mstrug - 2017-07-02 11:31 AM

No, Except if you use terminal velocity as a factor and drop if off of a bridge at least 992 feet high. I believe 60 mph can be achieved!

1960fury - 2017-07-02 10:32 AM 1960 plymouth fury coupe, untouched 383 @ 330k miles (heads never been off, timing gear/chain replaced) 220+k miles stock 61 imperial torqueflite, untouched stock cam/valvetrain, OE OPEN 2.93 rear axle, small (8.5") street tires, all steel body, short of 5 seconds to 60mph. does it sound believable?

1960fury - 2017-07-02 2:43 PM i have a pretty stout rear anti sway bar shimmed for preload, its almost like a sure grip on dry tarmac. at least it helps a little.

56D500boy - 2017-07-02 5:10 PM



Sorry. I think you are dreaming.
:)

Powerflite - 2017-07-03 5:03 PM

Personally Sid, I really don't care about the numbers. All I see is a great ride that is well used, well enjoyed, and well cared for. Looks great! The fact that you have gotten so many miles on the motor is a testament to how well tuned you keep the carb settings. It is over-rich carbs that pre-maturely wear out the motor.

56D500boy - 2017-07-02 11:19 PM

Herr 1960Fury is going to tell us that he has adjusted the rear sway bar so there is some pre-load on the right rear wheel, not unlike mounting the battery in the right rear corner of the trunk to gain better traction. Whether or not that is actually possible, I don't know.

:)

Viper Guy - 2017-07-02 10:00 PM

The Anti-Sway bar is an Anti-Roll bar that aids in lessening body lean and wallowy ride. Keep in mind these Anti-Sway or Anti-Roll bars are used on both the front and rear of automobiles. I'm fairly certain there is no traction benefit from an Anti-Roll bar.

1960fury - 2017-07-03 2:37 PM yes, "herr 1960fury" is simply pointing out a physical fact and while you are or "thinking" "herr 1960fury" isn't "dreaming", he knows. i have the battery in the right rear corner of the trunk and a heavy front and rear sway bar, the later not only reduces sway it helps with traction too..

56D500boy - 2017-07-03 2:58 PM



Whatever.

I would be willing to bet that my little 2.2L turbo 93 UrS4 4 door sedan would beat your rear-sway-barred, battery-in-the-right corner, 383 Plymouth 0-60 mph, 0-100 kph, 1320 ft, 400 m and top speed without any problems.

The question is, why would you subject a 57 year old mostly stock car to any kind of speed competition? Sounds like trouble.

Alles klar?

;)

1960fury - 2017-07-03 1:54 PM



then i'm fairly certain you do not understand how anti sway bars work.

dlvh - 2017-07-03 11:03 PM

Looking forward to seeing this 60 Plymouth Fury really go Sid! Or, just some nice pictures of your car and girlfriend showing off your beauty. ;)

56D500boy - 2017-07-04 2:18 AM

1950s
Car Year Tested 1/4-mile (sec @ mph)-- 0-60 mph (sec)
1.) Maserati 200 SE 1957 13.9 @ --4.4
2.) Ferrari 4.9 Superfast 1958 13.9 @ 108 -- 5.6
3.) Chevrolet Corvette 1957 14.2 @ 93 --6.6
4.) Chevrolet 315 Del Rey 1959 15.2 @ 96 -- 7.2
5.) Plymouth Fury 1958 15.5 @ 86 -- 7.7
6.) Ferrari 250 California 1959 15.6 @ 97 --7.2
7.) Chevrolet Bel Air 1959 16.7 @ 94-- 8.4
8.) Chrysler 300E 1959 17.2 @ 92 -- 8.7
9.) Austin-Healey 3000 1959 17.8 @ 78 --10.9
10.) BMW 507 1959 17.8 @ 77-- 10.2

Reference: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/rocket-sleds-the-best-performe...

Viper Guy - 2017-07-03 10:29 PM



Whatever! I'm an engineer and a drag racer. I removed anti-sway bars from our drag cars to reduce weight and had the battery mounted in the trunk by the RR wheel well. On a roundy round track or road course, it would be a different story - less sway and body lean with lower center of gravity equals better control and handling. Traction is between the road surface and tires referred to as the contact patch. If, as you say, the anti-roll bar would put more downward force on a particular wheel, then the contact patch would increase and there would be greater traction. I just don't see it happening to any degree that a substantial benefit would be detected.

b5rt - 2017-07-04 8:10 AM

With the statement " short of 5 seconds to 60mph." are you implying sub 6 seconds? If so that is entirely plausible. Going with the "http://www.060calculator.com/" above, I simply dialed in 3600 lbs since Sid says he's put it on a diet. Then 325 HP which again is plausible, and came up with a time of 5.452 seconds. You can play with these numbers yourself.

If you're saying less that 5 seconds I came up with the following.

340 HP @ 3500 =5.16
350 HP @ 3500 =5.049

Have you ever put your car on scales to see what its actual weight is?