Bluebird

iTrader: (4)

I got a G-tech Pro Competetion (the new one) for X-mas and with the bad weather, last weekend was the first time I was able to use it. I've had a couple of people express interest on it so I decided to post my results so you all could take a look at them and judge the accuracy of the little black box. The temp was around 26 but the roads were dry with some salt and gravel on them so I don't want any crap about the bad 60's.

60’ - 2.395
330’- 6.335
1/8 - 9.550 @ 78.09
1000’- 12.287
¼ - 14.594 @ 95.76
0-60 - 6.055

60’ - 2.397
330’- 6.342
1/8 - 9.609 @ 76.92
1000’- 12.389
¼ - 14.740 @ 95.34
0-60 – 6.117

60’ - 2.416
330’- 6.388
1/8 - 9.625 @ 77.5
1000’- 12.337
¼ - 14.685 @ 97.24
0-60 - 6.172

The runs are listed in chronological order. The were all done one right after the other on the exact same stretch of road. 1st run going East, 2nd run going West and 3rd run going East again. I would have put this in the 1/4 mile forum but G-tech times don't count

SteVTEC

Wow, that actually looks pretty useful. I just wish I had some flat roads around me to really make good use of one.


Do you have any actual timeslips or dynos to compare it with?


Is the trap MPH it gives at the 1/4 mile mark "corrected" such that it's not 2-3 mph high anymore, or is it uncorrected? The 95 traps seem realistic. The 97 maybe a little high. Looks pretty good to me.


Was the road that you were testing on pretty straight/flat?

Bluebird

iTrader: (4)

I was hoping you would reply to this as you are our expert in-house analyst.

My best time is in my sig but the track's computer messed up and trapped me at 30mph. All of my track time slips are with my 18's on and these are with 16's. I'll have to take a look at them when I get home tonight and compare. Sorry, no dynos. But this thing does give a dyno readout with the whole hp/tq curve graphed out and numbered. Its pretty slick.

The road was straight as an arrow but it probalby had a 3 foot difference in elevation throughout. The start/finish appeared to be the same elevation.

SteVTEC

I searched the timeslip forum but it didn't list a post from you. Could you post up all the data from your existing timeslip? That'll help compare the two. Your 1/4 mile trap even if it was screwed up can still be extrapolated based on your 1/8th mile ET/trap.

I'm particularly interested in seeing how accurate it is with the 60' times. That would make this an awesome tool to work on your launch with. That would be of interest to a lot of folks here I bet. I have plenty of time to practice launching in parking lots, but hardly ever does my schedule actually allow me to get to the track around here.

Sprint

iTrader: (10)

Bluebird

iTrader: (4)

I'll post my actual dragstrip timeslips sometime tomorrow. I never posted them because I'm still a noob at the track and they are nothing that you really want people to see.

With the exception of the 14.59, all of them ranged from 15.1 to 15.4. My reaction times were all > 1 sec and my track factors your RT into the total time. In adition, all of my 60's were terrible and I don't have a good excuse for it other than inexperience. (I'm a little better now)

Server busy - I feel a 2x post coming on.

Dave B

Reaction time is never figured into your 1/4 time. You run what you run. You could sit with a green light staring you in the face for 15 minutes, but not until your car breaks the timing beam does the clock actually start recording your ET. Your timeslip would read XX.XX ET and XX.XXmph with a 15 minute reaction time. Reaction is only factored into bracket racing and even then, it has no bearing on your ET, it only has bearing on whether you won/lost the race. G-Techs typically read .1-.2 too quick and 3-4mph to fast. I've used them at the track for fun. If you get wheel hop and lots of tire spin, the G-Techs start to get quicker/faster false readings.

With your very slow 60 foots, I'd say you car is closer to running 14.9-15.1s@92-93mph.


Dave

96BLUMAX

iTrader: (3)

Keep practicing. With those mods you should be well into the 14s.

SteVTEC

He said the 14.59 in his sig is from an actual timeslip from the track, though

Bluebird

iTrader: (4)

For some reason I'm pretty sure, but not positive, that my track includes RT's into the total time. Bear in mind that I only go on test and tune nights so that might have something to do with it. Otherwise I don't see how I ran a 15.4 one time. My RT on that particular run was around 1.2. (Yes, I fell asleep at the line)

I'm going to try and post my actual track timeslips this afternoon if I get back from my appointments in time.

Sprint

iTrader: (10)

RT will never have an effect on ET

Dave B

Yeah, but it sounds like he is subtracting his RT from his ET. If that's the case, then I'm running 13.9s. Like Sprint said, "RT will never have an effect on ET". We'll see what his timeslips say.


Dave

Bluebird

iTrader: (4)

I just stated that one time I ran a 15.4 with a 1.2 RT. If I was subtracting my ET's I would have said I ran a 14.7, which would be right on par with the other times I'm getting.

The time slip said 14.59.

Bluebird

iTrader: (4)

Yeah this track is driving me nuts. Its pretty HICAS and yopu can't get an answer from anybody there about how they have their timing system set up. We'll get it figured out this afternoon (I hope). I goota run now. I'll be back in a couple of hours.

Sprint

iTrader: (10)

you might be mixing up 60ft with RT..

your 60ft is .2 off your 1/4 mile time..

but if you did a 1.2 60ft you are an amazing driver

Sprint

iTrader: (10)

however if you got a 15.4 with a 2.2 60ft .. then a 2.0 60ft would bring you to 15.0

Bluebird

iTrader: (4)

Quite the opposite my friend. That 1.2 is one of my reaction times.

Bluebird

iTrader: (4)

Here are my results. This was done in late August with 90-degree temps and high humidity on 18's with 45 psi.

RT - 1.231
60’ - 2.414
330’ - 6.568
1/8 - 9.987 @ 71.54
1000’ - 12.857
¼ - 15.432 @ 89.46

RT - .948
60’ - 2.531
330’ - 6.698
1/8 - 10.101 @ 72.11
1000’ –12.948
¼ - 15.498 @ 91.09

RT - 1.140
60’ - 2.410
330’ - 6.461
1/8 - .00 @ 0
1000’ - 12.596
¼ - 15.114 @ 92.03

RT - 1.096
60’ - 2.546
330’ - 6.690
1/8 - 10.072 @ 72.70
1000’ - 12.898
¼ - 15.436 @ 91.28

RT - .727
60’ - 2.368
330’ - .000
1/8 - 9.524 @ 76.92
1000’ - 12.196
¼ - 14.597 @ 30.20 (Beats me)

SteVTEC

Wow that's pretty darn cool!!

The 60' times from your G-tech and track 14.59's are almost identical. Looks like this new G-Tech could be pretty useful for practicing launches

And according to: http://www.mustangworks.com/analyzer.html

Your 9.524 @ 76.92 estimates your 1/4 mile trap as 96.92 mph which sounds about right for your mods. The only thing you lack is consistency, which only comes with practice

And it also looks like it's averaging your 1/4 mile trap just like the track does so that it doesn't give results that are 2-3 mph high like the regular g-tech.

Bluebird

iTrader: (4)

Sweet!!

I'm glad that this thing is accurate. It would be a shame if it wasn't for the $250 that it costs.

Thanks for the comparison Steve. I was starting to get paranoid that my 14.59 was just a fluke or foul-up by the track's computer. Thanks for matching those numbers up.

And yes, I'm a total squid when it comes to reaction times and 60-foots. I really need to practice. Luckily the G-tech has a little Christmas tree and it measures your reaction times too. I just haven't tried that feature yet.

Sprint

iTrader: (10)

Dave B

In my typically hated fashion, I'm gonna have to **** on someone's parade. You list that your car was running in 90 degree temps along with running 18" rims. Your first three passes look VERY realistic to what a 4th gen 5 speed with I/Y/E and 18s would be running ET/MPH wise in relation to your rather slow 60 foots.

In the first three passes, your 9.9-10.0@72mph 1/8 miles with 2.3-2.4 are very representative of pretty quick shifting. It was the heat, 60 foot, and 18s that were slowing your car down. Your 1/4 mile trap speeds of 89-91mph are normal in comparison your 1/8ths, weather, and mods.

Now comes the 4th pass. You get the same slow 60 foot, but all of a sudden your car is making SUBSTAINALLY more power. You somehow gain shed .5 seconds and gain a massive 4-5mph in trap speed in the 1/8th mile alone. Your car then goes on to dump .7 seconds in 1/4 mile ET/MPH. Sorry, but this is very hard swallow. This kind of drop in ET and gain in trap speed is what your would see adding about an 80hp shot of nitrous to a Maxima. Your 60 foot stays the same, yet your significantly faster. The 4th gen is a very consistent car. I'm always within .1 seconds assuming my 60 foots are the same. I have a very hard time believing that you're car is that inconsistent.

I don't doubt that the timeslip is legit in the fact that it was printed on a piece of paper that was handed to you. The fact that there are weird data gaps and skewed numbers suggests to me that the track equipment was malfunctioning and or the guy at the timeslip booth gave you the wrong slip. The first 3 slips look perfect from all aspects of the run. The 4th slip is not realistic if we're talking about 4th gen Maxima with the mods you listed, the weather, 60', etc. What I'm seeing is a 4th gen pulling a high 2.3 60', but somehow pulling off a 14.5 in blazing heat. This would qualify as the quickest 4th gen to date. I say that because if you got your 60' into the 2.2 range and the temps were in the 40s, you'd be running 13.7-13.8s on street tires. This is kinda unbelieveable if you ask me after seeing the way your car performed in the first three runs. Don't get me wrong, a 14.59 with a 9.5@77mph 1/8th mile along with a 2.3X 60 foot does make sense, but not for a 4th gen Maxima under these conditions and modifications. Just to give you an idea, that 4th timeslip is similiar to what my 94 Z28 would run stock when I got higher 2.3 60 foots.

I'm sorry, but in my opinion, your car doesn't run mid 14s. It's a legitimate low 15 second car in my eyes and those others that understand what I'm talking about. It is your right to claim 14.59 as your personal best. It is also my right to claim my car has run a best of 5.4@959mph in the 1/8th because that what my slip says (honestly, I have a slip that says this). I also have a slip showing my car running a 13.1@127mph (I believe bird tripped a timer on that run).


Dave

JAIMECBR900

I totally agree. Your analysis of timeslips is right on the money. It is very hard to overcome slow launches. The car has to put down a massive amount of HP/torque to negate the effects of a slow launch. If you get a lot of wheelspin, hop, or just too much slipage, you will have bad 60' times. These slow 60' times are hard to overcome down track w/o a lot of power.

The car in question here is modded, but not enought to make that kind of power. My exp. is similar to Dave's. At the track, most 4th gen 5 spds with I/Y/E are in the mid-low 15's. You may get the occasional 14 but that's 14.8 or 14.9 usually. Not 14.5.

I attribute the numbers to a very faulty timing device at the track during that run.

SteVTEC

A timeslip is a timeslip.

Maybe it was a little fast, and you can question the track equipment, but it's nothing like some of Dave's bogus slips


Maybe there was a tailwind

Bluebird

iTrader: (4)

What are you shaking your head for. I didn't pay for it. It was a x-mas gift.

Bluebird

iTrader: (4)

Something for you to ponder Dave. The last run came after the sun set. Temps dropped and a storm moved in. I got my run just before the rain started. I know that a storm moving in has an effect on barometric pressure and that has an effect on engine performance. I'm not sure if this effect would be positive or negative. But if it is positive, then that combined with a significant drop in temp would make sense.

The timeslip is not that unbelievable. Look at the 1000' and the 1/8 mile. It all makes sense. Plus, hate on it and all of it's variable factors all you want, but the G-tech runs back my 14.59 up. How are people on this site saying that there have been stock 4th gens running high 14's and you're saying that my modded 4th gen is a low 15-second car. I respect your opinion but I disagree with you. I guess all I can do is wait for the track to open and post another mid-14 second slip from my low-15 second car for you and the others who understand what you're talking about.

emax02

iTrader: (1)

The 60' times on the street should be a bit slower because the track has tire compound on it. Street launches and drag strip launches are totaly different.

Bluebird

iTrader: (4)

The 18 inch rims used on the track would cancel out the tire compound and make it equal to the street lauches with the 16's.

MAXimumHP

iTrader: (7)

Have you tried any of the HP graphing functions and downloading it to a computer? What kind of consistency does it give?

JAIMECBR900

I disagree with you. A hurricane could move in and unless the wind was helping you, the weather will not make a full second difference. Your car has only a couple of mods. Good mods mind you, but just a couple really. Looking at your first 3 timeslips, totally goes with average similar car runs from around the country. Those timeslips make sense. I don't know of ANY stock 4th gen that is in the 14's, so I'm not sure where that came from. There are tons of MODDED 4th gens in the 14's, but most are there with more than I/Y/E. Most of my SE guys are in the high 14's to low 15's with those mods. Over and Over and Over again. Your mods will add only about 20hp to the ground at best. In reality, that is just not enough to catapult your car into the mid-low 14's.

As for the G-tech...I have a G-tech. I have run at both the track and the street with the G-tech. It's accuracy is marginal at best. It's consistency is excellent, but accuracy is marginal. I have run at the track where the slip said I ran in the 13's and the G-tech was off by almost .5 secs. G-tech does not compensate for wheelspin, hop, or clutch slip. The MPH on the G-tech is notoriously optimistic. My exp. with this is about 3-7mph on the fast side. According to the G-tech, I've ran 112mph traps in the 1/4, but my fastest ever timeslip was 108mph....

In my opinion, the g-tech is a good device to see improvements after modding since it is consistent. You do baseline runs, then come back and run with the new mods to see the diff. As for HP numbers, plots, and speeds, it's accuracy is not that good. Good for a device that fits in your hand and is affordable. Not so good for you to depend on it as a true number for your car.

Bluebird

iTrader: (4)

The difference between my best run and the next closest run is only 1/2 second. Not the full second you're talking about.



A 14.59 would be mid-high 14's not mid-low. If these mods aren't enough to get me a 14.59, why don't you go in to this thread http://forums.maxima.org/showthread....hreadid=182804 and tell him that he's totally wrong like you're doing to me?


I'm not depending on it as a true number. I'm using it to back-up my track numbers that you're calling bull**** on. This post was about the G-tech, not about how fast my car is. If I wanted to BS anybody I would have went into the 1/4 forum boasting about my 14.59. I didn't even mention the 14.59 until later in the post. Maybe my car is uncharacteristically fast, maybe Jesus was my co-pilot, maybe a deer ran into the back of my car while I was launching. The fact is they handed me a slip, which was definitely my slip, and it said 14.59.

Check the 1000' and 1/8th mile on the run in question, they are clearly faster than any of the other runs so it's not like the final sensor(s) read wrong and gave me this fantastic time.

Bluebird

iTrader: (4)

No I haven’t gotten a chance to do that yet. My only computer access is at work and the employer would kind of frown upon that.

Which reminds me, I’m out for an appointment as of 2:45 today. I’ll be back to defend myself on Monday morning.

Dave B

I don't believe your 14.59 for a second and I'm sorry if it bugs you. I don't doubt that you have the timeslip in your possession, but your car is not running 14.5s in 90 degree heat with an intake/y-pipe and 18s. You're car is not a factory freak and the fact that a storm blew in doesn't change things because when storms blow in, the pressure drops, not rises (bad for racing).

You ran 3 low 15-second runs and then all of a sudden you're .6+ seconds quicker even though your 60' stayed the same. Sorry, it's unbelievable. The guys that don't go to the track probably don't have a clue what I'm talking about nor can they understand the concepts I'm arguing. Believe me, I analyze my runs very closely. My car is very consistent and the same goes for all the other Maximas that run at my track. Your Maxima is simply not going to drop all that ET unless you pull off a substainally better 60' or if you add a power adder like nitrous. I'd have to say the latter because when you drop that much ET and gain so much more trap speed, that means there's more power. If your 60 foot was the only thing that changed, then your trap speeds would stay the same (~91mph). To pull a 14.59@91mph would require a higher 1.8 60' which would set the all time record, street tires or slicks.

A 14.59 with a high 2.3 60' is believeable, BUT not for a 4th gen Maxima running on 18s with an intake/y-pipe. This kind of ET/MPH with a poor 60' looks VERY similiar to an LT1 F-Body / 99+ Mustang GT getting a bad start. Like I said, my 94 Z28, when stock, pulled ET/MPHs like this when my 60 foots were high 2.3s. I really doubt your Maxima's power to weight is anywhere close to a stock LT1 F-Body. That's the kind of power it would take to overcome a launch like that then hit a 14.59.

A handful of guys in this Org have hit mid to lower 14s NA, but NONE of them have done it in hot weather. It's usually 40-60 degrees when people get their best. My car is ~.4 and 3mph slower in 90 degree heat vs running on a 60 degree day. Same mods, same wheels, same weight. Simply put, the VQ hates the heat. High compression, reverse-flow heads, and a tendency to heat soak make the VQ very weak once the temps go above 80. My Z28 was the same way. I've made over 120 1/4 mile passes in months ranging from February all the way thru November. I know what I'm talking about and I've got plenty of data to support what I'm saying.

As for the G-Tech, like Jamie is saying, it's consistent, but not accurate. According to the G-Tech, I've run 13.8-14.1s@102mph. Yeah right.

Go ahead and believe that your car runs 14.59s in the blazing heat. That's your right. It's also my right not to believe it. When the track opens and it's still cold, go and get some more runs. Your car will be consistently quicker than lower 15s, but I've got money saying you'll be running ~14.8s@94mph. According to your 14.59 timeslip, you should be hitting higher 13s with 2.3 60 foots


Dave

Dave B

That's right, he was handed a timeslip, but it doesn't mean it was for his car.

My bogus slips?

Tailwind doesn't help much at all. Headwind doesn't slow you down much either.



Dave

Dev

iTrader: (5)

not at our tracks near toronto!!
we get much better launches on the street than on the track.
i'd like to see some of you people getting amazing times come to toronto, i wouldn't be suprised if the times were higher by about 0.3 seconds.

even the auto 4th gens burnout through first at our track, when they can only get a little chirp on teh street, with the same driving style

96sleeper

iTrader: (4)

Victim64 is not totally wrong though. He has a very fast car and we run at a very good track, and his car does run those times. He is also a great driver and doesn't run 2.3-2.4 60 ft times, he knows how to launch the car. He also runs on 16s at the track, not 18's. I am gonna definatley have to agree with Dave on this one. We all know that he likes to argue sometimes, but he is right on the money this time. I have over 200 passes at the track myself, so I am no newbie. It is not possible to go from a 2.37 60 ft time to a 14.5 in a N/A 4th gen maxima with 2 bolt-ons and 18 inch wheels in 90 degree weather.
This is kinda like whats-his-name saying he went from a 9.7 1/8th mile to a 14.0 1/4 mile in his 4th gen, it just can't happen, the second half of the track his car would have to accelerate faster than a LS1.

Dave B

Yep, good-ole whats-his-name.............papasmurf

And yes, I do like to debate, but I only try to debate when I see misinformation. I know I can be a little overwhelming sometimes.


Dave

krismax

iTrader: (15)

I spun my tires bad one time at the track and had a 30mph at the 1/8 mile mark finished at 92mph thou the car next to me ran 12 somthing and he did not come anywhere close to matching that in the 2nd half of the track. At maxas i ran a 15.1 it was about 98 degrees I/E/P bad clutch and 17x8 momo arrows. Now the huge difference in time some of you talk of i can believe that time is really his,because at lebanon valley dragway my first time there i ran five 15.6's right in a row then my last run ran a 14.8 ,thats a .8 of a difference with still a bad clutch and momos and 85 degrees.BY the way these are all on tape. Thank you

JAIMECBR900

You really need a new calculator. The difference between your first run and your last run is almost a full second, not 1/2. You want to split hairs on 14.59 not being mid-low 14's, that's your call.

I am once again going to totally agree with Dave. He said exactly what I was trying to get you to understand in my earlier post(s). A 4th gen max with I/Y/E DOES NOT make anywhere near the HP necessary to overcome a 2.3 60' and turn it into a mid 14 sec run W/O serious power adders. It's just simple and irrefutable physics. You can argue til the cows come home, but the reality is that your car is a more likely a low 15 sec car and NOT a mid 14 sec car. For some reason you just don't want to understand the facts that Dave and I are trying to tell you. I am not making a personal attack on your integrity...I don't know you. As others said, you may very well have a timeslip. I'm just saying it's not accurate. I'm not calling B.S. I'm just trying to get you to understand that in the real world, especially on the track, HP/torque don't lie. If you ran at sea level, in the winter, on a greatly prep'd track, and a sub 2 sec 60'....then I would believe your freaky number. As it stands, it just is not possible for the conditions you were in. Sorry, but I still disagree. Nothing personal, just facts.

Do the research. I try and help everyone make their car faster. I get a kick out of my buddies doing good at the track because of something I helped them with. Nothing funner than that for me. I have ran at the track in my max from stock to now probably close to 100 times now. That's just with the max. I've raced my motorcycle at the track, as well as previous much stronger cars. My statements come from all that personal experience. I can easily tell you what to do with your max to make it a consistent low 14 or even 13 sec car. Believe me it's a LOT more than I/Y/E and 18's.

Dave B

Unless you ran a 20 some in the 1/4 mile getting 30mph in the 1/8th and then pulling off 92mph, I'm going to have to say the track equipment messed up. What was your 1/8 ET and 1/4 ET.

As for going from 15.6s to 14.8s, we'd have to know the run down of a 15.6 slip to the 14.8 slip. We're you consistently missing shifts, bad 60 foots, etc? We need to know all this. Hell, I've gone from a 16.0@93mph to a 15.0@94mph back to back simply because my 60' was a 2.7 vs a 2.3. The difference was 60'. Bluebird is claiming that with the same slow 60 foots, his car is magically .7-.9 quicker plus MUCH faster. Sorry, it's impossible unless he had nitrous.


Dave