a car with just intake and the seats taken out seems pretty stock to me.

 

fastgold...i've seen civics run 13.1-3 with 100-102 mph trap speeds and the fastest 3.0 CL ran 13.6 with a 106 mph trap speed... whats so unbelieveable about 13.5@104?

 

I tried to post over in ther s2k1 forums and I have to activate my membership first, I am at work right now, so I will have to do that later.

When someone says stock, I think the motor. A CAI doesn't do a whole lot so I consider it stock, and who said that I took 500lbs out of the s2k? That would be almost impossible. BTW, I have been racing for years and in that time I have been able to perfect my racing. A.K.A. I KNOW HOW TO DRIVE!!!! Oh yeah, and by stock are you referring to the tires also? I didn't think that you guys meant that tires would mean that hew car was not stock. I had slicks on the back because my s02 has a bubble in the rear driver's side.

You know you guys don't have to believe me, I honestly don't care. Bryanz3.0cl, I appreciate the support, and thanks to the rest of you also. ADIOS

 

I hope u dont mind me quoting ur replay on S2k forums, because the guys over there want to know what u did. I do believe that u got the 13.5, but i think u should have gotten better than 13.5 with 104mph and 1.8 60ft. And when u have free time try coming to shed more light on what u done to ur S2k http://www.s2ki.com/forums/showthrea...84#post1244284

 

So does that mean the Civic is hitting 0-95 in about 10 seconds and then climbing up slowly? I'm a bit confused since 99mph yields like 14.0 so I can't imagine 100 dropping a whole second. I'm basing this just on what I've seen, so help me understand if you don't mind.

I always thought that to hit low 13.1 you have to be int he 110mph+.

 

Not nessesarily, I pulled a 13.24@102 in my old Typhoon. Great off the line due to a turbo AWD 12 PSI launch, but it slowed as the speeds increased. It wasn't the most aerodynamic vehicle, sort of like a bread truck...

This time was my best, once I was able to get a 103 trap but most times were in the mid 13's with around 100 - 101 MPH traps.

 

No worries, this is just a friendly discuussion. I haven't gotten a cghance to activate my membership, I will try and do that tonight. But remember guys, cslicks help a lot with traction therefore lowering et's more.

 

Drag racing is all about the first 60ft. If u got a good 60ft u will shave alot ET down. For example, if we have a car that traps 105 with different drivers. Lets say the first driver knows what is he doing and he gets a 1.8 60ft and the other one got a 2.2 60ft. The 104 with 1.8 60ft will yeild 13.0-13.2 and the 2.2 60ft will yeild around 13.7-13.9. Every .1 less in the 60ft will shave around .15-.25 in the ET.

I remember once i raced a drag mustang(He had a bolt ons 5.0) with slicks and some weight reduction that got 13.12 to my 13.14 but i did trap 108 to his 101. I was playing catch up after his 1.46 60ft to my 2.2 60ft(spinning too much) and never knew that he won until i saw the slips. Anyways the guy was all happy and said that i cant beat a Mustang with my LS1, so i asked him nicely for another run on the highway. We did a roll from 15mph(because he had something like 4.30gears) and it wasnt even pretty. He hung just for a sec then i started walking until 100mph(he was 2-3 cars behind) and he was far away. He couldnt use his great 60ft from a roll. That is how much the first 60ft helps in drag racing world. Trapspeed is what u should care about if u want to race from rolls. I hope this explains what u asked for . Oh yeah and happy new year eveyone .

 

By the way, I posted over in the s2k forums.

 

I watched Type R run tonight at the track and can vouch for him sticking right with the Vette. I also happened to know the driver of the Vette (2002 bone stock C5- 6 speed). Not only was the guy driving the Vette a good driver, he was was consistent. I believe the lowest time i saw him put down was a 13.7xx. Either way, I loved watching Type R put down his low 14's all night long...

 

That C5 should have run close to a .5 faster than his posted times. What were his 60's??

 

That vette have a big problem to run 13.7... Do u remember his 60ft?

 

you saw that one?...cool...i was acctually ahead at the 1/8th even at the 1000' but right then he went away...i got him off the line,he spun alittle,...i ended up going 14.050 @102.11(not on that particular run) oh BTW i found out why florida guys tend to run slower than other parts of the country low altitude ,what thats usually good...yep but not when combined with 100% humidity,the atmosphere is dense with moisture displacing 02 (oxygen)...i saw several LS1's go 13.9 all night


what i did see go 9 something was this loud ass hot ass smokey ass JET SEMI you could feel the heat 200ft away like you were standing over a bon fire

 

hey BTW it was nice meeting you out there,you;ll see me out there again soon ,if i can catch the right weather

 

I couldnt tell you the 60ft times for the Vette...I do know the guy hadn't run ANYTHING in over two years...but we bet him he couldnt beat my buddies 2.0L civic hatch (which he didn't). So he ran his Mom's Vette..let me say he ran faster than any other stock Vette there though. I do agree that altitude combined with 100% humidity makes a difference in runs though, because I dont think anyone there ran as low as they could have. The 2.0L hatch has done 13.1 when it was 87 degrees without the humidity and the best they could pull last night was 13.31...take that for what its worth..this all took place in south florida.

 

I have to disagree to some of the statements. Although running in Florida, as is similar to many southern states, does contribute to slower times than northern counterparts. The altitude, practically zero elevation, is of some benefit.

The problem is the higher consistent heat and higher humidity; the elevation does help the situation.

As the elevation is lower the air density increases. Regardless of altitude the O2 concentration stays at about 21%. But the total density may change to where at 5000 feet elevation there is about 16% - 18% less air and subsequently less O2. This in turn means about 17% less power. So the elevation has nothing to do with Floridians running slower.

The problem with Florida comes in the form of humidity and temperature. Most of the time I hear people up north talking about running in 70 degree temps with an RH of 80% (which is often BS). This amounts to a dew point of about 55 degrees. This is not bad. Now take 80 degree temps with an RH of 100% and now the dew point is 80 degrees. This amounts to a change of about 3% water vapor difference; or in other words, a 3% drop in power due to 3% displacement of O2. On a 300 crank HP engine this is 9 HP on the dew point difference alone. Add to that the temperature delta and it could add up to a difference of 5% on the same engine, 15 HP.

Now take someone running in 40 degree temps and 50% RH, a dew point of about 20 F. This would equate to a difference in water vapor of about 8%. Imagine that, 8% alone from just being in better conditions. Not to mention the gains from a lower temperature possibly adding up to an 11% gain in these examples. 30+ HP difference in the same example engine…

However, I do not feel for the Florida boys, many of us in the south have to deal with similar weather all while at a significantly higher altitude; Atlanta Dragway is over 1000 feet…

 

my thoughts where at the lower alt. the concentration of moisture is also greater,increasing it's negative effects?

 

Lower altitude will not increase the concentration of water vapor alone. It will help the air density though.

However, the typical higher temps and the higher humidity will amount to higher dewpoints. Compared to runs at Englishtown which is at nearly the same elevation. They run at lower temps and lower humidity which amounts to significantly lower dew points. This will account for significant differences in power output.

It is common knowledge that records do not fall in the south...

Some sea level tracks out west also have an advantage. They run at dewpoints in the 30 degree range with temps in the 60 F area. This can also amount to a 5% difference in power output.

 

it would be close but a c5 vette will beat a s2000 hands down

 

not my s2k Oh and for the rest of you, the car hasn't been "stock" since the last time I went to the track, bought headers, exhaust, intake, and a vafc. What do you think, v-tech at 5?

 

correction
vtec*

 

Can always come run me I'm not far away... (in my CLS)

Plus I have a g-tech competition unit. If you can't turn a 13.5 in 30 degrees, it's not going to happen....

Oh wait, I also have a C5 I can run you in a '98... (friends vette)

lemme know...