Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums Modifications Forced Induction How fast are S/C CSVT?

Does anyone have any #s from s/c svt contour.
0 - 60?
1/4 mile?
or stories of other cars you've raced and won / loss in an S/C SVT Contour?

yeah - i think his name is "corey"...he is located in the CT forum...I think he ran an 18 second 1/4 mile at 68mph! ( :rolleyes: )

Corey - Dude - before popping another CPU in your laptop, I'M ONLY KIDDING!!! (now that i'll get my a$$ handed to me during the next meet..i'll continue)

I think PhatSVT was saying he was shooting for a 12 second 1/4!!

I REALLY REALLY want a S/C......but can't justify the expense...

I think with more and more people getting them, they work out some of the "bugs" and people like them overall.

Corbett has had a s/c SVT for a while. It's not anymore, but he broke the 100mph barrier last week with it. I'm not sure if he got into the 12's, but I know he has been really close.

12's?!?! are you crazy? i'd say high 13's but im not sure...im pretty sure they arent running 12s since some people only run 14's with 100shot of nitrous

My best MPH was 99.76 and that was a 14.12 run. 100 mph is like a 13.8-13.9 time...

stock this car runs fourteens with a few mods you can get into the thirteens easy i know i guy that had two hundred shots and he was running loooow twelves in an svt

The track must be 1000ft, not 1320

if the car is running right and gets traction low to mid 13's are what it will run. If I can get my trans upgraded along with my winter mods I think i could get into the high 12's.
-Mark
PS- this really should be in the forced induction forum.

Quafie and Headers Right Mark!


BTW a Stock SVT does NOT run high 14's normally! Only one has, and it's on tape!
With mods, ship exhaust intake, you can get into the high 14's!
G-Tech's don't count either!

-Andy

PHATSVT was going to run this weekend and see if he can take the LX Tranny probs have his car parked till he ships out his tranny for the T.H. workout Quaife, and bullet proof tranny from what Sam said...

He has run a best of 14.11 I don't remember the MPH though. Well It will be next year possibley before we see any 1/4 times from his Red beast.

i have been messing with the car and its starting to finally run great. my 14.11 was with 6psi of boost. i just had the tranny sent off to Terry H to get it fixed up with the Quaife and all. when it gets back i will put the Nitto drag radials on and hoping to pull some really low 13's. with the weather right and i do everything right praying to pull a 12.99 second pass. we'll see. maybe next year sometime. still have many more mods on the way. Neil and Mark you both are mine. hahaha. just messen with ya. Mark has something up his sleeve and i dont know if i like it.

yes

yes

the supercharger isn't the only thing he had on his car, by far. but that's beside the point. a 12 second quarter mile isn't some dream with an SVT...it is obtainable, just hard to do, and costly at that.

I have run a 14.15@100 w/ 2.4 60' times on a ****ty track. Im trying agian at the end of the month. Should be in the 13's. The only way anyone is getting in the 12's (with just the standard Vortech kit) is with slicks, and I think that is pushing it. If they do I will be the first to congratulate them.

When my SC was first installed we took it for a couple runs with a G-tech Pro, 40 Degrees outside, no rear seat, no spare. The car pulled a best time of 13.2 and it calculated that the car was putting down 273fwhp. We figured that the car was probably running 13.6-13.8 with maybe 250fwhp. At Spring Zing I dynoed 274.4fwhp... Looks like the G-tech was pretty accurate.
-Mark

I'm sorry, nobody is hitting 12s w/ just a Vortech and slicks. No way.

Mid 13s, yes, that's very possible, but you'll need a bit more than 100wheel hp to go from a 15 sec. 1/4 to a 12 sec. 1/4.

Now, add water injection, nitrous, etc....

Hmm, blown and juiced up SVT, Simon, you ready?

John

I believe that PhatSVT has the power to pull 12's out, he is really close to 300 whp, need to do a little more tuning and that puppy will be there, he is having his tranny built up, quaiffe installed, 555r's, motor mounts, and some other tuning issues, he needs a bigger exhaust and some headers, but I think the way it sits it will hit very low 13's to a high 12.

I have a $100 bil for the first S/C SVT that pulls below a 13.5. yes I ran 101.4 mph @ the track with a 2.1 60 ft time but I still only ran a 14.3....I dont know what the fugg was going on but I could care less now. The S/C is off and sold.

Tim, that is wierd! You didn't happen to miss a shift did you? LOL. My 14.12 was with a 2.2x 60' as well. 101.4 is great, but the 14.2 puzzles me. I know if I get in the 100 mph club, it better be a 13.xx

Better let me get my hands on that car Mark if you want the engine & trans to make some 'times'...time to sign up buddy!!

The trans is my only real issue, and thats an expensve upgrade/fix... We'll see how money flows this winter.
-Mark

well, phat svt decided to start pulling his tranny out tonight, so he will not be collecting your money, I told him to run it and just skip third but he is afraid that the car will fall on it's face, I told him that it would still run in the thirteens, what do you guys think?

AHH...No. You really need to keep the revs up with the vortech to make the power. To shift from 2nd to 4th would just kill the motor. I would say he would run mid 14's doing that. Too bad about his trans, hope he gets it sorted out.

yes, but the boost kicks in at 3500 and the 2-4 shift at redline should still be right about there, it would be abit slower, but with that much torque, I would think it would still pull pretty hard, there is a N/A 1.8 Honda that has run a best of 12.9 @ 104 and when his tranny went bad he was out third gear and he did the 2-4 shift and still ran a mid 13, granted this was revving to 9k instead of 6800 but this car has alot more torque.

No I didnt miss a shift on that run but my clutch was slipping bad on some runs. IIRC though, my clutch didnt feel like it was slipping on that particular run. I remember because I though I had an awesome run and then went and got my timeslip and was like WTF!?!?! 101.4 but no 13s!!!!!

sorry but sam WONT be getting any better times by skipping any gears.......i know this, as i have the same car with the blower

so what other cars have u guys raced and beat or lost to?

well guys i went to the track and ran a 14.2 @ 101.17 mph with a 2.668 sixty foot. i calculated it and i should be hitting 13.2-13.3 with traction. so hope that gives you a good idea. i have a time slip and a video of the run for you all. comen soon.

14.2 @ 101 is a pretty interesting number...does it basically show that a S/C SVT has bad acceleration?

I can run my stock Ty at 13.8 sec. in the 1/4 but can only get it to 96 and some odd mph.

ty, that is the beauty of all wheel drive. comparing apples to oranges here.

Yeah...

I don't think it is showing the lack of acceleration as much as it shows the lack of traction. Look at his 60'. Now look at yours. I bet you are getting 1.8-1.9 60' times, right Mike (or you better be!!! :D)? The beauty of AWD is right! I got 14.1 at 99.76, but my 60' was a 2.2....

I think if Sam can hook up, he will be blasting mid 13's, maybe lower....

102 is a very high mph for that time. Same with my best. It just shows that the car is very hard to get off the the line, but pulls like crazy once you get going. This is pretty accurate, as anybody who has driven or riden in a S/Ced contour can attest to. FWIW, My brother ran a 13.2 @ 105 with his '69 Cougar with serious traction problems in first gear. So I think if I can do a better job on the launch (2.3 best 60') I should easily be in the 13's. We'll find out next week.

As for cars I have beaten. I dont race much on the street, but when I was at the track, I beat a WRX (easily) and my freinds Mustang GT (auto, Pro-M, Bassani X-pipe & exhaust). I have run the same mustang on the street a few times and it is just no contest, from a start or a roll.

I have got in a few races with ricers at stoplights, but it usually only takes a second gear flogging to fly by and then I slow down and watch the look of surprise as they do the classic ricer fly-by . If I ever get in any really good races, I will definately post for all to see.

IIRC that time was achieved skipping 3rd gear. 14.2 shifting from 2nd to 4th... I think is pretty impressive.
-Mark

Yup...60' is 1.931

Nope, he rammed it into third.....

He told me he skipped 3rd when i was talking with him via AIM the other night. Sam...

-Mark

Dammit, and he told me he slammed it into 3rd the other night! SAM!!!

Mark- i did jam it into third. i knew how i worded it sounded like i was skipping third. my bad bro. i was thinking about it and then i was like if i try straightening it out you are going to give me ****, but sorry about the confusion. i did jam it into third and listen to the loud grind. it wasnt bad since i threw it in so fast. when the trannsmission is fixed and i get those Nitto 555R's on i hope to see some sweet numbers. might have to go south to a good track since the ones here in MO will be closed soon.

Yes, I can back that up for Sam! I ran slower but my car is all out of tune... On the street last time Sam and I tango'd, I pulled on him in third and fourth ( Spun 1 and 2nd).

Who won you might ask, Lets say we both had grins and hand shakes for each other...

My 60's where 2.205, but my top end stunk. I am going to be checking spark plugs, and I will be checking timing. See if that gets me back to normal. Wondered where that non power-shifted 3rd gear scratch went...

Merlin, what gears you running? 3:55 or 3:73? I know I have asked you in web chat, but I have zero memory. Also, what did you run when you ran Sam at the track. I'd be interested to hear....

Hiatt has a 3:73 gear. he ran a 14.4 @ 99MPH. so i kicked his arse. LOL. he fixed the plugs. and he claims its runnen faster. we'll see. he cant beat the tour. LOL

3.73 is correct. I should have 103 to 105 mph with my car... Well, I finally changed plugs and it was a great difference. Here is a ling to the plugs... Don't need to tell you which ones are brand spankin new!!!!!!
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=1574782&a=13996472&f=0

For reference. 2 other SVT's ran 15.7 @ 90 & 1 at 15.4 @ 90

I wasn't too far behind Sam (or Merlin) at a 14.8 @ 94 & a 2.25 60'

Hopefully we'll get the video's online soon... Sam & I both hit 3rd at the same time, pretty much side by side (I treed him and he spun a ton) and then he was flat out GONE! He made almost .5 seconds on me between the 1/8 and the 1/4 & I was no slouch either...

I also Can't wait until We run at a good track... KCIR sucks!!!

yeah Greg i deffinitly aggree to a good track. go out to Heartland Park someday. you can drive the slow Contour i own. i cant wait to see the video of our race.

I will have Tom's contour into the 14's pretty quickly, he is looking into the 75 mm maf, plug wires, ur pulley, and a superchip, if that doesn't get a 14.8 or so, it is going bottle fed.

i don't care how much money i put into my motor (duratec), i still don't see it beating my friends' eclipse thats running low 12's with 25lbs of boost and NOOOO nos! he wont even think of putting nos in his car. that all-time 4wd really helps with the launch, and then you can forget about catching him.

25lbs of boost????....If the contour SVT had a Turbo with 25lbs of boost..I'll bet it SHOULD be running 12's as well :rolleyes:

probably wouldn't get traction, at that much boost, lots of suspension tuning and slicks, and other stuff.

Yes but at 25psi of boost it would go 200+ mph... :p

Dependant on compressor size of course.
25psi on a T3 would do diddly! 25psi on a TD05H-20G on the other hand!!!

Your original post of near or right at 350 hp with a stock weight svt and slicks (assuming a 2.000 60' time) would place you in the 13.2-13.3 range. Defintely in reach of high 12's with a push in hp. Btw, Mark, what was your dyoed hp and tq again and at what rpm? Wanna do some figuring, just in case I see ya at spring zing 02'

Best dyno run to date has been 293.6fwhp w/ 214ft-lbs.
Figuring 18% parasitic loss of the drive train that put me at 358hp.

Since that dyno I had Terry Make & install a set of gutted exhaust manifolds & added water injection... During the dyno session where I was trying to see how much of a gain I was getting, the SC committed suicide. Below 4 grand with the water injection turned on i was getting almost 20fwhp over not using it, but after 4 grand the SC vibrations were so bad the car couldn't make any more power.
With the SC killing itself I pulled 252fwhp.

-Mark

hp/tq @ what rpm?

Peak hp was at approx. 7050-7100rpms.
The torque curve peaked & went completely flat from 6,000rpms to 7,500rpms.

-Mark

Aha! No problems breathing then heh?

For kicks, i plugged you into car test with 358 hp @ 7100 rpm, 257 ft lbs @ 6000 rpm, redline of 7300, 215/50 tires 3100 lb curb weight and the svt specs. With a 1300 rpm clutch dump it was showing 2.1 sec 60 fts 0-60 in 5.3, 0-100 in 11.8, 1/4 in 13.4 @ 107.5, top speed at REDLINE IN 5TH (WOW!) 169 mph!!!
Wish the focus had a .32 Cd, Im loving those S/C SVT top speed numbers!

Is it possible to fit a Vortec on a 3.0? If so what kind of times would a Vortec/3.0/N20 combanation result in?

Pakrat, check my sig for your answer to the first part of your question. And the rest will be found out come spring time- damn winters!

well talk to Rick (Buckshot77). he is doing this combo.

If I left at 1,300rpms the car would stall. Can you recompute that dropping the clutch at 2,900rpms and 225ft-lbs for the torque (which is accurate)?

-Mark

0-60 remains the same. 0-100 in 13.5. 1/4 in 14.1 @ 107.5. Sure 225 is accurate? Anyway, its saying that for the 225 ft lb figure, you should DUMP the clutch at 1500 rpm to recieve a 13.9 @ 102.6. Look at those trap differences!? Also saying that 0-100 would decrease with the 1500 rpm launch to 13.3 but 0-60 would rise to 5.7. Showing that 2900 with ALOT of wheelspin! I bet! I couldnt launch above 1100 in my n/a svt!

225 is accurate is I am putting down 214ft-lbs at the wheels. Parasitic loss for torque isn't the same % as HP. You only lose about 5% of your torque.

Keep in mind comparing NA to forced induction is the same as apples to oranges. At 2900rpms with partial throttle I am still in vacuum, releasing the clutch (notice I don't say dumping, because i don't dump the clutch) and pushing down on the loud pedal which allows the power transition from vacuum to positive intake pressure to remain linear. Wheel spin in minimal.

If you have seen the Spring Zing video there is a prtion where I race Matt galusha. I left from from about 1300rpms and he left at around 3 grand...
it wasn't pretty.
infact I had Steve Bassen in the car with me.

-Mark

I got your torque figure from taking the percentage b/w your hp/tq on the dyno and converting that same percentage from 350 at the crank. Guess I was wrong. I put in the launch optimization for a Supercharged motor, allowing for vaccum/etc, guess it just doesnt understand the duratec/vortech very well, but...who does? Although I do believe a clutch drop may rid you of the stall at 1500 rpm rather than the slip/release method you are using. Again, its just a thought, its your car and you drive it everyday so you know it much better than I do.

Does what ever program you are using figure in physics of a FWD vehicle?

-Mark

So not counting David Zs 3.0L The best documented SC SVT times are 14.1s??? WEll can B.S. All day about what ifs...whats be run???? low 14s......Correct me if i'm wrong.

a higher trap speed DOES NOT EQUAL a lower et.

i'll agree to that. and add, if you want to hit LOW 13s you DAMN well better get some more torque (low/mid/high), cause without the tq, you will be lucky to get high 13s, and i don't care whose tranny you have.

Again you are wrong! :rolleyes:

IT's TRACTION!!! Spinning through 3rd gear is no way to make good ET's. (heavy 17" rocks don't help either - but woulda coulda shoulda)

I beat PhatSVT to 330' by a couple tenths. By the 1/8th had 2 tenths on me. (he ran almost 2.7 60' to my 2.2 - Imagine a 2.2 - that's ~13.6 @ 103!!!) TRACTION!!!

Either that or I make over 200lb/ft at the wheels... Your call...

Get off the torque wagon silly... It's done run over your head... :p

Yes it does. Ill show you what I have for inputs and you can tell me what needs to be changed. In bold are the ones that are probably specific to YOUR SVT. The parameters are:

displacement: 2544 cc
location: front engined
type: supercharged
hp: 358 @ 7100
tq: 225 @ 6000
compression: 10.2
redline: 7300
start rpm: 1500
with clutch: dump
Transmission: 5 spd manual
Ratios: 3.42, 2.14, 1.45, 1.03, 0.77
final drive: 4.06
drive wheels: front
car test weight: 3100
% of weight on front wheels: 63%
wheelbase: 106.5
tire section width: 215
wheel diameter: 16 in
tire profile: 50%
coefficient of drag: 0.32
overall height: 54.5
overal width: 69.1
ground clearance : 6.0 inches

CR is 10:1
Redline is 7500
Test weight ~3250-3300 (driver & S/C)

Try 3k clutch slip (though you probably did optimum launch method)

Did you read what I was talking about? In the previous post RyeLou said:



So, basically I was telling him that 100 mph would not equal a 12 sec time in a S/C SVT. If he ran 100mph with the 60' times that have been discussed, it would equal about a 13.8 - 13.9.




You better learn CPR if you want to discuss this, beacause that horse has been beat to death numerous times......

On your car? Stock 99 and up Cr is 10.25:1 I believe? Redline at 6750. Is mark running to 7500? Test weight...looks about right?

I have an early 98, so the C/R is 10:1 IIRC, stock rev limiter on my car was 7,000rpms.
Currently it is 7,500rpms, but I will be using my MSD DIS-4 to lower it down to 6,800 for daily use once installed.

-Mark

Only the 00 SVT had 10.25 CR
(and lost 44cc's displacement as all 00 or newer Duratecs did)

Stock SVT redline is 7000rpm

how about you get off my back loser. the fact remains, torque is what this car needs. so shut up and leave me alone. i never attacked you before, but now you are starting to piss me off. leave me alone. i dont sit there and pick apart your posts.. so why is your no life loser asss doing it to me? for godsake GET A LIFE, go tune your car if you have this much energy to burn. hp is a function of torque, YOU HAVE TO INCREASE TORQUE OR RPM TO GET MORE HP!!!!!!!!!!!! GO READ THE DEF OF HP YOU IDIOT!

also, why do you think a 75 shot can run 13s but a +150hp blower can only run low 14s.. cause the 75 shot is making like 70-100lb/ft of tq across the board, and the s/c is only making tq at high rpms...

Holy cow Bret! Talk about flying off the handle! I really don't think Demon was "picking" your post apart. Maybe he scrutinized you, but it is far from as insulting as your post. You should know from the last time you brought this subject up that it would start another controversy. Reap what you sow.....

EH???

Nitrous is used once moving! Not off the line... (we are talking about Contours here - There goes your torque theory - again)
Either car would run crappy if it spun a ton (proof in point a S/C SVT running 14.1 @101 with a 2.7 60')

Plus the only car to run 13's with nitrous is a LIGHTER SE that had a great driver, solid mounts and a torque strap. (See that little snip about TRACTION! As in 2.0X!! 60' and ran 13.9) I'm sure you can figure out that a 2.7 60' would make that a 14.6

BTW 60' = traction NOT TORQUE... (See my other snip about my 2.2 60' and 200 TQ)

As for getting off your case... Only when you get a clue... So not bloody likely any time soon :p

[Moderator Cap On]
This may be a little premature, but people need to chill out now. Bret I mean no offense, but I think you need to turn it down a bit. The name calling and aggressive nature of your posts only instigates arguements and if it keeps up this thread will be locked.
[Moderator Cap Off]
-Mark

tell him to quit following my posts around and making his stupid comments and i will. i NEVER have instigated anything with this guy. and now all of the sudden he follows me around and runs his mouth. very annoying.

the fact remains drag cars have TORQUE the csvt was not built to be a drag car, if you want to drag with it INCREASE TORQUE end of story, go hang around any drag strip and its not hard to see which cars are running sub 10s... big block torque monsters...

when is the last time you saw a contour sit there and burn through tires and not go anywhere? it has traction... it needs torque if you want it to get off the line faster and if you want to get better ETs.

Um.. the old Big block theory is out of date.

Seen many 4 cylinders run 10's and 11's - Yes turbo's or nitrous are used & yes that does add torque (like you mentioned - but not in the amounts you are talking or down low) Still not Right Off The Line though... Why... Traction...
That's the whole point here... This car lacks traction so it's ET's suffer. That's why you get high trap speeds and high ET's.
I am sorry you can not understand this.

As for traction. I can easily burn the tires off in 1st or 2nd at will. Yes! At will, no dumping the clutch! A little in 3rd when shifting. I'm N/A... Not even forced induction...
You completely ignore my posts of 60' times and what they mean, yet continue to be Beligerant and Ignorant.

...and you wonder why you think people are "picking you out" It's so easy when you make yourself such a willing target.

Someone stuck "Torque Rules" in your head at one time and you use it as a crutch. I came from big block buicks & then turbo's. I love high torque ratings, but it's not the end all be all...

ok... lets see... david z (has one of the highest tq ratings on the board) ran 13s... bnoon (with a 100shot and lots of tq) ran 13s.... guys with 150+hp blowers and yet only 30-40+tq run mid to low 14s... you are right... now i see... sorry for ignoring the facts and just not listening to you in the first place. you are the end all be all, you are the contour guru.

now count how many of them have 9000rpm redlines and 500hp+. when you can redline at 9000rpm and have 500+hp and probably awd, you don't need to worry about tq as much... but this is hardly the case with the contour.

Seems demonsvt has already done a good amount of tuning with his 14.80 e.t. n/a.

Bret, seems you got new toys, dont forget you once (or might still have) had a CSVT, and I'm sure you werent so hard on it before all that new torque went to your head. I realize it can be easy after going from my 4 cyl focus to my friends new GT.

Mark, Ill drop cr to the corrected 10.1 and rev limit to 6800, and refigure.

About the displacement, many ceg'ers that witnessed my old svt's near stock "roll-on" power, thought my second svt motor (hand sent from svt) featured the larger displacement and the 10.25 cr. Who knows? Weird thing was, dyno showed 2 torque peaks, 1 at 3800 rpm and 1 at 5800 rpm (only 1 ft lb difference)...a nice thing to have.

bill, i loved my csvt... and i was looking for proven ways to increase its torque without breaking my wallet.. the fact that i got a L has nothing to do with what i am saying... rara said it, tcobra said it, and i am STILL saying it. but you only argue with me... when they say it you guys listen...

it's not traction we need... its more torque or a stronger drivetrain... or maybe just better drivers.

lets just say it was "impossible" to spin the tires in the contour cause we had the infamous "traction" demon raves about... ok, so you launch at 3000 rpm, the engine bogs and you get a high 60' time... ok next time you try a 5k launch, your diff grenades and you are walking home...

or you could just add torque and launch at 2500 rpm and blow through the 60' and get into the 4500-7000rpm range much quicker and stay there for the rest of the run, and enjoy your new low et.

Could you explain this?

David Z ran 14.09 @ 98.9 - With a QUAIFE! (flywheel & clutch upgrades) Traction enhancement - his 60' was good too! You bring up Brad's 13.9 as TQ being the only reason he ran that fast. Skipping the part I mentioned about a 2.0 60' and using solid mounts & torque strap...
So about the same ET (thanks to traction!) as some S/C SVT's but lower trap speed...
You are not even acknowledging the difference in 60' times... HELLO - THAT'S TRACTION! I've only mentioned it like the last 5 posts??? What gives???

Since traction is a major problem now - More torque would only make it worse (just ask Brad about this one!) and therefore SLOW YOU DOWN with slower 60' times. Heck even 330' times...

Why do you not get this simple idea?

Yes the diff will not like better traction. Yes it may break. That's where a LSD comes in. But heck - they diff breaks on stock SVT's... So what's your point? Don't get better traction out of fear???

As for bogging down... Ever heard of clutch slipping. Pro racers have transmissions with "adjustable slip" so to speak. Us normal folks just have to do it the old fashion way and "practice"

I've seen several turbo's run 10's with normal redlines (~7k - A friends 10.6 second Conquest TSi {with IRS even!} comes to mind)
...and yes there is the Nitrous'd Honda crowd that spins to 8k. No low end torque there, but they seem to run fast for some odd reason... There's even a local Normally Aspirated Honda that is almost in the 11's. You know that has next to zero torque... What's he run - drag slicks for traction...

Okay, I have read this post from front to back and I can say that Demon is right, you have to have traction for that torque to even work for you, I have driven my friends contour to a best of 15.5, and it is very difficult to get traction in it, it might not be a torque monster, but it has enough to spin the tires at will, and the Honda crowd the most you will get out of a N/A Honda is about 150 lb ft, and that is generally at 6-7k rpm, not exactly easy on the drivetrain when launching, I broke my differential in the ever going quest for fast times with no torque, as any smart drag racer will tell you, the way to quick et's is getting off the line, why do you think people spend so much money in suspension tuning, wheelie bars, huge slicks, all in the name of traction and getting off the line, after that it is all about power.

Good point SiBlk00 .

I remember back when I was street racing ALOT (dont do it so much anymore) the Hondas were about the easiest car to get a jump on, the Si's especially, and even saw them getting beat thru the 1st couple of gears by EX Civis similairly modded. It wasnt because they were slower, they just required a much better driver due to the lack of torque.

Torque can make things easier, up the the point of traction, after that, id say its worse. My friends 00 GT with bassani catt-ed x-pipe and cat back exhaust is almost impossible to go WOT in first, from any launch. I went to the parking lot for a while to get the launch down in that car to help him out on his first day at the track, I still think the fastest times can be had in that car by feathering some of 1st gear.

At the street races (very highly organized) my friend in his Civic Si was getting stomped left and right by another Civic Si simply because he had a few more "low-end" grunt mods and the other guy was a better driver. After being defeated 2 times by about 2 cars (most of that on the launch), I strapped myself behind my friends 8100 rpm screamer and rolled to the line against that same driver. At the line, I did what your supposed to do in a Si (and watched everyone in the crowd cringe)...I spooled it to 5500 rpm and waited. When the girls hands dropped, I dumped the clutch and ended up beating that guy by 1 and 1/2 car lengths. My friends car I knew would walk on the top end, the small amount of torque just made it more difficult for an inexperienced person to launch.

Though Im swapping in the sweet ol duratec, at this moment, my Focus zetec is one of the easiest cars to launch I have ever driven. Not too much torque, but still enough. At 135 ft lbs and about 2400 lbs, I simply rev to 2500-3000 and drop the clutch, tires spin to about 3000 and hook.

My point is, there is a such thing as too much (when the chassis is uncapable), not enough (when the chassis is capable), and just right.

all those hondas/rice boy cars are SUB 2900 lbs! most are like 2600! if you drop 300-500 pounds off the contour, i agree, it doesn't need more torque to get it moving... but at its current weight there is not enough torque to get this car into a good 60' time.

and about the honda running a turbo only and getting into the 10s, that only backs up my point, any turbo making enough power to get you into the 10s is making ALOT of torque... no tractions mods.. just power... just proves my point.

so we are in agreement, the car has MORE traction than the drivetrain can handle. otherwise why slip the clutch? why not just let the tires spin? why, because they don't... they slip and catch and cause wheelhop, that is why brad added an engine brace, to keep the wheel hop down to keep his diff alive. i bet brad's tires spun more with the brace then without.

as far as the n/a car running 11s with slicks or d/rs... well either he has bumped up his redline a couple k's or he added tq... because as you know, hp is a function of tq and engine rpm.


and bill... why are you arguing with me when you are essentially doing what i am saying. you are taking the engine we have and REDUCING the amount of weight over the wheels, which is basicly increasing the cars relative tq. but wait... wouldn't reducing weight over the wheels REDUCE traction as well?!? so why are you wasting your time putting a higher TQ engine in the focus? are you expecting to run worse ETs then csvts after the engine swap? you already stated you expect to see mid-high 14s with just the engine swap, i am assuming you mean on street tires... so why are you arguing with me, when your whole project is just going to prove my point, there is not enough tq to move the weight this car has. so either increase tq or reduce weight...

I said that? If my car runs mid-high 14's Ill be pissed. The car would push mid 14's with the STOCK 200 hp engine if thats what you mean. With an expected 301 hp n/a at the crank and 2300-2400 lbs, Im expecting high 12's on slicks and Mid 13's on street tires. (before power adder)
Fwiw, some of the honda drag cars run 10's normally aspirated with 240 hp and 190 tq at the wheels. They just weigh about 1600 lbs.
And bret, i didnt think I was arguing, seriously.

i could have swore i saw you post somewhere that you expected the STOCK engine to put you in the mid 14s. before any modding...

sorry bill, i thought you were trying to say the car doesn't need more tq... guess i misread your post. seems more like you were just giving your input and not really jumping in.

OK, someone buy some big beefy drag racing tires (the widest ones) and go race. Someone will be right, the torque or the traction; the big wide slick drag racing tires should minimise the traction problem.

been done. no miracle numbers.

Yeah, the STOCK 2.5 would, but I dont have a 2.5 now do I?