new #'s tt
12-17-2004, 02:26 PM
#21
Registered User
First off, sweet pics. If you have more of my Z please email them to htellez@unm.edu. Thanks.
Second, I don't come from a long family of racers like you, but the NHRA correction factor actually exists. In fact, they list exact correction factors for a whole cubic butt ton of tracks on their own website. here's the link:
http://www.nhra.com/tech_specs/altitude.html
I am not being sarcastic, but I am really surprised you have never heard of the correction factor. Now, it does make sense to you right? If a car is taken to sea level and tuned, it will make more power and be faster. Its a well known fact. But you are right in saying that people throw around the qtr mile times and the assumption is usually that its at sea level. Would you post a qtr mile time and not admit its on slicks? That would not be a fair comparison to someone who posts their qtr mile time and its on street tires. Sometimes you will see people post their times and say street tires or drag radials....So, I can post my qtr mile time with and without the correction factor. It really doesn't matter to me and I have not tried to "trick" anyone. Its a moot point, isnt it? Altitude makes a huge difference in power and times. So, if someone in San diego said their car is faster than yours because their running a 11.5 sec qtr mile, is there car really faster when you're running 11.9s at 5500feet?
Second, I don't come from a long family of racers like you, but the NHRA correction factor actually exists. In fact, they list exact correction factors for a whole cubic butt ton of tracks on their own website. here's the link:
http://www.nhra.com/tech_specs/altitude.html
I am not being sarcastic, but I am really surprised you have never heard of the correction factor. Now, it does make sense to you right? If a car is taken to sea level and tuned, it will make more power and be faster. Its a well known fact. But you are right in saying that people throw around the qtr mile times and the assumption is usually that its at sea level. Would you post a qtr mile time and not admit its on slicks? That would not be a fair comparison to someone who posts their qtr mile time and its on street tires. Sometimes you will see people post their times and say street tires or drag radials....So, I can post my qtr mile time with and without the correction factor. It really doesn't matter to me and I have not tried to "trick" anyone. Its a moot point, isnt it? Altitude makes a huge difference in power and times. So, if someone in San diego said their car is faster than yours because their running a 11.5 sec qtr mile, is there car really faster when you're running 11.9s at 5500feet?
12-17-2004, 02:41 PM
#22
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: nm
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So are you saying I should tell people I run 10's and add 9 mph to my 125mph trap speed based on this logic?
I have never heard of this ET correction factor, I used to compete in the mid 80's in a VW circuit points series, we ran in California, Phoenix and Bandimere, I can honestly say with all the amatuer and pro racers I know this topic never came up.
In my opinion, to say 12.8@117 is misleading, your car ran 14's with the 13.8 run thrown in there.
My cars best run on Street Tires is a 12.04@120mph in Albuquerque, that day you were there, was our 1st outing with slicks and quite frankly we found our times somewhat disappointing as the 11.85 was the best she did, we were looking for mid 11's.
I do agree that altitude hurts us, your preaching to the choir on that one, however it is not a full second such as your correction factor suggest, I have raced at too many tracks, and I know better on that one.....
I personally believe that my car at Sea level would 11.5 and trap 127-128mph..... Roughly 3-4 tenths gain in et and 2-3mph gain, on a turbo car.
If I were to apply the same ET altitude correction factor then the numbers are 10.85@133mph which is completely rediculous.
I have never heard of this ET correction factor, I used to compete in the mid 80's in a VW circuit points series, we ran in California, Phoenix and Bandimere, I can honestly say with all the amatuer and pro racers I know this topic never came up.
In my opinion, to say 12.8@117 is misleading, your car ran 14's with the 13.8 run thrown in there.
My cars best run on Street Tires is a 12.04@120mph in Albuquerque, that day you were there, was our 1st outing with slicks and quite frankly we found our times somewhat disappointing as the 11.85 was the best she did, we were looking for mid 11's.
I do agree that altitude hurts us, your preaching to the choir on that one, however it is not a full second such as your correction factor suggest, I have raced at too many tracks, and I know better on that one.....
I personally believe that my car at Sea level would 11.5 and trap 127-128mph..... Roughly 3-4 tenths gain in et and 2-3mph gain, on a turbo car.
If I were to apply the same ET altitude correction factor then the numbers are 10.85@133mph which is completely rediculous.
Last edited by LittleMT; 12-17-2004 at 02:56 PM.
12-17-2004, 04:24 PM
#23
Registered User
Originally posted by LittleMT
So are you saying I should tell people I run 10's and add 9 mph to my 125mph trap speed based on this logic?
I have never heard of this ET correction factor, I used to compete in the mid 80's in a VW circuit points series, we ran in California, Phoenix and Bandimere, I can honestly say with all the amatuer and pro racers I know this topic never came up.
In my opinion, to say 12.8@117 is misleading, your car ran 14's with the 13.8 run thrown in there.
My cars best run on Street Tires is a 12.04@120mph in Albuquerque, that day you were there, was our 1st outing with slicks and quite frankly we found our times somewhat disappointing as the 11.85 was the best she did, we were looking for mid 11's.
I do agree that altitude hurts us, your preaching to the choir on that one, however it is not a full second such as your correction factor suggest, I have raced at too many tracks, and I know better on that one.....
I personally believe that my car at Sea level would 11.5 and trap 127-128mph..... Roughly 3-4 tenths gain in et and 2-3mph gain, on a turbo car.
If I were to apply the same ET altitude correction factor then the numbers are 10.85@133mph which is completely rediculous.
So are you saying I should tell people I run 10's and add 9 mph to my 125mph trap speed based on this logic?
I have never heard of this ET correction factor, I used to compete in the mid 80's in a VW circuit points series, we ran in California, Phoenix and Bandimere, I can honestly say with all the amatuer and pro racers I know this topic never came up.
In my opinion, to say 12.8@117 is misleading, your car ran 14's with the 13.8 run thrown in there.
My cars best run on Street Tires is a 12.04@120mph in Albuquerque, that day you were there, was our 1st outing with slicks and quite frankly we found our times somewhat disappointing as the 11.85 was the best she did, we were looking for mid 11's.
I do agree that altitude hurts us, your preaching to the choir on that one, however it is not a full second such as your correction factor suggest, I have raced at too many tracks, and I know better on that one.....
I personally believe that my car at Sea level would 11.5 and trap 127-128mph..... Roughly 3-4 tenths gain in et and 2-3mph gain, on a turbo car.
If I were to apply the same ET altitude correction factor then the numbers are 10.85@133mph which is completely rediculous.
Do you have any more pics of my Z or Todd's Z? I am sure he would like some too. Thanks in advance and I will see you at the track in February.
What brand of slicks did you use that disappointed you?
What about drag radials? Any comments on those?
12-17-2004, 07:22 PM
#25
Sponsor
builtZmotors
builtZmotors
Thread Starter
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 2,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rayden:
can you translate that so we know what is going on with your car? so, really, 550 was not enough?! elaborate...did it spin through 3rd gear? can u give me some idea of what to expect?
-todd
can you translate that so we know what is going on with your car? so, really, 550 was not enough?! elaborate...did it spin through 3rd gear? can u give me some idea of what to expect?
-todd
12-17-2004, 11:38 PM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: nm
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I appreciate you keeping this conversation civil and not a flame fest which was/isnt my intent though I was concerned it may head there.
Last thing I am trying to do is come off as some kind of know it all or a person that never thinks they are wrong....
I wish you and Todd the best, We in fact shared a few words at your dyno session, however you were really caught up in the moment as Brody was tuning your car, and I don't blame you. After your car Todd was next and then the Solid Tech Neon, We made 481hp and 507ft tq which was up from a previous session of 471hp and 499ft tq.
The slick we used is a 24.5, 8.0 15 inch ET Drag, which was probably to small, however it is the largest we could fit being that my suspension is lowered and the slick was very near the strut tower. The slicks were brand new and they probably got 'broken in' after our 5th pass, the car still lost traction in 1st and 2nd gear causing a crappy 60ft as a result. I think you and Todd can have much better results with your rwd which is far better then the Neons fwd obviously. The other issue we will all suffer from is Albuquerques shitty track prep. They rarely prep it with VHT. Only when they have the major events which draws out the big boys.
The Drag Radials I have used are the BFG Drags and they are damn good and recommended.
With drag radials our 60ft times went from 2.3's to 2.0's, with slicks 60ft times are 1.85's. The problem is FWD is very diffulcult to launch with 507ft torque and again, if you can catch the track when they actually prep it, the 60ft times will greatly improve.
The other thing that hurt you and Todd IMO at the track was being unable to buy VP's Motorsports 103, they were sold out, I remember encouraging Todd to throw in a few gallons, we ran VP's C16 due to our high boost setting of 30psi.
Here is a image of Todds car while strapped to the dyno:
I believe this was Todd's first experience at racing under the lights, as he over staged a few times but over all Todd you did a great job, the better times will come with more practice and also finding out exactly how your car wants to be launched in order to cut a low 60ft time.
Last thing I am trying to do is come off as some kind of know it all or a person that never thinks they are wrong....
I wish you and Todd the best, We in fact shared a few words at your dyno session, however you were really caught up in the moment as Brody was tuning your car, and I don't blame you. After your car Todd was next and then the Solid Tech Neon, We made 481hp and 507ft tq which was up from a previous session of 471hp and 499ft tq.
The slick we used is a 24.5, 8.0 15 inch ET Drag, which was probably to small, however it is the largest we could fit being that my suspension is lowered and the slick was very near the strut tower. The slicks were brand new and they probably got 'broken in' after our 5th pass, the car still lost traction in 1st and 2nd gear causing a crappy 60ft as a result. I think you and Todd can have much better results with your rwd which is far better then the Neons fwd obviously. The other issue we will all suffer from is Albuquerques shitty track prep. They rarely prep it with VHT. Only when they have the major events which draws out the big boys.
The Drag Radials I have used are the BFG Drags and they are damn good and recommended.
With drag radials our 60ft times went from 2.3's to 2.0's, with slicks 60ft times are 1.85's. The problem is FWD is very diffulcult to launch with 507ft torque and again, if you can catch the track when they actually prep it, the 60ft times will greatly improve.
The other thing that hurt you and Todd IMO at the track was being unable to buy VP's Motorsports 103, they were sold out, I remember encouraging Todd to throw in a few gallons, we ran VP's C16 due to our high boost setting of 30psi.
Here is a image of Todds car while strapped to the dyno:
I believe this was Todd's first experience at racing under the lights, as he over staged a few times but over all Todd you did a great job, the better times will come with more practice and also finding out exactly how your car wants to be launched in order to cut a low 60ft time.
Last edited by LittleMT; 12-17-2004 at 11:43 PM.
12-19-2004, 08:41 AM
#27
Registered User
Originally posted by LittleMT
...I wish you and Todd the best, We in fact shared a few words at your dyno session, however you were really caught up in the moment as Brody was tuning your car, and I don't blame you. After your car Todd was next and then the Solid Tech Neon, We made 481hp and 507ft tq which was up from a previous session of 471hp and 499ft tq.
...I wish you and Todd the best, We in fact shared a few words at your dyno session, however you were really caught up in the moment as Brody was tuning your car, and I don't blame you. After your car Todd was next and then the Solid Tech Neon, We made 481hp and 507ft tq which was up from a previous session of 471hp and 499ft tq.
12-19-2004, 01:42 PM
#28
Sponsor
builtZmotors
builtZmotors
Thread Starter
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 2,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by going deep
In your post you mentioned you made 481hp and 507ft-lbs of torque, are those numbers actual or with the SAE correction? The SAE will inflate your numbers for a turbo car at high altitude. My uncorrected hp was 383 and with the SAE correction it was 466hp. Big difference.
In your post you mentioned you made 481hp and 507ft-lbs of torque, are those numbers actual or with the SAE correction? The SAE will inflate your numbers for a turbo car at high altitude. My uncorrected hp was 383 and with the SAE correction it was 466hp. Big difference.
first off, i'm not too up to date on all this subtract a second for altitude thing guidelines, but what going deep said seems to be a general accepted rule.
but to going deep's defense, this pissing contest that you've started, if you want to be "consistent" with your claims, make sure that you quote your hp and tq numbers clarifying the actual # (because of loss from altitude).
If you claim you put out 500tq+...this is very much a double standard...
remember when you were apologizing to me sarcastically for "only" putting out 416tq on my previous tune... (actual 341tq) because your car was so powerful, putting out over 500tq
your 500tq is really 410tq (with the estimated 18% loss due to oxygen saturation),
just wanted to put in y 2 cents and end this pointless conversation...
BTW, when my car is done, it will put out an actual 550rwhp..(thats gonna dyno around 690rwhp corrected #) i'll apologize ahead of time for making so much power!
the pics you posted are cool, you can continue posting those, let's just not argue about pointless bullsh!t if we're not gonna be consistent with our conversions.
"can't we all just get along"
TODD
12-19-2004, 08:10 PM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: nm
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by 350zDCalb
littlemt:
first off, i'm not too up to date on all this subtract a second for altitude thing guidelines, but what going deep said seems to be a general accepted rule.
but to going deep's defense, this pissing contest that you've started, if you want to be "consistent" with your claims, make sure that you quote your hp and tq numbers clarifying the actual # (because of loss from altitude).
If you claim you put out 500tq+...this is very much a double standard...
remember when you were apologizing to me sarcastically for "only" putting out 416tq on my previous tune... (actual 341tq) because your car was so powerful, putting out over 500tq
your 500tq is really 410tq (with the estimated 18% loss due to oxygen saturation),
just wanted to put in y 2 cents and end this pointless conversation...
BTW, when my car is done, it will put out an actual 550rwhp..(thats gonna dyno around 690rwhp corrected #) i'll apologize ahead of time for making so much power!
the pics you posted are cool, you can continue posting those, let's just not argue about pointless bullsh!t if we're not gonna be consistent with our conversions.
"can't we all just get along"
TODD
littlemt:
first off, i'm not too up to date on all this subtract a second for altitude thing guidelines, but what going deep said seems to be a general accepted rule.
but to going deep's defense, this pissing contest that you've started, if you want to be "consistent" with your claims, make sure that you quote your hp and tq numbers clarifying the actual # (because of loss from altitude).
If you claim you put out 500tq+...this is very much a double standard...
remember when you were apologizing to me sarcastically for "only" putting out 416tq on my previous tune... (actual 341tq) because your car was so powerful, putting out over 500tq
your 500tq is really 410tq (with the estimated 18% loss due to oxygen saturation),
just wanted to put in y 2 cents and end this pointless conversation...
BTW, when my car is done, it will put out an actual 550rwhp..(thats gonna dyno around 690rwhp corrected #) i'll apologize ahead of time for making so much power!
the pics you posted are cool, you can continue posting those, let's just not argue about pointless bullsh!t if we're not gonna be consistent with our conversions.
"can't we all just get along"
TODD
The dyno is a instrument of tune, my car has been there 3 times all for the purpose of seeing if the latest parts did what we hoped they would do as well as checking afr's. Races are not won on a dyno, the numbers I quoted are SAE so they are very similar to going deeps number, but now let me ask you Todd, should I run around claiming I run 10's knocking a full second off of my et because of some corecttion factor for et that is rather absurd? Or should I simple report what it ran? As far as going deeps car, a 13.8 was its best time, not a 12.8, that is disengenous to say the least.
Tell you what Todd, I was joking with you at the dyno, if that was to much for you, you probably want to avoid me in person from here on out quite frankly, you did ask many many questions and I/we advised you on many things based on experience to try and help you out, good luck with this 550 actual number. I am not suggesting it can't be done however one thing I have learned is not to assume you will hit this numbers and make claims prior to doing so. Because atleast with my experiences, things don't always work out.
The dyno's Edge had a turbo Mustang lay down over 500hp awhile back, the Mustang latter re-dynoed near sea level in California, I am told there was a 5hp difference, IMO, the Dyno correction have more legitimacy then these ET correction factors, however I have no problem with whomever dismisses numbers from a dyno as again I see it as a instrument of tune first and foremost, I honestly dont have the std numbers, I didn't get printouts of these because it wasn't a concern of ours.
But to say, hey I ran a 12.8@117 when you actually ran a 13.8@109 or whatever it was is a insult to everybody at the track that actually runs that fast. Tell me Todd, are you also telling folks you ran a 12 flat knocking a second off of your time as going deep has?
a 12.8 is a pretty fast car, and the bottom line is, any car that ran a 12.8 would rout going deep with the way he ran on that day. If you guys do surpass 500hp uncorrected I will be very curious to see what the times/traps then will be.
Last edited by LittleMT; 12-19-2004 at 08:13 PM.
12-19-2004, 09:16 PM
#30
Registered User
Originally posted by LittleMT
I'll say it again, this correction factor for a et is rediculous, bottom line, just say what your car runs....
The dyno is a instrument of tune, my car has been there 3 times all for the purpose of seeing if the latest parts did what we hoped they would do as well as checking afr's. Races are not won on a dyno, the numbers I quoted are SAE so they are very similar to going deeps number, but now let me ask you Todd, should I run around claiming I run 10's knocking a full second off of my et because of some corecttion factor for et that is rather absurd? Or should I simple report what it ran? As far as going deeps car, a 13.8 was its best time, not a 12.8, that is disengenous to say the least.
Tell you what Todd, I was joking with you at the dyno, if that was to much for you, you probably want to avoid me in person from here on out quite frankly, you did ask many many questions and I/we advised you on many things based on experience to try and help you out, good luck with this 550 actual number. I am not suggesting it can't be done however one thing I have learned is not to assume you will hit this numbers and make claims prior to doing so. Because atleast with my experiences, things don't always work out.
The dyno's Edge had a turbo Mustang lay down over 500hp awhile back, the Mustang latter re-dynoed near sea level in California, I am told there was a 5hp difference, IMO, the Dyno correction have more legitimacy then these ET correction factors, however I have no problem with whomever dismisses numbers from a dyno as again I see it as a instrument of tune first and foremost, I honestly dont have the std numbers, I didn't get printouts of these because it wasn't a concern of ours.
But to say, hey I ran a 12.8@117 when you actually ran a 13.8@109 or whatever it was is a insult to everybody at the track that actually runs that fast. Tell me Todd, are you also telling folks you ran a 12 flat knocking a second off of your time as going deep has?
a 12.8 is a pretty fast car, and the bottom line is, any car that ran a 12.8 would rout going deep with the way he ran on that day. If you guys do surpass 500hp uncorrected I will be very curious to see what the times/traps then will be.
I'll say it again, this correction factor for a et is rediculous, bottom line, just say what your car runs....
The dyno is a instrument of tune, my car has been there 3 times all for the purpose of seeing if the latest parts did what we hoped they would do as well as checking afr's. Races are not won on a dyno, the numbers I quoted are SAE so they are very similar to going deeps number, but now let me ask you Todd, should I run around claiming I run 10's knocking a full second off of my et because of some corecttion factor for et that is rather absurd? Or should I simple report what it ran? As far as going deeps car, a 13.8 was its best time, not a 12.8, that is disengenous to say the least.
Tell you what Todd, I was joking with you at the dyno, if that was to much for you, you probably want to avoid me in person from here on out quite frankly, you did ask many many questions and I/we advised you on many things based on experience to try and help you out, good luck with this 550 actual number. I am not suggesting it can't be done however one thing I have learned is not to assume you will hit this numbers and make claims prior to doing so. Because atleast with my experiences, things don't always work out.
The dyno's Edge had a turbo Mustang lay down over 500hp awhile back, the Mustang latter re-dynoed near sea level in California, I am told there was a 5hp difference, IMO, the Dyno correction have more legitimacy then these ET correction factors, however I have no problem with whomever dismisses numbers from a dyno as again I see it as a instrument of tune first and foremost, I honestly dont have the std numbers, I didn't get printouts of these because it wasn't a concern of ours.
But to say, hey I ran a 12.8@117 when you actually ran a 13.8@109 or whatever it was is a insult to everybody at the track that actually runs that fast. Tell me Todd, are you also telling folks you ran a 12 flat knocking a second off of your time as going deep has?
a 12.8 is a pretty fast car, and the bottom line is, any car that ran a 12.8 would rout going deep with the way he ran on that day. If you guys do surpass 500hp uncorrected I will be very curious to see what the times/traps then will be.
The SAE correction factor for a dyno is another one of those topics that can go on and on in the forum world. Although I have noticed in your sig your hp/tq and never mention whether or not it is SAE corrected given the fact you live in Albuquerque. And of course you don't mention what type of tires you used that day. Now, for someone as a stickler like you that says I am "insulting people at the track..." that can be interpreted as inflating your numbers by the same logic you use in your arguments regarding my times and trap speeds. The difference with me is that I give the reader all of the information and let them make up there own mind regarding the time/trap. In the my350z forum you even go as far as saying how fast my car can run, but this is of course based off of seeing my car at the track for one day? And now you are a big enough expert on my Z to go around interjecting into threads the capabilities of my car???? I am not sure why you feel you have become such an expert on the 350z TT after seeing two on the track one day in Albuquerque. I would never comment on someone's elses car unless I knew the guy from more than just a casual meeting at a dyno shop.
350Zmotoring:
http://www.350zmotoring.com/forums/s...1&pagenumber=2
my350z:
https://my350z.com/forum/showthread....9&pagenumber=2
SRTforum:
http://www.srtforums.com/forums/show...1&page=2&pp=15
I haven't really said anything before regarding posting pictures of my car on the net since I don't have issues with that, but alot of people would at the very least want to give you permission before posting pictures. Of course, everything you have posted has only supported my claims regarding everything I have claimed. Thanks.
12-19-2004, 10:59 PM
#31
Sponsor
builtZmotors
builtZmotors
Thread Starter
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 2,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by LittleMT
Tell you what Todd, I was joking with you at the dyno, if that was to much for you, you probably want to avoid me in person from here on out quite frankly, you did ask many many questions and I/we advised you on many things based on experience to try and help you out, good luck with this 550 actual number.
Tell you what Todd, I was joking with you at the dyno, if that was to much for you, you probably want to avoid me in person from here on out quite frankly, you did ask many many questions and I/we advised you on many things based on experience to try and help you out, good luck with this 550 actual number.
i understand you were joking, i appreciated your feedback, i openly admitted that i had NEVER ran a 1/4 mile before and was trying to learn something... I'm sure i'll see you again, i am man enough to not hold some conversation/arguement on the internet as reason to avoid someone in person... take a deep breath...count to 3..it will be ok... those that share this same hobby in this town should help each other not be like high school jocks being insulted and wanting to pick a fight cause my mustang is faster than your camaro...so as i am doing, i hope you will laugh off this web-war!
12-20-2004, 06:00 AM
#32
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: nm
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by 350zDCalb
this is my LAST post on this subject:
i understand you were joking, i appreciated your feedback, i openly admitted that i had NEVER ran a 1/4 mile before and was trying to learn something... I'm sure i'll see you again, i am man enough to not hold some conversation/arguement on the internet as reason to avoid someone in person... take a deep breath...count to 3..it will be ok... those that share this same hobby in this town should help each other not be like high school jocks being insulted and wanting to pick a fight cause my mustang is faster than your camaro...so as i am doing, i hope you will laugh off this web-war!
this is my LAST post on this subject:
i understand you were joking, i appreciated your feedback, i openly admitted that i had NEVER ran a 1/4 mile before and was trying to learn something... I'm sure i'll see you again, i am man enough to not hold some conversation/arguement on the internet as reason to avoid someone in person... take a deep breath...count to 3..it will be ok... those that share this same hobby in this town should help each other not be like high school jocks being insulted and wanting to pick a fight cause my mustang is faster than your camaro...so as i am doing, i hope you will laugh off this web-war!
This isn't about my car is faster then your your car or anybodys car, its about having fun and going out and doing the best you can do. Pretty easy formula.
As fas as going deep is concerned, you ran 14's pretty much all day, you posted a 12.8 time which is a huge stretch, my dispute isn't the fact that these correction factors exsist which again was new to me as I admitted, your claims of 12.8's are bogus, it took you all that hp to run a best of a 13.8. Though I know this can be improved.
As to the comments regarding my use of slicks, that was never a secret, if your are suggesting that I would run a slow 13.8 with street tires your wrong, as I mentioned earlier the car did a 12 flat with street tires... So as far as your comment about giving the reader all the facts about your et and they can make up their mind, isn't that what I did? I made up my mind that you didn't come close to a 12, you ran 14's which I am sure was disappointing considering your power output.
In all my years your the 1st person I encounter that would use some correction factor to claim a quicker et with a higher trap, I'm still floored by this. Since I am a lifelong resident from Albuquerque I would have thought somebody in all these years would use this one but it took a nuclear engineer on Submarines to use this.
The difference with me is that I give the reader all of the information and let them make up there own mind regarding the time/trap.