63 all models BEST 1/4, 1/8
05-10-2007, 04:27 PM
#26
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
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
Last edited by juicee63; 05-10-2007 at 06:58 PM.
05-10-2007, 04:31 PM
#27
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Welcome
05-10-2007, 05:12 PM
#28
MBWorld Fanatic!
get a big bag of ice for the intake between runs, make sure you get a substantial cooling inbetween runs and before your first run of the day, no hot lapping its a waste of gas and superheats the engine...remember your car is not continually running to cool the engine between runs and has no airflowing over the engine
05-10-2007, 05:20 PM
#29
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
get a big bag of ice for the intake between runs, make sure you get a substantial cooling inbetween runs and before your first run of the day, no hot lapping its a waste of gas and superheats the engine...remember your car is not continually running to cool the engine between runs and has no airflowing over the engine
05-10-2007, 05:32 PM
#30
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
I had mine off all night when I turned it back on disaster. Thanks Jay, next time out I will run with the car under 100 C. My temp was at 117-123 all night. Best runs for all of us were at 8:50-9:15 after a break and some videography. Hey SAM send me some VIDEO?
05-10-2007, 05:41 PM
#31
MBWorld Fanatic!
also these newer cars are weird trying to "torque brake launch" unless you are in dyno mode which is ultimately how you want to run, doesnt matter if esp is on or off...youll notice you cant get a true burnout while trying to brake at the same time
05-10-2007, 05:43 PM
#32
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
05-10-2007, 05:57 PM
#34
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
I just looked it up , OUR BEST RUNS from 05/04 were at FIFTY FIVE DEGREES!!!!! Our best runs 05/09 were @ SEVENTY THREE DEGREES!!!
Oh man thats a big diff, i think we beat our times if you lower the temp 18 degrees. Oh wait thats what the correction was for ! So here it is bro for all to see
The closest weather results for 05/09/2007 at 08:51 pm
Time recorded 8:53 PM
Temperature °F 73.0
Dew Point °F 24.1
Altimeter Setting 29.92 in Mercury
Density Altitude: 4209.7 feet
Track Elelvation: 2640 feet
UnCorrected ET:
13.454 (sec) @ 105 (MPH)
Corrected ET to Sea Level:
12.758 (sec) @ 110.779 (MPH) vs
The closest weather results for 05/04/2007 at 08:51 pm
Time recorded 8:53 PM
Temperature °F 57.0
Dew Point °F 34.0
Altimeter Setting 29.85 in Mercury
Density Altitude: 3304.7 feet
Track Elelvation: 2640 feet
UnCorrected ET:
13.454 (sec) @ 105 (MPH)
Corrected ET to Sea Level:
12.916 (sec) @ 109.448 (MPH)
Sam you see, WE were sad because we thought we did WORSE!!! When in fact track conditions were worse last night due to HEAT. Your same run on WED was slower than your run TONIGHT.
05-10-2007, 06:31 PM
#36
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
You ran a corrected 12.75!!! 5/9/2007 and also that was your 2nd best time on 5/4/07 which is a corrected 12.9. The point is your runs on 5/9 were more consistant and only running slower because of the ******* heat!
The same exact runs correct to different #s based on the weather, so a 13.4 on 5/9/07 is FASTER than a 13.4 on 5/4/2007.. This is why the CORRECTION factors are so very important. We ignore em, we just think we made no improvements or our cars failed us. This is a science and we should never assume we are doing poorly until we get the DA correction..
The same exact runs correct to different #s based on the weather, so a 13.4 on 5/9/07 is FASTER than a 13.4 on 5/4/2007.. This is why the CORRECTION factors are so very important. We ignore em, we just think we made no improvements or our cars failed us. This is a science and we should never assume we are doing poorly until we get the DA correction..
Last edited by juicee63; 05-10-2007 at 07:48 PM.
05-10-2007, 07:49 PM
#38
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
05-11-2007, 04:50 AM
#39
You ran a corrected 12.75!!! 5/9/2007 and also that was your 2nd best time on 5/4/07 which is a corrected 12.9. The point is your runs on 5/9 were more consistant and only running slower because of the ******* heat!
The same exact runs correct to different #s based on the weather, so a 13.4 on 5/9/07 is FASTER than a 13.4 on 5/4/2007.. This is why the CORRECTION factors are so very important. We ignore em, we just think we made no improvements or our cars failed us. This is a science and we should never assume we are doing poorly until we get the DA correction..
The same exact runs correct to different #s based on the weather, so a 13.4 on 5/9/07 is FASTER than a 13.4 on 5/4/2007.. This is why the CORRECTION factors are so very important. We ignore em, we just think we made no improvements or our cars failed us. This is a science and we should never assume we are doing poorly until we get the DA correction..
Ted
05-11-2007, 05:47 AM
#43
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
[QUOTE=Ted Baldwin;2198150]............while I understand the idea behind the correction factor, I think you can only claim the et you have actually run.
"Otherwise it will be like beating the world record in the 100m dash at the olympics without actually running a faster time".
Ted ,
The correction factor is not an idea, or something that is out there to help me think my car is faster than it actually is. It is the foundation of drag racing! Without it you do not have a competitive sport. I am sure you likely know how important it is but simply felt we were claiming we ran X when in fact we ran Y.. It is clear we are correcting all the times in this thread and I will always post the actual and the corrected. I am going to correct Venoms time although it makes it a bit higher, it matters not its the only way to legitimize the data pool. Whos faster XABO at MIR with a 12.5 or Bluemax at Firebird with a 12.87? If the two cars were side by side simultaneously on this run who crosses the line first Ted?
Say your 55 does a 12.89 1/4 mile in Denver and Joe Runs his 55 in 12.89 in Salt Lake City. The World record is 12.89 held by a Bill in ATlantic City. Which driver now HOLDS THE NEW WORLD RECORD?
You ran a 12.89 but it has to be corrected, and TED the NHRA would certainly correct your time. Who has the fastest G55? Ted, Joe or Bill?
You all have the same time? You all ran the same time? On paper your cars appear EQUAL why? What happens when TED races BILL?
Sam ran a 13.51 on MAY 4th @ LACR he Ran a 13.6 on May 9th @ LACR was his car slower or faster on the 9th?
We should all post our time slips, then absolutely log the corrections. This is the only way to get data that is useful.
"Otherwise it will be like beating the world record in the 100m dash at the olympics without actually running a faster time".
Ted ,
The correction factor is not an idea, or something that is out there to help me think my car is faster than it actually is. It is the foundation of drag racing! Without it you do not have a competitive sport. I am sure you likely know how important it is but simply felt we were claiming we ran X when in fact we ran Y.. It is clear we are correcting all the times in this thread and I will always post the actual and the corrected. I am going to correct Venoms time although it makes it a bit higher, it matters not its the only way to legitimize the data pool. Whos faster XABO at MIR with a 12.5 or Bluemax at Firebird with a 12.87? If the two cars were side by side simultaneously on this run who crosses the line first Ted?
Say your 55 does a 12.89 1/4 mile in Denver and Joe Runs his 55 in 12.89 in Salt Lake City. The World record is 12.89 held by a Bill in ATlantic City. Which driver now HOLDS THE NEW WORLD RECORD?
You ran a 12.89 but it has to be corrected, and TED the NHRA would certainly correct your time. Who has the fastest G55? Ted, Joe or Bill?
You all have the same time? You all ran the same time? On paper your cars appear EQUAL why? What happens when TED races BILL?
Sam ran a 13.51 on MAY 4th @ LACR he Ran a 13.6 on May 9th @ LACR was his car slower or faster on the 9th?
We should all post our time slips, then absolutely log the corrections. This is the only way to get data that is useful.
Last edited by juicee63; 05-11-2007 at 05:55 AM.
05-11-2007, 05:51 AM
#45
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Ted the post clearly STATES "A CORRECTED TIME" I never said WOW SAM you ran a 12.75! great job. Guys why is it so hard for you to swallow the fact the 63 is faster than you thought! Hey Sam how many 55's beat you?
05-11-2007, 05:58 AM
#46
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
@ 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.
Last edited by Thericker; 05-11-2007 at 06:07 AM.
05-11-2007, 06:05 AM
#47
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
@ 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
05-11-2007, 06:08 AM
#48
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
Not saying anyone is lying just kinda counting your chickens before there hatched you know?Then you have to denote the * for Corrected time, not actual time, gets a little blurry.
Last edited by Thericker; 05-11-2007 at 06:11 AM.
05-11-2007, 06:11 AM
#49
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
wat 55s? They never wanna race for som reason but they're not nearly as bad as the bmw guys, those guys flee. I hate that
05-11-2007, 06:14 AM
#50
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& agree, but as it appears to the casual reader it seems a little different, wouldn't you agree Not saying anyone is lying just kinda counting your chickens before there hatched you know?
Then you have to denote the * for Corrected time, not actual time, gets a little blurry.
Not saying anyone is lying just kinda counting your chickens before there hatched you know?Then you have to denote the * for Corrected time, not actual time, gets a little blurry.
Hav u ever been to LACR?
