Modded Mustang Forums banner

1 - 20 of 59 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
691 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
beat a Dodge Daytona Charger R/T, an 05 SRT-4, a 300c Srt-8 on 22's (he beat me once as well), and a 8th gen Civic Si

so yeah i ran a 15.030 @ 93.40 with a r/t of .625 and a 2.509 60.

ft


using an the altitude correction factors for clint that should be good for about a 14.24 at sea level.

not bad for a stock GT on a brand new track that has no traction!


anyway, lots of fun, probably won't be back until i can at least get in a CAI or maybe some 3.73 gears so i can finally see those 14's
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,259 Posts
No excuse for a 2.5 60':eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,368 Posts
:withhomo lol.... also.. you beat those cars? so that would mean they would have to be runnin like 14.5 at sea level or whatever... from around here those cars run low to high thirteens. lol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
691 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 · (Edited)
No excuse for a 2.5 60':eek:
there is absolutely NO traction, the track is only like a week old with no vht and little rubber ...even 12 sec awd cars are only pulling 2.0-2.2 60 ft times

my buddies auto ls2 gto's best 60ft was a 2.3


i invite anyone to come down to el paso and do better, a lot of people from out of town criticize but as they run here they learn very quickly
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,372 Posts
:withhomo lol.... also.. you beat those cars? so that would mean they would have to be runnin like 14.5 at sea level or whatever... from around here those cars run low to high thirteens. lol.
yeah he shouldnt have beaten that srt8 300. ive went up against one twice and theyre much faster than a stock new edge. the 300 must have been spinning really bad off the line.

but good kill though
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
691 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
yeah he shouldnt have beaten that srt8 300. ive went up against one twice and theyre much faster than a stock new edge. the 300 must have been spinning really bad off the line.
he was a terrible driver...he pulled a 15.2 against me when i beat him...

then a 14.6 when he beat me

i wish i could have gotten some vids so you guys wouldn't call bs on me
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
691 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
the funny thing is that i have actually seen a car run slower here on DR's than on street tires at a raceway in Albuquerque which is 5000 ft above sea level...we're running at 4200 ft

figure it out
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,259 Posts
I could pull 2.5's on ice:cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
691 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
keep in mind that elevation will affect 60 ft times as well...they say that for every tenth on your 60, tht's good for 2 on your et...

so let's say i cut a 2.3 which still isn't very good, that puts me at a 14.65 fair, now using that time on the correction factors, that puts me at about a 13.85

so what makes more sense?

a 13.85 at sea level with a stock new edge, with a driver capable of only 2.3 60fts or a high 60 ft due to elevation, with an average 14.2 on your typical stock new edge

like i said figure it out
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,259 Posts
i dont know what to say then other than to come down here and show me.:D
Just messin' with you:D Some practice slipping the clutch will get you where you need to be on the 60's. On stock Goodyears and unprepped track I launched at ~2200 with a good slip to get 2.0 60's after a while.:cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
691 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Just messin' with you:D Some practice slipping the clutch will get you where you need to be on the 60's. On stock Goodyears and unprepped track I launched at ~2200 with a good slip to get 2.0 60's after a while.:cool:
check ou tmy last post
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,259 Posts
keep in mind that elevation will affect 60 ft times as well...they say that for every tenth on your 60, tht's good for 2 on your et...

so let's say i cut a 2.3 which still isn't very good, that puts me at a 14.65 fair, now using that time on the correction factors, that puts me at about a 13.85

so what makes more sense?

a 13.85 at sea level with a stock new edge, with a driver capable of only 2.3 60fts or a high 60 ft due to elevation, with an average 14.2 on your typical stock new edge

like i said figure it out
Ricer Math won't cut it. You either run the number or you don't:confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
691 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Ricer Math won't cut it. You either run the number or you don't:confused:
lol


i hope your kidding

anyway, my little theory up there seems to be pretty valid...what do you think zip, you always seem to be the neutral party lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,259 Posts
lol @ NHRA correction factors being 'ricer' :lol
Correction factors are to be used for seeing improvement in your car. They can not be used to compare to uncorrected times. Only actual recorded times count for anything. Now that's funny ain't it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
691 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Correction factors are to be used for seeing improvement in your car. They can not be used to compare to uncorrected times. Only actual recorded times count for anything. Now that's funny ain't it?

they seem fairly accurate to me...i;ve known two people who have run full seconds faster at sea level than here

i doubt i'll be able to get them to give me their timeslips, but you can take my word for it
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
83,767 Posts
Correction factors are to be used for seeing improvement in your car. They can not be used to compare to uncorrected times. Only actual recorded times count for anything. Now that's funny ain't it?
Correction factors are used to account for elevation which affects performance do to differential in air density and how that affects an engine's performance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,259 Posts
they seem fairly accurate to me...i;ve known two people who have run full seconds faster at sea level than here

i doubt i'll be able to get them to give me their timeslips, but you can take my word for it
Then go to sea level and run a 13.85.
 
1 - 20 of 59 Posts
Top