Agreed. These were short impromptu runs in traffic and not in a controlled environment. I reported that I could not pull on his car in the few seconds that we were both on the accelerator and that his car was very fast. Our trap speed discrepancy was not realized during our encounter.

Just think of all the fun that will be had on this board after MIR.

 

Regarding trap speeds. If you guys recall that there were some questions as to my HP and such early this summer when I posted up some impressive E/T's but my MPH was in the 116-118 range. All of the nay sayers were chiming in, Mikey was one of them if I'm not mistaken. The 63's with the 7 speed trans missions are never going to trap as high as a 55 with a 6 speed. A few weeks ago on my last trip to the strip there was a CLS55 running 12.30's and an E63 running 12.35's anyone want to take a gander at the MPH discrepency between the two? Anyone............? Anyone? I'll help you all out, it was between 4-5 mph on every pass. My car has only trapped at 125 on the bottle on an 11.29 pass, but acording to most of you it should be trapping closer to 130. Bottom line, for whatever reason the 7 speed 63's don't trap nearly as high as the 6 speed 55's, so you can't compare Andy's trap speed to you 55 trap speed and try to come up with a logical expalination.

 

Mikey, no offense man, but please read my above post. 63's/7 speed are not trapping anywhere close to 55/6 speeds, not sure why, but don't base your conclusion entirely on trap speeds....besides, the last time I checked the highest trap speed does not determine the winner of a race, the E/T does.

 

Rock please correct me if I'm wrong but the last time you posted about going to the track the car had a cel light issue and ran 118-120. Have you made a clean run since the air-box issues ?

 

Just out morbid curiosity what are 1/8 mile traps for both Andy's C63 and Rock's E55? Maybe Rock's car makes a huge burst after the 1/8th mile?

Tom

 

Often an issue of driver skill, I'm sure you've won races where the other guy had a better trap speed and ET. Get a good launch and sometimes the faster car is in second place.

 

Look at ROCKS sig, 11.7 @ 124.6, I'm looking at a pile of my time slips right now and I have a few 11.7's @ 118, I have a few 11.4's @ 121-122. The 55's are always trapping 5 plus mph faster on equal E/T passes...........Why? Hell I have an 11.39 slip that is only 123.9 mph, over 4/10th quicker than ROCKS E/T but still slow MPH???????

 

Jcart no offense to you but all that was said that 116-118 was on the low side for a car making 500 rwhp. Which you later proved by traping 120+ which is what the car should run in your weather conditions.

With regards to the NOS, I would check your jetting MB cars run very high fuel pressure and throws off the jetting, just a suggestion. As far as how much you pick-up out the back that all dependes on how much rwhp the shot is giving you.

 

I'm running a dry shot pre-MAF sensor, how would the fuel pressure affect this? I'm running two .040 NOS jets, which I am told is equivilent to about an 86 HP shot. I am think about going up to.042's

 

My bad, I thought you had a wet system.

What bottle pressure do you run ?

Have you dynod the car with the nos ? The ecu could be dumping to much fuel negating some of the gains even though the shot you are using is very small and is probably closer to 75 hp at the flywheel. To pick up 8-10 mph out the back you would need closer to 100+ rwhp on the nos.

Have you thought about switching to a wet kit?

 

Bottle pressure between 900-1000, I have a bottle pressure gauge in the cockpit as well as a sensor that will not allow it to fire if pressure falls below 880. It's making about 70 hp on the dyno with those jets installed and looks to be giving me about 6 mph on average. I'm not going to get carried away with the NOS, I prefer to have a fast all motor car, the NOS is just a fun insurance policy.

 

i may have commented on et vs trap speed but i wasn't one of the naysayers regarding your car nor can i recall those runs now to comment on them here. however, if your car is now trapping well into the 120's then it's right on with your 11.29 pass and where i would expect any 55 to be. i wouldn't expect you close to 130's unless you're in the 10's. and to be perfectly honest, i would actually expect the 63/7spd platform to trap a little higher than 55's for any given et...slightly more similar to how the m cars perform.

there's no reason you can't compare 55's to 63's but there's no way you can compare andy's 117mph trap to rocks 124mph unless andy's car does wheel stands and knocks out 1.4-1.5 60ft times. since that isn't the case it's quite safe to say those cars aren't in the same league on the drag strip. now if rock's car wasn't running as perfect as it was the night of his p/r then that can bring the cars closer for discussion. but in my book you still can't even compare a 117 to a 122.

 

Mikey, are you going to MIR? I hope to see you there.

Conditions are obviously of paramount importance. Hopefully we are going to have some great conditions at MIR in November. That will level the playing field for those of us who are forced to run at elevations from 650-1000 above sea level and in very high humidity. We will finally be able to put some of the specualtion aside. People have corrected some of my passes to 11.0's. I believe Andy's corrected out to an 11.7, which is pretty impressive for an other than ECU bone stock C63. I believe my 11.47 motor only pass corrected out to and 11.26 would it have been run at MIR, which, if I am not mistaken would shatter the quickest motor only pass on record made by any 55. I don't put too much faith in corrected numbers, I think a time slip with hard numbers are the only numbers that should matter. MIR should be very interesting and answer a lot of questions that have arisen over the past few months.

 

+1

 

7.95@92.5 on a bog.

Let's not forget I've only made one legit pass in this car since tuning it.

 

Says the guy that runs at East Coast tracks I can guarantee that corrected ETs/traps will be slower than uncorrected on 11/15. I'll still post both either way.

 

I'll tell you what the difference is so you can stop speculating. It's called TQ and the fact that 90% of a drag race is determined in the first 60'. 63s will never holeshot like 55s unless we throw a PD blower on top. From a roll, it's different story especially since the 7A keeps us in the band better/longer than your 5As.

 

I am blessed with East coast tracks because this is where I live. Although this is true, you mis understood what I meant. I dont put faith in the correction data, there are too many variables. Its great for conversation, but in my opinion thats about it. No correction factor can accurately predict how my car will run under said conditions. Contrary to popular belief we east coast guys do run at positive DA 90% of the year.

 

Yes, but you're still at sea level.

This isn't directed toward you specifically (so don't take it that way) but it cracks me up when people talk about corrected numbers like they don't mean anything. When you go to a dyno, what do you put more faith in, corrected or uncorrected numbers? Anytime someone posts a dyno sheet that's uncorrected they immediately get called out for the most legit CF (SAE, Smoothing at 5).
Now explain to me why correcting a timeslip is any different. DA plays such a HUGE role in how any car will run on any given day, it seems absurd to me to not correct for it. Yes there are many variables, but they are taken into consideration (humidity, DA, temp, track elevation, etc. are all factored in).
It seems like those that are most resistant to using corrected #s are those that run at sea level tracks (that can experience neg DA unlike the rest of the country) or those that are seriously old school.
Now take a car that runs 12.0 at MIR/Cecil/ATCO/NED and run it at Bandimere. You'd be lucky to run 12.80 or better. So if said car never runs on the East Coast, is it really a 12.80 car?
Finally it seems like a lot of people are also under the impression that corrected ETs/Traps are always quicker/faster than actual numbers. Well, as we'll see after 11/15, that's not always the case. I guess the real question post 11/15 is, will you claim the negative DA # or the corrected number?
Is correcting track data the end all be all answer? No, however, it's the most accurate method we have, just like correcting dyno #s is.

Jay, if you post the date/time/track and numbers (to the hundredth place) for ET/Traps on your record runs I'll be glad to correct them for you to see what you get.

 

umm...which is exactly why I said I would actually expect the 63/7spd platform to trap HIGHER than the 55/5spd for any given et!!!

 

I guess you missed the part about the launch being important...

Our 60s suck by comparison, meaning we aren't putting anywhere near the power to the ground that you are during launch (which I think we both agree is the most important aspect of any race?) which is where the trap discrepancy comes into play. After first gear, we don't have an issue since we never fall out of our powerband.

 

bbiab

 

My only point is that I hope all these correction factors for MIR are correct becuase I'm going to suprise a lot of locals if they are.

 

But your TCU tune is going to fix that little problem, hopefully it's going to let me spray out of the hole with a 3000 rpm launch

 

No Jim, your car is going to shock the living **** out of people.