How do current numbers ( ie known dyno or estimates) compare to earlier numbers? What torque/hp is required to trap 148 ? How does calculation compare to the known facts ?

 

Red,

For a car my weight, it'll take around 800 whp. That can vary with type of car, gearing, tires, etc...but 800 at the wheels is very close to what's needed for any car at 3550 lbs.

The calculation is almost exactly correct.

For my car to trap 160 mph...it should take app. 990 whp. For it to trap 136 (like I did before), it should take app. 600 whp.

 

The hell with the quarter I want to see how it plays on the pkwy with something real

 

The whole traction thing down low in the cars is a pain in the ***, Use it like it was designed

 

Did you see the M6 video?

 

That is downright abusive!!!!

 

LOL...the owner was pretty good about it, though.

 

Speaking purely from a drag racing point of view, Nitto 555Rs are dog****. MT ET Street Radials are dog****. BFG drag radials are not much better.

MT ET Streets are good. MT ET Drags are much better.

Wake up and smell the coffee boys, if you want to go drag racing then fit slicks. There's no point in running "how it is on the street" because you are not running on the street. Streets do not offer anywhere near the same traction as a drag strip, so you're kidding yourself that your car can run the equivalent of a 9 second pass on a street.

All this spend on more horsepower will not yeild you as much ET improvement as engineering 15" wheels with slicks and the driveline to handle a hard launch.

To those who harp on about 996 TTs not "meant for drag racing" and how you'd beat a 9 second strip car on the street, oh those grapes are so sour. Your car either runs the ET or it doesn't. All the highway rolls in the world won't change that.

 

Vik, ET Street Radials are no good. MT ET Street are a different kettle of fish. Like I said to you before, you want slicks and that measn 15" wheels.

 

You're missing the point. The muscle car guys would be laughing themselves hoarse that it takes 148 MPH to run a mid 10.

In drag racing, ET is king. High trap speed with relatively poor ET is an embarassment.

This takes nothing away from Scott's skills; the car is on it's shakedown passes and there is more to come. Just get it into perspective from a drag racing point of view.

 

nice numbers, i gott 1/4 mile mine...

 

Scott,

Congratulations on the great numbers - that's some serious speed! I was away this weekend watching 4.6 second passes at 320MPH (NHRA Nationals at Englishtown).

 

yeah I seen that m6 video, not to knock it but not even in the same league. I am talking supra, viper, z06, something that has alittle power My M5 is not even close to my cls55, I eat m6's with it not like you but still pull away

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Divexxtreme

The thing I find really amazing is that I somehow did this with only 610 ft lbs of torque at the flywheel....*according to Jean*.

If what you need is a tap on the back to help with the ego thing a bit more, you should have simply said so and I would have posted, congratulations!

Peak torque and trap speed? Maybe there is a peak torque vs. trap speed calculator that you can find on the net and copy/paste here to get you out of your amazement? HP gets you trap speed, your torque peak/spike means nothing to this run.

BTW 1 you should not be surprised by your difference in 60-130mph, the 4.9s being an underwater run, they are not comparable to the numbers you get on the strip maybe….just a thought.

BTW 2 removing the *…* , would make you look more objective with forum members as a moderator, at least in appearance.

 

I'm not saying anything new here, but WOW! congrats, those were some very impressive traps, which leads me to believe with better tires, better launches and lower temps and you should easily be into the 9's and that's staying heavy. Drop a few hundred lb's and you could easily be mid 9's.