|
Author
|
Topic: What times did you run on 5/4 or 5/3 ?
|
Stimson
_
Member # 51
|
posted
 
 
I know a bunch of you went to the track this weekend.... what did your timeslips look like?
Posts: 2373 | Registered: Jun 2000
| :
|
|
stangin'
¯
Member # 514
|
posted
i had the 97 rio red cobra there. best run of the night was 13.4 at 104mph with a 1.999 60ft time. it was my first time using DR so i'm learning.
Posts: 2993 | From: Bay Area | Registered: Oct 2001
| :
|
|
JoeT
¯
Member # 298
|
posted
5/5/02 my Tahoe ran 15.77 with a 7.3 0-60 in 2WD high ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
*cough*G-tech time*cough*
edit: btw stangin', with 104mph I ran 12.932/12.945/12.97x last summer. The 60's were all low/mid 1.7x's
I bet you can too (you have gears right? I had 3.73s)
[ May 05, 2002, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: shade-tree ]
Posts: 6785 | From: San Jose | Registered: Jun 2001
| :
|
|
FasterDamnit
Bad Attitude
Member # 442
|
posted
5/3 was great! small crowd, 7 runs.
1st run-
trying Brian's ET Drags again,
bad bog 2.214 60ft.
13.827 at 102.02mph
3rd run 1.895 60 ft.
13.469 at 101.294 after long cool down- probably too cool.
6th run
1.875 60 ft.
13.440 at 102.091
7th run- tried power shifting all gears
1.845 60 ft.
13.556 at 101.903mph- 1-2 shift kind of hung up but went in, 2-3 and 4-3 worked fine.
The paradigm for hitting that 102mph was a 10 to 15 minute icing of intake but engine at normal operating temp. Since I didn't have to sit in the lanes long (maybe 4 cars in front of me) the intake stayed cool. I tried two runs w/ the engine warmed up and the intake was certainly not cool as the car sat while the cleaned up the track. The runs where the engine temp was low netted only 101.2mph.
JL
[ May 05, 2002, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: FasterDamnit ]
Posts: 2971 | From: NorCal | Registered: Sep 2001
| :
|
|
FasterDamnit
Bad Attitude
Member # 442
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by shade-tree:
5/5/02 my Tahoe ran 15.77 with a 7.3 0-60 in 2WD high
My Trailblazer 2wd ran 15.62 at 86.8mph last week- so there! Not bad for a straight six and 4400lbs...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[patriot]](graemlins/patriot.gif)
JL
Posts: 2971 | From: NorCal | Registered: Sep 2001
| :
|
|
JoeT
¯
Member # 298
|
posted
Jim, I am totally quoting a G-tech here, I think a trailblazer would smoke me.
me: 4wd, 47xx lbs w/o me, 260 HP stock rating from the 350.
trailblazer: much lighter, more power--- go figure.
the 350 may have a torque advantage I guess. but not enough to matter I imagine.
btw, so that intake is worth what? 0.5 mph or so? 0.2 mph? where's my $1 from st5150? ![[worship]](graemlins/worship.gif)
Posts: 6785 | From: San Jose | Registered: Jun 2001
| :
|
|
FasterDamnit
Bad Attitude
Member # 442
|
posted
Yeah- the TB has 270hp/270TQ and the TQ is in by 2200rpm! We won't mention that I got the tow package w/ 4.10's.... (6200lbs towing)
As far as the money goes- I didn't make any bets. I know better! Guess you'll have to lean on Sawson...
![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
JL
Posts: 2971 | From: NorCal | Registered: Sep 2001
| :
|
|
JoeT
¯
Member # 298
|
posted
I just looked up the Tahoe stats, 260 HP/335 TQ, no idea what the torque curve is ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
tow rating 7,000 though. should be enough to pull a 2600 lb. stang I bet
Posts: 6785 | From: San Jose | Registered: Jun 2001
| :
|
|
stangin'
¯
Member # 514
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by shade-tree:
5/5/02 my Tahoe ran 15.77 with a 7.3 0-60 in 2WD high
*cough*G-tech time*cough*
edit: btw stangin', with 104mph I ran 12.932/12.945/12.97x last summer. The 60's were all low/mid 1.7x's
I bet you can too (you have gears right? I had 3.73s)
yeah i have 4.10s. after a good burnout, what rmp should i launch at? i was launching at around 2,200-2,300rpm.
Posts: 2993 | From: Bay Area | Registered: Oct 2001
| :
|
|
JoeT
¯
Member # 298
|
posted
oh geez, 2500 rpms won't get it done. I'd say try 3000, 3500, 4000, 4500. See how high you can go.
I 60'd around 1.7x with 3500 launches on ET streets with 3.73s in a normal fox T5.
the key is finding the line between 'hook', 'bog' and 'spin'
Posts: 6785 | From: San Jose | Registered: Jun 2001
| :
|
|
Stimson
_
Member # 51
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by shade-tree:
btw, so that intake is worth what? 0.5 mph or so? 0.2 mph? where's my $1 from st5150?
Funny how people try to change their bets after the hand has been dealt. Looking back at the orginal bet ( http://www.cafords.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=000236&p= ):
quote:
Originally posted by shade-tree:
1my guess is mphbefore ~= mphafter
and
quote:
Originally posted by st5150:
my guess is mphbefore ~= mphafter + 0.33
Whats up now? ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
-Sawson
Posts: 2373 | Registered: Jun 2000
| :
|
|
FasterDamnit
Bad Attitude
Member # 442
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by st5150:
I'll be impressed with consistant 102 mph with it, but I think the average 100.5 to 101.5 mph traps will still be there.
Well!?!
JL
--------------------
'92 LX T5
Looked stock, went 11's 11.90 at 115mph.
'65 Mustang 347
www.fordmuscle.com
Livin' in the Carolina Pines
Posts: 2971 | From: NorCal | Registered: Sep 2001
| :
|
|
JoeT
¯
Member # 298
|
posted
damn. so is it closer to 0 or 0.33?
Posts: 6785 | From: San Jose | Registered: Jun 2001
| :
|
|
FasterDamnit
Bad Attitude
Member # 442
|
posted
Before the intake I only hit 102 ONCE... 48*, 30.33inHg, -1500ft corrected. I believe you looked up the conditions for that run and posted the corrected altitude.
JL
--------------------
'92 LX T5
Looked stock, went 11's 11.90 at 115mph.
'65 Mustang 347
www.fordmuscle.com
Livin' in the Carolina Pines
Posts: 2971 | From: NorCal | Registered: Sep 2001
| :
|
|
JoeT
¯
Member # 298
|
posted
well it beats the hell out of me then. sounds like it's somewhere around 0-1 mph
therefore I win
(st5150 loses due to overprecision of digits )
new rule.
Posts: 6785 | From: San Jose | Registered: Jun 2001
| :
|
|
FasterDamnit
Bad Attitude
Member # 442
|
posted
Geeez-
I hit 102 three times last Fri. night in much warmer weather and hgier alt. That intake is worth a solid .5mph to 1mph. Give in already!!!!
--------------------
'92 LX T5
Looked stock, went 11's 11.90 at 115mph.
'65 Mustang 347
www.fordmuscle.com
Livin' in the Carolina Pines
Posts: 2971 | From: NorCal | Registered: Sep 2001
| :
|
|
JoeT
¯
Member # 298
|
posted
when the hell are your TFS heads going to be done anyways? not like I can talk... been down since October... yet I should be out at Sears wed. night.
Posts: 6785 | From: San Jose | Registered: Jun 2001
| :
|
|
Stimson
_
Member # 51
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by FasterDamnit:
quote:
Originally posted by st5150:
I'll be impressed with consistant 102 mph with it, but I think the average 100.5 to 101.5 mph traps will still be there.
Well!?!
JL
You know you're my hero
Honestly, I told you this last october, I'm not going to get the chance to race much so I'll just "live" through you since our cars are so evenly matched. No doubt you're a much better T5 driver than I am now
Posts: 2373 | Registered: Jun 2000
| :
|
|
Stimson
_
Member # 51
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by shade-tree:
well it beats the hell out of me then. sounds like it's somewhere around 0-1 mph
therefore I win
(st5150 loses due to overprecision of digits )
new rule.
Its all good ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ![[dance]](graemlins/dance.gif)
Posts: 2373 | Registered: Jun 2000
| :
|
|
FasterDamnit
Bad Attitude
Member # 442
|
posted
Thanks, Sawson.
I have got more work to do on powershifting. I am thinking of doing Fri. night again and see if I can combine a 1.84 60 ft w/ a clean powershifted run. Chirag might come out in his '88. The heads are ready to go. I just need to tear the car down and then bolt on a head and check pushrod length. I have a set of 6.550" but i think they will be too short. The heads have about .010" shaved off- cc'ed at 60. Should give about 9.44:1 compression. I SHOULD have T-box reinforcements and subframes on by Fri.
JL
--------------------
'92 LX T5
Looked stock, went 11's 11.90 at 115mph.
'65 Mustang 347
www.fordmuscle.com
Livin' in the Carolina Pines
Posts: 2971 | From: NorCal | Registered: Sep 2001
| :
|
|
Email this post to someone!
Printer friendly view of this Ford topic
