Mind-numbing results
04-12-2010, 06:00 AM
#1
Mind-numbing results
yesterday at Napierville dragway.
12degrees outside, back wind. 4th gen 99ES 5spd swap, injen CAI intake, 2.5 mandrel exhaust, stage 3 copper-ceramic clutch, 2000VI swap with 4600 opening. VQ30DE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4 passes, 14.7 at 94.55mph 9.7second 1/8mile, 2.4 60foot pretty plausible, slippery track...
the last pass the car done: 13.7 at104mph... 9.0 1/8mile, 2.20 60foot !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HOW can it happen??? how the driver cut a second and gain 10mph??? explain, i just dont understand...
I take credit by building the car but my friend drove for the time set.
12degrees outside, back wind. 4th gen 99ES 5spd swap, injen CAI intake, 2.5 mandrel exhaust, stage 3 copper-ceramic clutch, 2000VI swap with 4600 opening. VQ30DE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4 passes, 14.7 at 94.55mph 9.7second 1/8mile, 2.4 60foot pretty plausible, slippery track...
the last pass the car done: 13.7 at104mph... 9.0 1/8mile, 2.20 60foot !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HOW can it happen??? how the driver cut a second and gain 10mph??? explain, i just dont understand...
I take credit by building the car but my friend drove for the time set.
speaking of messed up timings.. i ran a 8.xx in my 02 before in the 1/4 mile
04-12-2010, 03:40 PM
#8
with crappy finished winter tires like he did??? sure not. Its not to remove or bash the time he did, its just to understand how it can happen?? 
Had to talk to Jime to understand what happened. Its like, if you take into consideration to get better ET, you gotta have more power OR a better standing start. From 14.7 to 13.7 with the exact same setup and tires, 95mph to 104mph, the distance have to be longer to get that trap speed or already accelerating before the starting line...
Had to talk to Jime to understand what happened. Its like, if you take into consideration to get better ET, you gotta have more power OR a better standing start. From 14.7 to 13.7 with the exact same setup and tires, 95mph to 104mph, the distance have to be longer to get that trap speed or already accelerating before the starting line...
04-12-2010, 05:26 PM
#9
Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Laval, Québec (We speak french over here!)
Posts: 230
2 different cars, VQ'ed ad I builded both of them.
Hard to believe that our friend was this fast, minus that he doesnt have a UDP like VQ'ed and he still have all the A\C stuff.
Hard to believe that our friend was this fast, minus that he doesnt have a UDP like VQ'ed and he still have all the A\C stuff.
Last edited by 97_Roadrunner; 04-12-2010 at 06:10 PM.
04-12-2010, 06:10 PM
#10
Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Laval, Québec (We speak french over here!)
Posts: 230
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/3850124/1
See the car, the engine setup, the tires... and the timeslip.
See the car, the engine setup, the tires... and the timeslip.
04-12-2010, 08:47 PM
#11
Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Laval, Québec (We speak french over here!)
Posts: 230
Still thinking about it...
here's the paper sheet.
And if car numbers were inverted in the lanes... it would make sence. Our friend(#326) is a noob, 1st drag day, he had is share of red lights, this sunday.
Plus, the times on the left side is more like a bad time for him... slippery start and around 94mph... with a red light on this one.
Other than that he managed to get a 14.7xx as a best time... so a 10 mph gain and a full second faster would be jaw dropping or impossible.
here's the paper sheet.
And if car numbers were inverted in the lanes... it would make sence. Our friend(#326) is a noob, 1st drag day, he had is share of red lights, this sunday.
Plus, the times on the left side is more like a bad time for him... slippery start and around 94mph... with a red light on this one.
Other than that he managed to get a 14.7xx as a best time... so a 10 mph gain and a full second faster would be jaw dropping or impossible.
Last edited by 97_Roadrunner; 04-12-2010 at 09:21 PM.
04-13-2010, 04:46 AM
#13
Good your getting some track'ing done. but sad to say, that is a faulty slip. You realize how hard it is for someone to gain a full second? Some spend hundreds of dollars in mods just to gain 1 second, specially all motor.
To give you an idea, with roughly around 280whp on my turbo VQ30 a couple years ago, I ran 13.8 @ 105mph, with a 2.278. no way you'd run the same trap with almost 100HP less.
To give you an idea, with roughly around 280whp on my turbo VQ30 a couple years ago, I ran 13.8 @ 105mph, with a 2.278. no way you'd run the same trap with almost 100HP less.
04-13-2010, 11:45 AM
#15
thats not really a good comparison though. turbo power is way off what NA power is. i didnt have any trouble running 13.8 with 2.20 60s at 230whp.
04-16-2010, 04:00 PM
#19
fine, so imagine getting 13.7@104 3.0L NA!!!!, just impossible like everyone agrees.
It might have been the guy in the tower just forgot to change numbers on timeslips between runs.
It might have been the guy in the tower just forgot to change numbers on timeslips between runs.
04-16-2010, 05:14 PM
#21
DO NOT DO BUSINESS WITH THIS MEMBER - OWES PEOPLE MONEY
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 3,468
Why would you even consider that the 13.7@104 was the correct time for your car when you can look at that time slip and compare the left lane times to your own, then piece together what happened? It seems pretty obvious the lanes were switched and your buddy ran a 15.3@94 with a 2.6 '60 foot, whereas you ran a 14.7@94 with a 2.4 '60 foot.
Mind-numbing, indeed.
Mind-numbing, indeed.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
TallTom
5th Generation Maxima (2000-2003)
50
07-08-2022 09:54 AM
BPuff57
Advanced Suspension, Chassis, and Braking
33
04-16-2020 05:15 AM
hez8813
5th Generation Maxima (2000-2003)
11
03-12-2020 12:06 AM
mkaresh
8th Generation Maxima (2016-)
21
03-12-2018 06:48 PM
