Well, I did it. The stock 5AT number to beat (in the world)
05-29-2005, 01:55 AM
#121
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 795
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe next time do some research before making a statement about something which you no nearly nothing about. That alone is my biggest pet peeve on internet forums. People spout off about a subject which they have nearly no knowledge of the subject matter.
Well, that makes you one of those people doesn't it? Obvoisuly I did not know about the RPM pickup on your dynos (and whether it's used), but you did not know about our dynos either. So are the the pot or cattle in this instance? As you can see I'm correct about some dynos ... I did not realize there were other ones that worked differently.
Well, that makes you one of those people doesn't it? Obvoisuly I did not know about the RPM pickup on your dynos (and whether it's used), but you did not know about our dynos either. So are the the pot or cattle in this instance? As you can see I'm correct about some dynos ... I did not realize there were other ones that worked differently.
05-29-2005, 01:59 AM
#122
Turbo Whore
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West suburbs of Chi-town
Posts: 7,303
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by DavidM
Thanks for the links I will read the, ASAP. Though, do any of the dyno operators use these RPM pick-ups?
All the ones that I know here. Majority of them are "Dyno Dynamics". I didn't think that they cvould read RMP, but I know for sure that even if they do, then that is never used. A lot of the dyno-printouts/displays here show you speed along the X-axis, but they can 'convert' to RPM via the calculations/constants as mentioned before. here's an example (and just happens to be a 350Z):
05-29-2005, 02:02 AM
#123
Turbo Whore
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West suburbs of Chi-town
Posts: 7,303
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by DavidM
Well, that makes you one of those people doesn't it? Obvoisuly I did not know about the RPM pickup on your dynos (and whether it's used), but you did not know about our dynos either. So are the the pot or cattle in this instance? As you can see I'm correct about some dynos ... I did not realize there were other ones that worked differently.
BTW - you haven't proved anything..you've got a link to ONE dyno slip from ONE dyno that reads speed instead of RPM. How do you know that the dyno is question isn't capable of reading engine RPM?? HAVE YOU RESEARCHED THAT??
05-29-2005, 08:01 AM
#124
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 795
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW - you haven't proved anything..you've got a link to ONE dyno slip from ONE dyno that reads speed instead of RPM. How do you know that the dyno is question isn't capable of reading engine RPM?? HAVE YOU RESEARCHED THAT??
I don't need to research it. I've seen many cars dynoed here and all they do is strap them to the dyno ... noone plugs anything into the engine. So whether they can measure the revs is irrelevant as it does not get used. All the dyno runs that I've heard of localy measure the speed of the read wheels and then interpolate the revs.
I posted one dyno plot just to show what I'm talking about ... that's all.
You could say that...but I wasn't the one claiming as factual information that dyno's don't read actual engine RPM. I never said that there weren't dynos out there that didn't use an rpm pickup...just that the vast majority do. Can you disagree?
No, I don't disagree at all. I have no problem learning something new, and I have learned about the RPM readings over the last few posts here. So yes, I was very much wrong about the dynos that you are talking about. Though, I took objection to you saying that I'm 'completely wrong' ... somewhat wrong yes, but not completely.
I don't need to research it. I've seen many cars dynoed here and all they do is strap them to the dyno ... noone plugs anything into the engine. So whether they can measure the revs is irrelevant as it does not get used. All the dyno runs that I've heard of localy measure the speed of the read wheels and then interpolate the revs.
I posted one dyno plot just to show what I'm talking about ... that's all.
You could say that...but I wasn't the one claiming as factual information that dyno's don't read actual engine RPM. I never said that there weren't dynos out there that didn't use an rpm pickup...just that the vast majority do. Can you disagree?
No, I don't disagree at all. I have no problem learning something new, and I have learned about the RPM readings over the last few posts here. So yes, I was very much wrong about the dynos that you are talking about. Though, I took objection to you saying that I'm 'completely wrong' ... somewhat wrong yes, but not completely.
05-29-2005, 10:12 AM
#125
Turbo Whore
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West suburbs of Chi-town
Posts: 7,303
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by DavidM
I don't need to research it. I've seen many cars dynoed here and all they do is strap them to the dyno ... noone plugs anything into the engine. So whether they can measure the revs is irrelevant as it does not get used. All the dyno runs that I've heard of localy measure the speed of the read wheels and then interpolate the revs.
I posted one dyno plot just to show what I'm talking about ... that's all.
No, I don't disagree at all. I have no problem learning something new, and I have learned about the RPM readings over the last few posts here. So yes, I was very much wrong about the dynos that you are talking about. Though, I took objection to you saying that I'm 'completely wrong' ... somewhat wrong yes, but not completely.
I posted one dyno plot just to show what I'm talking about ... that's all.
No, I don't disagree at all. I have no problem learning something new, and I have learned about the RPM readings over the last few posts here. So yes, I was very much wrong about the dynos that you are talking about. Though, I took objection to you saying that I'm 'completely wrong' ... somewhat wrong yes, but not completely.
05-31-2005, 09:55 AM
#126
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Austin/SA
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DavidM
That is COMPLETELY wrong. On a dynojet there is an RPM pickup that is clipped DIRECTLY to one of your coil packs. It's reads rpm straight from the coilpacks which is MUCH more accurate than a factory tach.
I'll take your word for it as I have not heard of anything like that. I do know that some data-logging systems can record revs but it's a pretty complicated and complex method to wire it in.
How would a dyno pick the revs from a car? I'm not sure how it would read revs from 'coil packs'? Also would this work on every car? I'm interested to know as a few guys who have the 'data logging' equiplemnt I mentioned have a hard time getting a consistant revs reading from the engine.
Still, the all the dynos and dyno-sheets that I've seen come by default with a speed reading along the X-scale as the dyno reads speed from the wheel/tyre rotation. Then it can 'transtate' this speed into revs via the internal calculations/constants as I mentioned before. Have you got any links to information the dynos that you mentioned? I'd like to read up on and see what they do and how they work.
ps.
Even if there is a dyno that works as you mentioned that does ot make me 'completely wrong'. It would make me wrong for the dyno you mentioned, but it'll still make me right for all the others.
I'll take your word for it as I have not heard of anything like that. I do know that some data-logging systems can record revs but it's a pretty complicated and complex method to wire it in.
How would a dyno pick the revs from a car? I'm not sure how it would read revs from 'coil packs'? Also would this work on every car? I'm interested to know as a few guys who have the 'data logging' equiplemnt I mentioned have a hard time getting a consistant revs reading from the engine.
Still, the all the dynos and dyno-sheets that I've seen come by default with a speed reading along the X-scale as the dyno reads speed from the wheel/tyre rotation. Then it can 'transtate' this speed into revs via the internal calculations/constants as I mentioned before. Have you got any links to information the dynos that you mentioned? I'd like to read up on and see what they do and how they work.
ps.
Even if there is a dyno that works as you mentioned that does ot make me 'completely wrong'. It would make me wrong for the dyno you mentioned, but it'll still make me right for all the others.
it picks up based on the number of sparks it senses
yes this works on all Gasoline cars... diesels have no spark plugs so i am not sure
the pick up works the same as a timing lite, shift lite etc etc.
a shift light brian has a box that can switch between cylinder numbers that way it can adjust its formula for the calculation.
05-31-2005, 03:11 PM
#127
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NJ
Posts: 4,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless, I'm not stock anymore, this thread is for naught until someone comes with a 5AT and beats it...the stock 6MT record is right in the 13.6 area I believe...so this is basically to say 6MT guys, stop knocking us for buying Auto's in a sports car....
05-31-2005, 05:05 PM
#128
Turbo Whore
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West suburbs of Chi-town
Posts: 7,303
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by DomZ
the stock 6MT record is right in the 13.6 area I believe...so this is basically to say 6MT guys, stop knocking us for buying Auto's in a sports car....
Freak incident at ONE track on ONE day...I think so.
05-31-2005, 05:14 PM
#129
Registered User
Originally Posted by BriGuyMax
The stock 6MT record is 13.63...but what you have to realize is that there are multiple guys in the 13.6s stock in the 6MT, and they (including me) trap higher than you. For that matter there's a BUNCH of 6MT Z's in the 13.7s and 13.8s...and you're the ONLY auto under 13.9 stock...
Freak incident at ONE track on ONE day...I think so.
Freak incident at ONE track on ONE day...I think so.
05-31-2005, 06:13 PM
#130
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NJ
Posts: 4,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JonsilvZ
His trick was to let the car cool down for awhile. Heat kills a auto tranny. With a 1.9 60ft 13.7 wouldve been mine stock.
Originally Posted by BriGuyMax
The stock 6MT record is 13.63...but what you have to realize is that there are multiple guys in the 13.6s stock in the 6MT, and they (including me) trap higher than you. For that matter there's a BUNCH of 6MT Z's in the 13.7s and 13.8s...and you're the ONLY auto under 13.9 stock...
Freak incident at ONE track on ONE day...I think so.
Freak incident at ONE track on ONE day...I think so.
Ok, so manuals have a higher trap than autos...OMG someone call the press! I can trap mid-high 102's all day with a 2.0 60', better 60' = lower trap speed. You are trolling my thread hardcore which was just supposed to be about the capabilities of a 5AT....
05-31-2005, 06:31 PM
#131
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DomZ
13.667@101.57
60' - 1.996
60' - 1.996
Something to think about though...driving fast in a straight line is not very difficult, especially in a car that shifts for you. I don't mean to offend, but let's not forget that your car and the track conditions had more to do with your amazing time than driver input. Maybe it's just me, but I'd try to refrain from being so audacious. But hey, at least now we know exactly what a stock 5MT is really capable of doing!
05-31-2005, 07:57 PM
#132
Turbo Whore
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West suburbs of Chi-town
Posts: 7,303
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by DomZ
Ok, so manuals have a higher trap than autos...OMG someone call the press! I can trap mid-high 102's all day with a 2.0 60', better 60' = lower trap speed. You are trolling my thread hardcore which was just supposed to be about the capabilities of a 5AT....
If you think that a better 60' automatically means a lower trap speed than you're an idiot.
I've been drag racing for a good long while and I've NEVER seen a correlation between lower 60's and higher traps...in fact I usually see HIGHER traps with a better 60' time...
It's a myth...get over it.
Last edited by BriGuyMax; 05-31-2005 at 08:01 PM.
05-31-2005, 07:59 PM
#133
Turbo Whore
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West suburbs of Chi-town
Posts: 7,303
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by JonsilvZ
His trick was to let the car cool down for awhile. Heat kills a auto tranny. With a 1.9 60ft 13.7 wouldve been mine stock.
With a 1.9 60' I would have run high 13.4s stock...what's your point???
05-31-2005, 09:09 PM
#134
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Jackson County, GA
Posts: 1,384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't be surprised if I run a 13.4-13.5 before the summer is out. I am keeping it stock, as the car has been feeling stronger with miles.
The night I ran my best times, I wasn't trapping as high as I normally due, as I was getting a little KR from the gas.
The last couple of months it seems to have gotten even stronger, even though the temperature is higher now.
Oh wait, I have HID now, so I guess its not stock.
The night I ran my best times, I wasn't trapping as high as I normally due, as I was getting a little KR from the gas.
The last couple of months it seems to have gotten even stronger, even though the temperature is higher now.
Oh wait, I have HID now, so I guess its not stock.
05-31-2005, 11:33 PM
#135
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 795
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and you're the ONLY auto under 13.9 stock.
No, he's not the only one. Lionking has pulled good 1/2 dozen 13.8sec passes with the best almost in 13.7s. Also Lionking and his auto were doing it pretty easy, while rest of us manual guys could not brake into 13s (on the same day). The auto was just launching so well of the line that we could not match it's 60' time. While the rest of us with manuals were extatic when we dropped into 2.2s (and not many of us did that), Lionking and his auto were pulling low 2.0s.
Not implying that the auto is a quicker car than the manual, but it's very well suited for pulling great 1/4mile times. The gearing is perfect for it as it needs one less shift than the manual and the 3rd is geared perfectly to reach the 1/4 mile mark. Then the auto with it's torque-converter can keep the engine above 2000rpm with minimal wheel-spin ... it's almost like a T/C or launch-control. I'm actually surpised that there are not more 13.8sec 1/4mile times from autos ... I just can't see how with an auto people don't come home with a sub 14sec pass with minimal effort.
No, he's not the only one. Lionking has pulled good 1/2 dozen 13.8sec passes with the best almost in 13.7s. Also Lionking and his auto were doing it pretty easy, while rest of us manual guys could not brake into 13s (on the same day). The auto was just launching so well of the line that we could not match it's 60' time. While the rest of us with manuals were extatic when we dropped into 2.2s (and not many of us did that), Lionking and his auto were pulling low 2.0s.
Not implying that the auto is a quicker car than the manual, but it's very well suited for pulling great 1/4mile times. The gearing is perfect for it as it needs one less shift than the manual and the 3rd is geared perfectly to reach the 1/4 mile mark. Then the auto with it's torque-converter can keep the engine above 2000rpm with minimal wheel-spin ... it's almost like a T/C or launch-control. I'm actually surpised that there are not more 13.8sec 1/4mile times from autos ... I just can't see how with an auto people don't come home with a sub 14sec pass with minimal effort.
06-01-2005, 03:04 AM
#136
Turbo Whore
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West suburbs of Chi-town
Posts: 7,303
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by DavidM
and you're the ONLY auto under 13.9 stock.
No, he's not the only one. Lionking has pulled good 1/2 dozen 13.8sec passes with the best almost in 13.7s. Also Lionking and his auto were doing it pretty easy, while rest of us manual guys could not brake into 13s (on the same day). The auto was just launching so well of the line that we could not match it's 60' time. While the rest of us with manuals were extatic when we dropped into 2.2s (and not many of us did that), Lionking and his auto were pulling low 2.0s.
Not implying that the auto is a quicker car than the manual, but it's very well suited for pulling great 1/4mile times. The gearing is perfect for it as it needs one less shift than the manual and the 3rd is geared perfectly to reach the 1/4 mile mark. Then the auto with it's torque-converter can keep the engine above 2000rpm with minimal wheel-spin ... it's almost like a T/C or launch-control. I'm actually surpised that there are not more 13.8sec 1/4mile times from autos ... I just can't see how with an auto people don't come home with a sub 14sec pass with minimal effort.
No, he's not the only one. Lionking has pulled good 1/2 dozen 13.8sec passes with the best almost in 13.7s. Also Lionking and his auto were doing it pretty easy, while rest of us manual guys could not brake into 13s (on the same day). The auto was just launching so well of the line that we could not match it's 60' time. While the rest of us with manuals were extatic when we dropped into 2.2s (and not many of us did that), Lionking and his auto were pulling low 2.0s.
Not implying that the auto is a quicker car than the manual, but it's very well suited for pulling great 1/4mile times. The gearing is perfect for it as it needs one less shift than the manual and the 3rd is geared perfectly to reach the 1/4 mile mark. Then the auto with it's torque-converter can keep the engine above 2000rpm with minimal wheel-spin ... it's almost like a T/C or launch-control. I'm actually surpised that there are not more 13.8sec 1/4mile times from autos ... I just can't see how with an auto people don't come home with a sub 14sec pass with minimal effort.
Who the hell is Lionking???
06-01-2005, 05:26 AM
#137
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NJ
Posts: 4,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BriGuyMax
But the FACT is...you DIDN'T and WON'T trap mid-high 102s all day...at least not stock (since you aren't anymore) so arguing about it is a moot point.
If you think that a better 60' automatically means a lower trap speed than you're an idiot.
I've been drag racing for a good long while and I've NEVER seen a correlation between lower 60's and higher traps...in fact I usually see HIGHER traps with a better 60' time...
It's a myth...get over it.
If you think that a better 60' automatically means a lower trap speed than you're an idiot.
I've been drag racing for a good long while and I've NEVER seen a correlation between lower 60's and higher traps...in fact I usually see HIGHER traps with a better 60' time...
It's a myth...get over it.
06-01-2005, 05:30 AM
#138
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NJ
Posts: 4,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BriGuyMax
I don't know about you...but I've been pulling 2.0s or lower out of this car since my second pass ever in it.
Who the hell is Lionking???
Who the hell is Lionking???
06-01-2005, 07:12 AM
#139
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 795
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know about you...but I've been pulling 2.0s or lower out of this car since my second pass ever in it.
I'm sure you do, but you're on a different track, have different grip levels and conditions so we can't really compare. Though I can tell you that 2.22sec 60' time is the best any manual 350Z has managed on 'this' track ... and it was not easy. I'm sure that on a different day, when the track offers a bit more grip I'll be able to cut a 2.0sec 60' time as well. But in our 2 visits to the track that has not happened and Lionking with his auto always left with the best 60' time as well as 1/4mile time.
I'm sure you do, but you're on a different track, have different grip levels and conditions so we can't really compare. Though I can tell you that 2.22sec 60' time is the best any manual 350Z has managed on 'this' track ... and it was not easy. I'm sure that on a different day, when the track offers a bit more grip I'll be able to cut a 2.0sec 60' time as well. But in our 2 visits to the track that has not happened and Lionking with his auto always left with the best 60' time as well as 1/4mile time.
06-01-2005, 09:12 AM
#140
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NJ
Posts: 4,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DavidM
I don't know about you...but I've been pulling 2.0s or lower out of this car since my second pass ever in it.
I'm sure you do, but you're on a different track, have different grip levels and conditions so we can't really compare. Though I can tell you that 2.22sec 60' time is the best any manual 350Z has managed on 'this' track ... and it was not easy. I'm sure that on a different day, when the track offers a bit more grip I'll be able to cut a 2.0sec 60' time as well. But in our 2 visits to the track that has not happened and Lionking with his auto always left with the best 60' time as well as 1/4mile time.
I'm sure you do, but you're on a different track, have different grip levels and conditions so we can't really compare. Though I can tell you that 2.22sec 60' time is the best any manual 350Z has managed on 'this' track ... and it was not easy. I'm sure that on a different day, when the track offers a bit more grip I'll be able to cut a 2.0sec 60' time as well. But in our 2 visits to the track that has not happened and Lionking with his auto always left with the best 60' time as well as 1/4mile time.
The track is an extremely grippy track, I know people who drive an hour past Englishtown just to race at Atco...