dustbuster4

I ran 4 passes tonight at Captial Raceway in Crofton, MD.

I timed 3 of the 4 races with the GTech. I've been a wannabe believer in the GTech, but I've convinced myself that it SUCKS! :thumbsdn:

I feel like an ass for quoting all of my GTech times, HP, etc. on the board, and retract everything!

Here are the runs (keep in mind that I wasn't running for speed, otherwise I would have taken off the 18s [and run stock rims/tires] and taken out my 40-50 lb sub box):

Run 1: (Trap) -- 16.1881 @ 87.1301 mph
Run 1: (GTech) -- 15.88 @ 92.6 mph [difference of -.3 sec/+5.5 mph]

Run 2: (Trap) -- 16.2589 @ 86.8533 mph
Run 2: (GTech) -- 15.62 @ 95.3 mph [difference of -.6 sec/+8.5 mph]

Run 3: (Trap) -- 16.2412 @ 86.6437 mph
Run 3: (GTech) -- By this point, I was so disappointed with the GTech, I didn't even time this race!

The first 3 runs were all within 45 minutes of each other. The 4th run was close to an hour later.

Run 4: (Trap) -- 15.8672 @ 87.8891 mph
Run 4: (GTech) -- 15.97 @ 90.2 mph [difference of +.1 sec/+2.4 mph]

I left the GTech in the same position through all 4 races, and only unpluged it after completeing each run. I don't believe that the position of the GTech was compromised throughout the evening.

Even with this in mind, the GTech was considerably lower than acutal times/and higher in speed. There was no consistency at all.

My hope was that if the GTech was off, that it would be off consistently throughout the evening. This was not the case!

My GTech will go on eBay tomorrow!
:P

dajuice27

Make that 2 G-Techs on Ebay, put mineup there as well and make it a dutch auction!

hougee

me ... what's a gtech?

hg

dustbuster4

It's a performance meter that you put on your windshield (like a radar detector) and plug into your cigarette lighter. It can measure 1/4-mile ETs, speed, horse power, g-force, etc.

I've know all along that it wasn't accurate, but assumed that it would be consistent(ly) wrong. It's not even consistent! :thumbsdn:

moforose3.0

yo Rick, make that 3 g techs for ebay. I just got the damn thing thursday too. I wish you would have told me that a few days earler.

dustbuster4

Sorry about that, Mike!

I really wanted to be a believer!

ilike2cheez

iTrader: (2)

ill buy it for 50 bucks!!!! seriously.........if u wanna sell it

moforose3.0

Haha, your nuts. I just paid $95. Give me $90 and you have a deal.

dustbuster4

dajuice27 may take your offer of $50 (send him a PM), but I paid $135 for mine!

dustbuster4

I just sold mine for $104.00, shipped: Completed auction on eBay.

dajuice27: Sorry if I "spoke" out of turn!

ilike2cheez

iTrader: (2)

you all were so quick to let the G tech go. Is it that bad?? i just want to use it to see if i get HP from my mods...not to run 1/4 miles. Is it reliable to measure HP???? or should i not get it.

JLai

Just to clarify things...were these G Techs...or G Tech Pros?

haiduc

who knows..... you would have to run the g-tech versus the dyno for those results. according to the track results the g-tech could be high on estimating the HP numbers also.

who wants to run it versus the dyno

dustbuster4

Mine was a GTech Pro.

I wouldn't trust the HP numbers as you need to enter the exact weight of your vehicle. This adds another chance for flawed results, because the GTech will still rely on the same internals to measure time and distance (along with weight) to determine HP figures. My 3.0's published weight was 3219, but how much did my car truly weight? I could never answer that without driving it on a truck scale.

Again, the internal consistency is the issue. Even if the GTech measures higher or lower than the dyno, it will not consistenly be high or low. So you can't "say" the GTech is always 5 HP higher than dyno. It may be 5 HP one run, then 10 HP another run, and a 3rd run may yield 3 HP LESS than dyno.

This was the problem with 1/4 mile ETs. It was not consistenly "off" when compared to trap results.

With the relatively small increases in HP that we get with our mods, have a margin of error that is more than 1 or 2 HP, is not a good thing (in my opinion).

ilike2cheez

iTrader: (2)

thats a good point

1998CL3.0

i was curious if those worked, i guess i have my answer!:thumbsdn: but just out of curiosity did you do anything different on that last run? just wondering how you shaved almost a half sec. the last run the g-tech was alot more accurate but still not consistent. but then again i could say the same about your runs. not arguing, just a little

dustbuster4

The first 3 runs were all in 45 minutes time. The engine was very hot (took close to an hour to drive to the track), and as the runs progressed, my times got a little worse.

The final run was about an hour later with a much cooler engine. Also, the outside temperature must have dropped close to 10 degrees during that hour wait (after sunset).