I just watched a video of an LG Motorsports C5 run a 13.5 at 126. He stabbed the throttle in 1st, had to lift, shifted, slid into the other lane in 2nd, then just controlled the slid in 3rd to get down the track.

Made me think of Marluci's car if he ever takes it to the drag strip. Heh heh heh.

 

That's what happened to me when I went to the track.... Marins car would do a 360...

 

Thats exactly what happened to me when I did the G-tech...... lol

 

got a link to that video ?

 

Well, in the spirit of hi-jacking the thread. It's the ultimate C5 video part 1 around 3 minutes and 20 seconds. Called ultimatec5_part1. The only link I have is to racingflix. http://www.racingflix.com/browsevideos.asp?p=19 It's the 3rd one down. The whole video is huge. Like 60 megs.

That's very funny to hear Marin. I'm always ready to see vids of your car in action.

-Joe

 

I know it's late, but I figured I'd chime in here since I have lots of G-tech (first gen.) experience. The g-tech reports your trap at the end of the 1/4 mile, rather than averaging over the last "x" feet like they do at Sears Point or Sac Raceway. That given, the trap on the g-tech will actually read HIGHER than it will at the drag strip. Technically, the g-tech speed is more accurate, as it gives the speed at the end of the run, however, to compare apples-to-apples, the g-tech is always on the high side incomparison.

As examples:
When I was stock turbo'd, the g-tech runs averaged ~115, but my real traps at the track were 112mph (~3mph difference). This was at the ~350RWHP level in a 3400# car (12.70s @ 112). With more power, the total difference becomes more gross - as shown below.
When I did my last small turbo upgrade, the g-tech read 125-126, but my real traps at the track were 120mph (5-6mph delta). For reference sake, I ran an 11.75@120mph. ***If, by chance, you guys are using the 2nd-gen g-tech, than this entire argument goes out the door, as my experience-base is with the 1st-gen.***

The g-tech ET doesn't mean **** for cars under 13s in my experience. The best way to use and learn from the g-tech (to track how modifications change your trap and to learn ideal shift points) is to use it as a trap tool only. Not only does it not matter how you launch, but you save your tires and your clutch!

I've seen Marin's car on the street and it certainly rocks, and a 138mph g-tech trap is no joke! ***If his set-up stays as it is now*** (we all know he likes to change it up often!), I bet he runs a low-to-mid 130s trap. 10s? Yes. 9s? Doubtful.

See you on 85!

SS

 

I only g-tech'd it once... I could have done even better with more traction... Its hard to drive that thing in a straight line with that much power.. You dont just floor it and go......I floored it in third gear.... i was half way down the line when i got on it and had traction...

 

I spoke to a guy from AEM, they make a chip for the 300's, he was giving a run down what they could do with the chip which was a launch or traction control map. Basically, the idea was brought up to only apply like say 5psi in 1st, then 7 or so in 2nd, 8 psi in 3rd, and then full boost in all the other gears. But we'll see what happens. That would be sick if you could just dial it in to what works best, oh man you would have all the power and stick. Also have you got the 3.3 in yet. You'll love it, it'll be like you revving to 10grand. It seems way longer in mine but im only revving to 6500 can't imagine 8k.

 

I'm going with the same setup and the 3.3's in... Trying to convince Marin to put the 3.3's as well.

 

I'm waiting to see if an aftermarket company starts making taller gears. I'd like a 2.9

 

the AVCR does that. you can set up boost based on your gear. I used to run that on my turboed celica, works like a charm

 

For teh power you can squeeze out right now probably a 2.9 would work. With around 450whp a 3.3 or 3.2 might be perfect. The 3.5 was just to damn agressive. With the 3.3 it seems agressive but way better than shifting like a bike.