulky and too much to steer, or, stop, on crap roads without aftermarket help. Y'all can whoo-pee all that on your own, but I've been there, did that, no big deal.

Just this past summer, Zack, Mercman, and I drove a "banzai run" from Chicago to Jackasonville, FL., and back again. 1158 miles in just over 13 hours. Yeah, it was a hot run, we swept curbs between Nashville and Chattanooga along I-24 in record time. 140 MPH is what it looked like on my MM speedo, but my Davis chips said "naw, not fast enough yet." I tried.

Mentions here of 185 MPH, even 160 MPH...Whoa.

Ya 'kno, I just gotta look at the whole program, K?

I got a clean 138 MPH, but by reaching my mechanical edge too. It's a 4400 pound car, folks, K? It takes as much to stop a Marauder, as it takes to propel a Marauder to these speeds, as we have discussed. Anyone who maxed out over 140 MPH, should be back here begging for brakes and more, or, he just didn't get there.

I'm done, process this as you will...

[Gre8one7]

I got a clean 138 MPH, but by reaching my mechanical edge too. It's a 4400 pound car, folks, K? It takes as much to stop a Marauder, as it takes to propel a Marauder to these speeds, as we have discussed. Anyone who maxed out over 140 MPH, should be back here begging for brakes and more, or, he just didn't get there.

I'm done, process this as you will...

Called letting off and letting the car slow itself down...just because you went over 140mph doesnt mean you have to suddenly stop by using 100% brakes. Its kind of cool how this big car can slow itself down when you are doing 120+, the air resistance is very high and it doesnt take long to get back to highway speeds. 165 at michigan is very possible, long turns, long straights...i believe it.

[BillyGman]

At this rate of speed i wouldnt think overdrive would even be a option due to the fact that the trans just wouldnt hold it. So what gear and what motor etc would be used to run 185 mph in as marauder?I believe that the theory of Overdrive not an option at full throttle at high speed is a big misconception, and a common one at that. And I don't see why the transmission wouldn't "hold" that as you've stated.

The reason why I say that is simply because I've had my Marauder shift into Overdrive at full throttle numerous times, and I've stayed at full throttle until I've reached 4600 RPM's and the transmission was just fine in Overdrive. With 3.55 gears in the rear and the factory tires in back, an 03 or 04 Marauder will be reving at 5600 RPM's at 185 MPH while in Overdrive. Factory stock Marauders won't travel that fast, but I don't doubt that Supercharged Marauders with the factory 3.55 gears can while in overdrive. My guess is though, that would be about the maximum limit, unless the Marauder in question has a modified body for better aerodynamics as well as modifications for weight savings, and 20 PSI of boost pressure too.

[the_pack_rat]

Neat thing about marauder.net... I'm feeding my supercharger urges and you give me ideas for my father-in-law's pristine 1984 Eldo Barritz convertible with the mighty "Digital 4100" in it! Wonder if they make subrame connectors for those?

Didn't mean to hijack... back to hooper-chargers and nearly-seeing-God topspeeds.
Go for it.

I think the 79-85 GM "E" bodied cars were some of the sharpest cars GM ever made. Blowing someones doors off in one is beyond priceless. Don't forget there were also some turbo-equipped Rivieras of that era as well. At some point ... there must have been a plan to do a Toro up with the 3.8 turbo V6 as well ..... because the GM parts book(the same one a dealer would have used) I have here from that era actually shows listings & photos of a Toronado with such badging(turbo emblems). Same for the Cutlai of that era as well ..... but it never happened. The standard Buick 2bbl 3.8 V6 was the only version you could get in a Cutlass ..... while the 4bbl 4.1 Buick V6 is what you would get in a Toro of that era if it was V6 equipped.

A guy on the Toro list took a 79 Eldo & put an Olds 403 in it with a switch pitch version of the TH425 transmission(note NOT a drop in - mods required to put that trans in a 79-85 E-Body car !). The TH425 was the beefy TH400 like trans that came in the 66-78 Toronado & 67-78 Eldorado. The "switch pitch" style trans of the mid 60's was a pretty nice piece. A "variable vane" torque converter would provide a "high" stall when you put your foot into it ..... yet low stall when you were out of it. Long story short ....... great stop light launches but decent fuel economy with nice docile behavior. "Low" gearing or final drive is really NOT necessary. This same guy(Bruce) also designed his own electronic controller to replace the OEM switch pitch controller & the setup performs even better(he sells them too). I think that car & a 403 Delta 88 w/a SWP trans he has will jump up to 60 in somewhere in the 7's he said. AFAIK ..... he did NOTHING to the motors(I think he prefers a standard smogger era motor for daily drivers due to the lower octane requirements). Both cars are equipped with leisurely highway gearing too IIRC(2.41 maybe 2.73 at the most).

Being the 70's era GM motorhomes had Toronado drivetrains .... the SWP trans is a hot topic with them. I will gather up the hardware & will go w/a rebuilt SWP equipped trans on my 72 Toro one of these days ...... it's a VERY worthwhile upgrade.

On a GMC motorhome with a Toro motor(doesn't say if a 455 or 403) .....

A SWP style trans was said to have knocked off 1.2 seconds on it's 0-60 times. These motorhomes were all smogger era 455's(73-76) while the 77+ would be 403's.

http://www.california.com/%7Eeagle/SWITCH.html

That site tells it all & then some(it's an older GMC motorhome site).

The SWP type trans & converter basically does the same off the line wonders ....... a 3000+ RPM stall converter & 4.10 gears will do for our MM's.

Now go work that Eldo up .... & I want to see some pics of it smoking the front tires while people stare in disbelief.

:D

[TripleTransAm]

This same guy(Bruce) also designed his own electronic controller to replace the OEM switch pitch controller & the setup performs even better(he sells them too).


Bruce Plecan, by any chance?

[Dragcity]

This has been a very interesting discussion. I would Like to add my ideas. I think raw TORQUE has a lot to do with overcoming the limitations prsented by the DRAG COEEFICIENT.

Once we remove the electronically limited top speed, we are now DRAG LIMITED. Don't we also have to consider the fuel pump, fuel lines and fuel injectors' capacity to feed our engines?

How much torque does the Supercharger add in relation to Horse Power?
I know increasing the stroke and compression will add a great deal of torque, but low end and quick revs will be sacraficed.

I do not intend on modifying my MM to this point, but the theoretical discussions are interesting.

I have a V-12 Jag I am able to set the cruise at 160 MPH and handle inclines and windy days effortlessly. Only 3800 RPM, but I am not sure I could get it over 4200 RPM in top gear.

I did have a '93 Mustang 5.0 that was able to achieve higher top speeds in 4th than in 5th. I'm sure torque had a lot to do with that...

[TripleTransAm]

I did have a '93 Mustang 5.0 that was able to achieve higher top speeds in 4th than in 5th. I'm sure torque had a lot to do with that...

Torque and hp are mathematically linked, so it isn't really accurate to split the two completely. HP is actually obtained by multiplying torque by RPM and dividing by 5252 (notice how all hp/torque curves intersect at 5252 RPM... if they don't, demand your money back from your dyno operator because you've just been screwed).

So wherever your car maxes out in a certain gear, you can be certain that whatever push is being applied through your contact patches is EQUAL to whatever forces are holding the car back (friction at the tire contact patch, aero drag on the car's body, etc.). Whatever RPM your engine is running at that point is going to establish the HP at that RPM using the relationship mentioned above.

Now what I can't remember is the exact usage of that number in calculating the exact top speed, because it's been 13+ years since I last did it (ie. what units to use, conversion between units, etc.). But it should all work out in the end... either if you sum up all the forces on the moving body, or if you determine what energy is required by all these forces and comparing them. In either case, the top speed comes when both sides of the equations equal out... if either side is out of balance, you either continue accelerating or you slow down, depending on which one is higher.

My WS6 also maxes out speed-wise in 5th (.75:1) instead of 6th (.50:1) since the torque multiplication in 6th along with where it puts you on the torque and power curve both conspire to keep you from reaching a higher speed than what is attained in 5th. Drag limited (speed limiter removed), the car is capable of a radar-verified (and on video) run of 175 mph down a government-homologated test track, in 5th, and shifting to 6th will begin to slow you down immediately.

Those of you who practice biking might have experienced a similar situation, where a certain top speed is attained in the highest gear and you're forcing as hard as possible on the pedals at what is not really a high rate of revolution, but then selecting a slightly lower gear gets you pedalling faster and you get to deliver more cranking power to the pedals overall because your legs are pumping easier, and you actually get to increase the top speed slightly.

[Dragcity]

So, you're saying there is a linear relationship beteween HP and torque? Is this always true? I always thought one could increase the engines ability to move weight and overcome drag by increasing the torque in grater ralation to the amount of horsepower generated.

Thanks a lot for your explanations.

Way back when.... I built a Ford 400 CID engine that had a 4" bore and a 4" stroke with a 10.5:1 compression ratio. Everyone laughed at my idea to put that in a fully equiped (with working A/C) '78 T-Bird and drag race it. I believe that due to the high torque produced by that configuration, I was able to move that mass of weight and non-aerodynamics through the 1/4 mile traps in 12.8 seconds. That was with a single 4BBL carb. and 3.90:1 gears.

Surprised everyone. So what did I do mathematically correct in that situation?

I love learning new stuff...

[BillyGman]

....... Don't we also have to consider the fuel pump, fuel lines and fuel injectors' capacity to feed our engines? Well, if the fuel pump and injectors don't prevent the revs of the engine going up to redline in first and second gears, then I don't see why it would ever be a limiting factor in 4th, 5th, or 6th gears. And as far as S/Ced Marauders go, the Trilogy S/Cer kit comes with bigger injectors along with a Kenne Belle fuel pump amplifier(as do some other S/Cer kits) so there isn't a shortage of fuel supply.

How much torque does the Supercharger add in relation to Horse Power?
I know increasing the stroke and compression will add a great deal of torque, but low end and quick revs will be sacraficed. I don't belive that's true at all. In fact just the opposite. More torque and a longer stroke will give more low end, and dpending on the camshaft used as well as the valve timing that the camshaft creates, high revs can still be acheived. So there's a number of factors that play a role in that.


I did have a '93 Mustang 5.0 that was able to achieve higher top speeds in 4th than in 5th. I'm sure torque had a lot to do with that...Now that you mention it, I have heard other people say that about the O/D gear in their Mustangs. I'm not sure why that would be. Perhaps it has something to do with O/D's in manual transmissions vs. O/D's in automatics, because that just isn't the case with my automatic transmissioned Marauder.

[BillyGman]

Way back when.... I built a Ford 400 CID engine that had a 4" bore and a 4" stroke with a 10.5:1 compression ratio. Everyone laughed at my idea to put that in a fully equiped (with working A/C) '78 T-Bird and drag race it. I believe that due to the high torque produced by that configuration, I was able to move that mass of weight and non-aerodynamics through the 1/4 mile traps in 12.8 seconds. That was with a single 4BBL carb. and 3.90:1 gears.

Surprised everyone. So what did I do mathematically correct in that situation?

I love learning new stuff...I don't know about mathmatical equations, but getting into all of that might be making things more complicated than they need to be in order to answer your question. I'd have to say that with a 400 C.I. engine along with a four inch stroke, what you "did right" is adding displacement & therefore more torque and power. there's no replacement for displacement. it's as simple as that.

[Dragcity]

Yeah, Low end increases from the torque of the stroke. But, how do we get quick revs from the longer stroke. The old 351's reved up pretty quick. Same with the comparison of the old 427 vs 428 Ford engines. I am really showing my age here I guess. Grew up on the old big block Fords.

All this stuff thrills me and I am glad you are all so willing to help me better understand.

Anybody have a blower for a '64 390?

[Dragcity]

I just realize I totally jacked this thread. My sincerest apologies.

[TechHeavy]

Ummm... I have enjoyed the responses to this thread immensely, (although sometimes over my head). Thanks to all who have chimed in, (MI2QWK4U, BillyG, Gman, SergantMac, Rider... on and on....). I've loved the response! :) :beer:

As this forum, (thanks Logan) is the definitive informative source for 2003-2004 Mercury Marauder I simply wanted to know how fast this "critter" would go with stock gears at top end. Thank you all, (Jerry Barnes especially) for educating me... :D

Thanks again,
Dave

[TripleTransAm]

I figured the best way to understand the relationships between HP figures and torque ratings would be to actually see some sample numbers (fictitious, but you'll see the big picture).

The basic all-encompassing formula: hp = torque x RPM / 5252.

Using this, let's imagine a dyno run from 1000 RPM to 6000 RPM on a certain engine, here are the fictional numbers (I mostly truncated the HP numbers except for some cases where it made more sense to round up to the nearest 1):

RPM TORQUE(lb-ft) HP
----- ------ ---
1000 100 19
1500 200 57
2000 300 114
2500 320 152
3000 330 188
3500 300 200
4000 270 205
4500 200 171
5000 150 143
5500 100 105
6000 50 57

The above example shows an engine that has a peak torque figure of 330 lb-ft at 3000 RPM. This tells us NOTHING about the nature of the rest of the torque curve. However, by looking at the rest of the torque curve, we see that HP is increasing even as torque is decreasing, because torque is not decreasing as fast as RPM is climbing. Once the torque curve begins to decline FASTER than the RPM as it climbs, the calculated HP begins to drop. In our case, the curve drops moderately as RPM climbs, increasing HP until it peaks at 4000 RPM showing about 205 hp, then it drops. At this point, it's clear to see that there is a 70 lb-ft drop between 4000 and 4500, whereas there was only a 30 lb-ft drop between 3500 and 4000, in both cases a 500 RPM climb, hence the HP curve begins to turn downward.

Now let's take another fictional case, where another engine also makes a peak of 330 lb-ft but because of other factors (smaller displacement, mostly making power at higher RPM due to cam timing/selection/valvetrain layout, etc.) it is making these 330 lb-ft at a much higher 4000 RPM. In other words, I tried to shift the whole curve up about 1000 RPM, while leaving behind a weaker low end response (which would necessitate a higher stall speed converter, or more aggressive gears, etc.).


RPM TORQUE(lb-ft) HP
----- ------ ---
1000 100 19
1500 140 40
2000 190 72
2500 240 114
3000 290 165
3500 320 213
4000 330 251
4500 300 257
5000 270 257
5500 200 209
6000 150 171

Same torque peak, but the whole curve sits about 1000 RPM higher. Purely because of this RPM change, the mathematically derived HP now shows a peak hp of 257 hp somewhere between 4500 and 5000 RPM!


Let's now take the same engine as in the first scenario, showing the tire-frying 300 lb-ft of torque at 2000 RPM. Let's engineer a really efficient induction path with tuned runners and heads that are properly flow-engineered not to give away any of that whallop at low end but to improve top end breathing AS WELL! (yes, such an engine family exists... I own one, and while I don't remember the exact numbers, I've fudged together something that is as close as I can recall). So in this case, this engine will produce the 330 lb ft at 3000 RPM, and will actually keep producing more until a peak at around 3500 RPM of 360. However, because of good breathing, the torque curve remains fairly flat as RPM increase, and HP increases in an outstanding fashion, until the torque begins to drop off quick enough to make the hp curve also begin to drop:


RPM TORQUE(lb-ft) HP
----- ------ ---
1000 100 19
1500 200 57
2000 300 114
2500 320 152
3000 330 188
3500 360 240
4000 350 266
4500 345 295
5000 340 323
5500 330 345
6000 250 285

This is pretty similar to what happens on my WS6's dyno curve, although I recall the 1500 RPM results being a little higher, around 250?


And now the fictional case of the 4 cylinder highly-turbocharged intercooled exotic motor, that shows off its 354 hp rating in every brochure and magazine add. We'll be nice and also give it the same 330 lb-ft peak as the very first example. But at what RPMs?? There's the crucial point!

It's a 4 cylinder and it's turbocharged. So boost lag is going to be apparent early on. For this reason I've kept the theoretical torque values "soft" until past 3000 RPM and even then I've been generous and given it a very progressive boost curve, with torque rising fairly linearly until the peak of 330 lb-ft at 5500 RPM. Torque then begins to drop as the engine runs out of breath (plus internal frictions, etc.).


RPM TORQUE(lb-ft) HP
----- ------ ---
1000 50 9
1500 80 23
2000 110 42
2500 140 66
3000 170 97
3500 200 133
4000 240 183
4500 280 240
5000 320 304
5500 330 345
6000 310 354
6500 240 297


So, same 330 lb-ft peak torque, but the whole curve is sitting WAY high, with the peak at 5500. Because of that, you got 354 hp at 6000 RPM. Probably a real kick to drive that beast above 4500-5000 RPM, but it must be a real pain to suffer this powertrain on the street if you're misfortunate enough to be running below 3000 RPM. This is how the Honda S2000 gets its high hp number... so-so torque but the curve continues fairly high in the RPM band!


So by considering the 2 peak values (peak torque and peak hp) and working backward using that formula up top, you can get a good idea of what the torque curve looks like. The closer the two peak RPMs, the harder it will be to guess what goes on in either direction beyond the peaks. But if there is a big spread between the two RPMs, you can pretty much guess at what it will look like between the two points (ie. if you have a torque number at 2500 and a hp number at 4500, you can pretty much draw a good curve between 2500 and 4500, etc...).

Hope this all makes sense. I haven't graphed any of these fictional scenarios to see if the increase and decrease rates make sense, but the basic idea is there.

[Dragcity]

Nah, It makes pretty good sense. By changing engine configurations and peripherals, we can create torque/HP curves at differing levels to accomodate what we want the engine to do for us.

I'll have to play with the formula to see more clearly what you are teaching me. Guess that's what I get for flying by the seat of my pants and making things up as I go along.

Thanks for spending time with me on this...

And yes, there is no replacement for dispalcement. Just don't let Lotus see this...

[Smokie]

Thanks for the info Steve, like your charts so much I became curious about what a plotted chart of my own car would look like. This is what I found.

RPM'S.. TQ.... HP.

2100-- 175-- 70
2500-- 340-- 160
3000-- 360-- 200
3500-- 370-- 245
4000-- 370-- 280
4500-- 370-- 315
5000-- 355-- 345
5500-- 330-- 355
6000-- 330-- 385
6300-- 330-- 405

Don't know what the hell it means, but there you go.:D

[TripleTransAm]

Don't know what the hell it means, but there you go.:D


It means if you had the chance to wind it past 6300 RPM, you would probably see a bigger HP peak number.

I ran those numbers through that formula, and while the results are close, there is a small discrepancy. For instance, at 5500 you've got 330 lb-ft, which works out to about 346 hp instead of 355. At 6000 RPM the 330 lb-ft should correspond to 377 hp, not 385. And at 6300 the 330 lb-ft should be yielding 396 hp and not 405 hp. I'm guessing the nice round 330 lb-ft results at 5500-6300 were read off a graph, right? Actually, even the hp results are nice and round, too round to be the exact values printed out by the dyno unless there is a 'round off' function in the dyno software.

Anyway, if you had extra RPM available beyond 6300, I'm guessing the torque would not plummet suddenly to silly low levels. In order to maintain the same 396 hp I calculated at 6300 RPM but at 6600 RPM, the torque required would be 315 lb-ft. So if you could maintain that flat 330 lb-ft all the way to 6600 RPM, you'd be looking at a hp reading of 414 hp at 6600 RPM.

[Smokie]

Steve I trust your math a lot more than I do my eyes, the little lines are so fine and dim that I certainly could have read it wrong, the graph also does not share the same lines of reference for tq and hp, so I certainly could have mess it up.

Maybe you can do better, your eyes are younger.:D

http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=75 90&d=1127068758

[TripleTransAm]

Ahh, I see... I thought you were reading off figures from a chart. Anyway, it's safe to say that your torque curve is still alive and well slamming into the 6300 RPM region, so it's clear that your HP curve is still inching upwards. I still think a few more RPM would have shown a bigger peak number, since there's nothing to indicate that your torque curve would have started to take a dump immediately thereafter. But you never know until it actually gets tried (so many factors... maybe a drivetrain resonance that would get knock retard happening, maybe a sudden inability of fuel delivery past 6500, etc.etc.etc.etc.etc... no way to accurately predict the future)

I had the then-current dyno software installed on my laptop in the 90s and there is a feature to artificially smooth out the curves to varying degrees. You'd be surprised at how that changed the reported peak numbers (both upwards OR downwards, depending on how bad the spikes). I mean, these curves can look pretty noisy without any smoothing to make guys like us appreciate the big picture... with no smoothing, a curve can have the texture of what a .WAV file would look like in an audio editting software! Anyone of those little peaks could alter the reported peak hp by a few hp. I have no point to make with this remark other than to say it's not worth arguing between 2 dyno graphs when it comes to 5-10 hp... sometimes the littlest detail like smoothing can skew the numbers either way.

(in my case, the reported peak varied from 311 to 308 rear wheel horsepower depending on how much smoothing I applied - I recall there being something like 3 possible levels of smoothing at the time)

[Smokie]

I have 3 runs the same day, one after the other, the tq peaks were almost identical: low 372, high 375. Hp varied more: high 405, low 399. My car shifts at 6200 rpm's at wot, that is why I tell dyno operator not to exceed that. Even if I could have a higher number, my limiter won't let me get there.

[Joe Walsh]

I have 3 runs the same day, one after the other, the tq peaks were almost identical: low 372, high 375. Hp varied more: high 405, low 399. My car shifts at 6200 rpm's at wot, that is why I tell dyno operator not to exceed that. Even if I could have a higher number, my limiter won't let me get there.

If you are running on the stock powdered metal rods you are being smart to limit your rpm to @ 6200 rpm.

BTW: Great information Steve. It confirms two things:
1: As you mentioned in an earlier post, You might be able to increase your top speed if you are wind drag limited and your car is not able to pull any more rpm.
It might be possible to pick a final drive ratio that puts your engine in its maximum power/torque range, thus allowing it to pull more top speed.
2: Honda S2000s are a blast to jump on and annialate!, especially when the driver DOES NOT keep it 'wound up tight' (on the high side of 5000 rpm).
It is VERY HARD AND VERY TIRING to keep an engine revving that high when in traffic and normal stop and go driving. That 240 HP is derived via 9000 rpm!


All this talk of TOP SPEED has got me thinking of a late night, cold weather, 'private track' (heh heh heh) test to see what a 3.55 geared N/A Marauder will do.
I've got a tune with no speed limiter and 340 Ft/Lbs of RWTQ to push the air out of the way.....Hmmmmmmm.
Hey G-man, do you want to pretend that you are in high speed pursuit of me at the next CAM meet???

[BillyGman]

Yeah, Low end increases from the torque of the stroke. But, how do we get quick revs from the longer stroke. Just because an engine can rev higher and has a higher redline doesn't neccessarily mean that it will provide the vehicle that it's installed in with a greater top end speed. it's power and torque that carries the vehicle, not revs. if you have the power that you need, you can just use an overdrive or highway gears in the rear end to prevent the torquier and lower reving engine from redLining to soon before the desired MPH is reached. it's all about having the right gearing, and enough power to reach the speed that you want. (ofcourse there are also other factors like weight/mass, drag/aerodynamics).

If all as you needed were a higher reving engine to acheive a high top end speed, then that would mean that you can throw a Japanese 4 cylinder engine in our Marauders that has an 8,000 RPM redline along with a mere 250 HP, and it would carry the car to a faster top end speed than a S/Ced 4.6 L V8 engine will that has a redline of 6500 RPM's. But that just isn't going to happen since the engine despite it's 1500 RPM redline advantage, also doesn't have the power and torque to carry the weight and mass of the vehicle as quick as the lower reving V8 engine does. so you see, higher revs don't mean a whole lot unless the power is there too. And more displacement along with a longer stroke means more power.

[Dragcity]

You know it ! I think I'll get mine Dyno'd some time. I'll see how much it cost up here. I am awaiting the new COP leads. Maybe I'll have one done pre and post install to answer some of the questions about the effectiveness of that improvement...

I have a friend that works at a local speed shop. If it's slow enough, maybe he'll do it (free?)... Time for some phone calls.


Had a dream last night that I dropped a blown 429 in my MM. Wonder what part of the drivetrain would break first???

[SergntMac]

I had the then-current dyno software installed on my laptop in the 90s and there is a feature to artificially smooth out the curves to varying degrees. You'd be surprised at how that changed the reported peak numbers (both upwards OR downwards, depending on how bad the spikes). I mean, these curves can look pretty noisy without any smoothing to make guys like us appreciate the big picture...I have no point to make with this remark other than to say it's not worth arguing between 2 dyno graphs when it comes to 5-10 hp... sometimes the littlest detail like smoothing can skew the numbers either way. Smoothing is still around, /Steve, and with more flexibility today. Yes, you can futz around and manipulate a desired end result, and when it's time to print the graph, you can hide settings that would indicate what level of smoothing, and/or S.A.E. correction was applied.

S.A.E. correction will almost always lower the numbers, peak or otherwise. Smoothing the curve could go either way, but the last time I futzed around with these settings, the gain/losses (as you point out), were within a 5-10 per margin, which could be tempting to the owner with a particular goal in mind. Even I could have boastd of "500+" to the rear wheels much sooner in history, had I bowed to the temptation of manipulation.

In the end, it gets you nothing, because it's detectable by other means. Dynos are test tools, not an accomplishment of their own. Peak numbers are helpful in some cases, but the important stuff is inside the curves. BTW, as I am sure you know, /Steve, any dyno graph can be printed as a column/row report, which is the more useful aspect of a dyno test. I mention it because anyone getting a dyno test should ask for both prints. Curves are sexy, but numbers tell the factual story.

My my, we have come a long way from the original question, but it's been an informative journey too.

[TripleTransAm]

Smoothing is still around, /Steve, and with more flexibility today. Yes, you can futz around and manipulate a desired end result, and when it's time to print the graph, you can hide settings that would indicate what level of smoothing, and/or S.A.E. correction was applied.

Good point. Here's a good example you made me think of:

A Toronto-area speed shop serving a great number of local and not-so-local F-bodies was involved in a bit of a scandal at one point. I won't get into the dirty details of the whole sordid story that has spanned several years, but one particular portion of the story deals with SAE correction.

The dyno operator / tuner became known for getting great #'s from his custom tunes. Eventually, it was discovered that among other tricks used to get those fantabulous numbers (like running dangerously lean, etc.), the runs were made with the heater on full-heat and the blower at maximum speed. What could this possibly do to skew the results?

The dyno software takes into consideration ambient temperature in order to correct it to a standard SAE set of characteristics (air temp, air pressure, humidity, etc.). So by having the dyno equipment read very hot ambient temps, the SAE corrections would net nice results. Not earth-shattering, but sometimes along the lines of 40-50 hp. The basic idea behind this correction is: if the engine is putting out x tq/hp at THIS hot temperature, it must actually put out much MORE at the standard (lower) ambient temp.

That's why I agree that when getting a dyno result, not only should you ask for the actual numbers but also obtain details about what was done to correct the results and perhaps even get both corrected and non-corrected results

I don't mind non-corrected results... it indicates what the motor is putting out NOW in this environment we're standing in. It's also nice when comparing back to back runs between different cars, more or less. But if you're going to compare "at large", you have to use some sort of standard numbers and that's where SAE comes in.

[the_pack_rat]

Bruce Plecan, by any chance?
His name is Bruce Roe.