jrcart

Correcting to sea level is not an exact science, it is a formula (ESTIMATE) that facors HP at a certain elevation. Therefore it has zero credibility in my eyes. Does the NHRA use corrected E/T's in their record books? Nope! Gee, I wonder why?

I have not personally attacked you, I am sorry if you feel that way.

The video proof was posted in a similar thread a week or two ago, on this same long, drawn out topic. I'm sure several others on here know what I am refering to. This is the third Z06 thread in the past month on this forum.

I don't think anyone is claiming to have a stock BS that runs 125+ mph trap speeds. Even 573whpcls predicted his stock BS would be about 3/10th's off the pace of his stock Z06.

jangy

Lol at anyone who thinks I would BS over this. You can all say what you want. I had a good 30 minute run with the guy and it included everything from me launching first to him launching first to us just fighting it out. I USED HIM EVERYTIME!! My experience with Z06s is limitted to two encounters. 1st was running against one at the big track at Willow and we were even in the turns and I walked him on the straights. I never lapped him. The second was this guy. That is why I said that I thought they were fatser. That's all.

You can live off BS data all your life, but if that doesn't reflect real life, then something is scewed with your data. While it is true that tracked vettes have done better than tracked E55s, that means nothing about the real world. Fact is, 1 E55 shows up to a track for every 1000 vettes.

jrcart

I appreciate you posting these time slips as evidence, however don't take what I am going to say next the wrong way.

I just went to 3 different web sites that have horsepower calculators. I know these are not exact, but estimates but look what I came up with.

I used 3500 pounds for car w/driver weight (180 pound driver). I used the E/T and MPH on the slips you posted I came up with 600-601 crank HP and 523-525whp on all three sites. No bone stock Z06 is making 500 plus at the wheels. Chevrolet clams 505 at the crank. Several people on here claim their personal Z06's make 420-425 whp... that is a very large discrepency. I understand HP figures can vary from car to car, but not by 100hp. How do you explain that?

I have a very hard time believing that Z06 is bone stock...sorry! Does anyone else agree with me? Can anyone else explain this to me if I am wrong?

jrcart

I believe you, nobody believed me a week or two back when I posted that I beat one by 6-7 lengths. Granted my car is far from stock and I had a near perfect (lucky) lauch (very rare for me). The guy I raced might have been the worst driver in the world, but the bottom line is that I beat him and beat him good.

573WHPCLS

Very good point, it is highly unlikely that this Z06 is stock. Depending on which calculator you used they are accurate within +/- 10% most of the time. They can get a little skewed when looking at an AWD car due to the increased traction and better 60foot time resulting in a slightly higher trap speed, but since the Z06 is not AWD the calcualtor should be prety accurate. I would have used a weight of at least 3600 pounds, but that only changes the HP figure ever so slightly. My Z06 made 422 on the dyno, which is the norm for a stock Z06. I suppose there might have been a 60mph tail wind that day.

Exodus

Very well said

It's hard to believe people actually think we would waste time dreaming up stories, track is track and street is street. ANYTHING can happen on the streets, we aren't here posting Z06 kill stories to gain everyone's respect-- just to share a fun expeirence we had on the streets against another fast car.

Chill.

I too have had two expeirences with the Z06, one with my E55 and two with the 600, both times coming out on top. If Improviz and others want to throw timeslips and videos in my face (as well as Jangy, and jrcart), I suppose that's fine; doesn't much changes the events we expeirenced and posted about.

05VENOM

Hey Lorenzo, I guess all these theoretical calculations much be true. So a 4,000lb+ car with only 469Hp cannot possibly run a 11.775. I guess that means you are a liar. Who cares what your time slips say(even though it was what you actually ran with no corrections). Guess my 12.1 's are also fabricated(4,550lb car) and oldgixxer, well you are the biggest fraud of all my friend...11.9 in a 63..can never happen!!

Zod

I know i am silly for joining in on this but here is what i think.
On the street is not on the track big big difference.

People see one video, dragtimes time slip, or on utube link and vala all X cars beat Y cars because here is proof!
same vid over n over.. need i mention M6 vs supercharged viper/ K4 E55 etc /700Hp supra

kind of like government propaganda

not saying this can not happen but, also magazine racing is iffy to me now to ( after watching the Auto Car race for the C63/M3/IS F)

Not to start anything, but we to have our very own super time on a stock E55 (enzom) whos times beats that of modded cars...

Its life and makes you go hmmm, but hey that’s why life is interesting

05VENOM

Impressive list indeed.

Improviz

You misunderstood me. What I said is that NHRA correction factors correct to sea level and afaik certain atmospheric conditions. There are tracks which ARE at sea level. At these tracks, the temperature CAN be at these conditions. So what I'm saying is that if a vehicle is run at such a track, under such conditions, and hits an 11.2, this is *not* a corrected time, but an *actual* time.

Anyway, as a side issue: I don't know if NHRA uses the factors in their records or not, but 1) they publish these correction factors, and 2) afaik they do use them, not sure about records. I'll have to look into this, but again I was talking about an uncorrected run at a sea-level track (or within a hundred feet or so of sea level) under good temp conditions.

Well, you seemed to be referring to me as a "nobody"...was that comment directed at me, to whom you were replying, or someone else? Not sure, please clarify...

I read that thread but don't recall seeing this...I do recall some guys saying that this had been done on DRs, but other guys were pretty emphatic that it hadn't been...anyway, I'm not trying to make the case for a sub-11 run bone stock (although not ruling it out either), but I do think that a low 11 is certainly possible given the factors I mentioned previously.

Well, here I was referring to the ability of a car which traps in the 114-116 range to run from 30-150 or so with a car which traps in the 122-127 range. The standing mile results above illustrate the differences at the end of a one mile run between two cars in such a test which had a 10 mph difference in 1/4 mile, and the difference is huge.

And I'm not bagging on AMGs here either. Go look at my posting history and you'll find that I'm one of the most ardent defenders of AMGs in these forums, *but* I'm also a realist who knows what happens when I run a car with a 10 mph higher trap than me in a rolling start 30 or 40 mph run; I get a very nice view of the other guy's tail lights as he rolls off into the distance.

Improviz

Data is real life. There are plenty of data available which contradict your points, and that's a fact. Deal with it. Saying that "well, the data doesn't support what happened to me, in this single case" somehow renders all data inaccurate is frankly ridiculous and indicative of nothing more than rationalization and extreme bias. Even if what you say happened happened, there are factors which could explain it, and it in no way, shape or form disproves the mountain of data to the contrary, nor does it disprove the events recounted by other Mercedes owners over the course of this thread.

jrcart

The "nobody" comment was not aimed at you or any one person in general. I again appologize if you took it the wrong way, it was meant as a generalazation only. You have been, for the most, very civil and polite in voicing your opinions on this thread. I have tried to be equally civil while voicing my opinions. I agree, there is no need to attack each other, we just both have different experiences and views on this topic. You are going to stand firm on your opinion and I am going to stand firm on mine. You have brought up a number of good points, but at the same time so have I, as have a number of other people on this thread.

jrcart

I am going to be heading to the track with 573whpcls this weekend. There will be 2 stock Z06's and a lightly modded Z06 joining us as well as an Audi R8, heavily modded Acura NSX (this car is insane fast) and a couple older Vipers. I am bring a few of my cars as well, have not decided which ones yet, but the Black Series for sure if it is out of the shop.

Improviz

OK, fair enough.

Yup. I've personally beaten faster cars (and lost to slower ones) in short races, but that's usually due to a rather egregious screwup on someone's part, typically at launch. But it's much harder to screw up a rolling start, although it definitely happens, and people can do dumb things like put regular unleaded into a car which requires premium, etc....too many variables to know, and I don't think anyone's saying that it's flat out impossible to win against one, the main issue is that in the hands of a good driver those things are pretty tough to beat.

Anyway, as you said, we each have our respective opinions, 'nuff said on that. Enjoy that BS, fantastic car!

Improviz

Man, make someone brings a videocam with charged batteries and lots of tape/recording medium!! That'd be fun to watch those things in action, to be sure!

jrcart

Add a stock 996 tt and a 600 hp (w/bottle) WRX STI to the list.

enzom

Just to clarify a few things:

(1) I am not calling BS on Jangy, and I hope he did not think I was.
(2) My references to the low-11 second Z06's was not to argue that Jangy didn't win his races, but in response to other posts about how it was not possible for a stock Z06 to run low 11's. If people think that the cars were ringers or secretly modded, I can't do anything about that. I viewed DrRon's runs. I have known him for over 4 years and he has always held this car out to be bone stock. I do not have any reason to doubt him. If he is BS'ing everyone, then I would be surprised.
(3) Lots of things can happen in the street, and some cars run better than others.

Beating a Z06 in a rolling race is a real achievement.

enzom

Out of curiosity, what kind of hp was I making when I ran an 11.775 @ 118.69 in a car that weighs 4,340 (including driver)?

Improviz

I calculate 566.35 at the crank. Hans done you good!!

jangy

I can deal with it just fine. My line of work is all about the data. That is why we have "controls" to run, proficiency testing, external calibration, etc. The data you refer to isn't actually so monumental at all. You need to have a study design approved BEFORE you go out looking for data that simply matches up.

When was the last time you saw or can verify a stock Z06 running side by side with a VRP tuned E55? Pile on the data.

I never disregarded the data. I simply took it with a grain of salt, given that ALL of that data together is still not enough to be considered statistically insignificant. I love the banter on here about car to car variability or driver error. A true data set would be large enough to exclude such variability.

My run was 1 run on 1 day. Had it been a single pass, I'd say maybe I was lucky to floor my car faster than he floored his. But, that isn't what happened. We did it over and over again FROM a roll and I spanked the *******. I didn't get the jump, or outskill him with my right foot. MY CAR SIMPLY WALKED HIS.

Now, just to clear a few things up. Yes, I do like to rationalize and yes I am VERY biased. Lastly, I must say that I too have a perfectly good explanation for why your "fellow" MB owners have opposing stories. Either they have a vette (now that isn't biased) and are butt dynoing OR they simply do not have the flooring skills required to fly in an E.

Exodus

Havoc

BURN!!

Exodus

Just wait till Improviz comes back with the old video of the stage XXXX running the "stock" Z06 and more time slips and

Your not getting it are you Improviz? Nobody really cares. This is just a race Jangy was a part of and he's posting the results, if you don't like them then don't read them. Your "shoulda happened" doesn't really matter.

Improviz

So is mine. I design things for a living.

Nice buzzwords, none of which are relevant here...

Gee, do you think I really need to study design? Like, say, BS and MSEE degrees, minor in math, heavy study in Statistics/Stochastics?

Do you think that might help?

Good, because I've already done that.

Care to contribute any more incorrect assumptions about what I do and do not know?

Not only do I understand Statistics, I also know more than a little bit about Physics. Your car would need on the order of 737 crank horsepower to trap at 130, which is where you'd need to walk a car which traps at 125. This is from equation horsepower = weight*(trap/234)^3, using 4300 for weight, 130 for trap. Click here for a handy dandy calculator:

Here is your stock dyno. Your car had 409 rwhp stock. So I guess your pulley mod and filters picked you up a whopping 200 rwhp, eh? Wow. I didn't realize that those motors could withstand 34 pounds of boost on stock internals (each pound of boost is about 10 hp, so you'd need 20 more to pick up 200 hp).

What does your car dyno now? 600+ rwhp? Fine, then you can walk Z's. Otherwise, you can't. Force = mass*acceleration. No data set needed for that, unless you're prepared to disregard Sir Issac as well.

Of course you did. You disregarded owners' comparisons of the two cars, 1/4 mile runs, anything and everything that doesn't support your preconceived notions.

As defined by you....

A true data set? Based upon what? Are you saying that if we have, say, 20 runs from multiple publications in this car, all within a few tenths of one another, that it's invalid? Ridiculous.

Furthermore, a large data set does not "exclude variability". Any statistical distribution has variability, by definition. Can you say "gaussian"?

So, I'll look forward to your videos of your 737 crank hp car trapping 130, because that's what you'd have to hit to "walk" a well-driven, properly running Z06.

No kidding?

How arrogant of you. So you're saying that any E55 owners who've owned an E55 (or run one) and who disagree with you are basically too stupid to floor a gas pedal???

Havoc

Another BURN!!