203 KPH Corolla

[Ext User(Chas)]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I didn't think a Corolla was capable of
that speed, particularly as the M4 is relatively flat around the area
reported. Perhaps a severe tail-wind at the time?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/driver-clocked-speeding-at-203kmh/2008/02/15/1202760531098.html

--
Regards,

Chas.

(To email me replace 'xxx' with tango papa golf)

[Ext User(Trevor Wilson)]

"Chas" <umlaut@xxx.com.au> wrote in message
news:47b4e099$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Please correct me if I am wrong, but I didn't think a Corolla was capable
> of
> that speed, particularly as the M4 is relatively flat around the area
> reported. Perhaps a severe tail-wind at the time?
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/driver-clocked-speeding-at-203kmh/2008/02/15/1202760531098.html
>
> --

**Jeez, I'd hope it could top 200 clicks. My old 2 Litre Escort (1997 model)
could do 200kph (indicated), which was actually 190kph, with a measly 75kW.
Corollas are rated at 100kW. Corollas weigh a little more, but have a lower
Cd.

Trevor Wilson

[Ext User(Atheist Chaplain)]

"Chas" <umlaut@xxx.com.au> wrote in message
news:47b4e099$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Please correct me if I am wrong, but I didn't think a Corolla was capable
> of
> that speed, particularly as the M4 is relatively flat around the area
> reported. Perhaps a severe tail-wind at the time?
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/driver-clocked-speeding-at-203kmh/2008/02/15/1202760531098.html
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Chas.
>
> (To email me replace 'xxx' with tango papa golf)
>
>

yeah, your wrong :-)
My Wife drives a Corolla Wagon (2001 model) and I have seen the wrong side
of 180 kph on several occasions in it, and it was still pulling (though
noisy and starting to get a bit floaty) I can imagine that the hatch or
sedan could see 200 if pushed, though why you would want to is a mystery as
at those speeds steering becomes relative :-)

--
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
Don Hirschberg

[Ext User(Daryl Walford)]

Chas wrote:
> Please correct me if I am wrong, but I didn't think a Corolla was capable of
> that speed, particularly as the M4 is relatively flat around the area
> reported. Perhaps a severe tail-wind at the time?
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/driver-clocked-speeding-at-203kmh/2008/02/15/1202760531098.html
>

Depends on what model Corolla, the AE86 parked outside my window
wouldn't have a lot of trouble doing that speed or it won't when I
finish putting the 4AGZE in it:-)



Daryl

[Ext User(rebel)]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 02:47:28 GMT, "Atheist Chaplain" <abuse@cia.gov> wrote:

>"Chas" <umlaut@xxx.com.au> wrote in message
>news:47b4e099$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> Please correct me if I am wrong, but I didn't think a Corolla was capable
>> of
>> that speed, particularly as the M4 is relatively flat around the area
>> reported. Perhaps a severe tail-wind at the time?
>> http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/driver-clocked-speeding-at-203kmh/2008/02/15/1202760531098.html
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Chas.
>>
>> (To email me replace 'xxx' with tango papa golf)
>>
>>
>
>yeah, your wrong :-)
>My Wife drives a Corolla Wagon (2001 model) and I have seen the wrong side
>of 180 kph on several occasions in it, and it was still pulling (though
>noisy and starting to get a bit floaty) I can imagine that the hatch or
>sedan could see 200 if pushed,

indeed (2005)

> though why you would want to is a mystery as
>at those speeds steering becomes relative :-)

it certainly does become more of an art than a science once you top ~170.

[Ext User(James)]

"Chas" <umlaut@xxx.com.au> wrote in message
news:47b4e099$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Please correct me if I am wrong, but I didn't think a Corolla was capable
> of
> that speed, particularly as the M4 is relatively flat around the area
> reported. Perhaps a severe tail-wind at the time?
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/driver-clocked-speeding-at-203kmh/2008/02/15/1202760531098.html
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Chas.
>
> (To email me replace 'xxx' with tango papa golf)
>
>

2003 wagon does 200kp/h (flat stretch of road, no wind), and gets there
relatively quick all things considered, so a lighter hatch should be no
problems at all. It actually got very close to the redline in 5th. With a
heap more power the Sportivo would piss it in and have some left. The
Corolla was actually quite acceptable to drive at high speed, but I dont
know if that was due to the weight of a bunch of tools in the back. Of
course this was on a...um...private road.

James

[Ext User(Klompmeester)]

"Chas" <umlaut@xxx.com.au> wrote in message
news:47b4e099$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Please correct me if I am wrong, but I didn't think a Corolla was capable
> of
> that speed, particularly as the M4 is relatively flat around the area
> reported. Perhaps a severe tail-wind at the time?
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/driver-clocked-speeding-at-203kmh/2008/02/15/1202760531098.html
>
> --

Shouldn't be a problem at all doing 200km/h, I've had the Astra up to
190km/h in fifth and my foot was barely touching the acellerator at that
speed and it felt like it had plenty left.

[Ext User(Scotty)]

"James" <dotatdot@TtpPigG.com.au> wrote in message
news:47b56f7a$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> "Chas" <umlaut@xxx.com.au> wrote in message
> news:47b4e099$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> Please correct me if I am wrong, but I didn't think a Corolla was capable
>> of
>> that speed, particularly as the M4 is relatively flat around the area
>> reported. Perhaps a severe tail-wind at the time?
>> http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/driver-clocked-speeding-at-203kmh/2008/02/15/1202760531098.html
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Chas.
>>
>> (To email me replace 'xxx' with tango papa golf)
>>
>>
>
> 2003 wagon does 200kp/h (flat stretch of road, no wind), and gets there
> relatively quick all things considered, so a lighter hatch should be no
> problems at all. It actually got very close to the redline in 5th. With a
> heap more power the Sportivo would piss it in and have some left. The
> Corolla was actually quite acceptable to drive at high speed, but I dont
> know if that was due to the weight of a bunch of tools in the back. Of
> course this was on a...um...private road.
>
> James
>
>
>
>

200 clicks aint hard to reach these days, all you need is a 5 speed (or 6)
and a minimum of 100HP at the wheels.

I had a gemini that would do 200 with an old 2TG donk in it. Fucken scarey
to drive at that speed though as I hadnt spent anything on balancing the
modified drivshaft or anything. That only had 110HP at the rear wheels and
had absolutely no lightenign of the body, actually it was a lot heavier with
stel cage in there as well as some heavy sports seats.

[Ext User(John_H)]

James wrote:
>
>2003 wagon does 200kp/h (flat stretch of road, no wind), and gets there
>relatively quick all things considered, so a lighter hatch should be no
>problems at all.
>

Weight is completely irrelevant to car's top speed... it only affects
the time it takes to reach it (and most of that from a standing
start).

Drag coefficient and available power, as determined by gearing and the
engine's power curve, are the ones that matter on a flat stretch.

--
John H

[Ext User(Blue Heeler)]

Scotty wrote:

> 200 clicks aint hard to reach these days, all you need is a 5 speed
> (or 6) and a minimum of 100HP at the wheels.
>
> I had a gemini that would do 200 with an old 2TG donk in it. Fucken
> scarey to drive at that speed though as I hadnt spent anything on
> balancing the modified drivshaft or anything. That only had 110HP at
> the rear wheels and had absolutely no lightenign of the body,
> actually it was a lot heavier with stel cage in there as well as some
> heavy sports seats.

I had a KE-30 Corolla notchback that did a fair bit more than that.....

Mind you the the 2T-G it started with was tasty and the 18RG it
finished with even better. I used to love the look of shock on the
faces of V8 drivers...


--

[Ext User(Mot Adv)]

"Chas" <umlaut@xxx.com.au> wrote in message
news:47b4e099$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Please correct me if I am wrong, but I didn't think a Corolla was capable
> of
> that speed, particularly as the M4 is relatively flat around the area
> reported. Perhaps a severe tail-wind at the time?
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/driver-clocked-speeding-at-203kmh/2008/02/15/1202760531098.html

I'd be more concerned with this offence from the same article:-
"In a separate incident, another male driver will appear at Bankstown Local
Court on March 5 after allegedly driving at 154kmh in a 70kmh area of the
Hume Highway at Chullora, in Sydney's west".

J.

[Ext User(John McKenzie)]

John_H wrote:
>
> James wrote:
> >
> >2003 wagon does 200kp/h (flat stretch of road, no wind), and gets there
> >relatively quick all things considered, so a lighter hatch should be no
> >problems at all.
> >
>
> Weight is completely irrelevant to car's top speed... it only affects
> the time it takes to reach it (and most of that from a standing
> start).

increased rolling resistance, tyre hystersis (spelling) to some lesser
extent though from greater weight?

>
> Drag coefficient and available power, as determined by gearing and the
> engine's power curve, are the ones that matter on a flat stretch.

Not so, don't forget, in Vic only, if you go more than 3km/h above a
posted limit, the car turns into a nuclear device and kills millions.

--
John McKenzie

tosspam@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com abuse@earthlink.com
abuse@aol.com vice.president@whitehouse.gov president@whitehouse.gov
sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov admin@loopback abuse@iprimus.com.au
$LOGIN@localhost world's #1 sardine whisperer root@mailloop.com
$USER@$HOST $LOGNAME@localhost -h1024@localhost abuse@msn.com
abuse@federalpolice.gov.au fraudinfo@psinet.com abuse@asio.gov.au
$USER@localhost abuse@sprint.com abuse@fbi.gov abuse@cia.gov

[Ext User(John_H)]

John McKenzie wrote:
>John_H wrote:
>>
>> Weight is completely irrelevant to car's top speed... it only affects
>> the time it takes to reach it (and most of that from a standing
>> start).
>
>increased rolling resistance, tyre hystersis (spelling) to some lesser
>extent though from greater weight?

Very minor, if not insignificant, component IMO. Cars, and other
vehicles, used for speed record attempts invariably use the narrowest
tyres possible (which results in an increased loading on the contact
patch).

IIRC Donald Campbell's Bluebird (which broke the then land speed
record on Lake Eyre circa 1960's) weighed more than 5 tonnes. It
managed around 650kph (with a very long run up).

--
John H

[Ext User(John McKenzie)]

John_H wrote:
>
> John McKenzie wrote:
> >John_H wrote:
> >>
> >> Weight is completely irrelevant to car's top speed... it only affects
> >> the time it takes to reach it (and most of that from a standing
> >> start).
> >
> >increased rolling resistance, tyre hystersis (spelling) to some lesser
> >extent though from greater weight?
>
> Very minor, if not insignificant, component IMO.

That's what I always thought, but Bernd explained that rolling
resistance accounts for about an even half when it's all taken into
account. Anyone? Bernd?


Cars, and other
> vehicles, used for speed record attempts invariably use the narrowest
> tyres possible (which results in an increased loading on the contact
> patch).

The fact it's on salt might be a big factor there though.


> IIRC Donald Campbell's Bluebird (which broke the then land speed
> record on Lake Eyre circa 1960's) weighed more than 5 tonnes. It
> managed around 650kph (with a very long run up).

That sounds about right from an article I read some years ago (before I
was old enough to drive)

--
John McKenzie

tosspam@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com abuse@earthlink.com
abuse@aol.com vice.president@whitehouse.gov president@whitehouse.gov
sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov admin@loopback abuse@iprimus.com.au
$LOGIN@localhost world's #1 sardine whisperer root@mailloop.com
$USER@$HOST $LOGNAME@localhost -h1024@localhost abuse@msn.com
abuse@federalpolice.gov.au fraudinfo@psinet.com abuse@asio.gov.au
$USER@localhost abuse@sprint.com abuse@fbi.gov abuse@cia.gov

[Ext User(atec77)]

John McKenzie wrote:
> John_H wrote:
>> John McKenzie wrote:
>>> John_H wrote:
>>>> Weight is completely irrelevant to car's top speed... it only affects
>>>> the time it takes to reach it (and most of that from a standing
>>>> start).
>>> increased rolling resistance, tyre hystersis (spelling) to some lesser
>>> extent though from greater weight?
>> Very minor, if not insignificant, component IMO.
>
> That's what I always thought, but Bernd explained that rolling
> resistance accounts for about an even half when it's all taken into
> account. Anyone? Bernd?
>
>
> Cars, and other
>> vehicles, used for speed record attempts invariably use the narrowest
>> tyres possible (which results in an increased loading on the contact
>> patch).
The whole salt thing is not about just traction as a google will show
and there is sfa traction to be bad on hard salt apart from some
motivational requirements .
>
> The fact it's on salt might be a big factor there though.
Very much . hard solt needs help compacting or the vibration level
goes through the roof at speed.
>
>
>> IIRC Donald Campbell's Bluebird (which broke the then land speed
>> record on Lake Eyre circa 1960's) weighed more than 5 tonnes. It
>> managed around 650kph (with a very long run up).
>
> That sounds about right from an article I read some years ago (before I
> was old enough to drive)

>