Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*rpms\s+vs\.\s+mph\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*rpms\s+vs\.\s+mph\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. rpms vs. mph (score: 1): Author: Scott Donnelly <oharajem@free.midcoast.com>; Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 13:11:18 -0400; At 50 mph I am turning about 5000 rpm. Does this sound about right or is my tach off? If these cars were capable of nearly 100mph, alot must happen within the next 1000 or so rpms! Scott Donnelly SV; /html/alpines/2000-09/msg00089.html (7,307 bytes)
2. Re: rpms vs. mph (score: 1): Author: chuck nicodemus <armorseal@iccom.com>; Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:41:29 -0700; I think there is something amiss... My ser ll at 3000 is 50 mph +- I have a chart for my engine that lets me know VIA my navigator how fast ..>>. as the speedo boings from 55--75. Good luck on your e; /html/alpines/2000-09/msg00090.html (7,547 bytes)
3. Re: rpms vs. mph (score: 1): Author: jeyerman@ix.netcom.com; Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:34:11 -0400; Way, way off..... more like 3500RPM for 60MPH. Are you sure you are in top Jan happen within the next 1000 or so rpms! Scott Donnelly SV; /html/alpines/2000-09/msg00093.html (7,461 bytes)
4. Re: rpms vs. mph (score: 1): Author: Scott Donnelly <oharajem@free.midcoast.com>; Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 07:22:41 -0400; 4th gear, no over drive. I suspect tach error which is apparently common and a low geared axle are causing my rpms to be high. Perhaps my car was originally equipped with an overdrive? Scott Donnelly; /html/alpines/2000-09/msg00096.html (7,804 bytes)
5. Re: rpms vs. mph (score: 1): Author: Ian Spencer <ian@sunbeamalpine.org>; Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:23:59 -0400; If your car was factory equipped with an OD it would be stamped into the data tag. It is very possible that your have an OD rear end though. There was a batch of non OD Series V's sent to North Amer; /html/alpines/2000-09/msg00097.html (8,563 bytes)
6. Re: rpms vs. mph (score: 1): Author: Scott Donnelly <oharajem@free.midcoast.com>; Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:33:20 -0400; Your comment on Brian Shilt's SV being undrivable on the highway leads me to believe that I have a 4.22 rear end. Driving by ear at 50-55 mph I feel that the engine is quite busy and may infact be ne; /html/alpines/2000-09/msg00098.html (9,354 bytes)
7. Re: rpms vs. mph (score: 1): Author: AlpineDriver@aol.com; Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:30:05 EDT; If Scott is reading 5000 rpm on his tach at 60 mph I think the tach is wrong. A 3.89 diffenential ratio could account for about 10% reduction in rpm compared to a 4.22 (roughly) so that would make hi; /html/alpines/2000-09/msg00099.html (7,425 bytes)
8. Re: rpms vs. mph (score: 1): Author: sosnaenergyconsulting@home.com; Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 22:01:22 -0700; Hi guys: For what it's worth, I was rooting through an old Road and Track technical correspondence page and found the following: MPH= RPM x C/ G x F x 88. F= final drive ratio G= gear ratio C= driven; /html/alpines/2000-09/msg00113.html (10,222 bytes)
9. RE: rpms vs. mph (score: 1): Author: Thomas Wiencek <wiencek@anl.gov>; Date: 14 Sep 00 12:26:56 -0500; Your comment on Brian Shilt's SV being undrivable on the highway leads me to believe that I have a 4.22 rear end. Driving by ear at 50-55 mph I feel that the engine is quite busy and may infact be ne; /html/alpines/2000-09/msg00126.html (9,453 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]