+1 i agree 100%, first time i drove up to the track, i saw two chevy astro vans lining up. i thought it was funny and kinda neat to see how just about anyone can and will drag race.

 

Na, it still doesn't make sense. A car seeing 83-84mph in the 1/8 should be seeing at least 102mph. A shift into 4th a few hundred feet short of the finish or near the finish isn't going to kill MPH like that. Everything about his timeslip makes perfect sense except for the 1/8 trap speed.

 

I agree the 1/8 trap doesn't make sense to us as far as what we know about the relationship between 1/8 and 1/4 traps, but the split times are spot on.

1/8th trap is calculated over the 66 foot distance between the 594' marker and the 660' marker. It took him 0.538 seconds to go 66'.

66'/.538s = 122.67 ft/second

122.67 ft/second = 83.6mph average speed over that distance.

I only raced at lapeer once, and my traps were down 2-3mph from my local track the previous week (this was waaaay back in the day, like my first or second season drag racing). I don't recall how my 1/8th traps were.

I've seen my 1/8 mile traps vary as much as 3mph because the shift to 4th occurs right as i'm going through the 1/8 trap. Last time I was at the track I trapped as low as 92 and as high as 95 in the 1/8th but the runs ended up with 1/4 traps that were virtually identical.

 

Depends on the tire diameter, gearing, and rear end ratio. My 05 Mustang ran 12.9@102. My 1/8 mph was nearly 85 mph.

 

I trapped 85mph in the 1/8th and went 108mph... When I was trapping 104/105 over the summer I was hitting 83/84mph in the 1/8th..

It's hard if you are used to seeing ok 1/8th mile mph and great 1/4 mile mph from a car. The cars I am used to are the same way you are describing but those cars are also cranking out 350+HP and 375+Trq in stock form with retarded torque at idle to redline...power band is completely different.

 

ok whatever...you must know it all with those blazing 14sec passes and the wealth of track experience its brought to you

 

That is the weirdest thing I've read all day.

 

Before purchasing my Z i owned a 2005 v6 4.0L mustang with tuning,CAI and exhaust on 91 octane. With all that, the car had a scarey first gear and even second gear. by 3rd and fourth, the power is completely gone.

the first gear torque compares with my Z. second, third and on there is no comparison. I loved my 4.0L until i hit 60 mph.

Not to mention, the car only revved to 5.5 or something, and the 1st gear redline was about 35. 60 for second, so the ratios are alot closer then a Z.

 

Why even mod a v6 stang? Its not built for performance. Too bad Ford has to put a v8 to keep up with Zs v6. Now the 07 Zs are running low to mid 13s stock. Quick as the 6.0L GTOs.

 

+1111111111111


And it's an auto, so stock it's got a lot of room to go up in gearing

 

Here's my buddy's Auto V6 Mustang. I still consider it slow, but that's me.

 

too bad, and they sell every single one. who leaves them stock? i know every modded z out there is so much faster than ls2 gto;s too. hahahaah

 

You might think differently if you saw what a turbo 4.0 05+ Stang can do. I'd almost consider that over an 05+ GT just for the shock value

 

im not sure if anyone noted this yet, but he was running slicks as well. we all thought that 60' was good, but for a 4.0 v6 with a good deal of torque, gears and slicks, a 1.9 60' is actually mediocre to slow

 

He has a manual, sounds like his clutch is slipping on the big end.

 

V6 Rustangs

 

How was your time compared to that Mustang's?

 

For some reason, I'm wanting a v8 Stang.

 

what does it matter? everyone and their brother has one.

 

I guess you're slower.

As for your other comment... I have never, ever seen another 350Z on this website.