|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 60
CEG\'er
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 60 |
Originally posted by MxRacer:
Originally posted by turbo_fox:
this was done with no tuning yet either. it should be deep in the 11's with tuning and slicks.
indeed! aside from the hairdryers, what else is done to the car?
oh man, where do I start?
Fresh 302, stock crank and rods, Probe forged pistons, clevite bearings, motorsports B303 cam, 93 cobra intake manifold, BBK 75mm throttle body, motorsports 85mm MAF, 30lb injectors, AFR 165 heads, crane 1.7 roller rockers, billet flywheel, centerforce dual friction, tremec 3550, motorsports aluminum driveshaft, 8.8 rear with 3.73 gears, eaton posi, superior axles.
mac shorty headers flipped, T3 turbos from svo, sheren front mount intercooler, DSM 1g blow off valve.
MSD 6AL ignition with blaster coil, NGK iridium plugs, magnacore wires.
QA1 tubular k-member, QA1 adjustable struts, Eibach drag launch springs, HPM megabite jr lower control arms, BBK uppers.
Tires are def at fault, previous times were 12.77 @ 106 with a 1.82 60' on 26x10.5 ET streets, last night was on 245/45 Nitto 555DR on 17x7.5 93 cobra wheels.
Overall, I was expecting higher traps, closer to 130. I was expecting low 11's (with traction). I think a good amount of my problem was the fact that I have 4 degrees base timing, I think if I had locked it at 22 I would have had much better acceleration off the line (low rpm), it is kind of a dog until spooled. I also think my intake manifold is a restriction.
00 SVT #985
Silver Frost
89 Mustang GT TT
-410.6hp/460.7trq (couldnt pull past 5k-lean)
12.77 @106 Before turbos, 12.82 @120.12 With them
-95 Contour GL, 140K FREE!
-WPI FSAE 05'-06', build a race car, get school credit
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 5,854
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 5,854 |
Originally posted by MxRacer:
still not seeing it. the car isn't accelerating when it's not moving. less movement = less speed. the fact that it's getting a good 60' time only means it's getting to that speed more quickly.
he's not spinning all the way down the track. Once the tires hook up, all that extra horsepower lugs that mustang to 120mph quite easily i reckon.
1999 Silver Frost SVT
#609 of 2760
Quaife, lightened SVT Flywheel, SPEC stage II clutch, removed resonator, k&n drop in - various other goodies too.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,728
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,728 |
Nittos do suck IMO. They're only good for the people who like to say, "I got so many miles on my drag radials, and there's still tread left!" The BFG is a much better 50/50 street/strip tire.
'03 SRT-4
50 trim turbo + support
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 60
CEG\'er
|
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 60 |
Last time I raced, I had mikey t's ET streets. That powered me to a 12.77 @106 with a 1.82 60'. I think I shall get another set of those, that would help out a ton.
00 SVT #985
Silver Frost
89 Mustang GT TT
-410.6hp/460.7trq (couldnt pull past 5k-lean)
12.77 @106 Before turbos, 12.82 @120.12 With them
-95 Contour GL, 140K FREE!
-WPI FSAE 05'-06', build a race car, get school credit
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,392
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,392 |
Originally posted by TGO:
Originally posted by MxRacer:
still not seeing it. the car isn't accelerating when it's not moving. less movement = less speed. the fact that it's getting a good 60' time only means it's getting to that speed more quickly.
he's not spinning all the way down the track. Once the tires hook up, all that extra horsepower lugs that mustang to 120mph quite easily i reckon.
yeah no crap. but he's saying that wheelspin = higher trap speeds... which i'm disagreeing with.
Originally posted by RyeLou:
Nittos do suck IMO. They're only good for the people who like to say, "I got so many miles on my drag radials, and there's still tread left!"
we'll find out tomorrow first hand how bad they suck, eh? 
02 Mustang GT... Tuned by Nelsons. Low 12's, anyone? 
.....______
___|______\_____
|/-\_________/-\_|
.\_/...............\_/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 201
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 201 |
lol man, 60' is a small fraction of 1320'. We are talking spinning through the measly first 4.5% of the quarter mile. I agree that it's really hard to comprehend because it's not intuitive to run a higher trap when you have a slower 60' time. You need to understand that this is generally the case...it's not 100% every time...and of course this is comparing the exact same car...of course a pinto with a 3.0 60' isn't going to trap higher than a csvt that wheel hopped and then missed second gear. The way you need to look at it is, you have a very very consistent car that wins bracket races like crazy. He's running 13.9s@100 98% of the time. Some dumbass tracks water to the starting line and he spins more than usualy. That time he runs 14@101. So since this 60'/trap speed fact is general knowledge, we need to think why it's the case. Obviously it's easier to get a higher trap by essentially getting a rolling start through the first 4.5% of the track, and obviously this couple of tenths in the 60' that was spent hooking rather than spinning is enough for this powerful car to get down the track so fast it isn't travelling quite as fast at the end. Again it's not every time, but it's generally the case. Go to a bracket race and study the most consistent car out there, and look at his 60' times and trap speeds and see what you see. Any pics of the beast?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,392
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,392 |
Originally posted by dredwingz03:
Obviously it's easier to get a higher trap by essentially getting a rolling start through the first 4.5% of the track,
you have a specific length of track to reach your terminal speed. so you get no rolling start. you have to accelerate to get to your terminal speed. the more traction you have, the faster you accelerate, and the higher your eventual speed will be. the less traction you have, the less you accelerate, and the lower your final speed can be.
02 Mustang GT... Tuned by Nelsons. Low 12's, anyone?
.....______
___|______\_____
|/-\_________/-\_|
.\_/...............\_/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 201
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 201 |
Believe what ya want buddy. Just remember this thread the next time you see a car at the track run a 13.9@100 and then a 14@101.
That's why someone could say after the 14@101 run "oh that car is capable of 13.9s with that 101 trap speed" lol.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,728
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,728 |
Originally posted by MxRacer:
we'll find out tomorrow first hand how bad they suck, eh?
I was hoping you would pick up on that, haha Really though, IMO (and I'm extremely biased) BFG > Nitto. Those who feel otherwise usually make the argument of more mileage and better wet handeling. That isn't what a DR is about. To each their own...but I'm right \
Are you going to ride out with us or what? Shoot me a PM and let me know.
And as far as the high trap speed vs. 60 debate. I think both of you are a little bit right.
If you get a good 60' time, the idea is that you'll finish the 1/4 mile in a shorter amount of time, therefor having a lower speed. HOWEVER, it really won't go down more than 1 or maybe 2 mph unless you're trying to throw something off on purpose. That is why when you get a decent ET with a better Trap, people can say "That car is capable of a high 11" or whatever the case is.
'03 SRT-4
50 trim turbo + support
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 225
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 225 |
If you are looking to change the manifold out check out the new one from BBK. It is a radically different design from most of the common intakes and has been shown to perform quite well. There was even a good test run on it in a recent issue of MM&FF.
99 csvt
68 cuda fastback 340
00 gp gtp (wife)
01 gs500
|
|
|
|
|
