my 1/8th time was 7.27 at 99 MPH
I assume my 0-60 time is in the low 3's, I have seen data, that the viper's 0-100 is 8.4, and o-60 is 3.9 , so I'm guessing. My g-tech says 3.11, and it was only off on the 1/4 mile by .03, so I think it may be accurate?

engine Mods are:
3mm seals
big street port
Apex Rx6b single turbo
PFS intercooler
F-con(aem not working yet)
1300 cc secondary injectors
sard skyline fuel pump.
HKS evc 4 boost controller
NOS spray on intercooler
bla bla bla.....

 

7.27 in the 1/8 is good for 11.2-11.3 in the 1/4, nice numbers man

What 60 foot and tires were you running? Do you have upgraded or stock diff/axles???

Thanks,
STEPHEN

 

Guys, some of you should do a 100-140mph run. When tuning my car we were able to retrieve these times from the datalogit. My best time was 5.6. Do the whole run in forth gear and start accelarating before 100mph, to eliminate any lag.
Unfortunatly since then then the motor has blown, rear rotor, although this was not due to tuning. It was because one of the diffusers on the bottoim of the injectors had broken and gone through the engine. I didnt build the engine, but I will be doing the rebuild, and needless to say will be using new diffusers.

 

Agree, this is a good measure. But, 40-80 in third gear is the same test at more reasonable speeds. Start accelerating at 35 MPH to eliminate any lag effects.

 

some fast cars in here

 

60 ' was 1.612
stock diff and axel, but i have broken one diff already. my tires are bfg drag street radials

my 1/4 mile was 11.4 at 123

 

Testing actual engine performance with "Zero to Anything" times, is ridiculous. There are too many variables in that kind of testing even when doing multiple tests with consistent results or taking the average of those results. The variables include: driver shifting capability, tire capability, clutch capability just to name three. You can easily put 1000 HP machine in the hands of an drag racing idiot like me and still pull an 12 second 1/4 mile or a 5 second 0-60. If those results were calculated, it would look like I was driving a 400 HP machine.

If you are really interested in an accurate and reliable performance number for an engine, turbo and drivetrain there is only one type of testing that works. That is an acceleration test, starting from a roll, in a single gear, which accelerates all the way through the top rpm in that gear. There are only two ways to get that: Chasssis dyno and road test. 0-? testing is unreliable for anything but analyzing your driving, clutch wear, wheel hop, shifting technique and tire adhesion.

C'mon guys if you still need a real world example, I have never drag raced before last Friday night. I have a car that when dyno'd with the boost controller set at 11 psi, returns about 330 RWHP in a third gear run. I was at the strip Friday night and with great conditions ran 2 1/4 mile times in the mid-to high 13's at between 106 and 109. According to the calculators, with 330 RWHP I should have run mid-12's at 112.

Testing from a stop is NEVER an accurate measure of engine and drivetrain performance and therefore useless in diagnosing effects of aging, performance mods, etc.

 

Of course this assumes that the original poster (and *everyone* thereafter) was referring only to testing engine performance and *not* interested at ALL in the driver factor. I think most of us would love to see a host of other posts of these times to get a rough idea of what our cars *might* be capable of.

By this logic, many, many things are "rediculous", including brain performance testing as measured by standardized testing, salary relative to skill at a given profession (as cross-referenced by salaries in other professions), and marathon times are all but useless. But yet somehow every time my sister runs one she ends up within five minutes or so of her other times.

On the flipside, if you run enough times (with some tips/instruction) then things usually balance out for each individual's skill level. For example, I know roughly what my time should end up being at an autoX based on my time relative to those I regularly run against. Is it sometimes a little off? Yes. But not a lot. I need more instruction before I can get over the next hump. Single examples are bad, multiple examples give you the framing method you can use in photography in order to get the right setting for you. Or at least give you some relative times and know roughly what the car (with you driving) is capable of.

And if nothing else, if you know your own times, then you know what you're capable of beating on the road or at the strip if you run up against a stock vehicle with magazine tested numbers (that usually only vary by tenths of a second in 0-60 tests). Are they perfect measurements? No. But they give you enough caution or confidence to be able to prep for the race (if you're so inclined to care as much as this - or if you're racing for money).

But it IS, or can be, an accurate measure of driver performance in conjunction with car performance at a certain place, time, temperature, etc. Especially if you have a large enough sample size to show some consistency.

And technically speaking, there are a whole host of other variables that make even a road test incompatible with another road test, or a different car.

Not everyone has access to accelerometer technology, so...we're just trying to get a rough read on what some average numbers for some of the cars on this board are, nothing more.

Is it accurate? Hell no. Is it fun and educational? In my mind, absolutely.

-E

 

Give me a day or so and I will post a formula to back calculate exact average horsepower from acceleration times.
If any of you PHD's on here want to do it first, feel free.

I want a free feel from Jessica Alba .....

 

E-

My point exactly. Is it fun...more fun than most people can have with their clothes on. Is it helpful to people who want to know whether they are developing their racing skills?....Absolutely.

Is it a fair comparison of performance between equally modified cars driven by different people----- No way


Is it a diagnostic tool that can be relied on to determine if tuning changes are efficient ..... probably never.

I am not flaming anyone here, I just simply think even in an single car/single driver/identical conditions scenario----- 0-anything times or acceleration over distance times do not have a sufficient nexus to power to be reliable for anything. Despite practice and training there are just too damn many human variables.

 

With my second FD I bought the gtech pro meter along with the basic Peter Ferrell bolt ons. They were cat back, intake, intercooler and computer. Using the middle setting of 13lbs of boost I ran consistent 4.2 second 0-60 mph times with a quarter tank of gas, 3500 rpm launch and Bridgestone S02 265/40/17 tires.

For me the most fun is in 0-60 street times with street tires as that this is something we can compare to other production cars.

 

why can't everyone quit talking all this babble and go out and run 60-90 in 3rd gear?

almost everyone should be able to spool up by then (~4500rpm) and almost be through the gear so we see some high rpm power.

just run the test and then follow this form:

60-90 mph test

time: _.__
port:
turbo:
boost level:
(add to this list as you see applicable)
rx7 model and relevant mods:

helping factors: (cold weather, etc)

hurting factors: (tires slipping, etc)

other comments: (i think this test is B.S., etc)

 

i'll start with my old info

60-90 mph test

average time: 3.4
boost level: 12.5
port: large SP
turbo: T-61, 1.15 a/r exhaust
manifold: HKS cast
Intercooler: modified RE V-mount


rx7 model and relevant mods:
1993 touring
~2880 lbs w/driver

helping factors:
none that i can think of

hurting factors:
7,250 ft ASL seems to be hurting power and spool (spools at 4500), gouged center housing, motor was later found to have a cracked apex seal (but not completely sure if it was affecting power or not as this test was done a long time ago - not sure if this was before or after the crack), my downpipe is also a POS

other comments: i changed the format a bit to make sure things are listed so you can compare different setups quickly. y'all can enter your bickering here - just do the damn test.....pretty please

 

How the hell did you get 150lbs off your car?! 2880 is what a touring weighs stock!

 

mine weighs in at 2750lbs

 

Did you ever find that website?

60ft----> 1.31secs
0-121mph--> 5.91secs(1/8 mile)
0-150.47mph--> 9.204secs(1/4 mile)

 

Chis, it says your 0-60mph was about 1.45 seconds lol

I guess you were almost doing 60 at the 60 foot mark.

Here is the link, its on the Team NABR website which is where all the hardcore DSM guys are at.

http://www.teamnabr.com/modules.php?...showpage&pid=8

STEPHEN

 

just for comparison's sake, i put in a semi-accurate value for my road speed adjustment and did a few runs tonight. I am still on that POS downpipe and tuned pretty conservatively. I did all the runs in 3rd gear cruising at 50 mph and then floored it. Here's what I ended up with:

15 psi
50 - 0.0
60 - 1.4
70 - 2.4
80 - 3.3
90 - 4.3
100-5.3

13 psi
50 - 0.0
60 - 1.5
70 - 2.6
80 - 3.6
90 - 5.0
100-6.3

I really need to make a new downpipe. the one that's on there was just quickly made from some crush bent 3" piping and has a big dent in it to fit the extra length of the HKS race wastegate in comparison to that of the standard one. Ihor has seen it and can tell you first hand that its a restrictive ****....

most of y'all have some sort of datalogging equipment now. i'd be interested to see what sort of #s your cars produce to see how far i am behind.