First of all, allow me to apologize for being 34 years late in addressing this extremely pressing issue, which I have been wondering about since 1991. It has to do with some of the technical details of the blockbuster 1991 movie Terminator 2: Judgement Day, of which the movie was absolutely jam-packed. Remember, this was a movie that dealt with all sorts of sci-fi tropes like time travel, advanced robotics, artificial intelligence, liquid metal, and, of course, the top speed of a 1982 Chevy S-10 truck. I will address one of these technical concepts, the one I cannot adequately suspend my disbelief enough to accept.
Do you remember the movie? I bet you do. It was huge! It’s still huge. An icon.
Here, watch the trailer if you’d like a little reminder:
Which one of the technical concepts or cenceits in this movie is a step to far for me to accept, even in a sci-fi context? The time travel? Sure, the very idea of time travel is very much an unproven thing, and the very concept that all of time may be perpetually extant, an unending river of events, perpetually flowing, and we just need to be able to move from one point to another is compelling, but far from proven. But that’s not what I have a problem with.
The robotics? Even with a layer of biological skin growing over a metallic endoskeleton, the Terminator is still just plausible enough, given enough engineering development. The AI? Please, we’re getting close to the point of AI development we see in this movie today!
What about the T-1000’s dynamic liquid-metal technology? I don’t think we have anything like that now, but I’ve broken enough thermometers to have seen how cool mercury is at room temperature, so I can accept that.
But you know what I cannot comfortably accept? And what I couldn’t even accept back in the day when I saw this movie at the theater? What happens in this scene:
See what I’m talking about here? There’s that dramatic car chase, where our heroes, consisting of a mother, her son, and a large, Arnold Schwarzenegger-shaped robot commandeer a 1982 Chevy S-10 and attempt to outrun the T-1000 Terminator robot, who is driving a big rig truck.
In the course of the chase, the kid demands of the Terminator to “step on it,” whereupon the robot answers that “this is the vehicle’s top speed.” And what is that top speed?
In the movie, it looks like about 61.5 mph. The speedo needle does briefly bounce to 65, but then pretty rapidly settles back down to right around 60 mph or so. Here’s my question: can this be right? And my other question: were Chevy S-10s really that slow?
I don’t buy it. Of all the bonkers stuff in the movie, like how time travel requires nudity, this is the bonkersest. I mean, Chevy S-10s were slow, I know that, but they weren’t that slow. Let’s just consider the specs of a 1982 Chevy S-10 for a moment here. You could get them with two engines, a 1.9-liter inline-four that made 82 horsepower, or a 2.8-liter V6 making 110 hp.
Neither are big numbers, but not that unusual for cars of the 1980s, and certainly not the lowest numbers out there. Hell, I daily drive a car with about 52 hp and that can hold 70-75 mph pretty easily. A 1982 Chevy S-10 weighed about 2,600 to 2,800 pounds, and even if we assume the smaller engine and higher weight, that still comes to about 34 pounds per horsepower, which is on par with my low-hp car that can still manage over 70 mph.
So what might the top speed of a four-banger S-10 have been? If I had to guess, I’d have to think it could manage at least 80-85 mph. Hell, a 1977 Volkswagen Beetle, which made 48 hp on the same SAE scale used for the S-10, had a top speed of 84 mph. Sure, it weighed less, about 1800 pounds, but that would have given it a 37-ish pounds-to-hp ratio, which is worse than the S-10. So surely the S-10 could have at least matched that?
There are some mitigating factors at play, though, so we should evaluate this vehicle carefully. The S-10 used in the scene was about nine years old at the time of shooting, and seemed to be a work truck, specifically a gardening truck for the Bol-L-Gol Gardening concern, which seems too small an organization to have a fleet of trucks with speed governors on them. So I don’t think the speed was artificially limited.
What could have limited the speed of the S-10, though, is specific to the one in the movie. Specifically, it’s that camper shell, which looks to be home-built out of wood, like a little cabin perched on the bed of the truck:
Sure, it looks charming with its peaked roof and wood paneling, but it had to be pretty heavy and is, aerodynamically, a nightmare. Carrying a little cottage on your back would absolutely slow you down.
The bed-cabin gets smashed to toothpicks and tongue depressors pretty early in the chase, and yet the speed of the truck doesn’t seem to benefit from being freed from that burden much, if at all. This could be because there’s still considerable weight inside the truck cab itself, with two people and a robot.
Let’s say Sarah Connor weighs, what, 130 pounds? And the kid, he’s probably, oh, maybe 100? But the Terminator, the T-800, he has to be pretty substantial, right? That’s got to be at least 500 pounds of killing machine? Let me look that up.
Of course, the internet provides an answer: 400 pounds. So, the cab itself if hauling around about 630 pounds, give or take? That’s a pretty decent amount, though not that terrible, really. I’m sure S-10s routinely carried two 250 pound guys on the highway.
It’s possible this S-10 wasn’t well maintained, or had some transmission slipping issue, or something, but the truth is, on camera, in the scenes we saw, it seemed to drive just fine, and sounded just fine. I can’t believe that this vehicle could only go a bit over 60! The S-10 in that scene, as shown, should at least have managed 70 mph.
And, what gets me is that there was no reason to have it max out its speed so low! I don’t know why director James Cameron made this decision, but what would have had to change about the movie if the truck couldn’t go more than 70 mph instead of 60? Nothing!
Everything could have played out exactly the same, except the S-10’s maximum speed could have been better represented, freeing us in the audience from some unpleasant waves of disbelief and speculation, and saving the poor maligned little truck from decades of exaggerated claims of extreme slowness.
Has this movie been re-released yet, with some new, re-mastered director’s cut? If not, then I think it absolutely should, and the one change that absolutely must be made is that the chase scene speed be adjusted so the S-10 maxes out at 71.5 mph.
That would make the world a much better place, I think.
Kill Some Time By Watching This Old Beetle Documentary With Me And Obi-Wan Kenobi: Cold Start
Tom Cruise Tries To Get Into The Prime Minister Of The UK’s Car But This Story Kind Of Baffles Me
This Deleted Scene From Pixar’s ‘Cars’ Raises All Kinds Of Unsettling Questions
SKYNET IS COMING FOR US ALL!
Ha ha…yeah, John Connor’s over here looking at us all for starting to trust A.I.
I absolutely love T2…I was blown away when I first saw it. Notice that there’s hardly any sequels that are better than the original…this one is an exception (The first one is still really awesome though) Yeah, this scene w/ this S-10 is just so funny and cool since they end up w/ this tiny, slow, weighted down truck being chased by a massive semi w/ liquid nitrogen…it’s all for effect and it works
my first car was a chevy s10 with the 2.8 v6 engine. it struggled to go over 80mph. it would do it …. eventually …. mine was a stick and 4th gear topped out at 70 something and 5th gear was so tall that acceleration would happen but barely …..
this was the older s10 with an automatic and the four cylinder engine i know many people who had them that struggled to drive over 70mph. People would buy them and then come to the S-10 forum and post “what’s wrong with my truck why is it so slow?” and hundreds of replies of “nothing’s wrong you bought a slow truck” and many people comparing each-others slowness.
my theory on why the top speed is in the low 60s is because the tires are not as tall as factory. this was a common thing people on a budget did.. especially a movie production that as going to crash the car anyway….
factory size was 195/75/14. if you go down to a 185/70/14 your top speed is now 6 percent slower. also “top speed” is assuming no hills cargo excetera. so mid 60s kinda tracks if the truck has smaller car tires instead of taller truck tires which was a very common thing people did to save money.
Producer Guy: Why can’t the truck go any faster?
Screenwriter Guy: So the movie can happen
Producer Guy: That makes sense
If you recall the scene, the thing is smoking out the tailpipe pretty bad. So yeah maybe accurate: Running poorly, 1.9 auto & 600lbs of occupants? Plausible.
Also; where did they get a coconut? Las Angeles is a temperate climate? Are they suggesting that coconuts migrate?
Yeah it should have been a Suzuki Samurai, fully loaded they would only do 55, on a two mile downhill, with a tailwind….
I lost a drag race to a Chevette, of course all my friends were in the car to witness said failure.
How much does a Terminator weigh?
It reminds me of watching a VHS of Empire Strike Back with buddies in college, and at the end, Lando flies away in the Falcon, and Luke & Leia watch him from another ship/station. As the Falcon flies off, you hear the engine roar. My one friend (who became an attorney) was arguing that since there is now sound in space, there shouldn’t be any sound. He then asked another roommate, a physics graduate student walking past, to confirm this brilliant observation. The physics student answered, “Maybe their intercoms were on,” and continued out the door.
For an ’82 I’m guessing it would have had a carburetor, and most likely, like every carbureted vehicle I’ve ever driven ran like ass. So running lean, which the business would have liked because of the improved fuel economy, even a 2.8 would probably struggle to get to 70 downhill, 60 seems very reasonable.
The most wtf for me is the Black Panther’s chase scene. The MC asks the sidekick to go faster, the sidekick said something along the line of “that’s all she got”. They were chasing after a lexus RX in a LC…
The most unbelievable part of the movie is the tech executive deciding to do the right thing and help them, rather than make as much money on the impending apocalypse as possible.
TBF, I think that particular apocalypse was maybe a bit too far for that to work, there wouldn’t have been anyone or anything left to make money off of afterward; and it was too imminent to enjoy any short term gains
He would have had a great 8 years before Skynet became self aware
Less than 2 years, the original date was July 21, 1997, his actions delayed it to 2004
Had a ’86 S-10 Blazer with the 2.8. I remember trying to pull a moderate highway hill with four passengers, wouldn’t go past 50-55. A friend with a 4.3 Astro van left me in the dust. Then I put headers on it. No better, just sounded different.
THIS!!! As an owner of an ’87 with the TBI 2.8l, I vividly remember not being able to go over 70mph on flat highway. Was it the best running example ever, no, but an S10 with an oversized cap, and likely the 4cyl? Yea, highway was never in the cards for that poor truck.
Can confirm. My brother-in-law had a 4-banger 4-speed S-10 Blazer from the mid-80s around 1992, and with three adults and a small kid therein, it couldn’t break the speed limit if everyone’s life depended on it. It was 2WD, and I suspect it was given a lower rear-end gear ratio to make up for the fact that it was too heavy for such a wimpy engine, like a VW Bus. So off the line it wasn’t horribly sluggish, but it simply ran out of gear on the freeway.
Someone commented that the best investment Cameron could make is to hire a good personal trainer to get Edward Furlong, now about a decade clean and sober (congrats to him!), in shape to play adult John Connor in time for 2029.
Second best investment would be to start the search for a sufficiently, believably slow getaway vehicle now.
So this spikes a peripheral interest for me because being a cop car foamer as a little kid gateway’d me into cars.
What agency was the LTD cop car w/ blue lights John and company steal from the mental hospital?
Did this. Did miles behind a semi as 55mph was the top speed of my brat up a hill. Mind the speed limit was 65mph. Learned it was shaped like a high lift wing as I wrapped the speedo downhill forgetting I was still wot.
Linda Hamilton is 5’5” and was shredded AF in that movie. 130 only if you also count the substantial weight of her swollen ammo pouches.
Good call, but she was almost out of ammo by this point, so I doubt she’s an ounce over 110.
Remember though, muscle is ~20% denser than fat. For example, take Kara Saunders, a female crossfit athlete with less than 10% body fat. She is 5’4″ tall and weighs over 160. Granted, she is more muscular than Linda, but I could see Linda being in the 130 lbs range in T2.
The only reason I am a paid member of this website is to read, and keep going, Jason’s pure stream of consciousness nonsense. This article proves that my purchase was worthwhile.
Sure it a lot of talk about power vs weight when top speed is purely power vs drag.
Weight is kinda involved in the real world as bearing have higher drag and tires flex more. Put a literal ton in the back of a 83 4cyl s10 and expect top speed to decline compared to an unloaded.
With low hp stuff weight is definitely a big factor. Back in uni I had an old Mitsubishi van with about 80hp. By myself or with just 1 passenger it could do 75, maybe 80mph. Loaded up with a bunch of friends for a trip to the beach the most it would do was 65.
also hills. “top speed” is usually considered on flat ground. if you are going up a grade that will slow you down.
The S-10 could well have been a very poorly maintained shitbox w/low compression and bad timing. It was the same question when the Dodge Dart Dennis Weaver drove in “Duel” couldn’t outrun a janky looking gasoline tanker on back roads. I didn’t remember any 90mph big rigs back then (I lived in California then, but I had made several X-Country trips by then and 80mph seemed to be enough to pass most any big-rig).
Break the air and they can go fast. Used to cruise at 85mph and regularly pick up 3 trucks for 100+ miles. I’d lose them at the speed trap when I went the limit.
In ‘99, I drove to Oklahoma. Going down I-40, I didn’t step out of the slow lane unless I was exceeding 80mph. The convoys of 18 wheelers rolling 85 were incredible. But in ‘71, the number of 85-95 mph trucks was pretty small.
But in Duel, it does seem like the truck is modified, and is driving faster than a normal truck.
Also it was a Valiant, but that’s basically the same thing.
The radiator hose also broke with only 4,500 miles on the odo, though that may have been non-fiction for the era.
I mean…. Didn’t all 80’s GM products leave the factory this way? Malaise Era Baby!!
True dat.
Watch the movie again, it wasn’t about the capabilities of the truck. It was the directive they gave to him earlier to watch the speed.
Aaaahhhh, I missed that bit. My inclination would be to ignore that directive about
half way through.the first time I noticed the truck on my butt.My grandpa had one, probably with the 4 banger, and a stick. And a wood shell. It wasn’t fast, but it wasn’t Chevette slow either. Torch is right on this score.
FINALLY, TORCH HAS MY SAME QUESTION FROM MY 10 YEAR OLD MIND.
Shades of the Hyundai Accent in Knives Out that was apparently struggling to accelerate at 70mph or something (it’s been 5 years, but that still sticks with me). I hated my slightly older Accent, it was a shitbox, but it wasn’t *that* slow.
On the other hand, at least one of the work Chevettes I used to drive would only hit 60mph from a standing start, if you tried to get there from 30 or 40, it’d peter out and lose power, although that was 20 years old ar the time.
I remember that! I thought it wasn’t true when I saw that too.
An iron Duke powered S-10 with that heavy parachute of a bed cover? Yeah, it absolutely could have been that slow.
And we don’t know what is under that bed cover, either. Could be 700 pounds of fertilizer which would also be an issue.
Excellent point! Even just a full load of gardening tools would really slow things down.
The crazy thing is, I noticed that low top speed as well.
A friend had an early 80s S-15 with the 2.8L and that thing had no problem going 75mph…downhill…with a tailwind. Given enough time it could hit 75mph by itself on flat ground, but if there was a headwind or even the slightest hill it dropped speed pretty bad. With that said, I loved the thing.