Comptech SC CL-S in the August sport compact
#1
Comptech SC CL-S in the August sport compact
If this is a repost mods please delete....Did anyone see the article of the blue SC CL-S in SCC? They managed a 14.2@101.7 out of the "tuna boat". Most I/h/e 6 speeds get better than that.
#2
I dunno if most I/H/E actually get BETTER than that... but most come close to it.
If they ran a 14.2@101.7 with it then they just can't launch. Look at the trap speed, much higher than the 14.2x being run by others with I/H/E. They're spinning the tires on launch obviously. The best I trapped at a 14.3 was 98 or so if I remember right.
If they ran a 14.2@101.7 with it then they just can't launch. Look at the trap speed, much higher than the 14.2x being run by others with I/H/E. They're spinning the tires on launch obviously. The best I trapped at a 14.3 was 98 or so if I remember right.
#4
Yes, 2nd magazine review. Got it last week. Ho-hum.
That's the second magazine test of a S/C equiped CLS that only did a 14.1. They should be :o
There are 2001 Auto CL-S with I/H + lightweight wheels + tires that have done 14.1 - 14.2 in 60- to 70-degree weather.
Maybe it was 120-degrees out and the driver had broken ankles...
And, they may have a problem hooking the car up...
There are people here with N/A 6-speeds (with mods) that are below 14 seconds. And, I believe that allmotor_2000 is in the mid 13s. I guess he knows how to get the most out of his car -- hey?
The list of credits to other members that put that time to shame would bring the "hook out." (oh, no, too long ... get him out of here.)
There are 2001 Auto CL-S with I/H + lightweight wheels + tires that have done 14.1 - 14.2 in 60- to 70-degree weather.
Maybe it was 120-degrees out and the driver had broken ankles...
And, they may have a problem hooking the car up...
There are people here with N/A 6-speeds (with mods) that are below 14 seconds. And, I believe that allmotor_2000 is in the mid 13s. I guess he knows how to get the most out of his car -- hey?
The list of credits to other members that put that time to shame would bring the "hook out." (oh, no, too long ... get him out of here.)
#5
Originally Posted by EricL
That's the second magazine test of a S/C equiped CLS that only did a 14.1. They should be :o
There are 2001 Auto CL-S with I/H + lightweight wheels + tires that have done 14.1 - 14.2 in 60- to 70-degree weather.
Maybe it was 120-degrees out and the driver had broken ankles...
And, they may have a problem hooking the car up...
There are people here with N/A 6-speeds (with mods) that are below 14 seconds. And, I believe that allmotor_2000 is in the mid 13s. I guess he knows how to get the most out of his car -- hey?
The list of credits to other members that put that time to shame would bring the "hook out." (oh, no, too long ... get him out of here.)
There are 2001 Auto CL-S with I/H + lightweight wheels + tires that have done 14.1 - 14.2 in 60- to 70-degree weather.
Maybe it was 120-degrees out and the driver had broken ankles...
And, they may have a problem hooking the car up...
There are people here with N/A 6-speeds (with mods) that are below 14 seconds. And, I believe that allmotor_2000 is in the mid 13s. I guess he knows how to get the most out of his car -- hey?
The list of credits to other members that put that time to shame would bring the "hook out." (oh, no, too long ... get him out of here.)
SEems with high powered 6MT's to get the most out ofthe car you have to launch fairly high to overcome the HLSD and actually make it work for you. Moreover, depending on the tires ya gotta make sure they are either cold(OEM rubber) or warm(aftermarket). By fairly high i mean 3k plus. Otherwise the front end just dances because of too much grip. DOn't ask me how i' know....
#6
Originally Posted by Zapata
SEems with high powered 6MT's to get the most out ofthe car you have to launch fairly high to overcome the HLSD and actually make it work for you. Moreover, depending on the tires ya gotta make sure they are either cold(OEM rubber) or warm(aftermarket). By fairly high i mean 3k plus. Otherwise the front end just dances because of too much grip. DOn't ask me how i' know....
They had relatively good rubber on the car ... so, I guess the car may need another dance partner or a better dance floor.
Trending Topics
#8
it's hard to get the cl-s out of the hole, especially the 6mt (so i've heard).
my last time at the track last year i ran a 14.2 @ 99 on my first run. that was w/ a 2.2 60'.
14.1 w/ the s/c is pretty sad.
my last time at the track last year i ran a 14.2 @ 99 on my first run. that was w/ a 2.2 60'.
14.1 w/ the s/c is pretty sad.
#9
Originally Posted by civic4982
I dunno if most I/H/E actually get BETTER than that... but most come close to it.
If they ran a 14.2@101.7 with it then they just can't launch. Look at the trap speed, much higher than the 14.2x being run by others with I/H/E. They're spinning the tires on launch obviously. The best I trapped at a 14.3 was 98 or so if I remember right.
If they ran a 14.2@101.7 with it then they just can't launch. Look at the trap speed, much higher than the 14.2x being run by others with I/H/E. They're spinning the tires on launch obviously. The best I trapped at a 14.3 was 98 or so if I remember right.
#12
Originally Posted by civic4982
They're spinning the tires on launch obviously
#14
even a 101 trap speed is very low, if they arent getting traction the trap should be higher
i'm guessing they arent redlining or just shifting really slow
nice time though jt's, u def can drive pulling that time on street tires!!!
i'm guessing they arent redlining or just shifting really slow
nice time though jt's, u def can drive pulling that time on street tires!!!
#16
Originally Posted by Zapata
SEems with high powered 6MT's to get the most out ofthe car you have to launch fairly high to overcome the HLSD and actually make it work for you. Moreover, depending on the tires ya gotta make sure they are either cold(OEM rubber) or warm(aftermarket). By fairly high i mean 3k plus. Otherwise the front end just dances because of too much grip. DOn't ask me how i' know....
It takes a very judicious right foot along with clutch control to launch decently.
#17
Originally Posted by J.T.'s 3.2TL
If this is a repost mods please delete....Did anyone see the article of the blue SC CL-S in SCC? They managed a 14.2@101.7 out of the "tuna boat". Most I/h/e 6 speeds get better than that.
#18
Originally Posted by scalbert
Uh, not on the CL-S. Launching at 3k would result in nothing, no forward momentum at all. Just a lot of tire smoke and wheel hop. I might be able to launch that high in 2nd but would still results in tire smoke.
It takes a very judicious right foot along with clutch control to launch decently.
It takes a very judicious right foot along with clutch control to launch decently.
On YOUR CLS with YOUR setup. Your tires aren't up to par with the power you are putting down. I was commenting on my car. Even with headers I could do the same and i'd get a little wheel spin and the tires would just grip and launch the car w/o wheel hop. Should've put a disclaimer.
Again as i said in my post it really depends on the road surface, tiretemp, road surface, road temp etc.,
#19
Wow, why don't one of you SC guys write to these assclowns and tell them what you've gotten! I mean, a few auto guys have already run and gotten mid to high-13s with 101+ traps. Not to mention that this is all without the HS intercooler or emanage. I think Scalbert, BlueCLS, or Allmotor should write in to get their cars some recognition. Talk about ultimate sleepers!
#20
Originally Posted by ferizzo
Wow, why don't one of you SC guys write to these assclowns and tell them what you've gotten! I mean, a few auto guys have already run and gotten mid to high-13s with 101+ traps. Not to mention that this is all without the HS intercooler or emanage. I think Scalbert, BlueCLS, or Allmotor should write in to get their cars some recognition. Talk about ultimate sleepers!
Some of the S/C 6MT need to get their cars to the track Then you have proof.
#21
Originally Posted by Zapata
On YOUR CLS with YOUR setup. Your tires aren't up to par with the power you are putting down. I was commenting on my car. Even with headers I could do the same and i'd get a little wheel spin and the tires would just grip and launch the car w/o wheel hop. Should've put a disclaimer.
Again as i said in my post it really depends on the road surface, tiretemp, road surface, road temp etc.,
Again as i said in my post it really depends on the road surface, tiretemp, road surface, road temp etc.,
SEems with high powered 6MT's
#22
Originally Posted by Zapata
Some of the S/C 6MT need to get their cars to the track Then you have proof.
Soon, very soon. I'll even go during this wonderful southern summer. That is after I redo the IC cooling system.
Heck, my girls got me a new helmet for Father's Day so I guess I am ready.
#24
Originally Posted by ferizzo
Wow, why don't one of you SC guys write to these assclowns and tell them what you've gotten! I mean, a few auto guys have already run and gotten mid to high-13s with 101+ traps. Not to mention that this is all without the HS intercooler or emanage. I think Scalbert, BlueCLS, or Allmotor should write in to get their cars some recognition. Talk about ultimate sleepers!
I've seen other tests by them produce much lower than expected numbers. In fact, it seems to be the norm for them to get slower numbers. They also often get hate mail on this very subject which look similar to what was shown here.
They may be conducting tests in a manner which may not provide excellent results. They may try to limit variables and give more of a comparative analysis versus an absolute.
#25
Originally Posted by spiroh
so for a SC to be that low it might need some tuning.
264WHP/239WTQ
Could there have been an unknown problem.
#28
I guess these reviewers don't know how to launch a CL properly or even up-shift. I would have expected a 13.5 1/4 mile at least. I wouldn't be surprised if the reviewers could get better than 15.5 on a fully stock CLS 6MT.
#29
Originally Posted by scalbert
Correct, there may be other variables in the mix. Look at this dyno of my blown CL-S over a year ago which lead me to determine there was a problem:
264WHP/239WTQ
Could there have been an unknown problem.
264WHP/239WTQ
Could there have been an unknown problem.
#31
Originally Posted by scalbert
I write them soon but I will be congenial.
They may be conducting tests in a manner which may not provide excellent results. They may try to limit variables and give more of a comparative analysis versus an absolute.
They may be conducting tests in a manner which may not provide excellent results. They may try to limit variables and give more of a comparative analysis versus an absolute.
Ruf
#32
Originally Posted by darrinb
y dont some of u take your blown 6 speeds to the track..
Do you want parts like the RES and torque arms or time slips??
I'm going soon enough but it is not like I haven't been busy.
But yes, I am going soon. The girls got me a new helmet for Father's Day so I am almost prepared. I should have the prototype torque arm brackets ready this week. Next thing are the custom rear spring blocks. So I should be ready to go in the middle of this already hot summer. :o
#33
Originally Posted by J.T.'s 3.2TL
The dyno chart in the article showed 289HP and 246TQ. The stock numbers were 221HP and 202TQ. It seems like a nice 74.8HP gain would provide higher trap speeds than that even with some moderate wheel spin.
#35
Originally Posted by scalbert
Do you want parts like the RES and torque arms or time slips??
I'm going soon enough but it is not like I haven't been busy.
But yes, I am going soon. The girls got me a new helmet for Father's Day so I am almost prepared. I should have the prototype torque arm brackets ready this week. Next thing are the custom rear spring blocks. So I should be ready to go in the middle of this already hot summer. :o
i'll take both please steve
your times are gonna have to be corrected for elevation and the damn humidity too...
#36
i just bought that magazine btw, what shitty drivers they are
the car did put down 289 whp though, that seems about 15 hp short of comptechs dyno, and i would think that the car would have the comptech cluth and flywheel but it didnt
the car did put down 289 whp though, that seems about 15 hp short of comptechs dyno, and i would think that the car would have the comptech cluth and flywheel but it didnt
#37
Originally Posted by scalbert
Do you want parts like the RES and torque arms or time slips??
I'm going soon enough but it is not like I haven't been busy.
But yes, I am going soon. The girls got me a new helmet for Father's Day so I am almost prepared. I should have the prototype torque arm brackets ready this week. Next thing are the custom rear spring blocks. So I should be ready to go in the middle of this already hot summer. :o
Ruf
#39
Beware of leakage
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 19,790
Likes: 0
From: Shreveport, Louisiana, just east of nowhere
They should get to know the car first before they get out there and just embarrass the CLS.
I demand retest with Allmotor or Scalbert's cars, or hell, even both =)
I demand retest with Allmotor or Scalbert's cars, or hell, even both =)
#40
they didnt totally bash it, say that there should be a bigger difference in track #'s like there was in the dyno
they did not that it was alot quicker from a 50 punch where it actually hooked up when u went WOT
they did not that it was alot quicker from a 50 punch where it actually hooked up when u went WOT