ok this is no doubt going to ruffle some feathers but i finally got my LT4 powered '85 GT to the track I made 3 runs and this slip is my final run as i got booted from the track for not having a cage I'm car #61 in the left lane. The 2 previous runs were a 11.67 and an 11.24. The improvements came because this was my first time ever at a track and I'm still getting used to my car. I also beleive there is much more room for improvement as I get better with the car and get all the bugs worked out. for the record NO power adder was used these runs were naturally aspirated and no nitrous. and for those who doubt the slip you can ask the people who have ridden in it as to how fast it is, also to quote FieroX "F*** the naysayers cause they dont mean S***" right. I actually hesitated about a week as to wether i should even post this but i figure there are enough Cool people on this forum that would love to see it, That i'll endure the flames. anways ask questions and I'll answer. Also I've already started on my rollcage cause I HAVE to get back to the track!!!!!!!!
10's! Congrats! Impressive indeed. Watch out, your gonna get those pesky "My car is set up for blah blah blah or blah blah blah" rants. Your the fastest fiero I know of by about a second.
Nice times. About how much horsepower and torque are you putting out with that? And what transmission are you using? I haven't decided yet on what kind of engine I want to run yet. I just know that I want it to be a revver that puts out at least 350h.p.
the LT4 is putting out 508hp and 540tq and built to rev to 9 grand although the rev limiter is currently set to 8,000. Its connected to a race built muncie 4 speed. I have a dyno sheet from when I built the engine last year but i cant seem to find it right now, When I do I'll post it to.
lemme go search for a minute and I'll post links to my other threads where it shows all the other mods on the car and a list of future mods.
You just gave a lot of people incentive to use V8's.Be aware though the NHRA requires a parachute for any vehicle that runs over 135 MPH.You better check the rule book for more requirements.Great job!
I smell photo shop on that slip If you add up his reaction time and ET, you get 11.748 seconds. It shows his margin of victory at .7851 seconds. Now add that to his time and and substract your reaction time to get your losing time of 11.678. Exactly one second slower than what you show. Still very fast, but very fishy at 10.678. And how did you lose with an ET that was 0.616 seconds faster when your reaction was only .401 slower. I'm calling BS!
Those times kick ***. I was wondering when someone would post a "Who has the fastest V8" thread. 10.6 sec is very impressive. Once I get the final touches on my car I'll let you know what she runs. I think posting your time was a great idea.
For years I have listened to people tell me how fast their V8 is only to be followed by "Well, I don't go to the strip....." Seat-of-the-pants feel is great, but numbers tell all. Oh yea, and please don't quote me computer "fantasy" times. Take it to the track.
Give me 6 weeks. I'll post a time
------------------ Paul Hosler - Silver '87 GT Daily diver. - Modified IMSA Tube chassis racecar (in progress)
There is no way a V8 could keep up with a V6. I suppose I should have put a V6 in mine. I know I am going to sound like a hypocrite: (computer time thing I just posted, but...) dynoed 645 hp NA, 2300 lb wet. do the math.
Can't wait to get to the track!
------------------ Paul Hosler - Silver '87 GT Daily diver. - Modified IMSA Tube chassis racecar (in progress)
Ok, I looked at the image of the time slip, and specifically I compared all of the 0's on the image. I noticed something interesting when I did that. The zero in his time is the first zero from the "1000" in the left column. No other zeros on the page resemble each other besides those two, and those two are exactly identical. So, based on that and also not really being concerned in any other way about the debate on who's engine is faster, I'd say that this image has been altered.
JazzMan
As a side note, I just realized the 1 is the same also. It appears that he just copied the 10 from the "1000" over on top of whatever the real time was.
JazzMan
[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 08-30-2003).]
Another note: The 36 from his 136 speed is copied from the 4.636 of the other guy's 330 number. LOL! Man, he went to a lot of trouble to fake a time slip, and it wouldn't have taken hardly any more effort to change some pixels around to make the numbers he copied look unique.
JazzMan
[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 08-30-2003).]
Originally posted by GT-X: to quote FieroX "F*** the naysayers cause they dont mean S***"
Tyler edit: spelling
That sure is a perfectly white background for a paper copy. Maybe he just ironed out the wrinkles in photoshop? "Ironed" too many numbers, and forgot what he had?
I'm not going to be so bold as to call his slip a fake, but only to comment that this is the problem when you don't know who to trust!!! Time slips can be faked (and not caught), also video can be faked, and not caught. Computers have opened this door to devious people who want people to believe they are the fastest gun in the west.
It's turning out that the only way you can believe anything anymore, is to be there in person to see the event take place.
Originally posted by California Kid: It's turning out that the only way you can believe anything anymore, is to be there in person to see the event take place.
I'm not saying that I would have to see it to believe it, but you at least have to show the edges of the time slip. A cropped timeslip, clean background to make editing easier, and questionable characters is more than enough to prove "questionable doubt".
If he wants to prove that it's not a fraud, he's going to have to take another scan of the slip and let us put our magnifying glasses up to it.
PS - I'd like to credit you for a serious accomplishment, but I am skeptical because the truth would be just that... A very impressive and serious accomplishment.
Greg
[This message has been edited by FieroGTguy (edited 08-30-2003).]
ok this is no doubt going to ruffle some feathers but i finally got my LT4 powered '85 GT to the track I made 3 runs and this slip is my final run as i got booted from the track for not having a cage I'm car #61 in the left lane. The 2 previous runs were a 11.67 and an 11.24. The improvements came because this was my first time ever at a track and I'm still getting used to my car. I also beleive there is much more room for improvement as I get better with the car and get all the bugs worked out. for the record NO power adder was used these runs were naturally aspirated and no nitrous. and for those who doubt the slip you can ask the people who have ridden in it as to how fast it is, also to quote FieroX "F*** the naysayers cause they dont mean S***" right. I actually hesitated about a week as to wether i should even post this but i figure there are enough Cool people on this forum that would love to see it, That i'll endure the flames. anways ask questions and I'll answer. Also I've already started on my rollcage cause I HAVE to get back to the track!!!!!!!!
Tyler
edit: spelling
i would hope your time slip is real, but it has too many problems with the times. you need something better than a 1.60 @the 60 and something better than 7.4 in the 1/8th to run in the 10s. i see it as a 11.6? something by my figures. whic is still good numbers. its real hard with a 4 speed and street tires to run those numbers, i am not saying it cant be done, its just "real" hard!!! do you have the orginal time slip ?just scan it as is.
I really have no reason to fake a timeslip cause I really dont car if my car is the fastest i built it for the sole purpose of it putting a smile on my face everytime i hit the gas, and thats exactly why I shouldnt have posted but for one stupid instant i thought there might be some people who would like to know. And, No. you will see no other proof. as i've no need to post more proof than that slip. if you dont belive that, fine. but stay out of my thread so it doesnt end up goin down in flames.
Hey Tyler, realize you don't care to take the proof any further, but a digital cam shot of the time slip un-cropped is sometimes the best proof. They can be faked, but it's extremely difficult and consumes a lot of time.
Here's a slip that I happen to have:
There will always be people that doubt what you say, nothing can change that.
Personally, I don't care about the times. Having the fastest Fiero for me just doesn't matter. Regardless, I think you have a sweet car with a sweet engine. You are doing what you want to your car and all that matters is how big your grin is when you drive it. Nice job on the car!
being an advancing photoshopper... i would like to see the actual slip scanned... not a cropped out copy... i realize it probably makes the numbers easier to be seen with a nice white background but i think you could shut up all these naysayers by posting a pic of the timeslip un-cropped...
also video if you have it...
by the way... great job on your car... got any new pics? I could put a nice sig together for ya
------------------
[This message has been edited by Nebiros88 (edited 09-02-2003).]
At the 1,000' mark his ET was 9.716 sec. His ET at the 1/4 was 10.678 sec. That means he traveled 320' in .962 seconds. There are 3,742.2 .962 seconds in an hour and he ran 320' in each of them for a total of 1,197,505' or (divide by 5,280') 226.8 mph average in the last 320'.
Compare that to the numbers of his competitor. He ran a 9.405 at the 1,000' and a 11.294 at the 1/4 for a difference of 1.889 seconds. There are 1,905.77 of those in an hour times 320' for 609,846 divided by 5,280' equals 115.50 mph.
Something is definitely not right with this unless you want us to believe that you were running over 225 mph average speed the last 320' of the run.
You can fake the slip but you can't fake the math unless you do it a lot better than you did here. The reason I noticed this is because an old rule of thumb is that if you travel 300' in 1 second that's 200 mph (actually 205 or so, but it IS a rule of thumb not an exact law). When I saw that his last 320' was in LESS than 1 second and that would be an average speed of the last 320', I smelled something very wrong.
You know, when you first posted I was glad to see that somebody with a V8 finally posted some slips. If this is what you need to do to gain some attention, you really need to get a new perspective on life.
The slip may or may not be real. Maybe the clocks malfunctioned. I don't really care. I just know that you didn't run that last 320' in about .9 seconds.
John Stricker
[This message has been edited by jstricker (edited 08-30-2003).]
Also, asside from the fact that the numbers have been so obviously copied and pasted around on that scanned image, look at the speeds and times on the slip.
At 330' the other guy was already 1/10th of a second ahead of X, by the 1/8th mile mark that lead had expanded to 0.22 seconds and the other guy was doing 3.98 mph faster than X. At the 1000 foot mark the other guy was now ahead by 0.311 seconds, almost a full third of a second faster and only 320 feet from the end of the 1/4 mile. Somehow X claims to have picked up 0.927 seconds in the last 320' of the track, turning a 1/3 second deficit into a 2/3 second lead. I don't know about you, but gaining a full second on someone in 320' of track is pretty darn impressive.
And, lets look at the speed gains from the 1/8 mile to the 1/4 mile points: X managed to gain 44.75 MPH in the 660 feet between those two points. It's been too long since I took physics, but I bet someone out there with the smarts can calculate how much horsepower would be neccessary to do this feat.
Again, this is so obviously photoshopped one has to wonder what the intent was to offer it here in the first place.
I used these sites, found to be accurate with Her86GT's numbers. Not so with the above numbers. They work with the rhs column numbers but not the lhs column numbers. Just an observation.
I'm not doubting that this slip was an accurate report of his time, I'm flat out saying it could not have been one.
Let's just do the same thing on the slip you posted that I did on the original slip. At the 1,000' mark you ran a 7.237. 1/4 ET was 8.705. Difference of 1.468 seconds. That figures out to 148.6 mph the last 320' for the left car.
Right car figures out to 160.8 mph. Both of those are in line with what the trap speed showed as being. I notice you didn't say that YOUR car was running in the high 7's low 8's though. You just said is was a "slip that I happen to have".
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by California Kid:
Hey Tyler, realize you don't care to take the proof any further, but a digital cam shot of the time slip un-cropped is sometimes the best proof. They can be faked, but it's extremely difficult and consumes a lot of time.
There will always be people that doubt what you say, nothing can change that.
I was hoping to see some great times, because usually people don't show what their car can do. I looked at the slip, and thought it was fake at first, just by the appearance. I figured I'd wait to see what everyone else thought. Some of you guys are pretty good at spotting bs like this. It's kinda sad that this guy had to fake a timeslip, and then deny it when the proof is there. I don't know much about drag racing, but I thought the end time didn't quite match up to the rest of the numbers.
[This message has been edited by sqoach (edited 08-30-2003).]
I think the problem was traction. If his horsepower figures are correct, and he had a strong enough tranny, I think he just couldn't get the power down. Every picture so far has the stock 14" wheels, and that look like standard size tires. If we assume that he had the widest you can fit on the back of an unmodified 84-87, (245, I am told), he would spin them like mad. I doubt he could put anywhere near that much down, even if they were full-on race slicks. Wait a minute...is a 4-speed even geared high enough to hit 135?
------------------ 87 GT Auto, Beretta GTZ Wheels, 225/50-16 Dunlop SP Sport A2s, Poly cradle/swaybar bushings, KYB shocks/struts, RCC Bumpsteer kit, 1" front & 7/8" rear swaybars, NYM rear springs (stiffest), H4 headlights, Fierowarehouse Scorpion scoop, 88GTNeverfinished tails, Repainted all silver, Fiero Store hitch, Accel SSR wires, Rapidfire plugs, K&N filters. Future mods: Rear control arm poly bushings, Front mounted battery, Hood pressure vent. 3800 S/C after all that!
Ok first off, its f#%k the naysaysers cause they dont mean a thing. And second off, nice photoshop work. NOT!!! hahahhaha. This is hilarious. I have so much experience with track times that I can spot a fake from a mile off. I went 11.633 @ 115.927 mph. My 60' was 1.579 and my 1/8 mile was 7.477. So lets do something. Imagine my run with your "run", side by side. Imagine identical reaction times so there is no advantage off the line. So heres the hypothetical race. We would leave at the same time, but by the 60' I would be ahead of you by a foot or so. I would beat you there by .03, but slowly by the 1/8 mile you would be ahead of me by .07 or about 6 feet (at 90 mph). Then all of a sudden, with only 3-4 seconds left of the 1/4, you shoot ahead like a jet with the afterburners turned on, and pull ahead to beat me by just over 10 car legnths or 1.1 seconds!! you would pull ahead and be mph'ing me by over 20 mph on the back stretch, bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs. I love john strickers math. GT-X I believe you went 11.6, that adds up perfectly. Id even venture a guess in the 116-117 mph range. Thats a good pass man. but 10.6. hahahaahahahahaahahahaha. Peace out.
Originally posted by jstricker:The slip may or may not be real. Maybe the clocks malfunctioned. I don't really care. I just know that you didn't run that last 320' in about .9 seconds.
It's easy to argue about photochops and bad traction, etc., but lets do the math and let the numbers speak for themselves. Math is not open to interpretation (at least not on the level of Algebra required to do this equation). To travel from the 1000' mark to the 1320' mark in the times recorded on the slip, that means you traveled:
So, the only way the slip can be real (assuming all timing equipment is accurate) is if he averaged 226.8 mph over the last 320ft, which would mean he'd have to go much faster than 226.8mph, then slow back down to an average of 136.66mph through the traps.
As they say, "Do the math and draw your own conclusions."
I'd still love to ride in an LT4 Fiero, though. Sounds like an awesome car!
------------------ You know you're an engineer when you have no life and can prove it mathematically.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 08-30-2003).]
Originally posted by jstricker: I notice you didn't say that YOUR car was running in the high 7's low 8's though. You just said is was a "slip that I happen to have". John Stricker
Slip was from my Cousins Pontiac Dragster, we ran at Norwalk: Just to bring some perspective to what most 10 second cars are comprised of, my Cousins other car runs 9.80 and it's 900hp (about the same weight as a Fiero): It takes a hell of a car to get into the 10's and stay running 10's.
Turn around, place your hands on the car, spread your feet...
pat, pat, pat, click, click...
you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you...
Man you guys are good!!! I am a drag racing diehard and was so excited that someone had finally hit the 10's I dind't even take a good look at the #'s - I just took his word for it.
PFF Top Cops on the job again, protecting the forum against all manner of
I really have no reason to fake a timeslip cause I really dont car if my car is the fastest i built it for the sole purpose of it putting a smile on my face everytime i hit the gas, and thats exactly why I shouldnt have posted but for one stupid instant i thought there might be some people who would like to know. And, No. you will see no other proof. as i've no need to post more proof than that slip. if you dont belive that, fine. but stay out of my thread so it doesnt end up goin down in flames.
Tyler
This reminds me soooo much of the Iraqi minister who was saying that the Americans weren't in Bagdad, while in the background you could hear the American's gunfire and such.
Guffaw!!!
I haven't had a laugh this good since the Cheese Whiz on crackers thread...
At this point you've dug your hole so deep that it doesn't matter what you do to get out of it, it will take a long time for you to live this one down.
Your the fastest fiero I know of by about a second. 
You Don't Know the Power of the Darkside
If you add up his reaction time and ET, you get 11.748 seconds. It shows his margin of victory at .7851 seconds. Now add that to his time and and substract your reaction time to get your losing time of 11.678. Exactly one second slower than what you show. Still very fast, but very fishy at 10.678. And how did you lose with an ET that was 0.616 seconds faster when your reaction was only .401 slower. I'm calling BS! 
is exactly why I wasnt gonna make this post. I suppose I could put up a video of that run and you'd still call me a liar huh.
3800 S/C after all that!
