J.T.'s 3.2CL

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.

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.

Chaptorial

14.2 on a 6-speed with the S/C would be embarrassing. IMO


14k

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.)

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....

EricL

They had relatively good rubber on the car ... so, I guess the car may need another dance partner or a better dance floor.

AQUI NO!

ha, we need to get scalbert's or allmotor's in that magazine to show them what a modified cl can really do.

mattg

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.

J.T.'s 3.2CL

In good weather I have run several 14.0@100 passes with one @101mph. That trap speed for a SC 6 speed doesn't impress me one bit. I know the car is capable of much better times.

EricL

x 10^1000000000

Zapata

LOL

Zapata

I'd be interested to see what the process before and during the launch was and with what tires, and the track temps.

Zapata

Let's remember that allmotor ran with DRs.......not exactly street tires.

darrinb

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!!!

UDEngineer

101 in the traps, that should be a mid 13 second pass. I would love to see their 60'. I bet is it

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.

scalbert

August issue eh, I guess this is the current one on the stands?? I'll go pick it up tonight and take a peak.

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.,

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!

Zapata

Some of the S/C 6MT need to get their cars to the track Then you have proof.

scalbert

Well, you did say:

I would consider mine to be high powered, at least relative to others.

scalbert

:o :o :o

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.

spiroh

I ran a 14.2@100 with stock tires. I also did hit a 101mph trap speed before, so for a SC to be that low it might need some tuning.

scalbert

I write them soon but I will be congenial.

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.

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.

paulff3

just read the piece. They said many good things about SC'd 6speed.

Zapata

:P yea i shold've qualified my statement

NSX-Tuner

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.

J.T.'s 3.2CL

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.

darrinb

y dont some of u take your blown 6 speeds to the track..

i cant believe we havent seen one cl-s6s/c time slip, thats just pathetic

RUF87

Sounds like a possibility . . . testing as the average Joe driver would run . . . remember, there are a lot more of them than those of us that can run a car. That's why I don't cry BS when someone says they beat a 350Z or something faster . . . some of us do that on a regular basis :P

Ruf

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

scalbert

They did pick up 4 MPH which IMO, should have been greater. There are many variables to this.

allmotor_2000

I'll show them a NA CL-S running nearly 103mph!!

darrinb

i'll take both please steve

your times are gonna have to be corrected for elevation and the damn humidity too...

darrinb

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

RUF87

That it . . . time to BAN darrinb!

Ruf

darrinb

:shit:

Chopsie

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 =)

darrinb

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