If he did pace you, he has to do so a minimum distance, most states require a minimum of 3/10 of mile. Check and see what IN requires
If he did do this, then his police cruiser it required to have the speedometer calibrated, also the car had to be properly maintain like making sure the correct tires are placed on the cars and the air pressure is correct. Towns get cheap and put on the lease expensive tires they can find and many time not the right size, his rolling speed is dependent on the diameter of the tire. It is not one size fits all these days.
I like when police say, hey I had to go this fast to catch up to you as some sort of justification of you speed. All the statement shows is their lack of understand of the laws of nature and physics.
Simply put, two object traveling at 60MPH in the same direction will never get closer to one another, if the object behind the first object want to catch up they are required to go faster, how much faster depend on the distance between the two objects and the amount of time you want to close the distance.
It is always interesting to see the stupid look on people faces when you explain, of course you have to go so faster to catch me it is law of physics however, it does not prove how fast you were going. Do not allow the officer to use this as justification of speed, it is not factual and does not prove a thing, it just means his car is following the laws of physics and thank him for ensuring the court his car adheres to those laws
Yes the officer can say you were going so fast, and he paced you, if he makes those statements then he is required to uphold those states with additional evidences like cal cert for the speedometer and maintenance records for the cruiser. But he will not if you do not require him to back his claims up. Word alone carry so much weight and credibility, physical evidence carries much more weight and the lack of that evidence where required or when asked for helps destroyed the credibility of the words.
Also, all radar detectors will detect every radar unit in service today. Not sure why people and police some times think the police are using some sort of top secret radar equipment that can not be detected. I had police tell me that his radar is new and no detector on the market can detect it. The only question is how effective a detector is, some are better than others, and on short distance they all pick up, the better ones pickup more than a mile away the cheap one do not.
Also, radar guns operate on a very narrow band of frequencies, and detectors receive over a wide band and they look for existence of any frequency in a very wide range that all radars operate in.
Yes some detectors are only good in the forward facing directions, however, even if the source is behind the receiving antenna, at close distance when the radar signal hits an object and returns the detector will detect the return signal. Grant it, at that point it is too late, but you would still know radar was used.
So if the officer claims in court he used radar and it some new device that no detector can see, you know he has no clue, and you follow up and ask for the supporting evidence that he used radar, like the log book for the radar unit he used to show he in fact had one in his possession that day, also, the cal and maintenance records for that unit. Also whether he has been trained and do he have copies of those training records.
Again statement of fact without some sort of physical evidence to back them up are just statements at that point which no weight should be given to them.
So stop focusing on whether your car was doing what you think it was, but focus on whether the officer did what he is required to do. Does not matter if you speedometer was wrong, it does matter if the officer speedometer was working since he used it as probable cause to stop you he was not using your so it was irrelevant at that point.