ahh, nevermind.

--Steve

 

those traps are insane for only 320 tq. and on stock tires i doubt he could do that. the 60' would not equal those runs either. i call bs on it.

for a 12.2 it would be more like a 1.8 or 1.9 60'

 

Bullsh*t. No way, sorry.

 

with a 123mph trap speed and a 2.1 60' a 12.2 qrt mile run is easily possible. The numbers look right, but there is no way in hell a G35 is going to trap 123mph with just 390hp.....period...........those numbers are most likely from a mid 11 sec car that just had a shitty start.

 

what did skidazzle and z33tt? trap with their 4xxhp setups like 116? and they were mid 12s but they had almost 100 more lbs of tq.

 

Also strange how the MPH has a 3-digit precision. On my slips they're always like 111.5 or 110.9 or whatever.

 

Assuming a race weight of 3700lbs, the car would need approximately 537rwhp to trap at 123MPH based on the formula: HP = (MPH / 234)^3 x raceweight. Obviously 9lbs of boost won't yield 537rwhp. Even the ET seems a bit low for that HP and 60' time, like others said I'd expect a 1.7 or 1.8 60' to hit a low 12 in a G35 with 390rwhp.

working backwards, 390rwhp with a 3700lbs race weight would yield a trap speed of 110MPH or an ET of 12.3 using the formula HP = raceweight / (ET / 5.825)^3

 

I can believe a 12.2 with 390/320 but not the trap speed. 123mph? Sorry...Maybe he meant 113?

 

That doesn't make any sense, whosdady. You can easily have a 123mph trap and hit 12.2 if you f*cked the run up... but a 123mph trap is more like an 11sec car. Not doable with that torque & hp.

 

I believe the numbers are possible. The numbers say this very well may be an 11sec car with some DRs and a better 60ft time. The autos with the increased rev limiter require very little shifting and would still be in 3rd, just about to shift to 4th, to hit these numbers. Pure acceleration, very little room for error except on launch. The real question is "Is this an 11 sec car?"

 

There's no G in the world that would trap 123mph with only 390whp.

 

Somebody posted this link earlier.

http://www.autofacts.ca/classics/fast.htm

Even the GT3 could not do over 120 terminal!

 

You are very correct.........why are most people stupid? I keep asking myself that.

 

Slay I'm not sure what you are saying. I agree with you on the second part about an 11 sec car with a bad launch hitting 123. I used to have one.

I do believe a G with 390 rwhp can hit a 12.2 depending on race weight and tires.

The point I tried to make was maybe he was mistaking the 123 for 113, (switch the 2 to a 1) which would make more sense. Especaily if it was a 5AT G. I think we have a couple 5AT's in the 12.3 range at 114...

 

dfwg35 on G35Driver (he's posted here...I've forgotten his My350Z handle though) ran a 12.7 @ 108.4 in a supercharged G35C putting out 390rwhp/319 ft-lb rwtq. With a good torque converter and a good launch it *might* be possible to get a 12.2 but I'm not sure where 15mph would come from..

 

=======================================

I am the person ZIMBO originally posted about. The numbers he is quoting were from a small bumpkis track in my area, after several questions were brought up about times (MPH) I myself began to doubt how legitimate they were. Since this thread was started I have reverted back to my original track times that can be viewed at: www.dfwg35.com . These times were acquired immediately after the Vortech install with only minor tuning. In the next few weeks I will revisit the track and get new numbers to compare.

Here they are for the people that don’t want to follow the link:

1/4 Mile ET: 12.706
1/4 Mile MPH: 108.445
1/8 Mile ET: 8.185
1/8 Mile MPH: 86.425
60 Foot ET: 1.958
Temperature F: 87.0

 

Yep, like I said - impossible to hit a 123mph trap with 390whp on a car that weighs as much as the G.

Now that we have the facts, the 108 trap makes alot more sense. With a better 60' you got a mid-12 car.

 

After dfw350z explained the situation, I immediately modified my post but as you can see there were folks who were in the process of responding before I updated the post.

--Steve