14.51 @ 94.53mph bone stock 95 5spd? BS? No.
I got to thinking, my best time ever in my old car with a ypipe was 14.46 @ 96.47 (lots bigger trap speed but I don't believe anyone has run faster with only a ypipe yet). If I'd had a Ypipe on this car it would have been a good time. I will probably have to get a cheapo ypipe and maybe a cheap used g-force ecu one of these days.
I'll also have to take a pic of the engine bay for you guys it looks awesome with the hood up. No grille, crooked headlights, deformed bumper, missing corner lamp, no spark plug covers, batter held down with a belt previous owner's retarded alarm install wires going everywhere, oil leaking down from the valve cover gaskets, missing radiator fan and cracked radiator shroud, and the dirtiest engine bay you've ever seen. It's really a sight to behold.
I'll also have to take a pic of the engine bay for you guys it looks awesome with the hood up. No grille, crooked headlights, deformed bumper, missing corner lamp, no spark plug covers, batter held down with a belt previous owner's retarded alarm install wires going everywhere, oil leaking down from the valve cover gaskets, missing radiator fan and cracked radiator shroud, and the dirtiest engine bay you've ever seen. It's really a sight to behold.
For those who asked I was shifting at redline then 6300 or 6400 then 6200. On two runs I left it in 3rd instead of into 4th and it didnt make any difference it seems. I think I should have been shifting a few hundred rpms sooner into 4th I was only probably 150 feet from the end of the track when i was going into 4th.
Originally Posted by Nealoc187
For those who asked I was shifting at redline then 6300 or 6400 then 6200. On two runs I left it in 3rd instead of into 4th and it didnt make any difference it seems. I think I should have been shifting a few hundred rpms sooner into 4th I was only probably 150 feet from the end of the track when i was going into 4th.
Originally Posted by Maximus_95
i remember there was a calculation on how to get your real actual time when you go to a high elevation area etc.
Does anyone know that calculation?
Does anyone know that calculation?
Guest
Posts: n/a
I believe that according to the track meters you ran a 14.5. After all, that's what it shows. However, I also call BS.
I know for a fact that a bone stock 95/96 cannot run a 14.5, PERIOD.
The device or mechanisms controlling you time/speed must have malfunctioned or showed inaccurate measurements.
Therefore, no you did NOT run a 14.5.
Nice try though.
I know for a fact that a bone stock 95/96 cannot run a 14.5, PERIOD.
The device or mechanisms controlling you time/speed must have malfunctioned or showed inaccurate measurements.
Therefore, no you did NOT run a 14.5.
Nice try though.
Originally Posted by Armani
I believe that according to the track meters you ran a 14.5. After all, that's what it shows. However, I also call BS.
I know for a fact that a bone stock 95/96 cannot run a 14.5, PERIOD.
The device or mechanisms controlling you time/speed must have malfunctioned or showed inaccurate measurements.
Therefore, no you did NOT run a 14.5.
Nice try though.
I know for a fact that a bone stock 95/96 cannot run a 14.5, PERIOD.
The device or mechanisms controlling you time/speed must have malfunctioned or showed inaccurate measurements.
Therefore, no you did NOT run a 14.5.
Nice try though.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Mr.Duck
armani, i dont think there were malfunctions, i think your wrong.
Can you prove that? NO.
Neither can I prove that it didn't happen. Hence, I can legitimately label it as BS, since something like this has NEVER happened before. However, I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong here like you are.
Ultimately, nobody can prove the other person wrong in this case. Unless of course you go to the track and can somehow prove that the devices are 100% accurate, 100% of the time. Or, vice versa - prove that the devices are NOT indeed 100% accurate, 100% of the time.
Until then, everyone can question his time of 14.5.
Originally Posted by Armani
I believe that according to the track meters you ran a 14.5. After all, that's what it shows. However, I also call BS.
I know for a fact that a bone stock 95/96 cannot run a 14.5, PERIOD.
The device or mechanisms controlling you time/speed must have malfunctioned or showed inaccurate measurements.
Therefore, no you did NOT run a 14.5.
Nice try though.
I know for a fact that a bone stock 95/96 cannot run a 14.5, PERIOD.
The device or mechanisms controlling you time/speed must have malfunctioned or showed inaccurate measurements.
Therefore, no you did NOT run a 14.5.
Nice try though.
You're an idiot
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,151
Originally Posted by Armani
Of course Mr.Duck, and you know this how...?
Can you prove that? NO.
Neither can I prove that it didn't happen. Hence, I can legitimately label it as BS, since something like this has NEVER happened before. However, I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong here like you are.
Ultimately, nobody can prove the other person wrong in this case. Unless of course you go to the track and can somehow prove that the devices are 100% accurate, 100% of the time. Or, vice versa - prove that the devices are NOT indeed 100% accurate, 100% of the time.
Until then, everyone can question his time of 14.5.
Can you prove that? NO.
Neither can I prove that it didn't happen. Hence, I can legitimately label it as BS, since something like this has NEVER happened before. However, I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong here like you are.
Ultimately, nobody can prove the other person wrong in this case. Unless of course you go to the track and can somehow prove that the devices are 100% accurate, 100% of the time. Or, vice versa - prove that the devices are NOT indeed 100% accurate, 100% of the time.
Until then, everyone can question his time of 14.5.
Originally Posted by Armani
why haters? I don't believe it so I'm automatically a hater? You make absolutely no sense.
I don't think you're a hater, I think you're an idiot. Just because the ET and trap he ran at the track doesn't fit into the model in your little head of what a stock maxima "should" run doesn't mean that it's not valid. Call ALL of the BS you want...he has MULTIPLE slips from a reputable track, and all you have is your opinion.
Originally Posted by Armani
I believe that according to the track meters you ran a 14.5. After all, that's what it shows. However, I also call BS.
I know for a fact that a bone stock 95/96 cannot run a 14.5, PERIOD.
The device or mechanisms controlling you time/speed must have malfunctioned or showed inaccurate measurements.
Therefore, no you did NOT run a 14.5.
Nice try though.
I know for a fact that a bone stock 95/96 cannot run a 14.5, PERIOD.
The device or mechanisms controlling you time/speed must have malfunctioned or showed inaccurate measurements.
Therefore, no you did NOT run a 14.5.
Nice try though.
oh, and you are an idiot
Really? How do you know? Hundreds of years ago everyone knew the earth was the center of the universe and that the earth was flat. They were wrong. Five years ago everyone knew no one could run 14s in a stock 4th gen. They were wrong. Three years ago everyone knew no one could go 13s in a bolt-on 4th gen, or that a stock 4th gen couldn't put 500+ to the wheels, or that a maxima couldn't go 11s on the stock motor. They were wrong. Things happen all the time that people "know" aren't possible. In all the above cases those who "knew" how things were, were wrong.
Anyways look at this logically. My traps are 1mph higher than what my old car trapped at best stock, and I was running in weather that is about 30 degrees cooler, 3 times less humidity, and higher barometric pressure. Anyone who's been at the track knows that these things will combine to increase the power of the car a bit, that increased power along with a couple good launches and crisp shifts = just one more instance of someone raising the bar. This along with the fact that I ran 14.5s in both lanes, and also ran 15.1s in both lanes at 91mph are enough to blow any disbelievers theories out of the water. Nice try though. Please drive through.
Anyways look at this logically. My traps are 1mph higher than what my old car trapped at best stock, and I was running in weather that is about 30 degrees cooler, 3 times less humidity, and higher barometric pressure. Anyone who's been at the track knows that these things will combine to increase the power of the car a bit, that increased power along with a couple good launches and crisp shifts = just one more instance of someone raising the bar. This along with the fact that I ran 14.5s in both lanes, and also ran 15.1s in both lanes at 91mph are enough to blow any disbelievers theories out of the water. Nice try though. Please drive through.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by BriGuyMax
I don't think you're a hater, I think you're an idiot. Just because the ET and trap he ran at the track doesn't fit into the model in your little head of what a stock maxima "should" run doesn't mean that it's not valid. Call ALL of the BS you want...he has MULTIPLE slips from a reputable track, and all you have is your opinion.
Originally Posted by Nealoc187
Really? How do you know? Hundreds of years ago everyone knew the earth was the center of the universe and that the earth was flat. They were wrong. Five years ago everyone knew no one could run 14s in a stock 4th gen. They were wrong. Three years ago everyone knew no one could go 13s in a bolt-on 4th gen, or that a stock 4th gen couldn't put 500+ to the wheels, or that a maxima couldn't go 11s on the stock motor. They were wrong. Things happen all the time that people "know" aren't possible. In all the above cases those who "knew" how things were, were wrong.
Anyways look at this logically. My traps are 1mph higher than what my old car trapped at best stock, and I was running in weather that is about 30 degrees cooler, 3 times less humidity, and higher barometric pressure. Anyone who's been at the track knows that these things will combine to increase the power of the car a bit, that increased power along with a couple good launches and crisp shifts = just one more instance of someone raising the bar. This along with the fact that I ran 14.5s in both lanes, and also ran 15.1s in both lanes at 91mph are enough to blow any disbelievers theories out of the water. Nice try though. Please drive through.
Anyways look at this logically. My traps are 1mph higher than what my old car trapped at best stock, and I was running in weather that is about 30 degrees cooler, 3 times less humidity, and higher barometric pressure. Anyone who's been at the track knows that these things will combine to increase the power of the car a bit, that increased power along with a couple good launches and crisp shifts = just one more instance of someone raising the bar. This along with the fact that I ran 14.5s in both lanes, and also ran 15.1s in both lanes at 91mph are enough to blow any disbelievers theories out of the water. Nice try though. Please drive through.
: 
Senior Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 6,187
Its a mystery what part of this Armani doesn't understand. Based on his experience in the windy city where not only wind, but humidity would play a factor in any 1/4 miles times he's run, perhaps he should broaden his perspective.
The stars were obviously in alignment last night for Nealoc - good weather/atmospheric conditions, a fast track, and a driver who knows what he is doing and can eke the most out a car that has been likely mistreated for years. My hat is off to Nealoc. Armani, you are a disgrace!
The stars were obviously in alignment last night for Nealoc - good weather/atmospheric conditions, a fast track, and a driver who knows what he is doing and can eke the most out a car that has been likely mistreated for years. My hat is off to Nealoc. Armani, you are a disgrace!
Originally Posted by Nealoc187
I traditionally run about .1 second and 1mph slower here than I do at Byron which is the "fast track" I go to sometimes.
Originally Posted by Armani
I believe that according to the track meters you ran a 14.5. After all, that's what it shows. However, I also call BS.
I know for a fact that a bone stock 95/96 cannot run a 14.5, PERIOD.
The device or mechanisms controlling you time/speed must have malfunctioned or showed inaccurate measurements.
Therefore, no you did NOT run a 14.5.
Nice try though.
I know for a fact that a bone stock 95/96 cannot run a 14.5, PERIOD.
The device or mechanisms controlling you time/speed must have malfunctioned or showed inaccurate measurements.
Therefore, no you did NOT run a 14.5.
Nice try though.
Sorry but the reason why people do so bad is because they drive like wussie boys ,and that is that.
and great job neal maybe this will revive your NA love and show you that beater may be your next NA project...........please
Armani likes to stir the pot, as evidenced by his prolific use of the neato little smileys such as the middle finger one. All the evidence points to my claim being legitimate, and yet you choose to be one of those people with their fingers in their ears ignoring the evidence. Can you guess how much weight the opinion of someone who refuses to listen to the evidence carries? Roughly zero. You keep living in your dream world, meanwhile I'll keep living in the real world.
Originally Posted by Armani
Exactly. So, just as people thought that the earth is flat, so did you think that the time-measuring instruments at the track are precise beyond ass.
:
: Neal- How fast do you think you bang out your shifts? Casually, or aggressively? Got any vids of your shifting? You put many cars to shame with your runs.
Armani you are sitting here saying, "wheres the proof? wheres the proof? i want to see proof before i believe it" Your trying to back yourself up with ZERO proof, while Neal has TIMESLIPS So armani if you want your "Proof" so bad why not call up the track and ask them.. Because i cant see that their equipment would be malfunctioning throughout the night, where neal ran 14.5x almost consistantly. I think your just mad that neal makes your times look bad, i know he makes mine look bad 
Originally Posted by Armani
I believe that according to the track meters you ran a 14.5. After all, that's what it shows. However, I also call BS.
I know for a fact that a bone stock 95/96 cannot run a 14.5, PERIOD.
The device or mechanisms controlling you time/speed must have malfunctioned or showed inaccurate measurements.
Therefore, no you did NOT run a 14.5.
Nice try though.
I know for a fact that a bone stock 95/96 cannot run a 14.5, PERIOD.
The device or mechanisms controlling you time/speed must have malfunctioned or showed inaccurate measurements.
Therefore, no you did NOT run a 14.5.
Nice try though.
One bad apple, leave him alone and priase the Neal 
Neal, Doesn't that just give you the modding N/A bug again ... I imagine your TC proj will be costly as hell, but man what you could do with the beater ... Probably win more at some events tahn what you paid for it. . .
Neal, Doesn't that just give you the modding N/A bug again ... I imagine your TC proj will be costly as hell, but man what you could do with the beater ... Probably win more at some events tahn what you paid for it. . .
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,151
Originally Posted by Armani
Exactly. So, just as people thought that the earth is flat, so did you think that the time-measuring instruments at the track are precise beyond ass.
:
: 
im guessing 90% of the 14.5 quarter mile run was in the 60 foot time, look at the 2.1 sec 60 foot time on street tires, thats amazing...i guess the other 10% was shifting, but getting a car that magazines tested at best at 15.1 and knocking off a whole 0.6 secs, is one amazing feat.