bigbad300

my 300 4.9 will run a 100 all day, but with it setting on the mat, 105 is all she will do

chelios

i am afraid at 85. thats when it gets hairy for me.

blade z51

Just to add more factors and facts to the subject, lets take a look at a couple of scenarios.
If you calculate the rolling diameter of the tires, the final ratio and the engine speed,
28.88" dia tires, 2.485 final ratio (3.55x.07), 185hp @3800 rpm
you could come up with a figure of 132~ mph... Of course, that's obviously incorrect because it neglects the Cd (coefficient of drag), rolling resistance and a whole host of other power robbing factors.

Now if we use one of several online HP vs. speed calculators (http://www.rbracing-rsr.com/aerohpcalc.html) and a table of Cd (http://www.bgsoflex.com/airdragchart.html)
We can posit that the '94 F150 has a Cd of .9 and based on measurements on the actual truck we see that the frontal area is (approx) 32.9 sq. ft.
the published curb weight is 4316 lbs and with driver we could assume a 4500 lb actual weight.
If you fill in the blanks in the calculator, you might see that the truck needs about 182 hp to go 90 mph. (This assumes that all the power of the engine is going to the rear wheels) The hp lost to drag is 143.9... Naturally, the engine loses a lot of power to parasitic losses like fans, alternator, AC, power steering, water pump, etc. Typically it is assumed that the RWHP is around 15%~20% less than the flywheel HP

So we might infer from these calculations that my truck with a published rated power of 185hp (if we assume 15% power losses), ends up with about 160 hp (that's generous I think). By interpolating these numbers, we see that the top speed of the truck would be around 87 mph before it runs out of steam... Other trucks will obviously differ since they might have more powerful engines, less drag, etc.

Cheers

dr_bowtie

the math is BS....

even at 185hp it will do well over 120 with the limiter turned off...that must really defy the math....

and FYI the actual weight on a early 90s 300-6 truck is 3800 pounds...weighed mine several times

happyhourhero56

with my 95 with a 302 5 speed 38's and 3.55 gears at 55 on the speedo im actually doing 72, ive had the speedo past 80 no idea how fast i was actually going but id say well over 100, plenty fast enough for me especially on 38's

Nitehawkjr

I had a 81 step side with a stock 302 that was clocked at 115mph for a safe driving award. Had a 79 Tbird with a 302 that was tagged at 125mph so I find it hard to believe that that anyone can argue a 302 will not push a big heavy ride well over a 100mph. If I had one that wouldn’t I’d be checking why not or finding someone else to own it. Or that’s my opinion.

blade z51

OK guys, your trucks are mighty fast. I don't doubt you at all . I realize that many of you don't trust math and physics. I don't blame you, I too don't like stuff like gravity and inertia. They play hell with many of my plans.

Still, since the speedo in my truck only goes to 85, it would be hard to tell how fast it would go flat out unless you had a GPS. Anyway, I don't want to try to see how fast it will go in the public highways. I doubt that it would go much past 80 if that at the 1/4 mile dragstrip.

There is no way to prove any of this without some actual validated tests. I don't see anybody coming up with a certified, validated proof of top speed in a regular F150 w/302 so the question will remain unanswered. I don't know if the mathematical tables from the websites I visited are correct or not. But I am pretty sure of the curb weight, tranny ratios, axle ratio, tire diameter and frontal area measurements. Those are for my truck, your mileage might vary, etc. Please don't take offense from my posts. I am just stating facts as I see them. It's like saying my truck is black and yours is blue or whatever. There is no judgment of your trucks in what I write.

Peace out

Nitehawkjr

Hey no offence taken here I’m just stating what I know . And as far as math & physics go on paper a bumble bee shouldn’t be able to fly either. Lol

blade z51

OK, I'll accept face value that the 9th gen F150 trucks can go much faster than I thought. However, in the interest of public safety and rational thought, I think I should defend physics and math, and science in general. the myth about the science being wrong about bumble bees flying is just that. A myth that should be exposed. It's not safe or practical to ignore proven scientific laws of physics. One does so at one's own risk (and maybe at the risk of others too.

Here is a good explanation of the "bumble bees can't fly" myth:

The "science has proved that bees can't fly" urban myth originated in a 1934 book by entomologist Antoine Magnan, who discussed a mathematical equation by Andre Sainte-Lague, an engineer. The equation proved that the maximum lift for an aircraft's wings could not be achieved at equivalent speeds of a bee. I.e., an airplane the size of a bee, moving as slowly as a bee, could not fly. Although this did not mean a bee can't fly (which after all does not have stationary wings like the posited teency aircraft), nevertheless the idea that Magnan's book said bees oughtn't be able to fly began to spread.

It spread at first as a joke in European universities, at Sainte-Lague's & Magnan's expense. But later it became a "fact" among the gullible or the uneducated not smart enough to get the joke. Later still it became a "fun" experiment to develop complex mathematical theories both to explain how insects fly, or why they can't -- scientific intellectual sophism.

Though the folklore began as a joke about a steady-wing flight equation foolishly applied to mobile-wing, as often seems inevitable of folklore, the joke took on its own separate life. Silly reasoning evolved, building fallacy upon fallacy: Bees can't fly because it takes rear-wings to steady the flight, & they have no rear wings so they should tumble through the air ***-over-teakettle. No, that's not it, bee's can't possibly fly because it is physically impossible for wings to beat as fast as bee's wings beat. No wait, bees can't fly because the texture of their wings is too flat, unlike a bird or an aeroplane designed like aerofoil. Oh! No! Wait! Though bees can fly (because we've seen 'em do it) & it does follow physics, nevertheless science can't explain it, so there!
Source(s):

http://www.paghat.com/beeflight.html
http://www.ftexploring.com/askdrg/askdrg…

streetassasin

The car I sold a few months back would have drug your barbie car lol, badass car man ls3 ftw