I was just reading through some archived threads and found a timeslip from Her86GT's turbo 4.9. The time differs from the one listed at the beginning of this thread (not sure where it's from), but at least this time can be marked "verified": 12.51 @ 107.87 time slip originally posted here
Other runs last night: 2)12.695@105.81 (What does a thousandths of a second say about consistancy?) 3)12.735@106.93 (Oh, so close to 107!) 4)12.813@105.97
Overall, I had fun beating a VERY nice LS1 corvette by .1-.2 tenth's of a second.
PS- I'll post scan's by this weekend.
I need to update my sig.
------------------
[This message has been edited by FieroGTguy (edited 10-15-2008).]
I am debating darkhorizons 12.26. For a couple of reasons. First off the "pic" of his timeslip on page 2 is actually an image icon from the forum. 2nd, his numbers dont add up. Look at the 1/4 mile list, most of the guys running 12.20's are running 110+ mph. Also when I was running these times I was doing so with 1.66 or so 60's. He ran a 1.85 on that pass. This puts him .2 behind me automatically. To make up .2 he would have to be trapping 112 or so on that pass. I call bs. I saw the video, and timed it 5 times with a stopwatch. Each time was between 12.65 and 12.90.
I want to see a copy of the actual timeslip so I can break the numbers down. Dark, did you back up the pass or was that your only pass of the day? Is that the only pass you have ever made? If no what are the times of some of your other runs?
I am debating darkhorizons 12.26. For a couple of reasons. First off the "pic" of his timeslip on page 2 is actually an image icon from the forum. 2nd, his numbers dont add up. Look at the 1/4 mile list, most of the guys running 12.20's are running 110+ mph. Also when I was running these times I was doing so with 1.66 or so 60's. He ran a 1.85 on that pass. This puts him .2 behind me automatically. To make up .2 he would have to be trapping 112 or so on that pass. I call bs. I saw the video, and timed it 5 times with a stopwatch. Each time was between 12.65 and 12.90.
I want to see a copy of the actual timeslip so I can break the numbers down. Dark, did you back up the pass or was that your only pass of the day? Is that the only pass you have ever made? If no what are the times of some of your other runs?
Have a great night! :P
There where several people at the track when he ran that 12.2 so it is legit. It was during the 25th track day so several other members where there to see it. I myself showed up after wards so I can't say that I saw it but several others did.
I have wondered how he ran a 12.2 with little mods but I figured he was spraying more than what was said. Either way he ran the 12.2 one time so it is legit.
I saw the video, the point im making isnt the fact that he was there and everyone saw it, I am debating the accuracy of the tracks timer. Ive been to the track enough in my life to see some crazy stuff happen with the timing systems. I have seen 14 second cars show 185 mph on the scoreboards. I have seen 15 second cars show 9 second times with 6 second reaction times, because the timer delayed in starting for some reason. Stuff like that happens. I want to see the actual timeslip.
Look at the video for yourself and use a stopwatch. Youll see what im talking about.
I am debating darkhorizons 12.26. For a couple of reasons. First off the "pic" of his timeslip on page 2 is actually an image icon from the forum. 2nd, his numbers dont add up. Look at the 1/4 mile list, most of the guys running 12.20's are running 110+ mph. Also when I was running these times I was doing so with 1.66 or so 60's. He ran a 1.85 on that pass. This puts him .2 behind me automatically. To make up .2 he would have to be trapping 112 or so on that pass. I call bs. I saw the video, and timed it 5 times with a stopwatch. Each time was between 12.65 and 12.90.
I want to see a copy of the actual timeslip so I can break the numbers down. Dark, did you back up the pass or was that your only pass of the day? Is that the only pass you have ever made? If no what are the times of some of your other runs?
Have a great night! :P
I took the video. There is certainly no camera trickery there....the only way that time would not be accurate is if the timing at Milan Dragway was innacurate. It was his second pass of the night. First pass he pulled high 12s after shutting it down just past the launch when the other car blew the engine (I have that video too, but have to wait till I get home to get it). I can't comment on whether he is BSing about the amount of juice.....I never verified that.
I just wanted to make sure I understand what you are saying here. A member posts a photo of a timeslip that shows all his numbers, plus a video that matches that timeslip perfectly, and you are still questioning it?
Edit....I appologize for my harshness there. I now see what you mean by "is actually an image icon from the forum". He originally posted the actual timeslip here: //www.fiero.nl/forum/F...1/HTML/069402-3.html
[This message has been edited by CowsPatoot (edited 12-03-2008).]
I took the video. There is certainly no camera trickery there....the only way that time would not be accurate is if the timing at Milan Dragway was innacurate. It was his second pass of the night. First pass he pulled high 12s after shutting it down just past the launch when the other car blew the engine (I have that video too, but have to wait till I get home to get it). I can't comment on whether he is BSing about the amount of juice.....I never verified that.
I just wanted to make sure I understand what you are saying here. A member posts a photo of a timeslip that shows all his numbers, plus a video that matches that timeslip perfectly, and you are still questioning it?
Edit....I appologize for my harshness there. I now see what you mean by "is actually an image icon from the forum". He originally posted the actual timeslip here: //www.fiero.nl/forum/F...1/HTML/069402-3.html
He is not saying that the time didn't read on the board, he is saying that something in the timing system didn't work correctly. Here is a great example you said that his first pass was a high 12. That is probably about right for the mph he was pulling. If you could please post that run, and if possible the 1/4 et, and mph, but most importantly his 60 ft. This will deffently anwser if FieroX assumptions are correct. I will tell you this I deffently think he is right go look at cars that go 12.2 and compare there time slips to DH. He is way slow i mph, so the oly way to make that up is to come out of the hole like a bullet like a 1.51 60 ft, and hate to say it his wasn't close.
quote
Has anyone factored in altitude? Altitude does have an effect on ¼ times, so I am interested in knowing the altitude of the tracks where the times were taken. Here a couple of calculators I found check them out and give your opinions about them. Feel free to add any interesting info you have about ¼ mile time and altitude. I am in Denver and Bandimere is west of Denver at around 5,860 feet above sea level so for example if you ran 12.5 at sea level you may run a 13.5 at Bandimere
Altitude has nothing to do with this heres why. Obviously the lower the altitude the denser the air, thus more horse power ad torque. Though it effects et and mph linear, so at sea level with dry air he might run 12.0@115 and at altitude with moist air 13.5@102. The problem is mathematicly his car with not run a 12.2@108 with a 1.85 60 ft. His car probably ran like a 12.7@108. The mph and the et just dont add up. If you wanna test it tell him to to ru his car back to back. I bet it would't run a 12.2 ever.
quote
Originally posted by HC:
That would only be correct for naturally aspirated motors. Everybody at the top has a snail or a blower.
This statement is incorrect, altitude still effects boosted cars trust me I know my vr4 here in wichita will run 12.40's multiple times, I went to colorado and at same setup even with 2 more lbs of boost could't get into the twelves. It just the lack of oxygen compared to normal altitude. Just remember all a power adder is a way to ram more oxygen into the engine, but if there oxyge isn't there it doesn't matter how much air is push into the motor it will make absolutely no difference.
Anyways I would like to see a video of DH car running anywhere near what the one pass was, because I bet that video does't exist. I would bet that his car is a 12.70 at best.
[This message has been edited by riceviper (edited 12-04-2008).]
Altitude has nothing to do with this heres why. Obviously the lower the altitude the denser the air, thus more horse power ad torque. Though it effects et and mph linear, so at sea level with dry air he might run 12.0@115 and at altitude with moist air 13.5@102. The problem is mathematicly his car with not run a 12.2@108 with a 1.85 60 ft. His car probably ran like a 12.7@108. The mph and the et just dont add up. If you wanna test it tell him to to ru his car back to back. I bet it would't run a 12.2 ever.
I was just asking about altitude in general, I am not involved in the debate about whose time is correct or verified. I was not referring to anyone in particular; I was just posting what I found to interesting information about ¼ mile times at altitude.
For example if I ran a ¼ mile at Bandimere my time would not be as good as it would be in say Florida. I just thought it was something to think about because if everyone on the list was running the ¼ mile at a 1,000 feet in altitude or less the difference would be negligible, but anyone running ¼ mile time at higher altitude they could do the calculator and see what the improvement in their run time might be at sea level. Maybe I will run at Bandimere next summer and then drive to a lower elevation and see what the difference is.
I was just asking about altitude in general, I am not involved in the debate about whose time is correct or verified. I was not referring to anyone in particular; I was just posting what I found to interesting information about ¼ mile times at altitude.
For example if I ran a ¼ mile at Bandimere my time would not be as good as it would be in say Florida. I just thought it was something to think about because if everyone on the list was running the ¼ mile at a 1,000 feet in altitude or less the difference would be negligible, but anyone running ¼ mile time at higher altitude they could do the calculator and see what the improvement in their run time might be at sea level. Maybe I will run at Bandimere next summer and then drive to a lower elevation and see what the difference is.
Christine
You are absolutely right that that it will make you faster if you are at a lower altitude, have dry air, and have cool air temps. There are so many factors its crazy. Though you should you will be a able to tell a difference.
riceviper what is the elevation at the 1/4 mile tract in Wichita? I was in Kansas for Wheatstock, it is not that far from Denver about a days drive, if it is low enough it might be fun to run a Bandimere and then drive to Wichita and see how the times compare.
Wichita is at 1320 feet ironically. I looked over the timeslip, numbers sort of add up. I guarantee he is running more nitrous that he is saying. His 1/8 mile time calculates to 12.15, but his 60' doesnt. So his power from the 60' to the 1/8th is really good. From the 1/8th to the finish, the acceleration sucks. His mph shows it. If I had to guess, I would say he is running a 100 shot, but up high he either ran low on nitrous, or his car went lean and started slowing down. Like I said earlier when I ran 12.20's I was going 110+ mph, with 1.66 60's. Only way I see him running the same times with slower 60 foots and slower trap speeds, is by having wicked mid range power.
Now since ive seen the timeslip, I believe it a little more, but I think someone is stretching the truth on the actual mods. Ive been playing this game way to long to get duped.
FieroX, as fast as your car is I do not think anyone is going to take the top 1/4 time from you aany time soon if ever. If I come to Wichita I will race you but I know I will not even come close to your times, I only have a 350HO crate motor with a 4T60 Trans. no NOS or anything else it is just a out of the box motor the specs say 330HP and 380FT lbs so I think I will be in the 13s or if I am lucky 12s.
1,320 is alot lower than Bandimere so it would be interesting to see the differance.
FieroX, as fast as your car is I do not think anyone is going to take the top 1/4 time from you aany time soon if ever. If I come to Wichita I will race you but I know I will not even come close to your times, I only have a 350HO crate motor with a 4T60 Trans. no NOS or anything else it is just a out of the box motor the specs say 330HP and 380FT lbs so I think I will be in the 13s or if I am lucky 12s.
1,320 is alot lower than Bandimere so it would be interesting to see the differance.
Christine
Its not the fact that I see him as even a potential competitor to take down my time, its that he keeps throwing his 12.26 in my face saying how much better his car is because he only has so many mods, and did it so much cheaper than I did. I will admit, if he somehow ran 12.26 with the minimal mods he says he has thats an accomplishment. I spent quite a bit of money getting my car off the ground back in 2002, but 6 years ago it was hard to find information on the swap, and I did it without an instruction manual so to speak. Its like GM giving Ford sh1t because the model T was slow.
but I think someone is stretching the truth on the actual mods.
This is what I think myself being the MODs don't really match the time it ran. I think there was a little more spray involved then what was being said but who will ever know. Either way the car only ran it one time so it really isn't that impressive even if it did run that time.
Ok, I really dont want to post, but I will just state my info about my car in one post.
I have been to the track 2 times, first time out years ago I ran 12.89 @106, with another fellow fourm member there running his 3800SC car at 12.9@106 with a few more mods than me. I did that on pure 215 street tires, with 1.81 60's, 93 octane, and a decent tune with about 16.5 degrees of timing and high 10/11 flat afrs (guessing via narrowband information).
The next trip was at the 25th. I put a dry 50HP shot on before the maf, honestly 30 mins before I left for the track due to another car I was building taking most of my time up that week (I forget the jet size specifically, its in my glove box). My friend lent me some drag radials I loaded up in a friends car that was going with us, and I drove down on my same 215 street tires. At the track I had very little 93 in the tank, so I loaded up with a few gallons of 110, pulled and plugged the o2 sensor, and left the same tune I had on the last time I went to the track more than a year ago. I ran a 12.9@107.8, with a 2.34 60, not spraying until second gear, watching my laptop for most of the run as I have never sprayed before. i then made a small adjustment to my nozzle setup, loaded the drag radials on just because I could, and ran a 12.2 with that slugish 60'. After that run, everyone in my group was asking what was wrong, bla bla bla, they didnt have any clue what it would mean if I went out and ran my normal 60' (and I could have went much faster than that, i just didnt, you can see from the video)
The scans did not show sickening timing pulls at the top end, and I can only really attest to the trap speed issue is the fact that I am bone stock, and things just get lame at the end of the track horsepower wise. If I still had this setup, I would go back to the track and collect my high 11's launching it if I had a trailer on standby.
The whole "callout" that this fierox guy is doing, is based solely in jealousy that some "hack" that builds dirty, sh!tty swaps can run fast, while he is dumping thousands apon thousands of dollars into his car to run times I wouldnt even consider worth my time. I build street cars, not race cars.....
Yet another forum member that was there has a video from another angle, I will have him load it up sometime soon. I have my 12.9@107 slip on my desk, although its a bit faded now.
The whole "callout" that this fierox guy is doing, is based solely in jealousy that some "hack" that builds dirty, sh!tty swaps can run fast, while he is dumping thousands apon thousands of dollars into his car to run times I wouldnt even consider worth my time. I build street cars, not race cars.....
Honestly--I don't think anyone on this Forum is jealous of you or your swap. Everyone has seen the pictures and the attitude that goes along with it. To say" To run times I wouldn't even consinder worth my time" has to be a joke. You run one 12.2 in your lifetime and you think you are "The Man". Build some shiz that looks half azz decent that can run consitent numbers and be reliable and then get back with everyone. And from what I have seen of your swaps--You build junk that falls apart the first time out and has parts falling off it the next time out. So it should say" I build junk not street cars"
And from what I have seen of your swaps--You build junk that falls apart the first time out and has parts falling off it the next time out. So it should say" I build junk not street cars"
And you have seen all of my swaps eh? I dont remember any car that falls apart and has parts falling off of it? If your talking about a specific dogbone bracket, it has been SPECIFICALLY explained numerous times.
And you have seen all of my swaps eh? I dont remember any car that falls apart and has parts falling off of it? If your talking about a specific dogbone bracket, it has been SPECIFICALLY explained numerous times.
I have seen 2 of your swaps--Your personal swap and the hack job you did on BigFieroMans 88 GT. And I have seen your turbo setup you are working on with the PVC charge pipe. Not impressed with either swap to say the least and when parts start falling off, it makes for an even worse outcome. There is nothing to explain--You tried to weld the DB bracket and FAILED--If you knew it wasnt going to hold then why even leave it on there. I saw the welds before it fell off and knew it wasn't going to last 10 minutes.
If you are so proud of your swaps and have accomplished so much while doing them then post some pictures.
Originally posted by MstangsBware: I have seen 2 of your swaps--Your personal swap and the hack job you did on BigFieroMans 88 GT. And I have seen your turbo setup you are working on with the PVC charge pipe. Not impressed with either swap to say the least and when parts start falling off, it makes for an even worse outcome. There is nothing to explain--You tried to weld the DB bracket and FAILED--If you knew it wasnt going to hold then why even leave it on there. I saw the welds before it fell off and knew it wasn't going to last 10 minutes.
If you are so proud of your swaps and have accomplished so much while doing them then post some pictures.
Yeah, I forgot and can't seem to find them right now. You can put it down as an unverified time until I do. I'm not too worried about it now because I'm installing a built motor to be in the 11sec club.
If you guys want to add altitude to the list, I have no problem with that. Just keep in mind that air temperature, humidity, and weather can significantly affect performance. So even if we factor in altitude, that still won't provide a complete picture.
[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 04-05-2009).]
.
