12 second maximas?

Subscribe
Jul 25, 2005 | 12:57 PM
  #41  
Quote: SR20DEN got there with a 1.94 60 foot.
That is a really good 60 ft in my books on Ontario tracks.
Reply
Jul 25, 2005 | 04:51 PM
  #42  
Quote: That is a really good 60 ft in my books on Ontario tracks.

You misunderstood him... he meant SR20DEN got into the 12s with a 1.94 60'... he's in North Carolina not Canada.



Actually, and this is just coincidence, but two of the 3 maximas that have made it into the 1.7 60' are in Canada so I doubt those tracks were any worse than those here in the states. JClaw and Jime have both hit 1.7s in canada. Mardigrasmax is the only one I know of that has run a 1.7 in the USA.
Reply
Jul 26, 2005 | 06:18 AM
  #43  
Quote: You misunderstood him... he meant SR20DEN got into the 12s with a 1.94 60'... he's in North Carolina not Canada.



Actually, and this is just coincidence, but two of the 3 maximas that have made it into the 1.7 60' are in Canada so I doubt those tracks were any worse than those here in the states. JClaw and Jime have both hit 1.7s in canada. Mardigrasmax is the only one I know of that has run a 1.7 in the USA.
Hmm that is strange then, maybe it is an Ontario problem. Speeddemn, a member here for some time, took his Maxima to St. Thomas here in southern Ontario and we could pull no better than 1.9 60ft's with slicks!!!

He turned out a 13.89@98.5 with a 1.92 60ft I believe. We varied launch RPM's along with tire pressure but could not bring it down any further???
Reply
Jul 26, 2005 | 06:44 AM
  #44  
Quote: Hmm that is strange then, maybe it is an Ontario problem. Speeddemn, a member here for some time, took his Maxima to St. Thomas here in southern Ontario and we could pull no better than 1.9 60ft's with slicks!!!

He turned out a 13.89@98.5 with a 1.92 60ft I believe. We varied launch RPM's along with tire pressure but could not bring it down any further???
JClaw and I are running more power than Anish thats why the lower 60'. Regardless of the traction, you still need power to pull 1.7's.

BTW I have pulled 1.7's at St Thomas, Cayuga and Grand Bend.
Reply
Jul 26, 2005 | 07:05 AM
  #45  
Quote: JClaw and I are running more power than Anish thats why the lower 60'. Regardless of the traction, you still need power to pull 1.7's.

BTW I have pulled 1.7's at St Thomas, Cayuga and Grand Bend.
Yeah sorry I had it in my head that we were all talking about 4th gen's (thread maker has 4th gen) and we were all talking NA on the 3.0 not a 3.5. Hence, me saying that 1.7's are pretty fricking crazy for a bolt-on 3.0 considering what we did with Anish's car that day.
Reply
Jul 26, 2005 | 01:52 PM
  #46  
I am hoping to get there in my NA 3.0. I just need to get some more work done on it, and I aint about to it in this oppressive heat. I will probably get back to the track this fall.
Reply
Jul 26, 2005 | 05:22 PM
  #47  
Yeah an NA 3.0 doesn't have the power to weight ratio to get into 1.7s I'd say. My best ever is 1.87. If I'd had a grabby clutch and a launch from redline I bet I still wouldn't get lower than a low 1.8... POSSIBLY a 1.79 or something but I doubt it, and I've got more experience on slicks than anyone here except Jime probably.

My average 60' time at the end of my NA 3.0's career was probably 1.90 (don't have my spreadsheet on this computer so I can't say for sure).
Reply
Jul 26, 2005 | 07:46 PM
  #48  
wow... i wish i could get into the 14s much less the 13s and 12s. I think its time for a ecu and vi. Ive managed a 15.01 in full street trim with intake, y pipe. Hopefully i can do better than that.
Reply
Jul 26, 2005 | 07:46 PM
  #49  
i doubt it
Reply
Jul 26, 2005 | 10:44 PM
  #50  
Quote: i doubt it

You doubt what?
Reply
Jul 27, 2005 | 05:35 AM
  #51  
Quote: You doubt what?
from looking at his 15 useless posts in one day i say we have a troll
Reply
Jul 27, 2005 | 01:13 PM
  #52  
Quote: Yeah an NA 3.0 doesn't have the power to weight ratio to get into 1.7s I'd say. My best ever is 1.87. If I'd had a grabby clutch and a launch from redline I bet I still wouldn't get lower than a low 1.8... POSSIBLY a 1.79 or something but I doubt it, and I've got more experience on slicks than anyone here except Jime probably.

My average 60' time at the end of my NA 3.0's career was probably 1.90 (don't have my spreadsheet on this computer so I can't say for sure).
Yeah, my 60' was the same NA and with the 75 shot out of the hole. 1.91-1.93. I am hoping to get about 1/10 off of this with all my weight reduction.
Reply
Jul 27, 2005 | 02:13 PM
  #53  
Your slicks are too tall to pull a 1.7. I have 23-inchers (that spin easily when they feel like it, sometimes 6500 dump will hold, most times it wont) and will be going with 24.5 when I get more power and raised rev limit.
Reply
Jul 27, 2005 | 04:23 PM
  #54  
Quote: Your slicks are too tall to pull a 1.7. I have 23-inchers (that spin easily when they feel like it, sometimes 6500 dump will hold, most times it wont) and will be going with 24.5 when I get more power and raised rev limit.
I was running 24.5 inchers when I was on the juice.
Reply
Jul 27, 2005 | 06:22 PM
  #55  
I'd love to see you guys running 12's! That means I'll be running even B3Tt4r! lol! I'm only looking at high 11's on my setup though... That is when I get my car done! lol!

John
Reply
Jul 27, 2005 | 10:00 PM
  #56  
Are you the dude from the xceedspeed forum that I replied to with the Vq35 planned into the S-ER? I assume you are based on your location.
Reply
Jul 27, 2005 | 10:18 PM
  #57  
I don't think SE-R's are much lighter than 4th gens. My car weights 2840 lbs when I remove spare & jack and I have sunroof, full interior, no CF parts and basically only engine bay weight reduction.
Reply
Jul 28, 2005 | 06:17 AM
  #58  
And the 6M sucks more power out ... Definately not 11's ... Great innovation though ...

And FYI, the famous SR20DEN is in the 12's on a VQ35 .. FWD.
Reply
Subscribe