|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 165
CEG\'er
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 165 |
Originally posted by Kane:
Originally posted by chrisilversvt:
Originally posted by Kane:
My brother's G-Tech said mine did mid 15s. Don't remember other specs on my SVT.
It said my friend's 1995 Caprice 9C1 (LT1 cop package) did a 14.94 @ 98.3mph with 6.83sec 0-60... that was with him (250 lbs), me (190 lbs), subs in big ass box (150 lbs), and a bunch of computer junk in the back seat (probly 25-50 lbs). Oh, and he's got a 3.73 posi rear end.
even with the lt1 a caprice wouldn't be in the 14's stock and doubtfully trap that high....maybe low 15's stock...
Well, according to this site, factory times for a 1995 Roadmaster is 6.7s 0-60 and 15s flat in the 1/4 mile. You can't count the 93 Caprice on there, cause that's not an LT1. They threw the LT1 in for 95/96.
So... if that is correct, the lighter wieght Caprice (police package missing all the "good" stuff off that Roadmaster) plus the extra wieght, plus the 3.73 rear end... I'd say it's possible.
This site claims an Impala SS (essentially the same as the 9C1, but the 9C1 is still missing the luxury stuff) does 7.1s 0-60 and 15.4s in the 1/4 mile. Then change that stock 3.08 to a 3.73... I believe those #s are possible.
haha a contour site talking about LT1s , i love this , yes those times are quite possible , but u would think the 9C1 would be lighter for the fact that its no longer a police vehicle and does not have that extra weight of computers and lights etc, and none of teh luxuary which could make low 15s high 14s possible
1997 30th Anniversary SS,Jethotts/ORY/GMMG, 160thermo, ,TB bypass, 1LE intake elbow, BMR STB, 32mmswaybar..21mm rear,BMR LCAs, PR,SFCs,TA,LT4 KM,255lph, shift kit
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,816
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,816 |
Originally posted by bobbyd:
u would think the 9C1 would be lighter for the fact that its no longer a police vehicle and does not have that extra weight of computers and lights etc, and none of teh luxuary which could make low 15s high 14s possible
Exactly what I was thinkin... lighter than normal (except me and the subs) plus the 3.73.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
The G-tech always will read a higher trap speed then at the track because it estimates the actual speed based on acceleration over time. 3-5% high is a close guesstimate. Of course any grade changes during the run will add to calculation error.
A "drag" track averages your speed over the last 2 timing lights. I does not have a radar gun or anything. It is always a bit slower then your actual speed at the line.
Also for that matter the basic G-tech does not allow for roll out. The time it takes your car to move out of the path of the timing light's beam. However this error is well within the error range of testing on a none level surface. (hence why I say at least 2 passes both ways and averaging your numbers is the only passable test regime)
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,065
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,065 |
Look at this month's issue of Car & Driver. They went through a whole bunch of meters, including the G Tech Pro.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
