LT1 Based Engine Tech 1993-1997 LT1/LT4 Engine Related

ET for 108.44 trap speed

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 16, 2003 | 09:28 PM
  #1  
jonaddis84's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,639
From: Toledo, OH
ET for 108.44 trap speed

Got into the track today with all the mods below except the programming, and best run was a 13.220 @ 108.44 with a 2.231 60' and 8.66 1/8 mile. It seemed to me that 108 mph is too fast for a 13.22, I dont know if im right but I would think that 108 would be good for 12s. What do you guys think? Is that pretty good with my mods (the heads were ****tily done by yours truly). I think once I get the nittos and can pull a 1.8 or 1.9 60' it would put me to the higher 12s without the programming, then with, low to mid 12s??????
Old Apr 16, 2003 | 09:32 PM
  #2  
Robbie's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 586
From: Greenville SC USA
I believe it can be high 12's easy with a killer 60ft time. Are you at a pretty high elevation?
Old Apr 16, 2003 | 09:38 PM
  #3  
Injuneer's Avatar
Administrator
 
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 71,121
From: Hell was full so they sent me to NJ
The "mph" isn't too "too fast".... the ET is too high. You already know the cause.... a 2.23 60' time. Get that to 1.8 and you are well into the 12's with no other changes. My handy calculator says that 108.44 in a 3,600# car represents about 365flywheelHP, and with a perfect launch, the car could run 12.5-12.6.
Old Apr 17, 2003 | 12:06 AM
  #4  
jonaddis84's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,639
From: Toledo, OH
Originally posted by Injuneer
The "mph" isn't too "too fast".... the ET is too high. You already know the cause.... a 2.23 60' time. Get that to 1.8 and you are well into the 12's with no other changes. My handy calculator says that 108.44 in a 3,600# car represents about 365flywheelHP, and with a perfect launch, the car could run 12.5-12.6.
Thats what I was thinking, I guess the two are the same thing, the trap being to fast for the ET and the ET being too slow for the trap speed.

Hopefully with the nittos and gears (whatever I decide on) I can pull a good 1.8 or so 60' without bustin the rear.

I can tell its gonna have a lot more in it with tuning, the car smells like crap because its running pretty rich, and im getting horrible gas mileage, so once its leaned out a little it should run like a champ.
Old Apr 17, 2003 | 12:18 AM
  #5  
96LT14u2Nv's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 980
From: batavia, ohio
yeah, i think mid 12's are very possible. with any decent 60', u should be in the 12's with ease
Old Apr 17, 2003 | 01:23 AM
  #6  
QuicksilverZ28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 74
From: Springfield, VA, USA
my 01 SS runs just about that same time, I know its got 12s in it, all it needs is a nice 1.8 or 1.9 and you (and I) will be there.
Old Apr 17, 2003 | 02:38 AM
  #7  
Rasta's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 23
From: New Orleans La.
12.55@108

My Time slip

60 ---------1.752
330 --------- 5.158
1/8 ----------7.996 @ 85.78 mph
1000 ----------10.472
1/4 ----------12.558 @ 108.28 MPH

all on 245x16 nittos and 342 gear ratio. Stock converter
stalled to 2200

Get a 1.90 60 ft and you will be in the 12s
get a 1.80 60 ft and hello mid 12s

my opinion based on my time slip
Old Apr 17, 2003 | 09:09 AM
  #8  
jonaddis84's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,639
From: Toledo, OH
Awesome, I cant wait. What do you think I will hit with programming?
Old Apr 17, 2003 | 09:23 AM
  #9  
ksmyss's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 236
From: O'fallon, mo
a few weeks ago i ran a 12.83 @ 108.40 w/ 1.88 60 ft spinning the drag radials
Old Apr 17, 2003 | 10:23 AM
  #10  
Rasta's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 23
From: New Orleans La.
What do you think I will hit with programming?

Thought you had PCMFORLESS programming already.
Old Apr 17, 2003 | 11:56 AM
  #11  
Grover's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 1,173
From: Portage, MI USA
Last fall, I ran a 12.48@109.1 with at 1.795 60' not using 4th gear. My 1/8th was 8.06 @ 89.2.

So your 108.44 MPH is good for an easy mid to high 12.
Old Apr 17, 2003 | 06:41 PM
  #12  
jonaddis84's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,639
From: Toledo, OH
Re: What do you think I will hit with programming?

Originally posted by Rasta
Thought you had PCMFORLESS programming already.
I have it, but I am one of the unfortunate that cannot get my laptop to connect to the PCM for the life of me, so its not loaded up yet. Im going to try to get it loaded this weekend then head back to the track next week and see the improvement. Ill still have my ****ty 2.2 60 footers so I can easily compare how good of a job Brian did.
Old Apr 17, 2003 | 07:03 PM
  #13  
IROCZZ3's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 104
From: San Diego, CA
We run identical mph in the quarter (see sig).

Traction is everything! I'd say mid to low 12s are attainable with improved 60 foots.
Old Apr 17, 2003 | 07:36 PM
  #14  
jonaddis84's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,639
From: Toledo, OH
Originally posted by IROCZZ3
We run identical mph in the quarter (see sig).

Traction is everything! I'd say mid to low 12s are attainable with improved 60 foots.
Do you know the weight of your car, and what gears are you running?
Old Apr 17, 2003 | 09:02 PM
  #15  
IROCZZ3's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 104
From: San Diego, CA
3320 with me in it and about a quarter tank of gas. 4th gens are slightly heavier than 3rd gens (I think) but I've done some weight reduction on mine. I'm running 3.50 gears in a Moser 9".

EDIT: I just seen you have an M6, mines an A4 so that might affect it some. But still at least mid 12s should be cake for you.



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:38 AM.