kHmER Co

Post your times... anyone out there with the nos kit??... how is it holding up and are u 50-75 shot? which did u choose

Chris

i remember there was a sundance gold cl-s that was reigning as king of speed on this board for a while... but i don't know if he is anymore.......

he killed GS400's easily (supposedly) and it was NA too.

spiroh

He ran a 13.9 with boltons.

Crazy Bimmer

jesalous?

spiroh

Yep =) But at least I broke 14s :P :P

kHmER Co

He ran a 13.9 with boltons. ??
what did he have....

kHmER Co

was it full interior or what.. cuz 13.9 is pretty fast anyone have a mod list? what was he running

spiroh

Headers/Intake/Exhaust/VTEC Controller and 18" rims.

kHmER Co

humm.. then why are others with the same mods runnin slower? strange!

SFLA_Type-S

13.9 et with just bolt ons & full interior is "NOT POSSIBLE". No way in hell!!!!

SORRY, BUT SOMEONE HAD TO SAY IT!!!

EVEN SYNCIVIC'S 3.5 CONVERSION CL-S RAN A 14.0 (WHICH HAD A LOT MORE THAN BOLT ONS)

Even if someone can post a 13.9 timeslip, it would not belong to that car (unless he was spraying). I know a lot of people might not agree with me, but the power to weight ratio does not add up. SORRY

I'm spraying a 75 shot & my car will probably only run a 13.7

4pumpedCL

Mine is definately the fastest. I think it ran a 15.4 if I remember correctly.

EricL

You forget about a few items...

1. The 3.5 never got a "fair" test. It was hot as hell and the humidity was way up there. I don't know what the weights of the wheels were and the tires spun like crazy! .

2. Mike, has run a 14.3 with AEM Intake, Comptech Headers, and SSR Comps with Toyos and the temp was not the greatest and had some pretty bad wheel hop. I would bet that he could get right about 13.9x -> 14.0x with a low temp evening.

Don't forget that the 50 lbs dropped by the wheels are good for an about 300 lbs of static weight loss.

Each 40 degrees of temp drop raise HP by about 6% due to increased air density.

IMO -- (here goes the flames -- do keep them below 20,000 degrees Kelvin), a boost of some 100-octane wouldn't hurt Mike's times.

BTW -- when I see "NOT POSSIBLE" there is a gene that gets fired off big time

NOVAwhiteTypeS

YEs that was BeatYaAll. his car was MIGHTY fast. also we ran when it was around 20~25 degrees outside w/ our gas lights on. I was actually in his car when we did the run.

SFLA_Type-S

EricL,

I understand what you are saying, but unless he did loose 300 LBS with lighter wheels & it was 40 degrees out & he had drag radials, I just dont see that happening. there is a big difference between 14.3 & 13.9. I don't doubt your knowledge when it comes to cars, but I would need to see a video (like the one recently posted by fastvtecCL) before I become a believer.

Just my opinion.

kHmER Co

why was the 3.5 engine never ran again?.... any word syncivic

moomaster_99

It sucks.

EricL

Well, I'm now confused about exactly who "he" is


Let me work this another way...

Assumption:

We agree that Mike has real time slips and his dyno is accurate (yes/no)?

Time in 1/4 mile 14.3x. I now plug this into the NHRA calculator to get a "baseline"...

http://www.prestage.com/carmath/calc...TandWeight.asp

Weight = 3500 (I'm just fudging the weight down due to the wheels/tire combo (SSR + Toyo THAT he has)
ET = 14.3 seconds
------------------------
236.56 HP (derived from the link above) -- pretty close to his wheel dyno output

Now, "simulated" run # 2:

Weight = 3500

ET = 14.0 seconds
-------------------------

252.10 HP


So, to get from a "known" and verified time of 14.3 seconds, another 15 hp is required to get down to 14.0.

Now, time to drop 40 degrees of temp -- down into the 20-30 degree range (I'm assuming that Mike was running around 60-70 degrees)

236 * 1.06 = 250.16 HP (which is also around the amount that the 3.5L makes)

The NRHA calculator is a bit out of date (with the notes about 292 cams, I'm pretty sure it does not assume a flat torque curve.)

Finally, have a look at what is required to get to the 13.7:

About 270 HP to the wheels with really light wheels and great traction.

If I now "remove" the 300 lbs of lighter wheel, and put in a weight of 3800 lbs and a 13.7 ET:

3800 lbs
13.7 second ET
--------------------
292 HP required for car WITHOUT light wheels and temp around 70 degrees.

(The traction issue in the front wheel drive probably skew the data around a bit, but at least the 14.0 at low temps is possible with bolt-ons and light wheels)

Finally, just to do a “reality check” – the M5 weighs about 3900 lbs and has around 400 HP and runs in the low 13s. I’m going to figure a 15% parasitic loss (6-speed manual) 400 * .85 = 340 HP to rear wheels.

3900 lbs
13.1 second ET
------------------
342.88 HP calculated

blxmjx

If I remember correctly, the time that they posted was off of a gtech. Gtech's aren't a valid indicator of true quarter mile time. There are way too many variables involved. I only believe times that are posted at a real dragstrip, not any gtech b.s. IMHO

SleeperCL

SFLA_Type-S

Quote:

If I now "remove" the 300 lbs of lighter wheel, and put in a weight of 3800 lbs and a 13.7 ET:

Ok EricL, you lost me . Why would you calculate a CL-S to weigh 3800 lbs? with stock wheels the car weighs 3510 lb. (3525 lb. with Navigation System). So even if you remove the 300 lbs due to a lighter wheel, wouldn't that still be 3510 lbs?

Quote:

Finally, just to do a “reality check” – the M5 weighs about 3900 lbs and has around 400 HP and runs in the low 13s. I’m going to figure a 15% parasitic loss (6-speed manual) 400 * .85 = 340 HP to rear wheels.

Lastly, I don't think that is a fair comparison because the reason the M5 runs low 13's is not only due to the 400 hp. The 395 lb/ft of torque & 6-speed manual/rear wheel drive has a lot to do with it too.

I'm sure you will agree with me that a car with 395 lb/ft of torque can pull much better et's than a car with 232 lb/ft of torque even if it weighs 400 lbs more.

No hard feelings man. I respect your opinion & knowledge of cars. Don't take what I say the wrong way, I just feel that someone who claims 13.9 et's with just bolt ons should provide some proof. I don't think that is an unreasonable request.

BTW: What do you think my car should run with a 75 shot of Nitrous (stock wheels). I had my car dynoed by Syncivic with a 65 shot & got 282hp & 248 lb/ft to the wheels(not exactly sure about the number on the torque but it's close).

SFLA_Type-S

I couldn't agree with you more

MCHM3

my car with all the work would of probably ran 13.6-13.9 i had the level 10 tc while syncivics didnt...................also when doug ran the car he ran it with the 18's and the car wouldnt grip for shit and it still ran 13.9 in 90 degree weather

EricL

Stock car is around 3500 lbs

Add full tank of gas (round figure) about 6 lbs / gallon 15 gallons -> approx 100 lbs

Now toss in a 200 lb driver

3800 lbs

Now, take this figure and remove the “equivalent static weight” of the SSRs 50 lbs rotary * 6 = 300

3800 – 300 = 3500 lbs

So, for Mike’s car, I remove 300 lbs from the 3800 lbs to get 3500. I don’t see what is so hard about that. The car needs a driver and gas (yes/no)?

So, now, if the car DOES NOT have the very light wheels and tires, I just toss the 300 lbs back and get around 3800 lbs.


This gets into the “famous” torque vs. HP -> I am using a calculator that is using HP figures. The HP is related to Torque, so it doesn’t make much sense arguing the difference. (torque = HP * 5252 / RPM). If you look at the new BMWs, you will see that the torque curves are rather flat and are similar to the VTEC curves due to the variable cam operation.

For those interested, there are about 30 books and 100 links with good explanations. Here is one of many links: http://www.g-speed.com/pbh/torque-and-hp.html

I put the M5’s data in as a “sanity” check of the calculator. (It is just a tool and it makes assumptions and will be off in various cases, but it gets one into the ballpark. I think I demonstrated that the figures are in the ball park)

Perhaps, this is a reflection on the people and situations. This brings up an interesting point. Some people bring dynos, and still get bashed. Some people use the GTECH as the acceleration Godhead tool. IMO – the reason the GTECH can be accurate or inaccurate (depending on the car and user) relates to user error and the fact that the tilt of the unit has a profound effect on its accuracy. They don’t want to put in a “differential” sensor, so it is going to be off. The more the car squats, the more the thing will give low ETs. So, if someone wants to use it to get a general idea of how the car is doing, fine.

I have seen enough professional drag runs to know that different tracks really impact ¼ mile times (as does barometric pressure, temp, humidity, track surface, altitude, and other factors).

So, if the question was “who has the best drag strip time slip”, then I certainly agree (that the GTECH is not good enough), and also agree that the GTECH is a tool that can be used and abused!

Well, I don’t know what tires and wheels you are using. Then there is the issue of “traction” when getting below 13.9 seconds. If you get drag slicks and a wheely bar, I think you could probably use the calculator as is down into the 11-second range. However, this is not the case. From your sig, it looks like you are using the stock (lead weight wheels) and I’m going to presume you are using the stock tires. If you are using the stock tires, I would think you would just spin the tires like crazy… Ok, so I don’t have all the data and you have some speakers in the back…

I’ll use 3700 lbs (assume that you are light and are running on a low gas tank):

I’ll take your HP and round to 280 HP

The calc’d ET is right around 13.7 (standard temp)

If you put on some sticky rubber (remember the tires need to be light weight and sticky) and SSRs, then, you might get 13.5.

It would help to see the exact torque and hp curves. I would rather have 40 more HP from 4K to 7K than 80 more HP from 6K to 7K with the gear set we have!

RAdams

I was there the night the 3.5L was taken to the track.

Needless to say, it was hot and humid. But the key word here was WHEELSPIN.

If I recall correctly, the car had just gotten a new set of tires installed. By the end of the night (9 runs) about 3/32" of tread was gone. There were rubber nubs covering the area just behind the front tire to just ahead of the rear tire... and about 1/3 the way up the side of the car.

He got pretty good 60' times (a 2.195 once) but as soon as it got off the line the power came on HARD (prodigious torque, guys) and absolutely ROASTED the tires.

A 101.5mph trap speed is a very good indicator that this car is well capable of breaking into the 13's.

EricL

Rob,

Did they try just feathering the throttle off the line that night to reduce the wheel spin?

JRock

Duh. mine's CLEARLY the fastest:

EricL

JRock, can you add this to the back?

tankmonkey

hey, where's the hood spoiler?!??

WebToker

Best time, 14.4@97mph in 85 degree weather. Mods include Comptech headers, exhuast, AEM intake and pulleys.

kHmER Co

theres someone i havent seen for the longest.. its webtoker!

WebToker

Ya, I have have migrated back to the computer ;-)

AztecRol

iTrader: (2)

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!
I'm laughing so hard I'm crying!!!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA