numbaonestunna

cuz the car is impressive as hell, but I doubt he's an M5 and vette killer... although his HP is great, the torque is still low, and then there's still the jump. From a dig, the vette/M5 should still win. This is by no means a knock, just keeping it real.

Then again... DAMN... that is impressive. =) Wish I could run you... would be fun.

numbaonestunna

Are you in Vegas tonight? I'm in Vegas on a confernece, and if you're around my buddy has a CL-s too... would be cool to hookup and see your turbo. Lemme know.... I'll send you PM.

mattg

i bet it is a (current) M5 and C5 killer.


my car runs nearly as quick as either of those, and steve has over 60 more whp and wtq.

numbaonestunna

Well, I'm going by the projected times. If he's runnning 12.9 @ 110, that might be a C5 edger... I wouldn't say "killer" per say. The new M5 is 500/500 I thought... that will be balls to the wall. Current M5 shouldn't be much of a problem, but i wonder if he'll have it with the launch. If he can get 60 ft down to about 2.0, then it should be close.

Oh well, run what you brung. If he turns anywhere in the 12's, that's damn impressive.


Oh, and MattG... what the hell? I thought your car was NA... you're running with C5's and M5's now? I didn't know the CL-S was such a powerful FWD dragster!


P.S. -- Nevermind... just saw the N20....

mattg

i drilled a little hole in that icebox you sold me.


13.2 @ 105 on 18" street tires, 90 degree weather.


from 50 - 110 i think i could do nicely against a (stock) M3, M5 or C5.

numbaonestunna

I bet he doesn't have 60 wtq more... N20 makes really good torque. You might be close actually, if you're about 230 fwhp, and squeeze 75 shot, you should be over 300 ft-lb....

mattg

my dyno from unichip was 300 whp and 253 wtq.


i need to get on a dyno jet though.

scalbert

Killer, I wouldn't say either. But it should be able to run them two down. However, about the torque being low?? 310 lb/ft at the wheels is too low when compared to those two vehicles?? It makes as much, if not more, torque than those two do all while making more power at the wheels than the C5 does at the crank.

I have to agree about getting out of the hole; I will have a much more difficult time. But being able to trap 3+ MPH higher I should be able to run them down. That is provided I don't completely botch the launch.

scalbert

Please explain how that math works??

If he is making about 230 WHP he then is making about 190 - 200 WTQ. A 75 hot would give him about 60 WTQ more. That, added to 190 - 200, equals about 250 - 260 WTQ. That is exactly where his dyno showed him at.

scalbert

That is something else I am working on. I have to mill out one more piece and I should have the front and rear components completed to help get the power put down.

av6ent

Driveshaft?

scalbert

Nope, just some front radius rods and rear poly spring blocks. Simple items which do not cost much but are only for track duty.

av6ent

Nice.

But how is the driveshaft durability on CLS with blown power as yours?
I hear everywhere that Mustang and LS1 people snap stock driveshaft in half when they add power, or is it only involves RWD vehicles?

mrsteve

iTrader: (1)

Seeing that our cars are FWD, a driveshaft really isn't a problem.

av6ent

. Then why people with Turbo Civics change them?

mrsteve

iTrader: (1)

They swap the "axle/driveshaft" assembly. Basically they replace the axles.

A conventional driveshaft like you would find on a RWD car is totally different than one for a FWD car.

FWD:

Connects the transmission (mounted beneath and slightly behind the engine) to the front wheels

RWD:

Connects the transmission (mounted behind the engine) to the rear differential which connects to the rear axles, which connects to the rear wheels.

av6ent

Nice pics

scalbert

So far so good but currently the tires give way first.. If I were to run slicks and a good suspension set up for optimal launching, who knows if they or something else might give. I guess we'll have to see though.

mrsteve

iTrader: (1)

I would think as long as you don't leave the line with 100% traction you'd be okay. Drag radials would really help... slicks you might be asking for a new pressure plate and new axles. And I think the axles are like $800 a piece

SCTL-SS

Drag radials would be the way to go and stay off the slicks in order to save some of the drive train components. It is very impressive when a 3.2 puts out more power and torque at the wheels then most new V-8 powered "performance" cars put out at the crank(C-5)!! My car dynoed almost 100 hp less(and 2 doors more) then Scalberts and still got into 13.6s range. Just goes to show what TL/CLs are capable of - what will 369hp/310tq do at the track? I believe the potential is incredible!!

av6ent

Steve,

Try DR - Nitto 555R or Yoko A032R. I heard they very very sticky.

mrsteve

iTrader: (1)

I'd say the Nitto's or the BFGs. Leaning more towards the BFGs.

av6ent

If you refer to g-Force, they limited on 17" size (225/45/17 - tirerack) whereas in 18" the only size will fit is 245/40/18 (front) and I believe not on stock rims.

And I'd get 17x8 light forged rims (14-17# each) with 245/40/17 front tires where Nitto are available.

scalbert

I'm considering the below from Tirerack for strip use. Inexpensive and should do the job required. The rims are 17.0 lbs.

225/45R17 BFGoodrich g-Force T/A Drag Radial Blackwall
for 2003 Acura 3.2CL-S In Stock $128.00 $256.00

17x7 Kazera KZ-V Silver w/Machined Lip
for 2003 Acura 3.2CL-S In Stock $129.00 $258.00

av6ent

Good price but I thought you wanna go wider for traction.
and rims look the same as Serge getting but @ 15.4 lbs and wider:

17x8 Kosei K1 TS
Light Grey Painted $239 each

245/45/17 Nitto 555R $158.40 each

Anyway, better then you stock ones

scalbert

Actually I haven't decided what I will first try. I might try the strip with the street tires and just the suspension set up. Then try later with DR's to see how much better they perform.

SCTL-SS

I'm running 245s all the way around and I know that 17" 8" SSRs are 14lbs. Either way the the suggested choices are good.

pimpinTL02

how come launch is a problem? please educate me? traction control all this stuff

scalbert

More power than available traction...

The 6MT doesn't have VSA or any sort of electronic traction control. The 5AT would be hampered by the VSA as it would always be active killing power more than what you could control yourself.

Allout

Scalbert,

Is it worth considering going with a smaller diameter setup to raise the effective gear ratio? Not sure what gear and what part of the RPM range you're ending up in at the end of the 1/4. Launch will still be an issue but possibly keep the motor in the sweet spot?

scalbert

It would depend on how much smaller you went. Without the blower or even with the base kit a shift to 4th will be required regardless. If that is the case then shortening the overall gearing might help times.

At my current point, if I lowered it too much, a shift to fith may be required which would hurt the times.

I would really have to run the numbers and see where the advantage is and where it would be a detriment.

Dan Martin

n00b question: scalbert, are you running all that power through the stock AT tranny?

mantis23

^^^ 6mt

Dan Martin

danke!

Joe5.0

4th should be good for at least 125mph, assuming 225/45/17's + OE gear ratios (1.25 4th & 3.286 axle) + redline of 7200rpm.

The BFG G-force 225/45/17's are only .5" shorter than stock, so they are pretty close.

I plan on going with a set of used 01 CL-S wheels and I can get the 225 BFG's for about $125 at the local discount tire, including install.