maybe, but I am running less mph now than back then because of a rear gear change and the HP really didn't change any. there are too many variables in getting a car down the strip to say positively what you're saying. granted, the 60' time is critical, but look at the Pro cars who blow the tires off at the launch and then coast, they do 12's at only 80 mph with a 1.0 60', so you can't just equate a 60' time with an ET or trap speed based on some linear relationship, it don't work that way. some cars just don't leave that hard but come on strong at the finish line and vice versa. just look at me, I can do 1.7 60' times all day but run out of engine before the finish line so I ain't running low 13's or 12's which by your theory I should be doing with that kind of 60' time. see what I mean???
_____________________________
retired and drag racing all I can now that I have the time! 13.533 @ 96.24 mph w/1.780 60', ALL THROTTLE, NO BOTTLE! 13.557 @ 98.24 mph most recentl
Posts: 8826
Joined: 9/2/2003 From: United States Status: offline
Trap speed = measure of power 60' = measure of traction
both are critical, but I guarantee you you can tell me the trap speed and the 60's and I can VERY close to telling you what the e.t. is (assuming it was a full run). Each type of car is alittle different, but especially with any year mustang I certain I can tell you within a tenth or two.
Its really very simple, .1 off the 60' will drop around .2 off the e.t., so if you know a car, like yours roundy, runs 13.55 @ 98 w/ a 1.78 60' I can honestly tell you that if you got your 60' down to 1.68 you will run right at a 13.35
JD ran a 13.5 with a 2.0 60' - with gears and Nitto's he should be able to cut a 1.8 60' once he gets used to everything, and I expect him to run around a 13.1 if the weather is similar to his old time.
A local guy with an '04 Cobra with a pulley, etc. ran a 13.6 @ 116 ... because his 60's was a 2.50 (yea that sucked) ... another guy with an nearly identical modded '03 Cobra ran a 12.3 @ 117, had a 1.89 60'
An accquantince at my local track has a similar year GT, he cuts 1.6 60's with just a couple bolt-ons, full tubular drag suspension etc, and only traps at a 100 but damn near pulls the front tires off the ground... he run's 13.0's, when he ran Nitto's and cut 1.9 60's he ran 13.6's
Trap speed & 60' is always relative to e.t. I know that if a full weight 99+ GT traps at 102 mph their putting down around 250 rwhp and with a 2.2 60's their only gonna run a 14.0 , with a 2.0 60' their lookin at a 13.6, with a 1.8 a 13.2 - sure theirs room for error, powershifting will add another mph, so will removing the rear wing, same with weight reduction.. but were only talking .1 or .2 tenths. I give myself that much. Im not basing this off of just my local experience, its pretty much a given anywhere in the country. Its just a matter of math.
< Message edited by mdvaldosta -- 12/1/2004 12:03:37 PM >
this isnt about 60 foot times and how it corelates with 1/4 mile ets, considering horsepower and wieght combinations at a given temperature due to the barametric pressure and how full the moon is.....
Its about stock mustangs with minor bolt-ons running 13 second 1/4s And it happens all the time why isnt this locked already... They were doing this 15 years ago...
Trap speed = measure of power 60' = measure of traction
Im not basing this off of just my local experience, its pretty much a given anywhere in the country. Its just a matter of math.
speed is a measure of the horsepower, true. 60' times are more a measure of torque and how well it can be applied to the track for traction it's not math, it's physics and the laws of motion that determine how it all works out. since force = mass x acceleration, the lower the mass, the easier it will be to accelerate it to a given speed. that's why you always hear so much about HP to weight ratios since the mass of the car affects the rolling resistance due to tire to track friction losses. the chassis setup for any given mass also greatly effects how well the static weight is tranferred from the front axle to the rear axle at the hit of the throttle. that's why so much time and money is spent on making the chassis work correctly to get the mass in motion as rapidly as possible without generating excess tire spin. depending on the engine, you actually want some tire spin to keep from pulling the engine rpms down so much at the launch but you don't want so much spin that the traction fails and you get tire smoke or squealing sounds from too much wheel spin. it's torque that gets the car moving so you want lots of low end torque multiplied by gearing to get the mass accelerating as rapidly as possible without breaking the line on traction. once it's moving, then horsepower comes more into play to keep it accelerating and overcoming the forces opposing the forward motion, such as aerodynamic drag and rolling friction throughout the drivetrain and at the tire/track surface. if there was a way to leave with low rear tire pressure for maximum traction and low 60' times. then gradually increase the pressures as they go down the track the car would both ET quicker and run higher mph due to less rolling resistance. the same goes for aerodynamic drag too. wheelstands are good for traction at the launch but you don't want the front end staying way up too long as you will run slower due to drag, so you compromise with the chassis and gearing set up to get the maximum weight transfer (pitch rotation) with minimum front end lift to get the best ET's. how the engine reacts to the launch and the gear changes also has big impact on overall times and speeds. if you drag it down too much at the hit you lose time overall but if you don't make it work hard and burn more fuel, it won't make the power either. so it's a fine balancing act between making the torque and horsepower at the right engine speeds and applying both at the right times that get the car down the track most efficiently on any given run. stock engines and chassis are no way designed for maximum acceleration from a dead stop, so getting a car to run best for drag racing requires lots of changes to both the engine and chassis to get the best results. when you can do this and still tolerate it on the street, then you've got a winner!
_____________________________
retired and drag racing all I can now that I have the time! 13.533 @ 96.24 mph w/1.780 60', ALL THROTTLE, NO BOTTLE! 13.557 @ 98.24 mph most recentl
Team MF Member #007 Posts: 9634
Joined: 1/5/2004 From: My moms uterus Status: online
quote:
1988 GT hatch with AOD tranny. I ran my first 13, a 13.981 @ 100.30 mph in June '99 with the following bolt-ons and things removed to get the weight down. underdrive pulleys, removed air silencer, installed K&N air filter, 26x9 Hooiser slicks on stock wheels, Hypertech chip, MAC equal length shorty headers with 2.5" catback exhaust with Dynomax mufflers, 3.73 rear gears with Auburn posi, subframe connectors, Centerline AutoDrag front wheels and skinny tires, electric fan, homemade ram air and removed rear seats, spare tire and jack, front sway bar, AC compressor and hoses. Car weighed 3,240 lbs with me in the seat and the air in June at VMP ain't all that great either but I didn't have it recorded for this day. That run was the 198th pass the car had made at the strip FYI.
This is what it took Roundy to get a 13.9? I assuming that he knows how to drive. He's been doing it awhile. Looks like a little more than just your list of "Simple Bolt Ons" Besides, he had 26X9 SLICKS...Not DR's.
The guy that said his ALL STOCK 90GT went 13.90's. Please post a video. I don't buy that for a second.
3600? :( Foxes are lighter than that mr... Mines got a couple of heavy things added to it and it sits at about 3250 without driver. beefier bellhousing, sub frame connectors, battery box n cable,rims
Posts: 8826
Joined: 9/2/2003 From: United States Status: offline
nah their only like 3k ish, but still the guy would be lucky to be putting 200 rwhp to the ground with those mods... even in a 2900 or 3000 lb car thats not 13 second material on street tires - mid 14's with a GOOD driver in GOOD air. I'd bet my next paycheck on it.
According to my handy calculator it would take 328 total HP to move a 3200 pound to 103mph in the 1/4 mile. Even if he removed 300lbs of weight and got it down to 2900lbs it will still take almost 300hp(297 to be exact) to go 103 through the traps. So that part is probably BS.
I STILL think 13's are possible with gears, pullies, exhaust and timing and maybe even subframes on street tires. When I say "street" tires, I mean ANY D.O.T legal tire. It does't have to be the stock tire size.
_____________________________
1982 GT 351w(.060),10.7:1 flat top pistons, ported & polished heads, 1.94/1.60 valves,stealth intake, 750 holley dp, Comp 274XE cam, C-4 tranny with 3700 stall converter, 8.8 rear, 4:10's, subframes,electric fan. Tons of mods that are too much to list
Well Mickey Thompson ET Streets are a DOT rated Street Tire. Those fit your thingie? They're basically a slick... and propel my lowered stiff springed car to a VERY low 1.7 60' I know I can break 1.6 with em.
Well Mickey Thompson ET Streets are a DOT rated Street Tire. Those fit your thingie? They're basically a slick... and propel my lowered stiff springed car to a VERY low 1.7 60' I know I can break 1.6 with em.
Yep, those fit the criteria. If they are legal on the street, they are qualify as a D.O.T tire........
_____________________________
1982 GT 351w(.060),10.7:1 flat top pistons, ported & polished heads, 1.94/1.60 valves,stealth intake, 750 holley dp, Comp 274XE cam, C-4 tranny with 3700 stall converter, 8.8 rear, 4:10's, subframes,electric fan. Tons of mods that are too much to list
Printable Version
RE: 13's with simple bolt ons..some say no and I say yeah - 
and got a 103 mph trap speed 
