63 all models BEST 1/4, 1/8
05-11-2007, 06:26 AM
#51
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
Who knows? w/perfect weather at a sea level track the 63 might have horrible traction problems (more power, colder weather etc.) thus negating corrected time, trap, as gods word.
Last edited by Thericker; 05-11-2007 at 06:36 AM.
05-11-2007, 06:35 AM
#52
Super Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PCH
Posts: 657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OO7 CLS63///G55TANK ///S80-T6///R1///R6
Well you just missed my previous post below? It's very easy to misinterpret these times as being what was actually run that night, at that track etc..
I hope you're not getting this the wrong way? no disrespect meant, props for actually running there, it's just a fact there are to many variables to list every 63 run w/corrected times as if that's exactly what they would run at "X" sea level track, then create a solid 1/4 mile list set in stone off of this data....You'd have to recreate everything perfectly to the sea level track
I hope you're not getting this the wrong way? no disrespect meant, props for actually running there, it's just a fact there are to many variables to list every 63 run w/corrected times as if that's exactly what they would run at "X" sea level track, then create a solid 1/4 mile list set in stone off of this data....You'd have to recreate everything perfectly to the sea level track
05-11-2007, 06:37 AM
#53
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
Last edited by Thericker; 05-11-2007 at 06:39 AM.
05-11-2007, 06:38 AM
#54
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
@ that ****y track w/crummy driver yes...What I think Ted was intimating is your rallying the what if factor to highly on this thread, other E55k 1/4 threads have mostly been "Hey I ran this time, trap, @ this track" not so heavily relying on corrected times at perfect conditions for every run etc.. to get better bragging rights
No doubt we could all run better times at these sea level low ambient temp tracks, great prep, launch, etc, it's just to many what if's to start compiling a big list of mid to low 12 runs from the 63's there's to many variables to claim these corrected times as "Oh then you ran a 12.xxx" "Instead of a 13.xxx"
Just call it as it happens, that's why everyone hates this track, and basically use it as a tuning tool, not a best ETA, trap, record track.
No doubt we could all run better times at these sea level low ambient temp tracks, great prep, launch, etc, it's just to many what if's to start compiling a big list of mid to low 12 runs from the 63's there's to many variables to claim these corrected times as "Oh then you ran a 12.xxx" "Instead of a 13.xxx"
Just call it as it happens, that's why everyone hates this track, and basically use it as a tuning tool, not a best ETA, trap, record track.
You can only throw the corrections out when your lined up head to head on a track under equal and standard or non standard conditions. Using the SAE factor we put all the 63 cars on the same track under the same condition all the way down to humidity and atmospheric pressure and including temperature. You need the correction for the DYNO , you need em for the drag strip. You guys are hindering your potential by not utilizing the corrections
If we do not use corrected times than we cannot compare cars period. You cannot compare even the cars in California to eachother. So there is no point to even posting slips or track times period, its absolutely meaningless. Im cool with calling it as it happens, thats what we have been doing, all the info is in the thread, actual and corrected. Why do you guys think they even have "dial times"? Im suprised at the amount of aprehension here to use a correction, that is given to me by the very sport in which they participate.
05-11-2007, 06:44 AM
#55
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
You can only throw the corrections out when your lined up head to head on a track under equal and standard or non standard conditions. Using the SAE factor we put all the 63 cars on the same track under the same condition all the way down to humidity and atmospheric pressure and including temperature. You need the correction for the DYNO , you need em for the drag strip. You guys are hindering your potential by not utilizing the corrections
If we do not use corrected times than we cannot compare cars period. You cannot compare even the cars in California to eachother. So there is no point to even posting slips or track times period, its absolutely meaningless. Im cool with calling it as it happens, thats what we have been doing, all the info is in the thread, actual and corrected. Why do you guys think they even have "dial times"? Im suprised at the amount of aprehension here to use a correction, that is given to me by the very sport in which they participate.
If we do not use corrected times than we cannot compare cars period. You cannot compare even the cars in California to eachother. So there is no point to even posting slips or track times period, its absolutely meaningless. Im cool with calling it as it happens, thats what we have been doing, all the info is in the thread, actual and corrected. Why do you guys think they even have "dial times"? Im suprised at the amount of aprehension here to use a correction, that is given to me by the very sport in which they participate.
Edit: I also see the need to use the correction factor now & then, but implementing it the way you have in this thread is just getting overwhelming w/everyones times corrected after every run in a list, it's impossible to say what would, could, happen on every run.
Last edited by Thericker; 05-11-2007 at 06:51 AM.
05-11-2007, 06:46 AM
#56
Super Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PCH
Posts: 657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OO7 CLS63///G55TANK ///S80-T6///R1///R6
I know how it works with the times but wat juice is saying is logical when we are comparing on a nationwide track. The only problem is that we're not following everybodys trendy ideology. By giving everyone the same conditions, It brings focus to the car and the driver...
05-11-2007, 06:52 AM
#57
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Well you just missed my previous post below? It's very easy to misinterpret these times as being what was actually run that night, at that track etc..
I hope you're not getting this the wrong way? no disrespect meant, props for actually running there, it's just a fact there are to many variables to list every 63 run w/corrected times as if that's exactly what they would run at "X" sea level track, then create a solid 1/4 mile list set in stone off of this data....You'd have to recreate everything perfectly to the sea level track
Who knows? w/perfect weather at a sea level track the 63 might have horrible traction problems (more power, colder weather etc.) thus negating corrected time, trap, as gods word.
I hope you're not getting this the wrong way? no disrespect meant, props for actually running there, it's just a fact there are to many variables to list every 63 run w/corrected times as if that's exactly what they would run at "X" sea level track, then create a solid 1/4 mile list set in stone off of this data....You'd have to recreate everything perfectly to the sea level track
Who knows? w/perfect weather at a sea level track the 63 might have horrible traction problems (more power, colder weather etc.) thus negating corrected time, trap, as gods word.
Ricker , I started this thread so the 63 times could be accounted for and accurately. Since we are starting FRESH with a small pool it is not a problem to run the numbers so we are all on the same feild in the same stadium playing the same game. This has zero to do with the driver and evrything to do with the conditions he is driving in. The correction factor does not account for debris, sand, poor visability, being drunk, getting a headache, bad tires. I think I understand what Ted was trying to say and why you agreed and I will be more clear in the future about I ran xxxx @xxx. I have tried to make sure the times represented have indications they are corrected. If I had details of everyones run like I requested I could correct all the times. So yes in order to be fair all the times will be subject to the sae correction.
05-11-2007, 07:06 AM
#58
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
Ricker , I started this thread so the 63 times could be accounted for and accurately. Since we are starting FRESH with a small pool it is not a problem to run the numbers so we are all on the same feild in the same stadium playing the same game. This has zero to do with the driver and evrything to do with the conditions he is driving in. The correction factor does not account for debris, sand, poor visability, being drunk, getting a headache, bad tires. I think I understand what Ted was trying to say and why you agreed and I will be more clear in the future about I ran xxxx @xxx. I have tried to make sure the times represented have indications they are corrected. If I had details of everyones run like I requested I could correct all the times. So yes in order to be fair all the times will be subject to the sae correction.
no doubt.... Just thought it was getting a bit confusing to the casual reader/viewer among my other points etc.. as you know how easy it gets around here to miss things when reading quickly
05-11-2007, 07:06 AM
#59
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Super Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hollywood CA
Vehicle I drive: 2007 CLS63 030
Posts: 916
Quote:
Originally Posted by juicee63
Since we are finally starting to get 63 owners to the track we need to do a better job keeping track, no pun intended. Please 55 and 65 guys do not come in the thread and say "Jeez the 63 is slow", "what on earth is wrong with the car" etc.. This is a record keeping thread only and should be updated as more 63's run the drag. Here is a summation of what we have so far. I am missing people so please respond with your best times I would like to have all the intervals of the slip! Post temp of your car, temp outside, anyother tricks and or conditions. Please post your times and every detail you have in this thread. With the exception of Derekfsu, all the drivers here are very new and most of the runs are the very first runs in the car. For most it is the first trip to a drag strip. I am sure they have all been to other strips, Good luck 63's Guys weigh your cars and post weight as well!
CT= CORRECTED TIME USING SAE standard correction
To use this calculator enter the date, time, select dragstrip, ET, and trap speed. This calculator will look up the weather information for the date you entered from the closest airport to the dragstrip you select. Based on these weather conditions the calculator will calculate the density altitude and correct the timeslip to sea level.
NHRA Correction Factors - This is not a calculation but a table you can use to correct your timeslips to sea level if you run at a track where the air is thin.
So we are doing a more accurate correction that factors in the weather condition during your run!
The closest weather results for 05/04/2007 at 09:30 pm
Time recorded 9:53 PM
Temperature °F 55.9
Dew Point °F 34.0
Altimeter Setting 29.86 in Mercury
Density Altitude: 3222.1 feet
Track Elelvation: 2640 feet
UnCorrected ET:
13.14 (sec) @ 111 (MPH)
Corrected ET to Sea Level:
12.629 (sec) @ 115.574 (MPH)
My corrected times using the SAE calculations.
*=CORRECTED TIME
*1. Bluemax 12.36@116 Firebird Az 05/4/2007 2100 odo lbs
2. XABO 12.5X @114 MIR 3000 odo lbs
*3. SAMSSONZ 12.59@114.3 LACR 5/4/2007 8,000miles lbs
*4. Juicee63 12.629@ 115.574 LACR 5/4/2007 4079 miles CLS
5. 05VENOM 12.651 @114 Englishtown NJ 04/xx/07 2000 odo lbs
*6. TREZ63 12.802 (sec) @ 109.724 (MPH) 6000 MI lacr 5/9/07
7. DEREKFSU 13.018@108.84 stock E63 lbs
8.* MHK 13.18@110 9/29/06 CLS lbs 8:30 pm
* INDICATES SAE CORRECTED TIME
1.Johnny E63 1/8 8.1959 @ 87.98mph(NOT VERIFIED)
2.*Bluemax E63 1/8 8.33@87.68
3.*SAMMSONZ CLS 1/88.35@89
4.*TREZ63 CLS 1/8 8.39@ 87
5.*Juicee63 CLS63030 8.576@87.48
Best 60 ft?
Anyone break 2?
1.Bluemax 2.03
2.Johnny E63 2.11
3.Juicee63 2.12
* INDICATES SAE CORRECTED TIME
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hollywood CA
Vehicle I drive: 2007 CLS63 030
Posts: 916
Quote:
Originally Posted by juicee63
Since we are finally starting to get 63 owners to the track we need to do a better job keeping track, no pun intended. Please 55 and 65 guys do not come in the thread and say "Jeez the 63 is slow", "what on earth is wrong with the car" etc.. This is a record keeping thread only and should be updated as more 63's run the drag. Here is a summation of what we have so far. I am missing people so please respond with your best times I would like to have all the intervals of the slip! Post temp of your car, temp outside, anyother tricks and or conditions. Please post your times and every detail you have in this thread. With the exception of Derekfsu, all the drivers here are very new and most of the runs are the very first runs in the car. For most it is the first trip to a drag strip. I am sure they have all been to other strips, Good luck 63's Guys weigh your cars and post weight as well!
CT= CORRECTED TIME USING SAE standard correction
To use this calculator enter the date, time, select dragstrip, ET, and trap speed. This calculator will look up the weather information for the date you entered from the closest airport to the dragstrip you select. Based on these weather conditions the calculator will calculate the density altitude and correct the timeslip to sea level.
NHRA Correction Factors - This is not a calculation but a table you can use to correct your timeslips to sea level if you run at a track where the air is thin.
So we are doing a more accurate correction that factors in the weather condition during your run!
The closest weather results for 05/04/2007 at 09:30 pm
Time recorded 9:53 PM
Temperature °F 55.9
Dew Point °F 34.0
Altimeter Setting 29.86 in Mercury
Density Altitude: 3222.1 feet
Track Elelvation: 2640 feet
UnCorrected ET:
13.14 (sec) @ 111 (MPH)
Corrected ET to Sea Level:
12.629 (sec) @ 115.574 (MPH)
My corrected times using the SAE calculations.
*=CORRECTED TIME
*1. Bluemax 12.36@116 Firebird Az 05/4/2007 2100 odo lbs
2. XABO 12.5X @114 MIR 3000 odo lbs
*3. SAMSSONZ 12.59@114.3 LACR 5/4/2007 8,000miles lbs
*4. Juicee63 12.629@ 115.574 LACR 5/4/2007 4079 miles CLS
5. 05VENOM 12.651 @114 Englishtown NJ 04/xx/07 2000 odo lbs
*6. TREZ63 12.802 (sec) @ 109.724 (MPH) 6000 MI lacr 5/9/07
7. DEREKFSU 13.018@108.84 stock E63 lbs
8.* MHK 13.18@110 9/29/06 CLS lbs 8:30 pm
* INDICATES SAE CORRECTED TIME
1.Johnny E63 1/8 8.1959 @ 87.98mph(NOT VERIFIED)
2.*Bluemax E63 1/8 8.33@87.68
3.*SAMMSONZ CLS 1/88.35@89
4.*TREZ63 CLS 1/8 8.39@ 87
5.*Juicee63 CLS63030 8.576@87.48
Best 60 ft?
Anyone break 2?
1.Bluemax 2.03
2.Johnny E63 2.11
3.Juicee63 2.12
* INDICATES SAE CORRECTED TIME
05-11-2007, 08:56 AM
#60
Out Of Control!!
Wow I feel sorry for juicee63. We went through the whole corrected time slip thing in another thread yesterday. He just wants to see how the cars will compare. I agree that the time is not official until you actually run that time but corrected times make for fun comparisons.
Put some d/rs on those 63s and powerbrake the car and you will definitely break the 2.0 60' which will translate to a much better ET
Put some d/rs on those 63s and powerbrake the car and you will definitely break the 2.0 60' which will translate to a much better ET
05-11-2007, 12:17 PM
#61
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Wow I feel sorry for juicee63. We went through the whole corrected time slip thing in another thread yesterday. He just wants to see how the cars will compare. I agree that the time is not official until you actually run that time but corrected times make for fun comparisons.
Put some d/rs on those 63s and powerbrake the car and you will definitely break the 2.0 60' which will translate to a much better ET
Put some d/rs on those 63s and powerbrake the car and you will definitely break the 2.0 60' which will translate to a much better ET
Thank You blackbenzz, I think this is why I got fired up. I am glad you understand what I am doing. I also appreciate our prior discussion and this one as well, and will do a better job in posting and organizing the times to alleviate some of the chatter and confusion. How we can improve, and Lord knows we all can use help on the track, and subtle things we can do to help our cars and maximize our opportunities. After 12 months of this we can likely come to a reliable end point about the 63 motor based on the car rather than the drivers. I truly appreciate the time you guys spend on the detailed and comprehensive posts on numerous topics. I do hope as a result of this debate people post more details on the 1/4 mile and 1/8 mile runs they make. If I have the slip I will do the correction and post both actual and corrected times.
05-11-2007, 03:29 PM
#62
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
05-11-2007, 04:07 PM
#63
...........No need to be offended. I came to this conclusion long time ago and it has nothing to do with you. Vendors and tuners were selling products with inflated HP gains, claiming that the dyno was done at a favorable altitute. They may have done their dynos in Mars but no one on the earth side of the solar system was getting those same numbers. Tuners were performing dynos and correcting for temp, altitude, phase of the moon, etc in order to arrive at the inflated dyno numbers they were promising customers. I personally think that is bull. What the product dynos is what it dynos, if you think it can do better, feel free to take it to that one sweet spot on the solar system and dyno it and then and only then can they make the cHP claims.
Ted
05-11-2007, 04:51 PM
#64
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
......I wasn't trying to get you fired up. You are not telling me anything I don't know. My opinion is the same. My corrected time for my G55 is 12.4secs in the 1/4 mile. I don't think my car is that fast unless I actually run that time. I understand that under perfect conditions and if Jesus is on my side, my car may run that fast. Otherwise it makes the whole thing confusing, because you have to compare your corrected time to the corrected time of the other cars, who will then compare their corrected times to some other corrected time. After a while it becomes like video games or magazine racing. When DerekFSU ran 10.99sec in the 1/4 mile with his E55, it was a big moment. Many had run low 11's before him but no one said well, with my corrected time, I probably did 10.99secs before Derek.
...........No need to be offended. I came to this conclusion long time ago and it has nothing to do with you. Vendors and tuners were selling products with inflated HP gains, claiming that the dyno was done at a favorable altitute. They may have done their dynos in Mars but no one on the earth side of the solar system was getting those same numbers. Tuners were performing dynos and correcting for temp, altitude, phase of the moon, etc in order to arrive at the inflated dyno numbers they were promising customers. I personally think that is bull. What the product dynos is what it dynos, if you think it can do better, feel free to take it to that one sweet spot on the solar system and dyno it and then and only then can they make the cHP claims.
Ted
...........No need to be offended. I came to this conclusion long time ago and it has nothing to do with you. Vendors and tuners were selling products with inflated HP gains, claiming that the dyno was done at a favorable altitute. They may have done their dynos in Mars but no one on the earth side of the solar system was getting those same numbers. Tuners were performing dynos and correcting for temp, altitude, phase of the moon, etc in order to arrive at the inflated dyno numbers they were promising customers. I personally think that is bull. What the product dynos is what it dynos, if you think it can do better, feel free to take it to that one sweet spot on the solar system and dyno it and then and only then can they make the cHP claims.
Ted
my points as well, didn't want to fire anyone up, as I have no right to say anything (since I haven't taken my car down the 1/4 yet) but just agree it's all to much, It's like the saying "Run Whatchya' Brung" What it says on the tree is final in my book.
05-11-2007, 04:55 PM
#65
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Thanks Ted sorry if I came off too strong. In the E55 world it seems the correction factor is still applicable but yeah there are way too many guys running. The 63 since it is N/a is as you know is going to run a wide rang of times. The times will depend less on the motor and far more on the conditions in which the car was run. I will continue to compare the apple to the apple by using the DA correction factoring in the weather conditions to a 10 minute deviation. Your friend who ran the 13.3 actually did quite well IMO, do you know the time of his run and could you give it to me so he can be included here. I have a better understanding now of whta I need to post and say in the thread. I was LMAO when I saw that correction for HUMAN RUNNERS! Sorry hope you aint mad at me
05-12-2007, 04:03 AM
#66
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Ok guys enough of the corrected times debate!! I am going to post BOTH. This post is going to contain some great drag tips that improved my runs tonight and have me feeling like I am on track(get it on track) lol.
ALL YOU 63 owners PAY ATTENTION!
DYNO mode is faster!
d/s in Dyno mode shifts PERFECTLY
car should be in Comfort suspension
Power brake to 1000 rpm and let off the brake
Floor it !!!! such a rush
my car just sits in the water and burns the tires , I now know what you guys mean by "hooking up" and doing a burnout really helped! I am feeling my car and my times were very consistant after applying this setting(thanks Jay)!! The 19" cannot be changed on my car due to the 030 brakes BOO. Those two piece rims weigh as much as some of the EVO's I cooked tonight. Out of 120 cars the CLS 63 AMG was the fastest and most consistant car!!!! Beat the Evo, beat all the domestics including 1000 hp dragsters that had roll cages! Tires as large as my car. Shelby , fried his engine, Corvettes all left, Lancers and Evos a good run. Sam had best time of all the cars and I had the second best. So I am very very happy! 60 ft times still bad but ours were alot lower than the other racers. I will post slips and times later. Oh I am still waiting the DA. If anyone has ever gotten traction @ LACR please let me know! I think the EVO was the only car that jumped out of the hole as well as the 63!
Night.
ALL YOU 63 owners PAY ATTENTION!
DYNO mode is faster!
d/s in Dyno mode shifts PERFECTLY
car should be in Comfort suspension
Power brake to 1000 rpm and let off the brake
Floor it !!!! such a rush
my car just sits in the water and burns the tires , I now know what you guys mean by "hooking up" and doing a burnout really helped! I am feeling my car and my times were very consistant after applying this setting(thanks Jay)!! The 19" cannot be changed on my car due to the 030 brakes BOO. Those two piece rims weigh as much as some of the EVO's I cooked tonight. Out of 120 cars the CLS 63 AMG was the fastest and most consistant car!!!! Beat the Evo, beat all the domestics including 1000 hp dragsters that had roll cages! Tires as large as my car. Shelby , fried his engine, Corvettes all left, Lancers and Evos a good run. Sam had best time of all the cars and I had the second best. So I am very very happy! 60 ft times still bad but ours were alot lower than the other racers. I will post slips and times later. Oh I am still waiting the DA. If anyone has ever gotten traction @ LACR please let me know! I think the EVO was the only car that jumped out of the hole as well as the 63!
Night.
05-12-2007, 07:46 AM
#68
MBWorld Fanatic!
Ok guys enough of the corrected times debate!! I am going to post BOTH. This post is going to contain some great drag tips that improved my runs tonight and have me feeling like I am on track(get it on track) lol.
ALL YOU 63 owners PAY ATTENTION!
DYNO mode is faster!
d/s in Dyno mode shifts PERFECTLY
car should be in Comfort suspension
Power brake to 1000 rpm and let off the brake
Floor it !!!! such a rush
my car just sits in the water and burns the tires , I now know what you guys mean by "hooking up" and doing a burnout really helped! I am feeling my car and my times were very consistant after applying this setting(thanks Jay)!! The 19" cannot be changed on my car due to the 030 brakes BOO. Those two piece rims weigh as much as some of the EVO's I cooked tonight. Out of 120 cars the CLS 63 AMG was the fastest and most consistant car!!!! Beat the Evo, beat all the domestics including 1000 hp dragsters that had roll cages! Tires as large as my car. Shelby , fried his engine, Corvettes all left, Lancers and Evos a good run. Sam had best time of all the cars and I had the second best. So I am very very happy! 60 ft times still bad but ours were alot lower than the other racers. I will post slips and times later. Oh I am still waiting the DA. If anyone has ever gotten traction @ LACR please let me know! I think the EVO was the only car that jumped out of the hole as well as the 63!
Night.
ALL YOU 63 owners PAY ATTENTION!
DYNO mode is faster!
d/s in Dyno mode shifts PERFECTLY
car should be in Comfort suspension
Power brake to 1000 rpm and let off the brake
Floor it !!!! such a rush
my car just sits in the water and burns the tires , I now know what you guys mean by "hooking up" and doing a burnout really helped! I am feeling my car and my times were very consistant after applying this setting(thanks Jay)!! The 19" cannot be changed on my car due to the 030 brakes BOO. Those two piece rims weigh as much as some of the EVO's I cooked tonight. Out of 120 cars the CLS 63 AMG was the fastest and most consistant car!!!! Beat the Evo, beat all the domestics including 1000 hp dragsters that had roll cages! Tires as large as my car. Shelby , fried his engine, Corvettes all left, Lancers and Evos a good run. Sam had best time of all the cars and I had the second best. So I am very very happy! 60 ft times still bad but ours were alot lower than the other racers. I will post slips and times later. Oh I am still waiting the DA. If anyone has ever gotten traction @ LACR please let me know! I think the EVO was the only car that jumped out of the hole as well as the 63!
Night.
05-12-2007, 11:29 AM
#69
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
PS. Thanks Robert(Bluemax) for the pilot sport cup rec!
05-13-2007, 03:34 AM
#70
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Records are gonna tumble at the GERMAN INVASION. I am ready !!! Finally
Seesking to get an actual sub 13 run!
Seeking an actual triple digit speed!
Seeking a sub 2.0 60 ft time. Oh I reeled in some Evos and Lancers tonight
Anybody besides me and Sammsonz hitting the track 3 times per week, 5 times this week. Ran my best 1/8th tonight 8.245 (sec) @ 88.672 (MPH)
I will scan my slips and update the leader board. Looks like the # 1 verified 1/8th mile time!
Seesking to get an actual sub 13 run!
Seeking an actual triple digit speed!
Seeking a sub 2.0 60 ft time. Oh I reeled in some Evos and Lancers tonight
Anybody besides me and Sammsonz hitting the track 3 times per week, 5 times this week. Ran my best 1/8th tonight 8.245 (sec) @ 88.672 (MPH)
I will scan my slips and update the leader board. Looks like the # 1 verified 1/8th mile time!
05-13-2007, 10:01 PM
#71
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
*1. Bluemax 12.36@116 Firebird Az 05/4/2007 2100 odo lbs
*2. Juicee63 12.489@110.11 LACR 05/13/2007 5000 odo 4547 lbs
3. XABO 12.5X @114 MIR 3000 odo lbs
*4. SAMSSONZ 12.59@114.3 LACR 5/4/2007 8,000miles lbs
5. 05VENOM 12.651 @114 Englishtown NJ 04/xx/07 2000 odo lbs
*6. TREZ63 12.802 (sec) @ 109.724 (MPH) 6000 MI lacr 5/9/07
7. DEREKFSU 13.018@108.84 stock E63 lbs
8.* MHK 13.18@110 9/29/06 CLS lbs 8:30 pm
* INDICATES SAE CORRECTED TIME
1. Juicee63 CLS 8.114 (sec) @ 87.606 (MPH)
2.Johnny E63 1/8 8.1959 @ 87.98mph(NOT VERIFIED)
3.*Bluemax E63 1/8 8.33@87.68
4.*SAMMSONZ CLS 1/88.35@89
5.*TREZ63 CLS 1/8 8.39@ 87
Best 60 ft?
Anyone break 2?
1.Juicee63 1.921
2.Bluemax 2.03
3.Johnny E63 2.11
* INDICATES SAE CORRECTED TIME [/QUOTE]
*2. Juicee63 12.489@110.11 LACR 05/13/2007 5000 odo 4547 lbs
3. XABO 12.5X @114 MIR 3000 odo lbs
*4. SAMSSONZ 12.59@114.3 LACR 5/4/2007 8,000miles lbs
5. 05VENOM 12.651 @114 Englishtown NJ 04/xx/07 2000 odo lbs
*6. TREZ63 12.802 (sec) @ 109.724 (MPH) 6000 MI lacr 5/9/07
7. DEREKFSU 13.018@108.84 stock E63 lbs
8.* MHK 13.18@110 9/29/06 CLS lbs 8:30 pm
* INDICATES SAE CORRECTED TIME
1. Juicee63 CLS 8.114 (sec) @ 87.606 (MPH)
2.Johnny E63 1/8 8.1959 @ 87.98mph(NOT VERIFIED)
3.*Bluemax E63 1/8 8.33@87.68
4.*SAMMSONZ CLS 1/88.35@89
5.*TREZ63 CLS 1/8 8.39@ 87
Best 60 ft?
Anyone break 2?
1.Juicee63 1.921
2.Bluemax 2.03
3.Johnny E63 2.11
* INDICATES SAE CORRECTED TIME [/QUOTE]
[/IMG]
