Fordnatics List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: David Shufutinsky <(email redacted)>


I finally had the chance to take my 94 to Terminal Island, in Long Beach CA.
For those of you who are not farmiliar with the track, it is ideally
located at sea level (within a mile off the pacific), there is often a
nice cool breeze, and they have new timing equipment.

Getting to the chase.
The first day out the track was virtually empty as I made 11 runs between
11am and 2:30pm. The car is stock, except for a K&N air filter at this
point. Suspension components include H&R Road Race Springs, Bilstein
shocks, and autoPower Roll Cage.

Summary of best runs:

React 60ft 330ft 1/8th 1/8@ ET 1/4@
Run#1 0.958 2.257 6.720 10.103 74.234 15.420 91.730
Run#2 same; change of strategy, I Started shifting at 5200-5300
from 1-2 and 2-3 with much better results.
Run#3 1.069 2.371 6.40 9.769 74.523 15.050 102.639
Run#10 1.069 2.497 6.527 9.853 75.678 15.073 105.753
Run#11 0.990 2.344 6.316 9.651 74.689 14.929 103.467

Average 1.064 2.451 6.533 9.852 73.980 15.186 98.297

I was shocked to see these results. But the end of the day, was
well worth the 30min wait in line.

Two weeks later, with Borla Cat-back exhaust 2.5 inch. Temperature about
10 degrees higher:
React 60ft 330ft 1/8th 1/8@ ET 1/4@
Run#1 0.996 2.515 0 9.869 75.279 15.152 94.502
Run#2 1.215 2.261 0 9.589 82.797 14.876 103.139
no time slip for run 3
Run#4 0.957 2.264 0 9.614 68.080 14.890 93.930
Run#5 1.121 2.365 0 9.720 67.994 14.998 103.812

I finish all runs in 3rd gear at about 5000 rpm, Car has 17" factory
wheels with factory rubber and about 17,000 miles.

I am new to Drag Race type competition, infact the above were my first
two times at the track.

I feel that there is some discrepency between ending trap speed and ET.
Specifically, Day2, runs 4 and 5. Run 4 is a tenth faster, yet at about
10mph slower than run 5. I dont understand. There was an 88GT running
14.4 @ 96, he couldn explain my times either. Can someone help explain this?

Also, the times I was able to get seem better than those I've seen
published. Especially the Trap Speed - a friend was getting 13.78@104 in
a stock z28 - and I've seen many slips of highly modified mustangs that
are scratching over 100. I am getting a feeling that my engine is strong
on the high end from these numbers - is this an accurate assumption??

I never thought that drag racing involved so much beyond just stomping on
the throttle - new found respect to those who keep traction.

Thanks in advance,
David.
==============================================================================
-\ /-\ David Shufutinsky
| | | Management Information Systems @ CSUN
\_/ \_/ (email redacted)
csun.edu/~hbeco003/dms.html
==============================================================================

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Robert King)

> Summary of best runs:
>
> React 60ft 330ft 1/8th 1/8@ ET 1/4@
> Run#1 0.958 2.257 6.720 10.103 74.234 15.420 91.730
> Run#2 same; change of strategy, I Started shifting at 5200-5300
> from 1-2 and 2-3 with much better results.
> Run#3 1.069 2.371 6.40 9.769 74.523 15.050 102.639
> Run#10 1.069 2.497 6.527 9.853 75.678 15.073 105.753
> Run#11 0.990 2.344 6.316 9.651 74.689 14.929 103.467
>
> Average 1.064 2.451 6.533 9.852 73.980 15.186 98.297
>
> I was shocked to see these results. But the end of the day, was
> well worth the 30min wait in line.

The ET's seem to jive with what I've seen and read about the Fox-4
Mustangs, but the trap speeds seem REALLY high! The best speed I've
been able to make in the traps is 96mpg with a mostly stock 88 GT.


> I feel that there is some discrepency between ending trap speed and ET.
> Specifically, Day2, runs 4 and 5. Run 4 is a tenth faster, yet at about
> 10mph slower than run 5. I dont understand. There was an 88GT running
> 14.4 @ 96, he couldn explain my times either. Can someone help explain this?

One word - TRACTION. Trap speed isn't affect *much* by traction, but ET
certainly is.


> Also, the times I was able to get seem better than those I've seen
> published. Especially the Trap Speed - a friend was getting 13.78@104 in
> a stock z28 - and I've seen many slips of highly modified mustangs that
> are scratching over 100. I am getting a feeling that my engine is strong
> on the high end from these numbers - is this an accurate assumption??

The trap speeds would seem to indicate this, but as I said earlier,
your trap speeds seem AWFULLY high. Check with track officials and
others at the track and ask them if the trap speeds at the track are
accurate.


> I never thought that drag racing involved so much beyond just stomping on
> the throttle - new found respect to those who keep traction.

Thanks! I havn't mastered the technique of launching on street tires
yet, but my 60' times tend to hover around the 2.2 mark.

- -- Robert King


+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Robert A. King | |
| Systems Software Engineer | "Dulce et decorum est en |
| Kodak Health Imaging Systems | medio coitu mori" |
| (email redacted) | -- Nelson Rockefeller |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The opinions expressed here ain't even mine, much less my employer's! |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (George Najarian)

On Mon, 15 May 1995 02:41:20 -0700 (PDT) you wrote:

>
>I finally had the chance to take my 94 to Terminal Island, in Long Beach CA.
>Summary of best runs:
>
> React 60ft 330ft 1/8th 1/8@ ET 1/4@
>Run#1 0.958 2.257 6.720 10.103 74.234 15.420 91.730
>Run#3 1.069 2.371 6.40 9.769 74.523 15.050 102.639
>Run#10 1.069 2.497 6.527 9.853 75.678 15.073 105.753
>Run#11 0.990 2.344 6.316 9.651 74.689 14.929 103.467
Two weeks later, with Borla Cat-back exhaust 2.5 inch. Temperature
about
>10 degrees higher:
> React 60ft 330ft 1/8th 1/8@ ET 1/4@
>Run#1 0.996 2.515 0 9.869 75.279 15.152 94.502
>Run#2 1.215 2.261 0 9.589 82.797 14.876 103.139
>Run#4 0.957 2.264 0 9.614 68.080 14.890 93.930
>Run#5 1.121 2.365 0 9.720 67.994 14.998 103.812
>
>are scratching over 100. I am getting a feeling that my engine is strong
>on the high end from these numbers - is this an accurate assumption??
>
>I never thought that drag racing involved so much beyond just stomping on
>the throttle - new found respect to those who keep traction.
>
>Thanks in advance,
>David.

I ran my '95 GTS at TI and got 15.3 @ 93, 15.2 @ 94. I think what you
are doing is somehow tripping the trap light early (maybe some of that
notorious next gen nose dive!). Except for your 1/4 MPH, all your
times are consistent with mine. A mustang that runs 104 MPH top end on
stock tires will normally spin the tires through first and second.

I definitely agree with the traction statement!


George Najarian Team OS/2 deltanet.com/users/najay/
(email redacted) Team.Net '95 Mustang GTS/FS
"The secret to proper cornering is to late apex as early as possible." - J. Ames
..

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: David Shufutinsky <(email redacted)>



On Mon, 15 May 1995, George Najarian wrote:

> On Mon, 15 May 1995 02:41:20 -0700 (PDT) you wrote:
>
> >
> >I finally had the chance to take my 94 to Terminal Island, in Long Beach CA.
> >Summary of best runs:
> >
> > React 60ft 330ft 1/8th 1/8@ ET 1/4@
> >Run#1 0.958 2.257 6.720 10.103 74.234 15.420 91.730
> >Run#3 1.069 2.371 6.40 9.769 74.523 15.050 102.639
> >Run#10 1.069 2.497 6.527 9.853 75.678 15.073 105.753
> >Run#11 0.990 2.344 6.316 9.651 74.689 14.929 103.467

- --- snip for band ---

> I ran my '95 GTS at TI and got 15.3 @ 93, 15.2 @ 94. I think what you
> are doing is somehow tripping the trap light early (maybe some of that
> notorious next gen nose dive!). Except for your 1/4 MPH, all your

Perhaps it is my inexperience in these events, but I do not see
you point - how would I be tripping the trap light early (due to nose
dive) resulting in an ave 10 mph faster trap speed??

> times are consistent with mine. A mustang that runs 104 MPH top end on
> stock tires will normally spin the tires through first and second.

Well, I asked my friend with the stock z28 about his times
compared to those on the f-body list; and he too was faster than some
cars with exhaust and headers. I was begining to think it was the track,
but... well... any ideas ??

- --- snip ---

> George Najarian Team OS/2 deltanet.com/users/najay/
- ---snip---

==============================================================================
-\ /-\ David Shufutinsky
| | | Management Information Systems @ CSUN
\_/ \_/ (email redacted)
csun.edu/~hbeco003/dms.html
==============================================================================

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: David Shufutinsky <(email redacted)>



On Mon, 15 May 1995, Robert King wrote:

> > Summary of best runs:
> >
> > React 60ft 330ft 1/8th 1/8@ ET 1/4@
> > Run#1 0.958 2.257 6.720 10.103 74.234 15.420 91.730
> > Run#2 same; change of strategy, I Started shifting at 5200-5300
> > from 1-2 and 2-3 with much better results.
> > Run#3 1.069 2.371 6.40 9.769 74.523 15.050 102.639
> > Run#10 1.069 2.497 6.527 9.853 75.678 15.073 105.753
> > Run#11 0.990 2.344 6.316 9.651 74.689 14.929 103.467
> >
> > Average 1.064 2.451 6.533 9.852 73.980 15.186 98.297
> >
> > I was shocked to see these results. But the end of the day, was
> > well worth the 30min wait in line.
>
> The ET's seem to jive with what I've seen and read about the Fox-4
> Mustangs, but the trap speeds seem REALLY high! The best speed I've
> been able to make in the traps is 96mpg with a mostly stock 88 GT.

- --- snip ---

Ok, so, what can I attribute to this ... "phenonmenon" ?? Am I
getting flase results or did I luck out with ford?? Any takers?

awaiting more comments.
-david

==============================================================================
-\ /-\ David Shufutinsky
| | | Management Information Systems @ CSUN
\_/ \_/ (email redacted)
csun.edu/~hbeco003/dms.html
==============================================================================

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Robert King)

> Well, I asked my friend with the stock z28 about his times
> compared to those on the f-body list; and he too was faster than some
> cars with exhaust and headers. I was begining to think it was the track,
> but... well... any ideas ??

It would not be unheard of. I've had a couple of runs at the Texas
Motorplex where the timing was really screwed up! One pass had me with
an ET of 22.47 sec and a trap speed of 119 mph!

- -- Robert King

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Kelly Murray <(email redacted)>


> React 60ft 330ft 1/8th 1/8@ ET 1/4@
>#1 0.958 2.257 6.720 10.103 74.234 15.420 91.730
>#3 1.069 2.371 6.40 9.769 74.523 15.050 102.639
>#10 1.069 2.497 6.527 9.853 75.678 15.073 105.753
> Ok, so, what can I attribute to this ... "phenonmenon" ?? Am I
>getting flase results or did I luck out with ford?? Any takers?

The big MPH numbers are clearly wrong. If TI is anything like it
used to be, their timing equipment and operators are half-ass.
Someone told me the track isn't actually an entire 1/4-mile long!
About 95-98MPH is what you should get for a high-14's run

Could be lots of reasons for the error. Simply wrote down wrong?
It missed the front-wheels and caught the back wheels at the start
of the MPH clock? It got mixed up with the car next to you?
Drive up to Bakersfield and run it. Actually Las Vegas has a
dragstrip. That would make the trip more fun after the racing

-Kelly

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

> On Mon, 15 May 1995, Robert King wrote:

> > > Summary of best runs:
> > >
> > > React 60ft 330ft 1/8th 1/8@ ET 1/4@
> > > Run#1 0.958 2.257 6.720 10.103 74.234 15.420 91.730
> > > Run#2 same; change of strategy, I Started shifting at 5200-5300
> > > from 1-2 and 2-3 with much better results.
> > > Run#3 1.069 2.371 6.40 9.769 74.523 15.050 102.639
> > > Run#10 1.069 2.497 6.527 9.853 75.678 15.073 105.753
> > > Run#11 0.990 2.344 6.316 9.651 74.689 14.929 103.467
> > >
> > > Average 1.064 2.451 6.533 9.852 73.980 15.186 98.297
> > >
> > > I was shocked to see these results. But the end of the day, was
> > > well worth the 30min wait in line.
> >
> > The ET's seem to jive with what I've seen and read about the Fox-4
> > Mustangs, but the trap speeds seem REALLY high! The best speed I've
> > been able to make in the traps is 96mpg with a mostly stock 88 GT.

> --- snip ---

> Ok, so, what can I attribute to this ... "phenonmenon" ?? Am I
> getting flase results or did I luck out with ford?? Any takers?

> awaiting more comments.
> -david

> ==============================================================================
> -\ /-\ David Shufutinsky
> | | | Management Information Systems @ CSUN
> \_/ \_/ (email redacted)
> csun.edu/~hbeco003/dms.html
> ==============================================================================

David,

I remember reading an article in a Ford related magazine a few years ago. There
was a car that they featured that was generating interesting numbers at the
dragstrip. As I recall the car was a bone-stock 87 LX 5.0 Sedan that was hitting
13 second timeslips. A friend of the guy that owned had written a letter to the
editor about the car and they could not believe it, so they did a feature. They
had Performance Experts go over the car with a fine tooth comb. They found no
mods and repeatably ran the car down the strip hitting in the high 13s if I
recall correctly. The Experts simply shook their head and said that they must
have just got everything right at the factory. Other than that story, the only
non-modified Mustang ever to break the into the 13s from the factory was the
71 Boss 351.

If your car is pulling that strong, enjoy and be glad about it. The only other
thing is to see what other 94s are pulling at that track or take yours to
another track and see if you can generate the same results. Either way,
Enjoy...

Scott D.
93 SHO 5-speed white/mocha
GOSTRDR(GhostRider)
(email redacted)

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Brian Kelley <(email redacted)>



Kelly Murray writes:

> > React 60ft 330ft 1/8th 1/8@ ET 1/4@
> >#1 0.958 2.257 6.720 10.103 74.234 15.420 91.730
> >#3 1.069 2.371 6.40 9.769 74.523 15.050 102.639
> >#10 1.069 2.497 6.527 9.853 75.678 15.073 105.753
> > Ok, so, what can I attribute to this ... "phenonmenon" ?? Am I
> >getting flase results or did I luck out with ford?? Any takers?
>
> The big MPH numbers are clearly wrong. If TI is anything like it
> used to be, their timing equipment and operators are half-ass.

I've never been to TI, but I have to agree regarding the numbers. It
seems very unlikely that they could be correct. If your gross vehicle
weight is 3,500, that is roughly 319 HP, or roughly $2000 to $3000 in
modifications.

105.7 is absolutely flying compared to a Stock Mustang. If correct,
your friends with stock Mustangs should be absolutely stunned by the
performance when riding in your car.

Brian


- ---
(email redacted)

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: John Bolton <(email redacted)>

> > > React 60ft 330ft 1/8th 1/8@ ET 1/4@
> > > Run#1 0.958 2.257 6.720 10.103 74.234 15.420 91.730
> > > Run#2 same; change of strategy, I Started shifting at 5200-5300
> > > from 1-2 and 2-3 with much better results.
> > > Run#3 1.069 2.371 6.40 9.769 74.523 15.050 102.639
> > > Run#10 1.069 2.497 6.527 9.853 75.678 15.073 105.753
> > > Run#11 0.990 2.344 6.316 9.651 74.689 14.929 103.467
> > >
> Ok, so, what can I attribute to this ... "phenonmenon" ?? Am I
> getting flase results or did I luck out with ford?? Any takers?

The trap speed lights and/or timing computer are/is screwed up. Pushing
some 3500 lbs down the 1/4 mile to the tune of 105+ mph takes much more
power than a stock 5.0 is capable of -- around 320 hp. Hell, 102.6 mph
would require almost 300 hp. Even if you had that much power, which
you don't, you'd have to be a pretty sorry driver to have an ET no better
than 14.9 with trap speeds of 100+ mph, even on street radials. Also,
look at your 1/8-mile speeds. 74-75 mph in the 1/8 mile is right in
line with 92-94 mph in the 1/4 mile. Unless you got a 200 mph tail
wind somewhere between the 1/8- and 1/4-mile speed lights, the problem
is with track timing equipment.

- --
John Bolton GTE Government Systems Corp
(email redacted) Research Triangle Park, NC
'93 LX 5.0 trunk

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Dennis M. Monckton" <(email redacted)>

>
> The trap speed lights and/or timing computer are/is screwed up. Pushing
> some 3500 lbs down the 1/4 mile to the tune of 105+ mph takes much more
> power than a stock 5.0 is capable of -- around 320 hp. Hell, 102.6 mph
> would require almost 300 hp. Even if you had that much power, which
> you don't, you'd have to be a pretty sorry driver to have an ET no better
> than 14.9 with trap speeds of 100+ mph, even on street radials. Also,
> look at your 1/8-mile speeds. 74-75 mph in the 1/8 mile is right in
> line with 92-94 mph in the 1/4 mile. Unless you got a 200 mph tail
> wind somewhere between the 1/8- and 1/4-mile speed lights, the problem
> is with track timing equipment.
>

I have to disagree that those times and speeds require 320
hp. I got a program off Compuserve which calculate horse
power required to propel a car with your specifications
down the track. I enter a normally aspirated, rear wheel
drive, 3500 lbs. car, 190 lbs.driver, 5 gal. of gas, 72
degrees, and a 15.0 sec. 1/4 mile time, which gives an
output of approx. 230 horsepower required. Case closed.
;^)


=========================================================
Dennis M. Monckton (email redacted)
1994 Must. GT 5-spd. Yellow Conv. Black Top
1986 Must. GT 5-spd. Black Conv. Black Top (210,000 mi.)
1980 Corvette Auto. Red on Red
The views and opinions expressed here are not necessarily
those of my employer. EMC Technology, Inc
[/] At 200' no one can hear you scream [/]
"There can be only one!"
=========================================================

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: John Bolton <(email redacted)>

> > The trap speed lights and/or timing computer are/is screwed up. Pushing
> > some 3500 lbs down the 1/4 mile to the tune of 105+ mph takes much more
> > power than a stock 5.0 is capable of -- around 320 hp. Hell, 102.6 mph
> > would require almost 300 hp. Even if you had that much power, which
> > you don't, you'd have to be a pretty sorry driver to have an ET no better
> > than 14.9 with trap speeds of 100+ mph, even on street radials. Also,
> > look at your 1/8-mile speeds. 74-75 mph in the 1/8 mile is right in
> > line with 92-94 mph in the 1/4 mile. Unless you got a 200 mph tail
> > wind somewhere between the 1/8- and 1/4-mile speed lights, the problem
> > is with track timing equipment.
>
> I have to disagree that those times and speeds require 320
> hp. I got a program off Compuserve which calculate horse
> power required to propel a car with your specifications
> down the track. I enter a normally aspirated, rear wheel
> drive, 3500 lbs. car, 190 lbs.driver, 5 gal. of gas, 72
> degrees, and a 15.0 sec. 1/4 mile time, which gives an
> output of approx. 230 horsepower required. Case closed.
> ;^)

OBJECTION! Your honor, if you check the transcript, you'll find that my
argument concerned the power required for the given trap SPEEDS. I said
nothing about the power required for the given ET.

- --
John Bolton GTE Government Systems Corp
(email redacted) Research Triangle Park, NC
'93 LX 5.0 trunk

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (George Najarian)

On Thu, 18 May 1995 6:33:24 you wrote:

>>
>> The trap speed lights and/or timing computer are/is screwed up. Pushing
>> some 3500 lbs down the 1/4 mile to the tune of 105+ mph takes much more
>> power than a stock 5.0 is capable of -- around 320 hp. Hell, 102.6 mph
>> would require almost 300 hp. Even if you had that much power, which
>> you don't, you'd have to be a pretty sorry driver to have an ET no better
>> than 14.9 with trap speeds of 100+ mph, even on street radials. Also,
>> look at your 1/8-mile speeds. 74-75 mph in the 1/8 mile is right in
>> line with 92-94 mph in the 1/4 mile. Unless you got a 200 mph tail
>> wind somewhere between the 1/8- and 1/4-mile speed lights, the problem
>> is with track timing equipment.
>>
>
>I have to disagree that those times and speeds require 320
>hp. I got a program off Compuserve which calculate horse
>power required to propel a car with your specifications
>down the track. I enter a normally aspirated, rear wheel
>drive, 3500 lbs. car, 190 lbs.driver, 5 gal. of gas, 72
>degrees, and a 15.0 sec. 1/4 mile time, which gives an
>output of approx. 230 horsepower required. Case closed.
>;^)
>
>

My calculations show a car that is 3500 (w/driver) at 105 MPH is 316
hp. The same car with a 15.0 et is 205 hp. The 100 hp difference is
equal to a NOS stage 1 kit.


George Najarian Team OS/2 deltanet.com/users/najay/
(email redacted) Team.Net '95 Mustang GTS/FS
"The secret to proper cornering is to late apex as early as possible." - J. Ames
..

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: David Shufutinsky <(email redacted)>



On Wed, 17 May 1995, George Najarian wrote:

> David, I am not sure if you understand how the ET and MPH are
> determined in the traps. This is explanation given to me by a seasoned
> drag racing buddy.
>
> There are three lights at the 1/8 mile and 1/4 mile traps. I will try
> to diagram them.
>
> Top View: MPH start ET MPH end
> |----------| | | |
> | CAR | -> | | |
> |----------| | | |
> ^----- approx 120 ft -----^
>
> When you hit the first light the MPH timer starts. When you hit the
> second light, the ET timer stops. When you hit the third light, the
> MPH timer stops. The MPH is calculated by the time it takes to go
> through the traps. Because of the short traps, something tripping the
> mph end light 1 ft early will represent a ~10% change in speed. If you
*******
> look at your second track times, you will see both the 1/8 and 1/4
> mile MPH vary about %20 percent. Check the front of you car and make
*********************
> sure nothing is hanging low or is loose on the front end. Hope this
> helps. That is what I think, at any rate.

George, I think you've got it!

After reading this post I started thinking about how low the front
air-foil was was before I tore it off on a parking curb last week. If
the first light is situated low enough that the foil passes over it, and
tags the wheel; and the second MPH light is slightly higher, thus hitting
my airfoil (and not the wheel) and effectively recording my car about 1ft
ahead!

Another clue I received was from a guy who ran a Nissan turbo Z with
times of 13.9@118 - he had an extremely low ram-air which was probably
having the same problem as I was.

Since the foil is not attached at the moment, I should be able to get
accurate readings at the track.

Question, its been great without hearing that thing scrape at every dip
this last week. What functionality does it have, if any, and do I need
to reinstall it (I'd rather not) ???

Thanks to George, and everyone else who assisted and provided clues to
solving "The Case of the Stock 106mph mustang".

-David.

==============================================================================
-\ /-\ David Shufutinsky
| | | Management Information Systems @ CSUN
\_/ \_/ (email redacted)
csun.edu/~hbeco003/dms.html
==============================================================================

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

Dennis M. Monckton (email redacted)

Regarding:

>> The trap speed lights and/or timing computer are/is screwed up. Pushing
some 3500 lbs down the 1/4 mile to the tune of 105+ mph takes much more power
than a stock 5.0 is capable of -- around 320 hp. Hell, 102.6 mph would
require almost 300 hp. Even if you had that much power, which you don't,
you'd have to be a pretty sorry driver to have an ET no better than 14.9 with
trap speeds of 100+ mph, even on street radials.

Also, look at your 1/8-mile speeds. 74-75 mph in the 1/8 mile is right in
line with 92-94 mph in the 1/4 mile. Unless you got a 200 mph tail wind
somewhere between the 1/8- and 1/4-mile speed lights, the problem is with
track timing equipment.<<

In a message dated 95-05-18 08:02:06 EDT, you write

>I have to disagree that those times and speeds require 320
>hp. I got a program off Compuserve which calculate horse
>power required to propel a car with your specifications
>down the track. I enter a normally aspirated, rear wheel
>drive, 3500 lbs. car, 190 lbs.driver, 5 gal. of gas, 72
>degrees, and a 15.0 sec. 1/4 mile time, which gives an
>output of approx. 230 horsepower required. Case closed.
>;^)

I would like to re-open the case First and foremost, you are apparently
overlooking the fact that the previous author NEVER stated that the e.t.s
were inconsistent with the hp/weight. He stated the trap speeds were
inconsitent. If your program comes with an option to calculate for mph, try
that.

Next, it's too deep in this thread for me to remember if this is your car or
not, but I would like to say that from my experience at the track with the
new GT's, this is a pretty good performing car even based solely on the e.t.s
High 14's is better than many are getting. Of course if you can't trust the
speed timers, the others become suspect too.

Further, it is particularly odd that other cars at the track did not appear
to be suffering from this phenomenon. I would strongly suggest looking for
ground effects or other such things that might somehow be tripping the mph
timers incorrectly.

-Tom Steele

P.S. Here are the formulas for determining approximate hp from trap speed and
e.t.

Calculating horsepower based on trap speed:

3
HP = ( MPH / 234) x Weight


Calculating horsepower based on elapsed time:

3
HP = Weight / ( E.T. / 5.825)




HORSEPOWER FROM TRAP SPEED
--------------------------

WEIGHT

3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600
MPH

90 171 176 182 188 193 199 205
91 176 182 188 194 200 206 212
92 182 188 194 201 207 213 219
93 188 195 201 207 213 220 226
94 194 201 207 214 220 227 233
95 201 207 214 221 228 234 241
96 207 214 221 228 235 242 249
97 214 221 228 235 242 249 256
98 220 228 235 242 250 257 264
99 227 235 242 250 257 265 273
100 234 242 250 258 265 273 281
101 241 249 257 265 273 281 289
102 248 257 265 273 282 290 298
103 256 264 273 281 290 >298< 307
104 263 272 281 290 298 >307< 316
105 271 280 289 298 307 >316< 325
106 279 288 297 307 316 325 335
107 287 296 306 316 325 335 344
108 295 305 315 324 334 344 354
109 303 313 323 334 344 354 364
110 312 322 332 343 353 364 374
111 320 331 342 352 363 374 384
112 329 340 351 362 373 384 395
113 338 349 360 372 383 394 405
114 347 358 370 382 393 405 416
115 356 368 380 392 404 415 427
116 365 378 390 402 414 426 439
117 375 388 400 413 425 438 450
118 385 398 410 423 436 449 462
119 395 408 421 434 447 460 473
120 405 418 432 445 459 472 486

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Christopher Ihara)

You Wrote:
>>Summary of best runs:
>>
>> React 60ft 330ft 1/8th 1/8@ ET 1/4@
>>Run#1 0.958 2.257 6.720 10.103 74.234 15.420 91.730
>> Run#2 same; change of strategy, I Started shifting at 5200-5300
>> from 1-2 and 2-3 with much better results.
>>Run#3 1.069 2.371 6.40 9.769 74.523 15.050 102.639
>>Run#10 1.069 2.497 6.527 9.853 75.678 15.073 105.753
>>Run#11 0.990 2.344 6.316 9.651 74.689 14.929 103.467
>>
>>Average 1.064 2.451 6.533 9.852 73.980 15.186 98.297
>>
>
It would seem that the high mph and high times indicate that the car is
making PLENTY of horsepower but isn't using it. I read that the quarter
mile time is indicative of how much horsepower is being use and the quarter
mile speed indicates how much horsepower the car is making. As you can see
from the extreme discrepancies some serious traction is needed.

>> I was shocked to see these results. But the end of the day, was
>>well worth the 30min wait in line.
>>
>>Two weeks later, with Borla Cat-back exhaust 2.5 inch. Temperature about
>>10 degrees higher:
>> React 60ft 330ft 1/8th 1/8@ ET 1/4@
>>Run#1 0.996 2.515 0 9.869 75.279 15.152 94.502
>>Run#2 1.215 2.261 0 9.589 82.797 14.876 103.139
>>no time slip for run 3
>>Run#4 0.957 2.264 0 9.614 68.080 14.890 93.930
>>Run#5 1.121 2.365 0 9.720 67.994 14.998 103.812
>>
>>I finish all runs in 3rd gear at about 5000 rpm, Car has 17" factory
>>wheels with factory rubber and about 17,000 miles.
>>
>>
>>I feel that there is some discrepency between ending trap speed and ET.
>>Specifically, Day2, runs 4 and 5. Run 4 is a tenth faster, yet at about
>>10mph slower than run 5. I dont understand. There was an 88GT running
>>14.4 @ 96, he couldn explain my times either. Can someone help explain this?
>
The 88GT here is getting much more traction. His times are about right. I
had a set of 2.73's when I started out and I was coming across at 98.xx+ mph
but at about 15.00 or so. The 2.73's are such a tall gear that the car was
just spinning them like crazy. I put in a set of 3.55's and (after learning
how to drive with them) was able to lower my ET to 14.1x's. Just don't be
surprised to find a 1/4 mile mph loss of about 5 mph or so.

>Chris Ihara
>internext.com/mustangs
>Home of The Corral, the Late Model Mustangs Web Site
>