Mustang Track numbers - CEG Archives

Yea 120mph traps do get you into the 11s, but it's also proven that crappy 60' times result in higher traps but obviously lower ETs. I would say high elevens low twelves since he can't find traction.

Originally posted by dredwingz03:
Yea 120mph traps do get you into the 11s, but it's also proven that crappy 60' times result in higher traps but obviously lower ETs. I would say high elevens low twelves since he can't find traction.

you're going to have to explain to me how having less traction = higher traps.

this was done with no tuning yet either. it should be deep in the 11's with tuning and slicks.

I ran a 15.4 @113

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?

Originally posted by MxRacer:

Originally posted by dredwingz03:
Yea 120mph traps do get you into the 11s, but it's also proven that crappy 60' times result in higher traps but obviously lower ETs. I would say high elevens low twelves since he can't find traction.

you're going to have to explain to me how having less traction = higher traps.

I know I didn't believe it either because it's not really intuitive, but cars usually trap slightly higher if they have slightly worse 60' times. I did a quick search in google for "higher trap lower 60'" and low and behold a mustang forum link came up. Reading through it most people acknowledge this fact.

sleeper05 on that forum posts

"anyway, the best way to describe why better 60' equates to better ET but LOWER mph would be along these lines:
getting traction off the line means a harder launch and better 60'. in the same sense that a good launch gets you to 60' down the track in less time, it would also get you to 1320ft down the track in less time than a bad launch (in theory). however, since you got there quicker, your car had less time to accelerate up to its maximum potential speed (trap speed). because it was accelerating for less time while physically within 1/4mi, it did not have enough chance to get up to a higher speed vs. a run with a good launch, BUT it got to the end sooner. this results in lower ET, as well as a lower trap speed."

So this guy with a badass fox body mustang with turbos is making insane power which still gets him very respectable ETs even when he has terrible 60' times with no tune. HP determines ET, and lower 60' usually result in slightly higher traps. So when he tunes and runs elevens, I bet he traps 116-118 with a time of 11.7-11.8sec.

Originally posted by dredwingz03:

"anyway, the best way to describe why better 60' equates to better ET but LOWER mph would be along these lines:
getting traction off the line means a harder launch and better 60'. in the same sense that a good launch gets you to 60' down the track in less time, it would also get you to 1320ft down the track in less time than a bad launch (in theory). however, since you got there quicker, your car had less time to accelerate up to its maximum potential speed (trap speed). because it was accelerating for less time while physically within 1/4mi, it did not have enough chance to get up to a higher speed vs. a run with a good launch, BUT it got to the end sooner. this results in lower ET, as well as a lower trap speed."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally posted by cuda06:
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.

no way i'd run that thing on a TT setup that's already in the low 11's. it's a nice intake, but his next step should be a to breadbox style custom intake to move into the 10's.

I dont really know what I am going to run yet, I just know that the cobra is a restriction.

As far as Nitto DR's go, I think it depends on the size. I was running 245/45/17, and they suck. Not just for the TT car either. My brother ran them on his completely stock 93 cobra, even down to the 3.08 gears, and they didnt hook. His best 60 with them was 2.3 also. maybe you will have better luck, but I wasnt happy.

I dont think that I would discount the BBK intake so quick. You will almost always be the best off going with a custom intake in this situation but that really ends up depending on the most important thing, money. Although the BBK intake is by no means cheap it is still going to be substantially less that a custom set up and will flow much better than even a ported cobra intake. The split plenum design actually works fairly well with forced induction.

Originally posted by cuda06:
I dont think that I would discount the BBK intake so quick. You will almost always be the best off going with a custom intake in this situation but that really ends up depending on the most important thing, money. Although the BBK intake is by no means cheap it is still going to be substantially less that a custom set up and will flow much better than even a ported cobra intake. The split plenum design actually works fairly well with forced induction.

$600 versus $1000. if i'm spending that much on an intake, i'm not going to scrimp just to get something that will work "fairly well".

when you're into the 10 second range, sheetmetal is the only way to go with turbos.

very true,that bbk is barely better than stock....in some tests i've read it didn't flow any better than any of the other artermarket intakes(including the cobra,gt40,etc.).....it certainly wouldn't be very much improvement over the cobra....the bbk is more of something you'd put on a mildly modded 5.0(heads,cam,etc.)

but on a car like his with forced induction a breadbox stlye is the way to go...don't waste your time with something that will only be slightly better,or not even better than what you have.......there are several available so it doesn't have to be custom....

I think that barely better than stock is a far reach at underestimating this intake. I am pretty sure that I recently read a test on it where it significantly outperformed a heavily modified cobra intake. I will look around though and make sure that I am not just dreaming this up.

Originally posted by cuda06:
I think that barely better than stock is a far reach at underestimating this intake. I am pretty sure that I recently read a test on it where it significantly outperformed a heavily modified cobra intake. I will look around though and make sure that I am not just dreaming this up.

in a forced induction application, such as a turbo car, the differences will be minimal.

Originally posted by MxRacer:

Originally posted by cuda06:
I think that barely better than stock is a far reach at underestimating this intake. I am pretty sure that I recently read a test on it where it significantly outperformed a heavily modified cobra intake. I will look around though and make sure that I am not just dreaming this up.

in a forced induction application, such as a turbo car, the differences will be minimal.

exactly,either intake is a restriction on an f/i car....the bbk is a street/strip intake,designed for a typical bolt on car...the bbk would severly underperform on an f/i car,unless it was heavily modified...but why bother when there are tons of intakes made especially for a car like his...

i can guarantee you that the bbk is not a work of god or anything...in all the tests i've read,it pretty much flows and performs about the same as other intakes on the market,gt40/trick flow,edelbrock etc.....and fwiw i've been into the mustang scene for several years,and i don't know one person that reccomends it,or runs it...