'99 TL Drag times/dyno #s

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 10-12-2004 | 01:04 PM
  #1  
dands99tl's Avatar
Thread Starter
Racer
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
From: 5,800' above sea level
'99 TL Drag times/dyno #s

Wondering who here has run a '99 TL at the strip and what your times are. My best time running in auto mode is a 16.8 @ 83mph. This was 5800' above sea level. Hp and torque numbers are in my sig, I will have the dyno chart up later today or tomorrow. Also if you could list your mods. Thanks!

My mods right now include:
Stone Racing Headers
AEM CAI
Power Steering overdrive pulley
Car Sound High-flow Cat

When car was last run/dyno'd it had:
OBX headers
AEM CAI
Car Sound High-flow cat
Old 10-12-2004 | 01:35 PM
  #2  
1fasttl's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 495
Likes: 2
From: Santa Clarita, Ca
What did you do with your obx headers?
Old 10-12-2004 | 01:38 PM
  #3  
dands99tl's Avatar
Thread Starter
Racer
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
From: 5,800' above sea level
They are sitting in my garage...
Old 10-12-2004 | 01:49 PM
  #4  
Got_3.2?'s Avatar
Drifting
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,925
Likes: 0
From: NJ
is 16.8 good?
Old 10-12-2004 | 01:51 PM
  #5  
dands99tl's Avatar
Thread Starter
Racer
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
From: 5,800' above sea level
Originally Posted by Got_3.2?
is 16.8 good?
Not from what I know, but then again it was in Auto mode vs Sport Shift, and with the altitude, it really doesn't help
Old 10-12-2004 | 02:47 PM
  #6  
ou sig's Avatar
Boomer SOONER
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,729
Likes: 14
From: McKinney, TX
Originally Posted by Got_3.2?
is 16.8 good?

ummm not at all...but maybe auto and the altitude cut off at least 1 second??!?!
Old 10-12-2004 | 02:48 PM
  #7  
dands99tl's Avatar
Thread Starter
Racer
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
From: 5,800' above sea level
errr, make that an UNDERdrive pulley... why can I not edit my post?
Old 10-12-2004 | 02:54 PM
  #8  
Pure Adrenaline's Avatar
Dragging knees in
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 12,434
Likes: 32
From: Seattle Area
With those mods, you should be running a little bit quicker than 16.8.
Old 10-12-2004 | 03:11 PM
  #9  
Banned
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 392
Likes: 0
From: Destin FL
That seems way off man.. I don't know if it's because of the altitude or your 4 gears... A 00 TL-P is capable of running 15.3 without any mods. A 02 TL-S can easily run 14.7 stock.
Old 10-12-2004 | 03:13 PM
  #10  
patrick's Avatar
Three Wheelin'
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,876
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver, BC
Originally Posted by Pure Adrenaline
With those mods, you should be running a little bit quicker than 16.8.
Perhaps. But I do believe that the higher altitude may be a major factor in his lower quarter mile time. It is interesting to note that dands99tl has very similar HP/TQ gains to me:

dans99tl
188 WHP
186 TQ


My TL:
188.8 WHP
185.9 TQ

And we have similar mods (we both have Stone Racing Headers).
Old 10-12-2004 | 03:26 PM
  #11  
dands99tl's Avatar
Thread Starter
Racer
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
From: 5,800' above sea level
I believe the dyno shows "corrected" numbers which accounts for barametric pressure etc. So it is not totally accurate of what my car really makes at altitude.

Patrick, ever run your car?
Old 10-12-2004 | 03:34 PM
  #12  
REDLINEN's Avatar
Missing my Acura's
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,485
Likes: 0
From: Boston,MA
If the OBX headers are forsale and in good shape pm me.
Old 10-12-2004 | 03:42 PM
  #13  
patrick's Avatar
Three Wheelin'
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,876
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver, BC
Originally Posted by dands99tl
I believe the dyno shows "corrected" numbers which accounts for barametric pressure etc. So it is not totally accurate of what my car really makes at altitude.

Patrick, ever run your car?
Nope I haven't. But you make a good point. My dyno is "corrected" but at sea level. So I can assume that your TL will make a few ponies more at sea level with the mods that you have.
Old 10-12-2004 | 03:48 PM
  #14  
@cUr@-TL's Avatar
'99 Acura 3.2TL
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,862
Likes: 0
From: Quebec
the altitude adds at least a second and a half to the real 1/4 mile time his car should do...
Old 10-12-2004 | 04:00 PM
  #15  
dands99tl's Avatar
Thread Starter
Racer
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
From: 5,800' above sea level
Originally Posted by patrick
Nope I haven't. But you make a good point. My dyno is "corrected" but at sea level. So I can assume that your TL will make a few ponies more at sea level with the mods that you have.
What I meant was the corrected #'s are what my car would make at sea level. It makes less than that at altitude.
Old 10-12-2004 | 04:17 PM
  #16  
PenguinQX's Avatar
All go, no show
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 987
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by REDLINEN
If the OBX headers are forsale and in good shape pm me.
Any reason you swapped them out for the Stone headers? I have new OBX headers that I'm waiting to install.. i'm starting to have doubts about them.
Old 10-12-2004 | 04:24 PM
  #17  
dands99tl's Avatar
Thread Starter
Racer
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
From: 5,800' above sea level
I got the Stone headers for free.... and the obx ones were dinged on the bottom from the previous owner, so I said what the hell. Really pretty much the same if you look at them side by side. The stone headers are ported on the inside, so they probably flow a little better, the O2 bung is in a slightly different spot, but other than than, they look exactly the same.
Old 10-12-2004 | 04:28 PM
  #18  
Ianbiz3's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,278
Likes: 0
From: Rockledge, Florida
since when did the 99TL have 188hp??
Old 10-12-2004 | 04:35 PM
  #19  
Tunaboy's Avatar
Who Dis Is?
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
From: East Coast
Originally Posted by Ianbiz3
since when did the 99TL have 188hp??
whp jackass 225 from the crank I pity the foo
Old 10-12-2004 | 04:37 PM
  #20  
dands99tl's Avatar
Thread Starter
Racer
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
From: 5,800' above sea level
so does anyone want to cough up their times in a '99? Lots of talk, no numbers though, everyone always says your car SHOULD run ..... but I don't see anyone elses track times...
Old 10-12-2004 | 05:27 PM
  #21  
patrick's Avatar
Three Wheelin'
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,876
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver, BC
Originally Posted by dands99tl
What I meant was the corrected #'s are what my car would make at sea level. It makes less than that at altitude.
Sorry, my misunderstanding! In that case, our TLs are quite comparable then in terms of WHP and TQ.
Old 10-12-2004 | 06:46 PM
  #22  
luxurycarson20s's Avatar
Advanced
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
From: south florida
Originally Posted by dands99tl
Wondering who here has run a '99 TL at the strip and what your times are. My best time running in auto mode is a 16.8 @ 83mph. This was 5800' above sea level. Hp and torque numbers are in my sig, I will have the dyno chart up later today or tomorrow. Also if you could list your mods. Thanks!

My mods right now include:
Stone Racing Headers
AEM CAI
Power Steering overdrive pulley
Car Sound High-flow Cat

When car was last run/dyno'd it had:
OBX headers
AEM CAI
Car Sound High-flow cat

i have an 01 tl with magnaflow straight pipe exhaust, and aem short ram intake. i ran a 15.3
Old 10-12-2004 | 07:12 PM
  #23  
ChucksCL-S's Avatar
Three Wheelin'
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,649
Likes: 5
From: Millersville, Md.
1/4 mile

I have a '00 TL with I/H/E/P and ran just a hair under 15.0 at 93 mph.
Old 10-12-2004 | 08:36 PM
  #24  
dands99tl's Avatar
Thread Starter
Racer
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
From: 5,800' above sea level
Man I was hoping that there are some more '99 TL people out there that have raced their cars...
chuckstl, what altitude do run at?
Old 10-12-2004 | 10:01 PM
  #25  
patrick's Avatar
Three Wheelin'
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,876
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver, BC
Originally Posted by dands99tl
Man I was hoping that there are some more '99 TL people out there that have raced their cars...
chuckstl, what altitude do run at?
I may take my TL to the track next spring or summer, after I do a few more mods. I'll let you know how I do then.
Old 10-12-2004 | 11:11 PM
  #26  
Banned
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 392
Likes: 0
From: Destin FL
Damn 15.3 is low for I/H/E/P on a 00-01 TL... They should do 15.2 stock according to car-stats :
http://www.car-stats.com/stats/shows...tsgivenid.aspx


The TL-S is running 14.8 1/4 and 6.2 0-60 which is definetly right. Check out the TL-S here :
http://www.car-stats.com/stats/shows...tsgivenid.aspx


I recommend gate shifting even though it's bad for your tranny if you do it too much.. You'll definetly feel the difference and see lower times.
Old 10-13-2004 | 01:06 AM
  #27  
moahdriven's Avatar
i
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
From: Beautiful Los Angeles, CA
Originally Posted by Tunaboy
whp jackass 225 from the crank I pity the foo
he was nicely tryin to say...188 wheel horsepower, thats horsepower that actually gets to the wheels...225 is the horsepower at the crankshaft, it decreases as it travels to the wheels though.
Old 10-13-2004 | 10:29 AM
  #28  
unlemming's Avatar
Smitty's Moral Police
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 943
Likes: 1
From: Bossier City, LA
According to Comptech '99TL stock makes 164.8HP/162.4TQ, and with H/E it makes 175.9HP/165.1TQ, so the your intakes must be synergistic with the H/E . Or they use a different dyno method, shrug.

http://www.comptechusa.com/images/dyno/1999TLplot.pdf
Old 10-13-2004 | 10:42 AM
  #29  
dands99tl's Avatar
Thread Starter
Racer
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
From: 5,800' above sea level
Originally Posted by unlemming
According to Comptech '99TL stock makes 164.8HP/162.4TQ, and with H/E it makes 175.9HP/165.1TQ, so the your intakes must be synergistic with the H/E . Or they use a different dyno method, shrug.

http://www.comptechusa.com/images/dyno/1999TLplot.pdf
Nice find, I think they must use something other than a Dynojet type dyno to test their vehicles, I don't see my generic headers and AEM giving me that much more than the Comptech parts. If they do use a Dynojet, then damn, the stock TL-P doesn't make too much power.

I have my dyno graph, but can't seem to open the file for some reason, I will keep working on it and get it up as soon as I get the problem figured out.
Old 10-13-2004 | 10:46 AM
  #30  
dands99tl's Avatar
Thread Starter
Racer
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
From: 5,800' above sea level
Originally Posted by bacardi151
Damn 15.3 is low for I/H/E/P on a 00-01 TL... They should do 15.2 stock according to car-stats :
http://www.car-stats.com/stats/shows...tsgivenid.aspx


The TL-S is running 14.8 1/4 and 6.2 0-60 which is definetly right. Check out the TL-S here :
http://www.car-stats.com/stats/shows...tsgivenid.aspx


I recommend gate shifting even though it's bad for your tranny if you do it too much.. You'll definetly feel the difference and see lower times.
This is what I am trying to avoid.... I know that the cars "should" run, but I want to know what they run in real life, by the poeple that own them. There are a lot of factors to consider when running your car:

Altitude, barometric pressure, humidity, temp, etc.

These can all have very large impacts on how the car runs.
Old 10-13-2004 | 11:59 AM
  #31  
patrick's Avatar
Three Wheelin'
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,876
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver, BC
Originally Posted by dands99tl
Nice find, I think they must use something other than a Dynojet type dyno to test their vehicles, I don't see my generic headers and AEM giving me that much more than the Comptech parts. If they do use a Dynojet, then damn, the stock TL-P doesn't make too much power.

I have my dyno graph, but can't seem to open the file for some reason, I will keep working on it and get it up as soon as I get the problem figured out.
You are correct, the stock TL-P does not make much power at all. HP loss at the crank is high, estimated to be anywhere from 25 - 30%. We both had our TLs dynoed with a Dynojet, so we know that our performance figures are accurate, as our WHP and TQ are comparable, even though we both have similar, yet different mods.

Comptech's dyno with H/E is a good baseline for us (for comparison), as we can see what kind of gains we have over Comptech's when we do our mods.
Old 10-13-2004 | 12:08 PM
  #32  
patrick's Avatar
Three Wheelin'
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,876
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver, BC
Originally Posted by bacardi151
Damn 15.3 is low for I/H/E/P on a 00-01 TL... They should do 15.2 stock according to car-stats :
http://www.car-stats.com/stats/shows...tsgivenid.aspx


The TL-S is running 14.8 1/4 and 6.2 0-60 which is definetly right. Check out the TL-S here :
http://www.car-stats.com/stats/shows...tsgivenid.aspx
There are so many factors in why a specific TL-P doesn't do a certain time in the quarter mile. The condition of the car, driver's skill and reaction time, weather, etc, etc all play a factor. It is definitely possible that dands99tl could run better given a better driver, better conditions, etc. (dands99tl: I'm not saying you are a bad driver, just saying that a driver who has more skill, say Mario Andretti driving your car, would most likely post better times).
Old 10-14-2004 | 07:15 PM
  #33  
dands99tl's Avatar
Thread Starter
Racer
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
From: 5,800' above sea level
Ok, finally got my dyno chart in the correct format. It will be posted tomorrow unless someone wants to host it for me. I stand corrected, my car makes 188hp, and 184 tq, not 186 like I remember for some reason...

Patrick, I am plenty a seasoned racer, I have been racing avidly for about 5 years and probably have over 500 passes in my CRX. The TL on the other hand was simply at the track as Sub car for the class I race in while the CRX was down. All runs thus far have been run only in Auto mode since I am a bracket racer and consistency is key. I'm fairly certain that the car is capable of running at least a couple tenths quicker with the sport shift, but again bracket racing is about consistency, not quickness.

Your reaction time has NO effect on your E.T. Your E.T. does not start until you have broken the beams, so you could in theory have a 15 second reaction time, and still run a 15 second E.T.
Old 10-14-2004 | 09:55 PM
  #34  
mrsteve's Avatar
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 36,474
Likes: 249
From: Leesburg, Virginia
An ET of 16.8 @ 5800' = a 15.5 at sea level.

For 5,800' multiply your ET by .9276

16.8 *.9276 = 15.58

A Trap Speed of 83 MPH @ 58'' = 89.22 @ sea level.

For 5,800' multiply your MPH by 1.075

83 * 1.075 = 89.22.


What was your 60' time? A trap speed of 89 MPH seems about right for 188 whp.
Old 10-14-2004 | 10:17 PM
  #35  
patrick's Avatar
Three Wheelin'
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,876
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver, BC
Originally Posted by dands99tl
Ok, finally got my dyno chart in the correct format. It will be posted tomorrow unless someone wants to host it for me. I stand corrected, my car makes 188hp, and 184 tq, not 186 like I remember for some reason...

Patrick, I am plenty a seasoned racer, I have been racing avidly for about 5 years and probably have over 500 passes in my CRX. The TL on the other hand was simply at the track as Sub car for the class I race in while the CRX was down. All runs thus far have been run only in Auto mode since I am a bracket racer and consistency is key. I'm fairly certain that the car is capable of running at least a couple tenths quicker with the sport shift, but again bracket racing is about consistency, not quickness.

Your reaction time has NO effect on your E.T. Your E.T. does not start until you have broken the beams, so you could in theory have a 15 second reaction time, and still run a 15 second E.T.
Thx for the info. I learn something new. BTW, I was not implying anything about your driving skills. As I have never done any races at the track, I assumed (incorrectly) that reaction time was essential.
Old 10-15-2004 | 11:47 AM
  #36  
dands99tl's Avatar
Thread Starter
Racer
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
From: 5,800' above sea level
Originally Posted by patrick
Thx for the info. I learn something new. BTW, I was not implying anything about your driving skills. As I have never done any races at the track, I assumed (incorrectly) that reaction time was essential.
Well, it depends on what type of run you are talking about. The reaction time has no effect on your E.T., but when you are running bracket racing and are in eliminations, your reaction time can make all the difference between winning and losing a round.

Here is my dyno graph for those who want to see it.
Old 10-15-2004 | 11:53 AM
  #37  
dands99tl's Avatar
Thread Starter
Racer
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
From: 5,800' above sea level
Originally Posted by mrsteve
An ET of 16.8 @ 5800' = a 15.5 at sea level.

For 5,800' multiply your ET by .9276

16.8 *.9276 = 15.58

A Trap Speed of 83 MPH @ 58'' = 89.22 @ sea level.

For 5,800' multiply your MPH by 1.075

83 * 1.075 = 89.22.


What was your 60' time? A trap speed of 89 MPH seems about right for 188 whp.
60' times varied, but 2.5 is the best the car has done. This is horrible, and I'm not really sure why it's as high as it is. Normally the car pulls a 2.6 60'.

BTW how/where did you come up with the calculation to convert the E.T. and mph?
Old 10-15-2004 | 01:59 PM
  #38  
etxxz's Avatar
@ slide or die @
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,166
Likes: 1
From: s.FL
this might help...i have 99 also...

i didnt go to the track but i did run with some Beltronics thing my friend has...with all my mods, if i remember correctly it was either 14.6 or 16.4 (prob 14.6s.). I ran at like +-2ft above sea leve (FL) in mid 70s*F (60%+humidity). From a Complete stop => power break + SS no AC, radio, Nav off, lights, etc (all off) like 3/4tank and i didnt have mufflers (took off y-pipe and mufflers)

It should be getting cold again here i'll run again and show times.

When ^^ in Engine mods:
Obx SS headers
Injen CAI
UR crank
Iridium plugs
Vafc
no muffler
Me driving (20hp)

Hope this sheds some light.

*yep, it was loud.
Old 10-15-2004 | 05:21 PM
  #39  
mrsteve's Avatar
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 36,474
Likes: 249
From: Leesburg, Virginia
Originally Posted by dands99tl
60' times varied, but 2.5 is the best the car has done. This is horrible, and I'm not really sure why it's as high as it is. Normally the car pulls a 2.6 60'.

BTW how/where did you come up with the calculation to convert the E.T. and mph?

Your 60's are horrible and that is the main thing hurting your time. I have a CL-S and my best is a 2.0. I regularly run 2.1s now. You should be able to manage a 2.2 no problem. All else equal, by droping .1 from a 60' you should drop .2 of your ET. So by going from a 2.6 to a 2.2 you'd pick up .8 on your ET. Thus, you'd run a 14.7 at sea level. Not bad for a TL-P.

The formula is the standard from NHRA.
Old 10-15-2004 | 06:52 PM
  #40  
dands99tl's Avatar
Thread Starter
Racer
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
From: 5,800' above sea level
Originally Posted by mrsteve
Your 60's are horrible and that is the main thing hurting your time. I have a CL-S and my best is a 2.0. I regularly run 2.1s now. You should be able to manage a 2.2 no problem. All else equal, by droping .1 from a 60' you should drop .2 of your ET. So by going from a 2.6 to a 2.2 you'd pick up .8 on your ET. Thus, you'd run a 14.7 at sea level. Not bad for a TL-P.

The formula is the standard from NHRA.
Yeah I know the 60's suck big hairy ba.... What do you do to get such a good 60'?

On a good day I get 2.1 or occasionally a 2.0 out of my CRX, but it has WAY more power and drag radials.

With the TL, the only thing I do is step on the gas to load up the torque converter as much as it will, then release the brake when the last yellow lights up.

Any pointers will be much appreciated as I normally race a manual, so launching the auto is totally foriegn to me.


Quick Reply: '99 TL Drag times/dyno #s



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:16 PM.