From: callison@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (James P. Callison)
Subject: Re: Too fast
Nntp-Posting-Host: uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
Lines: 66

In article <1qqv7k$e5g@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aas7@po.CWRU.Edu (Andrew A. Spencer) writes:
>In a previous article, callison@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (James P. Callison) says:
>>In article <1qn4ev$3g2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aas7@po.CWRU.Edu (Andrew A. Spencer) writes:
>>>In a previous article, wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) says:
>>>
>>>>	That shows how much you know about anything.  The brakes on the
>>>>SHO are very different - 9 inch (or 9.5? I forget) discs all around,
>>>>vented in front.  The normal Taurus setup is (smaller) discs front, 
>>>>drums rear.
>>>
>>>one i saw had vented rears too...it was on a lot.
>>>of course, the sales man was a fool..."titanium wheels"..yeah, right..
>>>then later told me they were "magnesium"..more believable, but still
>>>crap, since Al is so m uch cheaper, and just as good....
>>>
>>>i tend to agree, tho that this still doesn't take the SHO up to "standard"
>>>for running 130 on a regular basis.  The brakes should be bigger, like
>>>11" or so...take a look at the  ones on the Corrados.(where they have
>>>braking regulations).
>>
>>Well, let's see...my T-Bird SC has a computer-controlled adjustable
>>suspension, 4-wheel ABS disks (11" vented front, 10" (?) rear), 3-point
							^^^^
						Rears also vented

>>belts, sturdy passenger compartment, aerodynamics good enough for 
>>NASCAR without too much change, 210 hp/310 ft-lb supercharged 3.8l V6,
>>4-wheel independent suspension (plus limited-slip differential), with 
>>a top speed in excess of 130mph, and rides on V-rated tires (I have yet
>>to find 225/60-R16s in any other speed rating). 
>>
>>Is that "up to standard"? If not, why not?
>
>james, i really hate to do this, but try reading the damn posts!

Then you shouldn't've done it. Try answering the damn question.
I am well aware of the fact that there was no mention of the SC
in there.

>never was a t'bird mentioned.  The discussion was about SHO's and
>'stangs not being up to spec.  I do not know about t'birds.  I
>only know that the specs quoted for the SHO by previous poster sounded
>a little anemic for me to say that it was up to snuff.  This does not
>kn any way  disencourage* me from wishing to own one, nor does it make it
>a bad car.  It merely means that i think Ford could have added that extra
>bit of safety  and tossed in larger brakes, as the wheels are plenty large
>enough for them to fit (if memory serves right, which it may very well not)
>and the motor plenty powerful enough to need it.

Well, my point was that the SC and the SHO both have very similar
characteristics (front and rear disks (ABS on the SHO?), high output
V6, 4-wheel independent suspension, very good aerodynamics, 3-point
harness, fat rubber, and 130mph+ top speed). If one of them is 
up to standard (and I think the SC is), but the other isn't, then
why is that? No flamage, just curiousity.


				James

James P. Callison    Microcomputer Coordinator, U of Oklahoma Law Center 
Callison@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu   /\    Callison@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu   
DISCLAIMER: I'm not an engineer, but I play one at work...
		The forecast calls for Thunder...'89 T-Bird SC
   "It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away all he has 
	and all he's ever gonna have." 
			--Will Munny, "Unforgiven"
