JC316

I am somewhere near 5.8 seconds with my 96 GT and the Mark VIII motor. Still learning the motor though and I just installed a short throw shifter, so I imagine that I can get that down to around 5.5.

http://s108.photobucket.com/albums/n...t=SDC14658.flv

Mustang_NTriangle

There are alot of factors but we can all agree that stock is 5.5 - 5.8 range depending on driver. Based on my experience and reading magazine with all different types of cars and hp with 1/4 time this is what I have observed.

13.0 sec 1/4 car 0-60 would be 4.7-5 sec to 0-60
12.0 sec 4.3-4.6 range.
11.0 sec 3.5-4.0 range

H0SS302

gonna figure it out right now...

--------------------------
Acceleration= Left-4.32 ft/s^2 Right-5.5 ft/s^2

0-60=Cant do it with the 1 d kinematics equations I know of... searching for another...

Tried finding the average acceleration and got:

Left-7.22 ft/s^2 Right-10.25 ft/s^2

These are closer but still not near accurate(about 6 ft/s^2 off)



What I did was figure out a normal bolt on GTs average Acceleration is: About 11.2 ft/s^2 (5.35 0-60 time) and I can make educated assumptions on your time.

An acceleration of 13.7 ft/s^2 is about a cobras 0-60. Which runs a 12.9 easy. I figured out the average acceleration of the cobra next.

So using this informations, the car on the left=0-60 in about 4.2 sec

Car on the right=about 3.8 sec


Again.. any physics majors on the sight this is all using average acceleration as the beacon. I am personally unaware of a kinematics equation to do this from. Thi should still be accurate +/-.2 i would imagine.

JayC

This should keep you busy... lol

http://www.wallaceracing.com/0-60_equation.php

tws1098

The problem is you can't use an average acceleration equation as the acceleration is not constant. I see where you are trying to come from it just isn't applicable for this (to my knowledge). I have old physics 2 and mechanical kinesiology notes laying around somewhere that would probably be quite useful but i am not sure where they are....figures.

H0SS302

I ws right on the car on the left, and right on the money for the car on the right. I did forget the 0.. i wrote 3.8 instead of .08

not to shabby...

H0SS302

Seemed to have worked pretty well to me...Close enough anyways. That calculator Jayc posted does exactly the same thing i did. in order to get the closest aprox. you need the mass of the car and a few other things.

tws1098

Sorry i didn't intend to say that you were wrong although I'm sure I wrote it that way. I just meant that those equations and the ones used by the calculators are not always correct depending on the application. Long day for me, my bad.

H0SS302

LOL i knew what you ment no biggy. But that is how the calculators get that stuff. thats the only way is to get an ~ac. You need to take into account mass and power.. all kinds of junk.

tws1098

right on lol