kill stories from the streets (if you don't like streetracing, please stay out of this forum)

Luckily the weather has actually been pretty good so I've had many days this month to drive the car. But this is it man. 48 degrees tomorrow and then it's downhill from there. Thanksgiving is supposed to be 11 below zero for the low. YIKES! That is not mustang weather. lol

rocket_z350 wrote:

wile2k wrote:

rocket_z350 wrote:

well...raced a shelby gt500... 40 roll to about 115... lost barely by 1 car length... the dude is really cool... glad he changed his mind to race...oh yeah nick was with me...

And if I were you, I wouldn't get a big head about this, either that car is f'd up or he seriously doesn't know how to drive. All things considered, he should have a significant advantage over your Z06 (mods, altitude with him being boosted, power to weight, etc).

First of...my apologies to Chris...... secondly.... the z06 has the better power to weight ratio...AT sea level...I totally agree the Shelby is losing less power at this elevation being boosted compared to me... 3100/405= 7.65 lbs per hp.... 4000/ 500= 8 lbs per hp... and no...this guy is a good driver...he used to own a terminator that ran mid to low 12s... and he beat (blue 5.0 fox body) nick's friend nick who has a modded terminator that runs 12s at Acton on the streets... its pretty funny when I tell people about the race how they just say "there's no way you could beat a Shelby" "must of been a bad driver" ............not to mention this guy Justin with the Shelby has beat the white (I think that was the color he said) Shelby gt 500 that runs around town too........ and to Shawn...I'm not looking to have the fastest car lol...I'm just anti-ford lol and wanted to see if all the car mags I read are telling the truth on performance...(IMO they are) If I was a hardcore drag racer I wouldn't be building a vette -----------------I mentioned this in another thread but....my dad just bought a 2011 mustang GT california special (6 speed) I got to drive it around for about an hour....its not a bad car....after its broken in I will let you guys know how many car lengths I am ahead when we race...

I would expect you to run close to a GT500. Your weight advantage makes up for the extra power they have & between your car & Tom's we've seen what they can run stock or close too. Stock 03-04 Cobra/Stock GT500 (whatever year)/ & a Stock C5 Z06 should all be close with a few tenths advantage to the C5Z. Up here as discussed with air & forced induction that works against you. I'm a ford guy and even I can admit that. For comparisson reasons The fastest time I ever saw out of Justin's white Terminator was a 12.8, but that doesn't mean he didn't go back and improve on that. though that run wasn't too long before he got his 500. His wife video's everything so he should have a vid if he went low 12's. I know Nick too. His black cobra is a stock eaton car with a pulley so Justin should have beat him with his ported/meth setup. His 500 with just an intake wont run 12's. It takes a pulley/tune to hit high 12's up here with a Terminator or GT500. My reasons for bringing it up is I wouldn't go off of stated times, but proven ones.

Brett & I ran a dyno event with GNC & we dyno'd 50+ mustangs at the international mustang meet here in Billings September of 09. A GT500 KR rated at 550hp stock before they upped the standard 500's rating it dyno'd 470-477 to the wheels. Stock tires ran only one pass and got 13.4 at the Ron Omo memorial race that year.I cant remember the mph, but I remember his time becuse for our show he won the fastest stock e.t. Thats just one example, Most stock Shelbys, that were dyno'd put down 440 on Gary's mobile dyno. I know a stock 500 ran that night too and went 13.6 or 13.7 Justin drives his cars hard so I agree it wasn't a bad driver. I'm sure he got everything out of his Shelby anyone else around here could have in your race. So based on your times and these a close race is too be expected. Pullied Shelby's make 500-525. The biggest was a Supersnake with a Kenne Bell he ripped off 649 to the wheels. Pullied stock eaton Terminators we had 3 run and they made 417/420/448. There are some real montana numbers.

Get a vid if you run your dad's 2011 GT.

I've been in a couple stop light incounters with gt-500's and have held my own but that is short bursts. I would like to run one in the 1/4 to see where i'm at sometime. i think the new 5.0 mustang and the ss camero are runners but anyone ever think about the new srt-8 challengers with the 392?

Riptide wrote:

...
BTW, check out this link right here. This is a STOCK 2011 GT and he scored a 12.7 ET @ 110. After the intake/tune package? He knocked off two more tenths and managed a 12.5 ET.
http://www.s197forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46769

My prediction? With a 2.0 60' or better I think a well driven stock 2011 GT should be in the 13.6-13.8 range trapping around 105-107. This is at Acton. When you race your dad I think it's your race to lose - but it should be close enough that there isn't gonna be much margin for error.

The 12.7 is nice, but notice the mph is consistant at about 110. From there, ET is really all in traction and driving skill. C5Z traps at about 116 (2002+) so there might be 6 car lengths worth of power / weight difference. Of course you could run a 15.0@116 or a 12.5@110 and it wouldn't be close, but the power / weight difference is there.

I think your 105-107 is optimisic for a stock 2011. 110 corrected for altitude will give you about 103 up here, maybe 104 in decent air. Of course, if you were to drag race one today (17°, 29.93 Baro, 67% rel humidity and DA = 1969') and you'd probably get your 107mph . I guess if you got a really nice dry night race (~50°, 29.92, 40%) you could get a 105. On a normal day race though (90°, 29.92, 40%) you might have trouble hitting 101.

Powerhouses 2011 with et streets and skinnies up front runs 12.1's @115 all day on a bone stock motor not even a cool air intake or tune. Of course thats sea level. I think they will run mid to low 13's up here stock. And if you put drag radials and spend like $600 on a tune and intake it would run mid 12's up here. Not bad for a street call thats almost stock. So how do we determine who has the fastest street car? How do we determine what is considered a street car? To me it's on that you can drive everyday with all the creature comforts like AC/PS/PW. Just my opinion though.

agreed

Brett@K&KPerformance wrote:

Powerhouses 2011 with et streets and skinnies up front runs 12.1's @115 all day on a bone stock motor not even a cool air intake or tune. Of course thats sea level. I think they will run mid to low 13's up here stock. And if you put drag radials and spend like $600 on a tune and intake it would run mid 12's up here. Not bad for a street call thats almost stock. So how do we determine who has the fastest street car? How do we determine what is considered a street car? To me it's on that you can drive everyday with all the creature comforts like AC/PS/PW. Just my opinion though.

What else is done to Powerhouses 2011? I find it hard to believe that they found 5mph with just a set of skinnies (et streets might actually be costing them a mph or so). Did they do some weight savings measures or something to find the extra power to weight, was it at a track that was under sea level on a cold day? Downhill track? lol, lot of variables. I'm just trying to guesstimate (guess being the important part of that) off of what the majority of people and magazines are reporting. If we go off absolute bests, I think there have been a few C5Zs to see right at 120mph in the quarter on a bone stock motor, but I'm comparing (or trying to compare) the avg one.

As far as street car, I consider my Buick to be a street car but it doesn't have AC. More of a street car than some as it has no cage a cage to me is a hazard in a street car. I'd say a street car is one that is legal and resonable to be driven on the streets, i.e. wipers, blinkers, lights, not so loud as to get harrassed by cops, etc. As far as fastest street car in town, I don't know if we have any with 9 sec slips (at Acton) in town do we? Low 10s the best right now? I do believe that we will see a couple 9 sec cars by this time next year.

Brett@K&KPerformance wrote:

How do we determine what is considered a street car? To me it's on that you can drive everyday with all the creature comforts like AC/PS/PW. Just my opinion though.

=( my car came with none of that.

fastback959 wrote:

Brett@K&KPerformance wrote:

How do we determine what is considered a street car? To me it's on that you can drive everyday with all the creature comforts like AC/PS/PW. Just my opinion though.

=( my car came with none of that.

I guess I should take that back, my 68 fastback doesn't have any of that right now. I was thinking of cars that came with it from the factory.

What else is done to Powerhouses 2011? I find it hard to believe that they found 5mph with just a set of skinnies (et streets might actually be costing them a mph or so). Did they do some weight savings measures or something to find the extra power to weight, was it at a track that was under sea level on a cold day? Downhill track? lol, lot of variables. I'm just trying to guesstimate (guess being the important part of that) off of what the majority of people and magazines are reporting. If we go off absolute bests, I think there have been a few C5Zs to see right at 120mph in the quarter on a bone stock motor, but I'm comparing (or trying to compare) the avg one.

As far as street car, I consider my Buick to be a street car but it doesn't have AC. More of a street car than some as it has no cage a cage to me is a hazard in a street car. I'd say a street car is one that is legal and resonable to be driven on the streets, i.e. wipers, blinkers, lights, not so loud as to get harrassed by cops, etc. As far as fastest street car in town, I don't know if we have any with 9 sec slips (at Acton) in town do we? Low 10s the best right now? I do believe that we will see a couple 9 sec cars by this time next year.[/quote]

It's stock with the 3.55's from factory and 6 speed. You guys have been reading too many mags. The 3.55's allow you to run at 7k in 4th gear when you hit the traps. So no wasting time shifting to 5th or 6th. Plus the mags don't put ET streets on either. You know that the setup can make a world of difference. And if you have been follwoing NMRA at all most are setup this way. So you would have to factor this into the average cause this is average at NMRA and the forums.

haha this classifies as a Kill Story.

Driving home from school on montana ave and this chick in a red explorer 4wd passes me doin about 35mph im doing 20mph like a grandpa in the stang. well there is a met bus in front of me next thing you know you see snow fly up everywhere and the red explorer smashes into curb and dirt area by the train yard. the bus slams on the brakes and she throws it in reverse and hauls ass out of there! haha i bet she seriously messed her car up.

I know this car isnt local. but as of right now its the fastest street car on record. hot rod power tour record. oh yeah bowtie.

BLUBLS wrote:

rocket_z350 wrote:

wile2k wrote:

rocket_z350 wrote:

well...raced a shelby gt500... 40 roll to about 115... lost barely by 1 car length... the dude is really cool... glad he changed his mind to race...oh yeah nick was with me...

And if I were you, I wouldn't get a big head about this, either that car is f'd up or he seriously doesn't know how to drive. All things considered, he should have a significant advantage over your Z06 (mods, altitude with him being boosted, power to weight, etc).

First of...my apologies to Chris...... secondly.... the z06 has the better power to weight ratio...AT sea level...I totally agree the Shelby is losing less power at this elevation being boosted compared to me... 3100/405= 7.65 lbs per hp.... 4000/ 500= 8 lbs per hp... and no...this guy is a good driver...he used to own a terminator that ran mid to low 12s... and he beat (blue 5.0 fox body) nick's friend nick who has a modded terminator that runs 12s at Acton on the streets... its pretty funny when I tell people about the race how they just say "there's no way you could beat a Shelby" "must of been a bad driver" ............not to mention this guy Justin with the Shelby has beat the white (I think that was the color he said) Shelby gt 500 that runs around town too........ and to Shawn...I'm not looking to have the fastest car lol...I'm just anti-ford lol and wanted to see if all the car mags I read are telling the truth on performance...(IMO they are) If I was a hardcore drag racer I wouldn't be building a vette -----------------I mentioned this in another thread but....my dad just bought a 2011 mustang GT california special (6 speed) I got to drive it around for about an hour....its not a bad car....after its broken in I will let you guys know how many car lengths I am ahead when we race...

I would expect you to run close to a GT500. Your weight advantage makes up for the extra power they have & between your car & Tom's we've seen what they can run stock or close too. Stock 03-04 Cobra/Stock GT500 (whatever year)/ & a Stock C5 Z06 should all be close with a few tenths advantage to the C5Z. Up here as discussed with air & forced induction that works against you. I'm a ford guy and even I can admit that. For comparisson reasons The fastest time I ever saw out of Justin's white Terminator was a 12.8, but that doesn't mean he didn't go back and improve on that. though that run wasn't too long before he got his 500. His wife video's everything so he should have a vid if he went low 12's. I know Nick too. His black cobra is a stock eaton car with a pulley so Justin should have beat him with his ported/meth setup. His 500 with just an intake wont run 12's. It takes a pulley/tune to hit high 12's up here with a Terminator or GT500. My reasons for bringing it up is I wouldn't go off of stated times, but proven ones.

Brett & I ran a dyno event with GNC & we dyno'd 50+ mustangs at the international mustang meet here in Billings September of 09. A GT500 KR rated at 550hp stock before they upped the standard 500's rating it dyno'd 470-477 to the wheels. Stock tires ran only one pass and got 13.4 at the Ron Omo memorial race that year.I cant remember the mph, but I remember his time becuse for our show he won the fastest stock e.t. Thats just one example, Most stock Shelbys, that were dyno'd put down 440 on Gary's mobile dyno. I know a stock 500 ran that night too and went 13.6 or 13.7 Justin drives his cars hard so I agree it wasn't a bad driver. I'm sure he got everything out of his Shelby anyone else around here could have in your race. So based on your times and these a close race is too be expected. Pullied Shelby's make 500-525. The biggest was a Supersnake with a Kenne Bell he ripped off 649 to the wheels. Pullied stock eaton Terminators we had 3 run and they made 417/420/448. There are some real montana numbers.

Get a vid if you run your dad's 2011 GT.

Yeah, I've only met justin once... he seems like a way cool guy.... he said that he beat nicks terminator with his shelby... of course on the street anything can happen...

Jake's 2007 GT with some basic bolt ons ran a 13.5 ET @ 102. 2.0 60'. That was at our drag strip. That car dyno'd at 285whp.

Kinda sad that a stock GT500 could barely beat that up here. I guess that just goes to prove there is a lot more to getting down the track than power alone. You need to put it to the ground and you need to be able to shift the car better than grandma.

Brett@K&KPerformance wrote:

It's stock with the 3.55's from factory and 6 speed. You guys have been reading too many mags. The 3.55's allow you to run at 7k in 4th gear when you hit the traps. So no wasting time shifting to 5th or 6th. Plus the mags don't put ET streets on either. You know that the setup can make a world of difference. And if you have been follwoing NMRA at all most are setup this way. So you would have to factor this into the average cause this is average at NMRA and the forums.

That would be an incorrect assumption on your part. I've been reading a lot of the Mustang forums and generally every user review I can get my hands on as I am quite interested in the '11+ mustangs. The vast majority of the track reports that I've seen mentioned talk about 110mph traps. I also don't tend to believe performance shop results as their results can be tied to product marketing and who knows what they might do to make themselves look better.

As I'm sure you are aware, better launches don't usually = better trap speed and it isn't uncommon for low psi wrinkle walls to rob a little mph either. I'm still wondering where they get 5mph that most other sources aren't getting. Either they have some trick up their sleeve or they got one hell of a factory freak. Trick's up their sleeve would be my guess. Rough estimate is that it would take about 425 wheel horsepower to put a 3600lb car (including driver, seems reasonable)in the 115mph trap range. See what I mean, the numbers don't work out. 370 wheel horsepower in 3600lb car does work out to about 110mph though (would have to be 3100lb with driver for 370 wheel hp to make 115mph, educated calculations).

So do you believe that they dropped 500lb off the car somehow, or are making more wheel horsepower than the rated crank horsepower? The numbers just do not add up.

This guy was on slicks and hit a 114.4 trap.

http://www.s197forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47331

Other than the slicks. Stock car.


Disclaimer: The below may or may not be directly relevant to this particular discussion.

If the launch is bad enough. If the spin is bad enough. Trap will be affected by it. I know mine suffered when I attempted to race my car when Gillis ran the place over the summer.

An extreme example would be to run two cars with one lane completely covered in ice. Doesn't matter how much power the guy has if he's on ice I will out trap him with my old honda civic in that situation.

Riptide wrote:

This guy was on slicks and hit a 114.4 trap.

http://www.s197forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47331

Other than the slicks. Stock car.


Disclaimer: The below may or may not be directly relevant to this particular discussion.

If the launch is bad enough. If the spin is bad enough. Trap will be affected by it. I know mine suffered when I attempted to race my car when Gillis ran the place over the summer.

An extreme example would be to run two cars with one lane completely covered in ice. Doesn't matter how much power the guy has if he's on ice I will out trap him with my old honda civic in that situation.

Guys, the mathematical models for how much power it takes to push a car down the 1/4 are pretty well sorted, really not pulling this stuff out of my butt.

The guy down in TX, that was tonight, 49°, 30.10 Baro, 77% humidity with a track elevation of 575' that makes the DA 40.5' BELOW sea level, lol. It still works out to an unreasonable 113.5mph corrected and I'm not sure how to account for the extra weight or hp that it would need to do it. The driver did say he had his friend drive who weighs 40lb less than him, lol, but still.

Either the cars weigh less than I'm thinking (figuring 3400lb without driver) and if I guess this guys friend weighs 150, then it would need about 405 hp at the WHEELS to get 113.5mph corrected. Or with a more realistic (but probably still optimistic 370whp, 12% drivetrain loss???), the car with driver would have to weigh about 3250. I still wonder if there is more to the story (downhill track, massive tailwind, or some unlisted mods on the "stock" car). Dunno though, but it is too much difference to make up for the car being a factory freak don't you think?

And yeah, if you are drag racing on ice, you probably have a point, lol. Really though, for the difference between ~2.5 60' and ~1.5 60', you will see nearly the same trap. I probably have more than a few timeslips to demonstrate that as I've done some really crappy 60's. I haven't tried it with a 15.0 60' on an ice lake though.

edit... Also, look at that guy's other car, 489whp G8 and it managed a 12.15@115.4, guess what, crunch those numbers and it works out to a ~4050lb car, listed curb weight is 3880 + avg driver and the numbers work out. How do we account for the stang numbers being so far off? If they are really making 400+ at the wheels, then put me down for one, lol. Even the guys on his forums are like, no, f'n way, lol. Something isn't adding up.

Riptide wrote:

Jake's 2007 GT with some basic bolt ons ran a 13.5 ET @ 102. 2.0 60'. That was at our drag strip. That car dyno'd at 285whp.

Kinda sad that a stock GT500 could barely beat that up here. I guess that just goes to prove there is a lot more to getting down the track than power alone. You need to put it to the ground and you need to be able to shift the car better than grandma.

Out of curiosity, who's dyno did Jake dyno on?

Those numbers seem reasonable, if off, it would be within the error of dyno to dyno readings especially if it was Gary's dyno that is generally accepted to be a heartbreaker dyno.

I'm not saying it is 100% exact science but it is close enough to know when things don't add up and 412 crank hp 3600lb'ish cars shouldn't be able to do 115mph. That the cars get 110mph leads me to believe that they are slightly underrated by Ford since I've been optimistic on weight and drivetrain loss to get the more normal 110mph traps to calculate out..

My guesstimates have been based off the following

Race weight of 3600lb (curb weight is listed as just over 3600, so actual race weight should be more like 3750-3800 depending on driver weight)
Crank HP 412
DriveTrain loss 12% (optimistic)
WHP 370

So, those of you that think that these 115mph'ish traps are legit on a stock car, which number do you think Ford is understating? Do you think that the cars actually weigh in the 3100lb range, or do you think that the motors are actually making 470-525 crank hp (depending on what the car does actually weigh)?

Jake ran his car on the same portable dyno that Brett was talking about earlier. It was run on the same day he was talking about at the international mustang meet.

EDIT: I apologize for bringing this spin vs. trap thing up as I think it is digressing from the discussion. Carry on.

There was pretty shitty air at the track this year. I have actually had my best mph with shitty 60 foots and spinning a little bit.

Riptide wrote:

Jake ran his car on the same portable dyno that Brett was talking about earlier. It was run on the same day he was talking about at the international mustang meet.

EDIT: I apologize for bringing this spin vs. trap thing up as I think it is digressing from the discussion. Carry on.

No apology, you are right there is room to wiggle on any math model, I'm not saying that it is impossible but I don't believe that it is the norm. There are a lot of possiblities and mostly what I'm trying to debunk is that 114 or 115 is going to be remotely normal for a new 5.0 (although if it is the norm, then yay, because I still want one bad, lol).

Gary once told me that he tries to get his portable to read the same as the dyno at the shop (I have the winpep raw dyno file for a run I did on that dyno when I lived in Sheridan). He had some weird variables in there to try to get the reading right (had the altitude scaler set to well over 4000' IIRC among other things). That being the case, I'd wonder if Jakes car had a few more ponies in it than what the dyno actually showed. That is a whole other discussion but to put it in perspective, my Magnuson supercharged GTO (stock other than the maggie and tune) made 420 on the shop dyno corrected, exact same setup commonly saw 460-480 elsewhere in the country. Jim's LS2 based 402 that ran 11.8@115 (I think 115, sent him a text to confirm) while the shop dyno reported it was making 320whp, lol. I think that dyno is good for tuning (seems repeatable) but I don't put much faith in accurate readings from it.

Tom. Thanks for popping into the thread over there and adding your 2c. I knew you'd see those posts over there anyway so I figured you would. But I think that it was good of you to do that rather than having all of them come on over here and start in with some huge flame war over it. I don't think Mike would've been real happy with that.

Riptide wrote:

Tom. Thanks for popping into the thread over there and adding your 2c. I knew you'd see those posts over there anyway so I figured you would. But I think that it was good of you to do that rather than having all of them come on over here and start in with some huge flame war over it. I don't think Mike would've been real happy with that.

Nah, and really owe it to them to say why I'm skeptical. If I wasn't man enough to do that then I shouldn't be arguing a point eh?

And yeah, don't want them to think I'm hating on the new 5.0 or the OP, I'm just trying to understand it. I truely wish that I could run down to Ford, pick up a new 5.0 for what, 32k base? And take it off to the track and trap 115ish MPH.

I have heard that a CAI / Tune is making extraordinary gains on them, so that is promising.

Some of my doubting and less than politically correct BS calling are also due to seeing so many people BS about something being truely stock. We (Rob and I) see this a lot with bikes. I remember a guy asking me why my 'Busa was only trapping 138 when his fist gen trapped 140 stock. Well, I have yet to see anyone else report a first gen that is truely stock make 140 (even at sealevel, much less up here), so stock to him was probably a filter / pipe / powercommander, etc and having no understanding of altitude. Sure the motor is still stock but that isn't a stock bike nor making stock power. Same stuff with cars, makes me a skeptic when things don't add up.

I totally understand. I am a BORN skeptic as any of my personal friends will attest to.
It's the only way to be. lol

BTW, regarding that dyno day in discussion earlier, I also had my car up there on the portable.

265whp was all it hit. 93 tune, CAI, 4.10 gears. Manual transmission. 18x10 wheels, heavier/larger tires.
285whp (Jake). 93 tune, CAI, 4.10 gears, pulleys, delete plates. Auto transmission. Stock 17x8 wheels, tires.

It's my personal belief that while some of that discrepancy between the two is due to the two mods he had and the lighter wheels/tires. It doesn't seem to account for all of it. I believe mine is down on power vs. his due to factory variances. Nothing I can do about it. It is what it is.

I have long since gotten over it bothering me. Because dynos don't win races nor are they really even all that fun to "drive" on.

Jims car has been re tuned since his dyno. That 11.8 was n/a . Nefore his new tune he ran a 11.8 with a 125 shot.

[quote="Riptide"]I totally understand. I am a BORN skeptic as any of my personal friends will attest to.
It's the only way to be. lol

BTW, regarding that dyno day in discussion earlier, I also had my car up there on the portable.

265whp was all it hit. 93 tune, CAI, 4.10 gears. Manual transmission. 18x10 wheels, heavier/larger tires.
285whp (Jake). 93 tune, CAI, 4.10 gears, pulleys, delete plates. Auto transmission. Stock 17x8 wheels, tires.

It's my personal belief that while some of that discrepancy between the two is due to the two mods he had and the lighter wheels/tires. It doesn't seem to account for all of it. I believe mine is down on power vs. his due to factory variances. Nothing I can do about it. It is what it is.

I have long since gotten over it bothering me. Because dynos don't win races nor are they really even all that fun to "drive" on. [/quote

well said. dynos do not win races , there a great tool to get ur shit in order ,but only track time counts imo. we all have seen dynos queens state there numbers , unfourtantly few seem to get to the track . 500rwhp means absoulutly shit to me unless u show me what it can do

Novaflash2002 wrote:

Jims car has been re tuned since his dyno. That 11.8 was n/a . Nefore his new tune he ran a 11.8 with a 125 shot.

Yeah, 11.8@116 best NA. Before this he ran a 11.267@124.3 on the juice (got a nice video of it, 11/24/08 if you'd like to see I can upload it, and same day running low 12s at 112ish off the nitrous). Jim's been one of my best friends for about 6 years now, I'm quite familiar with his car. Hope that he can get a good pass on nitrous this season and dip it down into the 10s.

Any which way you cut it, the dyno reading 320 NA and 420 on nitrous was well under what he was actually making. I think that we had Gary's dyno figured as reading 12-15% low. Wish we had another good dyno in town to get an accurate back to back error correction for Gary's.

ghost wrote:

well said. dynos do not win races , there a great tool to get ur shit in order ,but only track time counts imo. we all have seen dynos queens state there numbers , unfourtantly few seem to get to the track . 500rwhp means absoulutly shit to me unless u show me what it can do

LOL, you mean the 1000 hp Supras running 12s Sam? I'd love to have a 1000hp car but I sure would hate it if I couldn't do better than 12.x with it. They do usually have nice mph though .

Using math to figure 1/4 mile times is incorrect. 115 mph traps is not the norm for a norm 5.0. but you go to NMRA and it is. The car I am talking about was almost stock like I said. I talked to him this morning and they had some suspension stuff to get it to hook better. I'm good friends with mike at powerhouse. I take him snowmobiling once a year. He knows all the tricks about my cars and I know all of his. So yes normal traps I guess would be like 110ish for a bone stock 5.0.

delete

wile2k wrote:

Novaflash2002 wrote:

Jims car has been re tuned since his dyno. That 11.8 was n/a . Nefore his new tune he ran a 11.8 with a 125 shot.

Yeah, 11.8@116 best NA. Before this he ran a 11.267@124.3 on the juice (got a nice video of it, 11/24/08 if you'd like to see I can upload it, and same day running low 12s at 112ish off the nitrous). Jim's been one of my best friends for about 6 years now, I'm quite familiar with his car. Hope that he can get a good pass on nitrous this season and dip it down into the 10s.

Any which way you cut it, the dyno reading 320 NA and 420 on nitrous was well under what he was actually making. I think that we had Gary's dyno figured as reading 12-15% low. Wish we had another good dyno in town to get an accurate back to back error correction for Gary's.

. I would consider a good friend, id like to pull a few degress of timing out of his car and see him run a 125 shot now. I think id pull a high 10 with a good set o tires. Id say garys dyno is closer to 20% off. I thought jim dynoed 320hp with the std ls1 and 360 with the 402.

wile2k wrote:

ghost wrote:

well said. dynos do not win races , there a great tool to get ur shit in order ,but only track time counts imo. we all have seen dynos queens state there numbers , unfourtantly few seem to get to the track . 500rwhp means absoulutly shit to me unless u show me what it can do

LOL, you mean the 1000 hp Supras running 12s Sam? I'd love to have a 1000hp car but I sure would hate it if I couldn't do better than 12.x with it. They do usually have nice mph though .

you got it . there are a few here in town also . lol . i know i kinda get a lil heated about it but if ur gonna brag i say run it ..
ive never dynoed my car , probly wouldnt be accurate with that loose converter , so i get to let me ets speak for me and deduce what it does from that

Few weeks ago, i was just crusin around town on my own, I saw a purple cummins ex tended cab truck doing burnouts and trying to race everyone in sight. i casually roll up to them in my 2011 chevy Cruze economy car, you k now. hefty 1.4l turbo against a cummins engine? ha. jsut cruisin up 24th next to them they speed off and slow down playin with me. we get to a red light. sweet. Traction control off, reving it to 2500, (wet pavement) We both launch at roughly the same time, both of us are spinning tires. My car seems like its bouncing from spinning. i let off a little bit when he connects and starts to pull ahead. I connect shortly after and fly by. going 80 or so on 24th i smoked him a good 2 car lengths. Still see the kid around town evenings, but he disappeared after that race.

Not bad for a 1.4 Eco car haha

CruzinSL wrote:

Few weeks ago, i was just crusin around town on my own, I saw a purple cummins ex tended cab truck doing burnouts and trying to race everyone in sight. i casually roll up to them in my 2011 chevy Cruze economy car, you k now. hefty 1.4l turbo against a cummins engine? ha. jsut cruisin up 24th next to them they speed off and slow down playin with me. we get to a red light. sweet. Traction control off, reving it to 2500, (wet pavement) We both launch at roughly the same time, both of us are spinning tires. My car seems like its bouncing from spinning. i let off a little bit when he connects and starts to pull ahead. I connect shortly after and fly by. going 80 or so on 24th i smoked him a good 2 car lengths. Still see the kid around town evenings, but he disappeared after that race.

Not bad for a 1.4 Eco car haha

and THAT is why i no longer cruise 24th, i would rather not be the innocent bystander getting hit by somebody like you.

CruzinSL wrote:

going 80 or so on 24th

It would really suck for you, driving that shit box if I backed my 1 ton Crew Cab out of my driveway when you're going that fast. I constantly have to stop for dipshits on street bikes flying by my house on one wheel. One of these days one is going to hit the pothole in front of my house and wad up (assuming they keep "fixing" 24th at the rate they have been).

Slow down. My neighbors have kids, I have a kid on the way. You hit my house, their house, or wad your car up in my front yard and I am only going to beat the shit out of you. Its not a fucking drag strip. Go out of town a few miles if you want to be a moron. I am seriously considering letting the Billings PD back into my driveway and hide behing my truck to start ticketing the dickbags who race their slow goddamn cars in front of my house.

Speaking of 24th I thought I saw a sign today that said they are going to be doing construction on it again.

Yes, I can eat my damn words. I just looked outside because I heard equipment. Sure as shit, they started on it tonight.

calm down, it was south of king. well away from then general area of houses

amd for the record, that was the only race that far inside city limits, not likely i will do it again. dude was just pissin me off. (no excuses)

on a side note, i formally appologize for being one of those dickbags

They'll have to shut down 24th for a whole year to EVER get that street smooth again! I still don't understand why people cruize on one of the worst streets in town. Back in the day when i was a young 24th cruizer, we used to get a bunch of us together and go cruize Main instead. I mean, it's 3 lanes, not congested that late at night, smooth from end to end, and has plenty of places like Sonic to stop and bs at, maybe get some grub!

Had the same thought myself. Main seems like a much better road to cruise around on. 24th just flat out sucks. It's like a country road. So damn rough.

24th is really dead anymore , besides crawlin with cops all nite

24th "SHOULD" be smooth once again after this project is done with. Last summer they were just replacing pipes and I don't think they had the funds at the time to do a resurface.

04 Wagon Boy wrote:

24th "SHOULD" be smooth once again after this project is done with. Last summer they were just replacing pipes and I don't think they had the funds at the time to do a resurface.

This is I am sure is what is happening with 24th. In my experience with working with city governments, many times they want to spend a allotted amount on certain road projects. If they fell that it is a real need for the roadway I am sure it would have been done with in just a few weeks. It means that 24th isn't a priority and was put on the back burner for a little while. I am sure there was a unforeseen need for the funding to go elsewhere impeding work assignments, natural disaster, snow removal, ect... I see that they are milling the by grand and probably gonna do a shallow recycle overlay. This means that they take a layer, typically 4-6 inches and remix it with a rejuvenator and more fractured aggregate/hot mix. Then overlay on the milled surface. This is the most typical type of street reconditioning there is. I have been on a few projects the size of 24th that we have totally stripped and street down to the sub-base and rebuilt it in as little as a week or two. It isn't the most cost efficient way of building a road but it is the fastest.

Well a mill an overlay would do the trick in my experience. It would get rid of all of those surface ruts that have built up.

Some good stories in here! Keep them coming.

The best race I had this previous summer was against a motorcycle.

It was the typical saturday evening cruise, and a lot of people were out.
I like to do the 5mph under method to both attract vehicles attention, and to piss others off.

I was going about 30 in a 35, and I see 6 little headlights in my rearview. I thought it was some hillbilly pickup with driving lights all over it, but as it got closer, I noticed every light had a body above it. Game on!

I let them get by me, then slowly crept back up to the speed limit. I turn my blinker on long before my turn, and they all follow me.

Within 100ft I see a headlight lift and a blue Buell is right beside me. I am not too familiar with Buells, but it had an exhaust at least and sounded pretty mean.

My window is down, so I give him a wide smile.
I am brake boosting to 12psi, and he shakes his head. With no honks we both manage to take off at nearly the exact same time from 30mph.

Right away his bike shifts another 6 feet closer to my car and his front wheel comes off the ground. He is now uncomfrotably close to me. I would say about 3-4 feet. Although he is leaning all the way into it he can only get it down at about 50mph.

When I took off, I had brake boosted so hard I managed to spin all 4 tires the first part of second gear. But it was all grip from there.

By the time we both slammed through some gears we shut it down at 100 or so.
The guy on the bike had the most dumbfounded look on his face. He did not say a word... just deer in the headlights.

When I had shifted into 4th, I was pulling on him. Hard. I only managed to get a car and a half, but it was a kill for sure.

Nothing like killing bikes with a car. Since bikes usually have the edge on the power to weight ratio, gotta get 'em with the launch. Did that a few times in my Talon, but they'd usually catch up after I hit 3rd gear. Need more powa to haul my heavy ass.

Nice kill. bikes are pretty quick. most of the time it depends on the rider and the bike. but most of the newer bikes can haul some ass. i have only ever rode one buell and it was a little 500 but it still had some get up and go. but i kow the fastest thing i have ever been on was my 07 gsx-r 1000 and it was stupid fast. i raced a buddy's built 5.0 with a 125 shot and it wasn't even a race. i pulled him like 15 cars or better. really it was no fun. he might post a video here sense he's on here. keep killing the bikes nice job.

Haha thanks. Yeah Beulls are definitely not a super bike. I would say it was a 500cc give or take a couple hundred.

My friends GSXR 600 with powecommander and exhaust pulls multiple cars on me from a roll. He only weighs a buck-25 though.

Luckily bikes lose a lot more at these altitudes than the snail vehicles.
From the CO forums I have seen it takes 600whp (uncorrected mustang) to pull on a R1 from a roll. I am only at 340, and realistically I will never see that.

blknblubkrdude wrote:

Haha thanks. Yeah Beulls are definitely not a super bike. I would say it was a 500cc give or take a couple hundred.

My friends GSXR 600 with powecommander and exhaust pulls multiple cars on me from a roll. He only weighs a buck-25 though.

Luckily bikes lose a lot more at these altitudes than the snail vehicles.
From the CO forums I have seen it takes 600whp (uncorrected mustang) to pull on a R1 from a roll. I am only at 340, and realistically I will never see that.

Yeah for sure bikes are just stupid fast. still for your car to pull a bike thats bad ass. hell even a normal old harley can run damn good when its running against a car. its no easy task to pull on a bike unless your making some good power. hell from a roll is where bikes do the best. so for you to keep pulling thats sweet. only reason i ran my buddys 5.0 is because he was saying how he had taken out a 900cc bike the night before and just wanted to see how my bike ran. well we ran 3 or 4 times and after everything he said it was no fun and bikes are no joke. he said from now on he was going to stick to racing 600cc or less. when are you going to get the BA car to billings? damn it evo are SICk.

haha yeahhhhh Shawn's 1000 was definately no joke, Bike is crazy fast. Still fun though!