Ge-tech results!!!!!
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 788
From: Clinton, MS
Ge-tech results!!!!!
I have a g-tech pro-competition meter
today i ran it twice on a very flat road...........(once one way and then once the other way........i did that to correct any leveling problems their might be......i.e. -- fast one way and slow the other)
anyways here are the results
FIRST RUN -- 13.574 @105.50
60ft -- 2.236
330 ft -- 5.870
1/8th -- 8.849 @84.7
1000 ft -- 11.411
0-60 -- 5.535
SECON RUN -- 13.633 @ 104.57
60ft -- 2.232
330 ft -- 5.883
1/8th -- 8.880 @84.42
1000 ft -- 11.454
0-60 -- 5.604
Now i have a 1997 Z28 A4 w/ 3:23 gears a cut-out and a k@n filter............these times dont seem right...............
anybody have any input??
It was very cool here today and i did make one pass one way and the second pass the other way............(which logically thinking should give you two times that if averaged together should give you a very accurate measurement of what your 1/4 miles time should be....................assuming that the ground is not very level)
anyways.........just wondering what you guys think.................anybody have any comments??????
today i ran it twice on a very flat road...........(once one way and then once the other way........i did that to correct any leveling problems their might be......i.e. -- fast one way and slow the other)
anyways here are the results
FIRST RUN -- 13.574 @105.50
60ft -- 2.236
330 ft -- 5.870
1/8th -- 8.849 @84.7
1000 ft -- 11.411
0-60 -- 5.535
SECON RUN -- 13.633 @ 104.57
60ft -- 2.232
330 ft -- 5.883
1/8th -- 8.880 @84.42
1000 ft -- 11.454
0-60 -- 5.604
Now i have a 1997 Z28 A4 w/ 3:23 gears a cut-out and a k@n filter............these times dont seem right...............
anybody have any input??
It was very cool here today and i did make one pass one way and the second pass the other way............(which logically thinking should give you two times that if averaged together should give you a very accurate measurement of what your 1/4 miles time should be....................assuming that the ground is not very level)
anyways.........just wondering what you guys think.................anybody have any comments??????
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 788
From: Clinton, MS
i agree...........i think they do seem very quick considering my car, but i was just curious on what others have experienced from it....................i mean maybe i have a freak......only the track will tell. Thanks for the input guys.............anyone else have any comments???
Registered User
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 406
From: Haverhill MA
Maybe the unit is generous.
But more importantly what you have there is a base line for making improvements on your car.
Run it once more and see if there is much of a difference. I would like to see the results of that.
But more importantly what you have there is a base line for making improvements on your car.
Run it once more and see if there is much of a difference. I would like to see the results of that.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 788
From: Clinton, MS
ill run it a couple more times tomorrow..............and i will get back to you all on what it said.....................(p.s. -- i will do the same procedure -- runing down one way and back the other way...........and i will tell yall the results......)
Any more input??
Scott
Any more input??
Scott
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 36
From: Denver
Those G-Techs are not worth crap! They are very inaccurate, I took mine to the track and when I ran a 14.9 (spun) it said I ran 14.3 and when I ran a 15.0 (bog) it said 15.46. High altitude sucks! Anyway if you don't have a perfect launch the times are way off. When I still had my 300ZX Twin Turbo (wrecked 
) I dropped the clutch from 7000 out of curiosity and it said that I ran 8.2 at 160, then I put the car in second and dropped it from 3000 and it bogged a little but not too bad(no torque below 4) and it said 20.4 at 54 that alone showed me that there is no way that those are even close to accurate times. That was with a G-Tech Pro Comp, the $400 one.
) I dropped the clutch from 7000 out of curiosity and it said that I ran 8.2 at 160, then I put the car in second and dropped it from 3000 and it bogged a little but not too bad(no torque below 4) and it said 20.4 at 54 that alone showed me that there is no way that those are even close to accurate times. That was with a G-Tech Pro Comp, the $400 one.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,103
From: Hawaii
it said 20.4 at 54
Man that car sucked!!!
Jest Kidding. Ya know girls and boys.. I have always wondered how did the freaking G-tech knew when you went past the 60 foot mark and 1/4 mile mark. I mean is that Friggin thing using Satelite GPS to tell where the heck you are?? or is just simply reading the Gravity pull of the car and then timing it?
Marvin
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 956
From: Winston Salem, NC
the problem with the G-tech is if you get any wheelspin at all it throws the meter off...and typically anyone that uses one has plenty of wheelspin. For reference, mine tells me fairly constantly that I run a 14.2@101, yet my 0-60 time is 5.4 (no 60' time on mine),
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 368
From: Tampa, FL
i have the orignal $140 version of the gtech...i've done about 15-20 runs total at the track with it
most of the time it adds about 2-4mph depending on how much i spun its added as much as 6-8mph
its usually give or take .1-.3 off either faster or slower
out of all the runs i've made its never been correct with both et and trap as compared to the track ...
most of the time it adds about 2-4mph depending on how much i spun its added as much as 6-8mph
its usually give or take .1-.3 off either faster or slower
out of all the runs i've made its never been correct with both et and trap as compared to the track ...