|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
Originally posted by ATL-SVT:
I mean 101 MPH, but that was before stage 1. 
That's a VERY slow trap for a turbo charged CONTOUR...  
Didn't Tom trap around 108... Before... 
Well with about 100hp more, I sure would hope the contour would trap faster,, but only 7mph.  
Um yeah..
How come a fricking ZO6 Vette averages only 10 MPH more in the 1/4?
It's called the exponential force of wind resistance. 
You make it sound like 7 MPH faster trap speed in the 1/4 is nothing. The stock Z06 runs between 107-114 in the 1/4 mile with 400+ crank horsepower and dyno on average 330 wHP.
There are plenty of cars running less between 200-300 HP that can trapp 100 mPH in the 1/4.
With the force of wind resistance being exponential it requires ALOT more power to go from say 100 MPH to 104 MPH and ALOT more than that to go up to 108 MPH.
The 1/4 mile ET is less HP dependent and more easily affected by the launch conditions. THe faster you get rolling and up to speed the better the ET while the trapp speed can still be low.
I saw RWD cars trapping only 99 MPH on 13.0 second ET's....
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653 |
That's still not that big of a difference. Ooo and isn't a stock srt4 capable of sub 14 sec runs? And doesn't it cost less than CSVT did when new? Darn neons.
98.5 SVT
91 Escort GT (almost sold)
96 ATX Zetec (i brake to watch you swerve)
FS: SVT rear sway bar
WTB: Very cheap beater
CEG Dragon Run - October 13-15
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,196
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,196 |
a dude in a mazdaspeed protege ran a 14.00 @103 with less than a grand in mods  I'm sure it was less than 200 fwhp, he hooked up with a 2.0 60 ft.
2004 Evolution VIII cams-exhaust-tune
315whp 12.7@109
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Originally posted by BStoneMega:
a dude in a mazdaspeed protege ran a 14.00 @103 with less than a grand in mods I'm sure it was less than 200 fwhp, he hooked up with a 2.0 60 ft.
103mph, less the 200FWHP...
...I don't think so...
Not even if the car weighed under 2500lbs. (which it does not)
Not only that, but a 2.0 60' & a 103 trap with only a 14.0 is a sign of a VERY peaky engine or maybe just Very bad shifting {or gearing.}
If you hit 2.0 in a Contour and trapped at 103 you would be deep into the 13's no question at all.
There are some normally aspirated folks that would be Very low 14's with just a 2.0 60' time. (I.E. running mid 14's with a 2.3-2.4)
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 487
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 487 |
13.8 run had a 2.30 60' time....If only I could pull a 2.0 60'! Could you imagine the ET our cars could put down if we had some more damn chassis flex! Damn Euro engineering and these stiff chassis made for handling purposes!! 
2002 ZO6...462whp/410wtq
pretty darn fast!11.70 @ 122
silver/black
2006 Trailblazer SS(wifes car)
silver/black
2000 SVT-Turbo-sold
silver/blue #1699/2150
13.83 @ 102.82 on 5psi
13.51 @ 107.56 on 8psi
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 972
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 972 |
Originally posted by BStoneMega:
http://www.msprotege.com/vbb230/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43480
opps..sorry 97. 6 secs isn't that much of a difference 
dang short term memory gets worse by the day.
There's a guy on the second page that ran a 14.1 at 103mph w/$700 in mods. That might be what you are thinking about.
95 SE Modded - Gone
98 E0 Black SVT - Gone
98 se sport - Broken
00 T-Red SVT - Nice
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,191
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,191 |
Originally posted by wavrdr:
13.8 run had a 2.30 60' time....If only I could pull a 2.0 60'!
Could you imagine the ET our cars could put down if we had some more damn chassis flex! Damn Euro engineering and these stiff chassis made for handling purposes!!
Maybe I've been mislead on this one, but why do you want chassis flex? Isn't that parasitic loss of power to the pavement?? Hence subframe connectors? Am I wrong in thinking that weight transfer is bad on FWD launches????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
I don't know about the chassis flex thing, but I've read that some weight transfer is desirable.
The FWD car is soooo weight biased to the front that transfer of weight to the rear will not necessarily hurt it and it can supposedly help with the launches.
Figure a rear wheel drive car is more like 50-55% front but on takeoff probably 60% or a little more in the rear and will increase traction. IIRC it has to do with the type of setup on the FWD car, i.e. macpherson struts and the like.
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,191
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,191 |
Originally posted by warmonger:
I don't know about the chassis flex thing, but I've read that some weight transfer is desirable.
The FWD car is soooo weight biased to the front that transfer of weight to the rear will not necessarily hurt it and it can supposedly help with the launches.
Figure a rear wheel drive car is more like 50-55% front but on takeoff probably 60% or a little more in the rear and will increase traction. IIRC it has to do with the type of setup on the FWD car, i.e. macpherson struts and the like.
that makes sense, but my main reason for thinking that you don't want weight transfer is that it takes weight off the front wheels which would seem to give less traction (I suppose the setup would always change things a little, but not the concept).... I might be missing part of the equation though. It would be the opposite in a rwd car where you'd want to have weight transfer to get the rear wheels smashed to the ground.
Flexing just seems to time consuming when .01's of a second matter.
|
|
|
|
|
