dbtk2 Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 Damn Aaron work on those 60's they suck! Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biff85ta Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 I only questioned the times because for your crappy 60' time the mile and hour does nut usually add up to a 14.78 timeslip. I have spent a lot of time at the dragstrip and with your 60' times and mile an hour it would net the majority of vehicle a very high 14 or low 15. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastSE2DR Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 I only questioned the times because for your crappy 60' time the mile and hour does nut usually add up to a 14.78 timeslip. I have spent a lot of time at the dragstrip and with your 60' times and mile an hour it would net the majority of vehicle a very high 14 or low 15. every vehicle is different...there is no way that can be consistent between cars...every .1sec off your 60ft is .2 off your 1320 time for each INDIVIDUAL car...if X car with 600hp has a 60ft time of 2.3 that doesnt mean that car is goin to be running high 14s low 15s does it? nope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 Well those are the times, and my runs at PMI in CO were very similiar, with slightly higher 60's, and a slightly higher trap time, but with a speed within .5mph. It is weird tho, that adding headers, .030 bore, and .5 compression made the car almost as fast as it was wihout all those at near sea level. Really hsows just how much altitude hurts. Also, altitude is going to affect every vehicle differently. When I ran the Nissan 350Z 6M at the track, we would both be corrected the same amounts when going to sea level (3.5L DOHC V6 vs a 3.4L DOHC V6). But a LT1 Camaro isn't going to drop as much as we will going to sea level. It will be close, but overall the LT1's correction factors shouldn't be quite what ours are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biff85ta Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 I only questioned the times because for your crappy 60' time the mile and hour does nut usually add up to a 14.78 timeslip. I have spent a lot of time at the dragstrip and with your 60' times and mile an hour it would net the majority of vehicle a very high 14 or low 15. every vehicle is different...there is no way that can be consistent between cars...every .1sec off your 60ft is .2 off your 1320 time for each INDIVIDUAL car...if X car with 600hp has a 60ft time of 2.3 that doesnt mean that car is goin to be running high 14s low 15s does it? nope I did not say his 60' time made it high 14 low 15. I said his 60' time AND mile per hour made it normally a high 14 low 15. Weird things do occur at the strip though. My last trip I went .07 faster with a slower 60' and a slower MPH. :?: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joey b Posted March 11, 2005 Report Share Posted March 11, 2005 What I've seen of times on the net, the L36 usually runs in the 15.8-9 range. I ran with a chip, WAI, pulley and 96 engine a 15.85. My exhaust is somewhat restrictive and I believe I trapped at 87.5 MPH, which would put me not having the HP that many LQ1's have and maybe a little bit more TQ. From what I've collected in your numbers I would say you would probably run a 15.6-7 My car also weighed in at 3450 on that run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chadz34 Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 i got 15.8 and my car is 3450. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.