Modded GT2 w/ slow quarter mile times: Elevation/Air quality adjustment factor?
#1
03-08-2006 | 06:20 PM
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 145
From: California
Rep Power: 25
Modded GT2: slow quarter mile times?
I was talking with a friend who recently drag raced his modded GT2 and I was curious about his poor elapsed time and trap speed considering he states it makes well over a 600 hp.
His best run was 11.60 @ 126, with a 60' time of 2.18 seconds. He said his 60' was pathetic at best and could have shaved at least several tenths off his elapsed time with a good launch. However, his time is not any better than a stock C6 Z06 according to magazine reviews. But, he has told me he has strongly pulled away from C6 Z06s from a high speed roll on the freeway. In addition, he states he has pulled away from a Ford GT and slowly pulled on a Carrera GT as well. Is he full of BS?
He mentioned his poor performance was primarily attributable to poor conditions at the dragstrip and there was a moderate to strong head wind. He said you need to factor in elevation and air quality to compensate for the poor local conditions before comparing his numbers to the magazines.
He estimates if he were at sea level with oxygen dense air, no wind and a decent launch that 11 flat and traps of well over 130 are easily attainable. Is this accurate or just excuses?
Thanks.
His best run was 11.60 @ 126, with a 60' time of 2.18 seconds. He said his 60' was pathetic at best and could have shaved at least several tenths off his elapsed time with a good launch. However, his time is not any better than a stock C6 Z06 according to magazine reviews. But, he has told me he has strongly pulled away from C6 Z06s from a high speed roll on the freeway. In addition, he states he has pulled away from a Ford GT and slowly pulled on a Carrera GT as well. Is he full of BS?
He mentioned his poor performance was primarily attributable to poor conditions at the dragstrip and there was a moderate to strong head wind. He said you need to factor in elevation and air quality to compensate for the poor local conditions before comparing his numbers to the magazines.
He estimates if he were at sea level with oxygen dense air, no wind and a decent launch that 11 flat and traps of well over 130 are easily attainable. Is this accurate or just excuses?
Thanks.
Last edited by GeorgeJ; 03-08-2006 at 10:17 PM.
#2
03-08-2006 | 06:27 PM
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,134
From: Chicagoland
Rep Power: 122
Originally Posted by GeorgeJ
I was talking with a friend who recently drag raced his modded GT2 and I was curious about his poor elapsed time and trap speed considering he states his car makes well over a 600 hp. However, this was his first time on a dragstrip.
He only ran twice with a best run of 11.60 @ 126, with a 60' time of 2.18 seconds. He said his 60' time was pathetic at best and could have shaved at least several tenths off his elapsed time with a good launch. However, his time are not any better than a stock C6 Z06 according to the magazine reviews. But, he has told me he has strongly pulled away from C6 Z06s from a high speed roll on the freeway. In addition, he states he has pulled away from a Ford GT and slowly pulled on a Carrera GT as well. Is he full of BS?
He mentioned his poor performance was primarily attributable to poor conditions at the dragstrip and there was a moderate to strong head wind. He said you need to adjust his times with a .6 adjusted elevation and air quality factor to compensate for the poor local conditions before comparing his numbers to the magazines.
What the heck does this adjusted elevation air quality factor mean?
He estimates if he were at sea level with oxygen dense air, no wind and a decent launch that 11 flat and traps of well over 130 are easily attainable. Is this accurate or just excuses?
Thanks.
He only ran twice with a best run of 11.60 @ 126, with a 60' time of 2.18 seconds. He said his 60' time was pathetic at best and could have shaved at least several tenths off his elapsed time with a good launch. However, his time are not any better than a stock C6 Z06 according to the magazine reviews. But, he has told me he has strongly pulled away from C6 Z06s from a high speed roll on the freeway. In addition, he states he has pulled away from a Ford GT and slowly pulled on a Carrera GT as well. Is he full of BS?
He mentioned his poor performance was primarily attributable to poor conditions at the dragstrip and there was a moderate to strong head wind. He said you need to adjust his times with a .6 adjusted elevation and air quality factor to compensate for the poor local conditions before comparing his numbers to the magazines.
What the heck does this adjusted elevation air quality factor mean?
He estimates if he were at sea level with oxygen dense air, no wind and a decent launch that 11 flat and traps of well over 130 are easily attainable. Is this accurate or just excuses?
Thanks.
#3
03-08-2006 | 06:30 PM
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,321
From: Atlanta, GA
Rep Power: 71
The times don't concern me so much as the trap speed. Your trap speed shows what your horsepower is more so than your E/T.
The difference between 126 and 130mph+ traps is a rather large margin in horsepower to the wheels. A bad 60ft really won't affect your final trap speed by that much. Now, if you are breaking them loose in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd gear, that will affect your trap. Perhaps his car isn't healthy? Only he could tell us that. Then again, I have seen stock C6 Z06s trapping 120mph and some trapping 127mph. The driver plays a large part as well; perhaps the largest part.
The difference between 126 and 130mph+ traps is a rather large margin in horsepower to the wheels. A bad 60ft really won't affect your final trap speed by that much. Now, if you are breaking them loose in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd gear, that will affect your trap. Perhaps his car isn't healthy? Only he could tell us that. Then again, I have seen stock C6 Z06s trapping 120mph and some trapping 127mph. The driver plays a large part as well; perhaps the largest part.
#4
03-08-2006 | 06:30 PM
what does he have in it.. i had stage 3, stage 4, and even stage 5 (speed gallery)... I went many time to the track.... he has a 600 crank HP car fro the mph reading.... that doesnt lie..... if he trapps 130s he would have doen ieven thou his 60 sucked.... u need a 700 HP tt to have a 133 mph trap
just my opinion....
should have .. could have doe not equal I DID IT.
just my opinion....
should have .. could have doe not equal I DID IT.
__________________
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
Last edited by markski@markskituning; 03-08-2006 at 06:39 PM.
#6
03-08-2006 | 06:48 PM
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,803
From: Missing in action
Rep Power: 213
Its hard to run a fast 1/4 mile with a 2.18 60 foot time. If he got his 60 foot time down to 1.6-1.7, he would likely have run the 11-11.1 time he claimed (perhaps faster). EVOMS and Sharky both did 60 feet in under 1.7 during their 10 second runs.
Craig
Craig
#7
03-08-2006 | 06:53 PM
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,134
From: Chicagoland
Rep Power: 122
You might want to suggest to your friend that he makes sure his next race is from EAST to WEST which will greatly reduce his time since the earth is rotating towards him.
Trending Topics
#9
03-08-2006 | 07:01 PM
Originally Posted by Craig
Its hard to run a fast 1/4 mile with a 2.18 60 foot time. If he got his 60 foot time down to 1.6-1.7, he would likely have run the 11-11.1 time he claimed (perhaps faster). EVOMS and Sharky both did 60 feet in under 1.7 during their 10 second runs.
Craig
Craig
#10
03-08-2006 | 07:02 PM
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,836
From: .
Rep Power: 139
Originally Posted by 1999Porsche911
You might want to suggest to your friend that he makes sure his next race is from EAST to WEST which will greatly reduce his time since the earth is rotating towards him.
........
#11
03-08-2006 | 07:16 PM
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,321
From: Atlanta, GA
Rep Power: 71
I cut a 1.79 60ft on full pressure (~46psi), 19" Yoko AVS sports (315/25/19) in the rear with 19" HRE 540Rs. If it can be done on those, your friend should be able to get AT LEAST to that will a reasonable tire setup (with less pressure).
Also, the rule of thumb is that you drop about 0.15-0.2 seconds on your E/T for every 0.1 drop on your 60 ft (give or take). So, if he dropped it to 1.8 or so, he would go into the LOWWWWW 11s.
Also, the rule of thumb is that you drop about 0.15-0.2 seconds on your E/T for every 0.1 drop on your 60 ft (give or take). So, if he dropped it to 1.8 or so, he would go into the LOWWWWW 11s.
#12
03-08-2006 | 07:27 PM
i also ran.. and u can check on my slip a 1.74 on 19s.... on hybrid k24s and stage 4 580 hp car... my best was 11.5. if he has a gt700 yes... but nothing below that.... I just dont see it.... even dropped the pressure down to 20 psi on a couple of tries.... I even tried on the 18s with MPSC tires...
__________________
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
Last edited by markski@markskituning; 03-08-2006 at 07:31 PM.
#14
03-08-2006 | 07:50 PM
Originally Posted by Neil
a 640hp car on 19's should be able to do 11-11.1.
not to bring back the last shootout.... but not even one car broke the 10s... and they had the heavy hitters.... (that was NOt at sea level and I heard it was steaming hot)... but still I was disapointed taht cars with a pair of gt30r turbos had a hard time.... but what do I know... wasnt there... nor do I even have a gt800.
__________________
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
#15
03-08-2006 | 08:07 PM
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 145
From: California
Rep Power: 25
I was a little skeptical of his claim that he beat the C6 Z06.
My buddy kept telling me how much better his car would run in my home town Sacramento because of the altitude versus his track that is over 5000+ ft elevation.
I told him that was BS, since turbo and supercharged cars do not get affected by high altitudes like NA cars. This correct right?
My buddy kept telling me how much better his car would run in my home town Sacramento because of the altitude versus his track that is over 5000+ ft elevation.
I told him that was BS, since turbo and supercharged cars do not get affected by high altitudes like NA cars. This correct right?