View Full Version : 12.01 bolt-on auto camaro(no power adder/headers)


Lucas1351
12-11-2011, 08:58 PM
my '99 camaro just went 12.01@112.6 with a 1.64 60' at atco. i was impressed but yet a little disappointed to not go 11s on the last track day of the year. the only mods are lid, tb, ls6 intake, underdrive pulleys, cat-back, 3400 converter, shift kit, RPM tune, mickey thompson DR's (on stock wheels) and weight reduction. everything else is stock except for lowering springs

WS6SP33D
12-11-2011, 08:59 PM
Nice congrats on run and times

Lucas1351
12-11-2011, 09:04 PM
thanks alot. gotta love the ls1. i told my buddy with a '99 gt mustang what i ran and he almost shit his pants lol. he's done full bolt-ons, heads, cams, and suspension and has only gone 12.7 lmao!

LS1LT1
12-11-2011, 09:39 PM
Hey man, it's Marc with the yellow Vette. :wavey:
Was good sharing the staging lanes with you guys today...it was a solid effort for sure, you guys did everything right and came SO close too. :nono:
Either way, consistent low 12.0s is still very impressive for that car. :cheers:

dannyz
12-11-2011, 10:26 PM
Must be some serious weight reduction.

98TADRIVER
12-12-2011, 12:20 AM
Must be some serious weight reduction.

nah, that car runs pretty strong. it went 12.1 with just the front pass side seat & rear seats removed. !spare tire and jack.

Chad, you just expect too much! lol 12.01 is freakin awesome for that car. skiinnies wouldve got ya your 11 sec slip

LS1LT1
12-12-2011, 01:37 AM
nah, that car runs pretty strong. it went 12.1 with just the front pass side seat & rear seats removed. !spare tire and jack.

Chad, you just expect too much! lol 12.01 is freakin awesome for that car. skiinnies wouldve got ya your 11 sec slipI agree. :nod:
I'm pretty much done with 'ET chasing' in the Corvette now but do still plan on bringing my bolt ons only Z28 out of retirement again and trying to get it into the 11.7s once the track reopens again. Maybe Chad can secure some skinnies by then and we can all push each other faster like back in the old days. :burn:

big dave
12-12-2011, 11:41 AM
Congrats on your time. That is quick for minimal mods. Have you weighed the car?

gm02ceta
12-12-2011, 11:48 AM
Congrats on your time. That is quick for minimal mods. Have you weighed the car?

yeah what he said!

Every 100lbs. removed supposedly equates to a tenth of a second at the track.

BOBS99SS
12-12-2011, 11:58 AM
i would not be bummed at all, that is a killer time, get a drag setup on there

green28
12-12-2011, 09:18 PM
Great times and so many more mods you can still throw at it to go quicker. Also interested in the race weight and what the DA was.

1Bad97WS-6
12-12-2011, 09:19 PM
Congrats man..

projectX
12-12-2011, 10:16 PM
Very good!

dannyz
12-12-2011, 11:01 PM
Sorry guy's, but this is not adding up to me. The trap speed isn't right for the listed mods. I run a 12.05 at 112.8 mph w/a 1.65 60'. I also have 370rwhp,[NA] So, to the op, unless you have a lot of weight stripped out of your car, there are more performance mods then what you have listed.

Tan327
12-12-2011, 11:14 PM
Good run! I'm right there with you, track closed a month early and I wasn't able to hit 11's before the end of the year.

Sorry guy's, but this is not adding up to me. The trap speed isn't right for the listed mods. I run a 12.05 at 112.8 mph w/a 1.65 60'. I also have 370rwhp,[NA] So, to the op, unless you have a lot of weight stripped out of your car, there are more performance mods then what you have listed.

See sig. Full weight minus rear and passenger seat & enough tools in the trunk to get it back to full weight, ever thought that your car just under performs? Maybe instead of questioning other legit times, you should try working on your own. :)

Also OP runs at one of the fastest tracks in the nation, definitely helps.

98TADRIVER
12-12-2011, 11:38 PM
Sorry guy's, but this is not adding up to me. The trap speed isn't right for the listed mods. I run a 12.05 at 112.8 mph w/a 1.65 60'. I also have 370rwhp,[NA] So, to the op, unless you have a lot of weight stripped out of your car, there are more performance mods then what you have listed.

no offense, but your car should be faster for putting down 370rwhp.

whats the elevation of your track and when did you run? Atco raceway is only 33' above sea level. my friend greg, aka DadsZ28, has gone even faster (11.82 @ 115) than the OP with similar mods& raceweight (i think gregs car put down 330-340hp), +skinnies and !front swaybar. The OP, aka chad, is a good friend of mine. He has a lid, catback, converter and a tune. besides the spare/jack delete, he took out 100lbs at the most. Its a strong running car. if i remember correctly he put down around 325-330hp.

moge11
12-13-2011, 12:40 AM
Good run! what was the 1/8 numbers???

dannyz
12-13-2011, 01:07 AM
no offense, but your car should be faster for putting down 370rwhp.

whats the elevation of your track and when did you run? Atco raceway is only 33' above sea level. my friend greg, aka DadsZ28, has gone even faster (11.82 @ 115) than the OP with similar mods& raceweight (i think gregs car put down 330-340hp), +skinnies and !front swaybar. The OP, aka chad, is a good friend of mine. He has a lid, catback, converter and a tune. besides the spare/jack delete, he took out 100lbs at the most. Its a strong running car. if i remember correctly he put down around 325-330hp.

My car runs exactly what it should, to the tenth. You are familier with the law of physics, right? Using the engine motor horsepower calculator-trap speed-quarter formula, his car needs to be putting down 372.80hp to trap at 112 mph. and thats IF his car weighs 3400 pounds with him in it. This is from a well known and accepted mathmatical formula that has been in use around the world for years. [ look it up]. So unless your going to explain to me how it is that his car can defy physics, what else has been done to the car?

DadsZ28
12-13-2011, 05:55 AM
First off congrats Chad it was fun hanging out with you and Ron and Marc Sunday. Your car ran great and is on par with mine when I was stock internals, strong running car for sure. Sorry you didn't hit that 11.99 but with the skinnies you surely would have.

As for the physics major you have to remember that this december with really good air and we are running at Atco ( you know the so called cheater track ). So Dannyz I bet you would be surprised at your car if you ran here and wouldn't be so skeptical.

green28
12-13-2011, 07:13 AM
My car runs exactly what it should, to the tenth. You are familier with the law of physics, right? Using the engine motor horsepower calculator-trap speed-quarter formula, his car needs to be putting down 372.80hp to trap at 112 mph. and thats IF his car weighs 3400 pounds with him in it. This is from a well known and accepted mathmatical formula that has been in use around the world for years. [ look it up]. So unless your going to explain to me how it is that his car can defy physics, what else has been done to the car?

What's so hard to believe? My raceweight is right around 3600 lbs. and with a stall and bolt-ons has gone 11.99 @ 111 mph w/ 1.59 60'. The car maybe puts 320 hp to the rear tires. But then again I race at a track, I don't race with a calculator.

Badmeat
12-13-2011, 07:28 AM
But then again I race at a track, I don't race with a calculator.
:corn:

Tan327
12-13-2011, 08:23 AM
My car runs exactly what it should, to the tenth. You are familier with the law of physics, right? Using the engine motor horsepower calculator-trap speed-quarter formula, his car needs to be putting down 372.80hp to trap at 112 mph. and thats IF his car weighs 3400 pounds with him in it. This is from a well known and accepted mathmatical formula that has been in use around the world for years. [ look it up]. So unless your going to explain to me how it is that his car can defy physics, what else has been done to the car?


This guy can't be serious, bench racing at its finest. So you're saying no matter the track, whether it's at sea level or 20,000+ ft above on top of Mt McKinley, AK ..this car should run an EXACT time based off of this super duper horsepower calculator-trap speed-quarter formula? :jest:

You're trollin', good job man you almost had me for a second.

redtan
12-13-2011, 01:20 PM
While I do agree that the numbers are a little too good for those mods, you have to remember that this is ATCO in December. The so called "downhill" track coupled with 40* air temps and not surprised by the outcome.

At any other track on the east coast in the summer and he probably runs no better than 12.6s @ 108-109 which is believable.

98TADRIVER
12-13-2011, 03:53 PM
My car runs exactly what it should, to the tenth. You are familier with the law of physics, right? Using the engine motor horsepower calculator-trap speed-quarter formula, his car needs to be putting down 372.80hp to trap at 112 mph. and thats IF his car weighs 3400 pounds with him in it. This is from a well known and accepted mathmatical formula that has been in use around the world for years. [ look it up]. So unless your going to explain to me how it is that his car can defy physics, what else has been done to the car?

Yeah, me and Stephen Hawking go way back.

You still did not answer my question(s) though.

What's so hard to believe? My raceweight is right around 3600 lbs. and with a stall and bolt-ons has gone 11.99 @ 111 mph w/ 1.59 60'. The car maybe puts 320 hp to the rear tires. But then again I race at a track, I don't race with a calculator.

This guy can't be serious, bench racing at its finest. So you're saying no matter the track, whether it's at sea level or 20,000+ ft above on top of Mt McKinley, AK ..this car should run an EXACT time based off of this super duper horsepower calculator-trap speed-quarter formula? :jest:

You're trollin', good job man you almost had me for a second.
+1 on both

98TADRIVER
12-13-2011, 03:57 PM
While I do agree that the numbers are a little too good for those mods, you have to remember that this is ATCO in December. The so called "downhill" track coupled with 40* air temps and not surprised by the outcome.

At any other track on the east coast in the summer and he probably runs no better than 12.6s @ 108-109 which is believable.

Thats weird, bc Atco doesnt look downhill at all. Have you ever raced there? or are you just going off of hearsay? It is only 33' above sea level though, and we get those nice, cool, high pressure fronts every now and then :D

redtan
12-13-2011, 05:13 PM
That's why I put it in quotes...I know it's not exactly downhill. But it's called "downhill" by people due to it's low DA that nets above average times.

dannyz
12-13-2011, 05:29 PM
Yeah, me and Stephen Hawking go way back.

You still did not answer my question(s) though.




+1 on both

Lets see if I can simplyfy this.
For his car to run the listed trap, it HAS to have right around 372hp. And yes, if his car is at 20,000 feet, it HAS to have 372hp to trap at 112. Granted, it will have to have suplemented oxygen, but to run 112mph it has to have 372hp at 20,000 feet.
So his car, stock bore, stock heads, stock cam, and I will ASSUME stock compression, is somehow making the horsepower to trap 112?
How?
Are you saying then that my car, which runs almost exactly what it should given the hp it has, would somehow drop another half second or more at that track?
If your going to make the statement that his car is trapping that speed with the given mods, then WHERE is the extra power coming from? Go ahead and dispute mathmatics all you want, but numbers do not play favorites, nor
discriminate. Now it is possible there was an error in the track equipment.
I have a friend that was kicked off the track for running an 11.55 in a bolt on new edge convertable, [ no cage ]. We went to the tower and showed them the slip and showed them that somehow he had covered the last half of the 1/4 mile in less then two seconds.
So maybe thats what happened.
The bottom line is that a car, bullet, space shuttle or whatever, has to have a certain level of power to attain a given velocity at a set distance from the point of launch.
All the name calling, heckling and joke calling in the world will not change those facts.

green28
12-13-2011, 05:34 PM
OK you must be trolling now. Or just that stubborn. Once again quit racing with a calculator.

Rpayne41985
12-13-2011, 05:50 PM
My car ran 12.11 @111 with mods in sig and I didn't have any weight reduction so I think this cars running on point.

Tan327
12-13-2011, 05:51 PM
OK you must be trolling now. Or just that stubborn. Once again quit racing with a calculator.

No point in even trying to fool the calculator-racing expert here, we're obviously just a bunch of grown men with nothing better to do than exaggerate 1/4 mile times on the internet. :rolleyes:

If my cammed/n20 car only ran 11.5x I'd be upset to, but no need in trying to justify your slow times by calling BS on others.

1Bad97WS-6
12-13-2011, 07:21 PM
Ya it is nice running at a track like this with it being so close to sea level. MIR is the same way the 1/4 mile track I run at. Its like 70-85ft above sea level. In the Nov weather it can be -1800 to -2000 below sea level. Where you can get you PB on any giving pass.. OP what was your 1/8 time sorry if I missed it..

DadsZ28
12-13-2011, 07:22 PM
What book or calculator does it say that you have to have 372 rwhp to run 112 trap? There are plenty of cars making less than that running 11s.....Why can't you see that -DA can make a car run faster regardless of what horsepower it makes. Dyno numbers are one thing, real world is at the track! Maximizing your set-up and being efficient is where alot of the great ets come from.

TA1364
12-13-2011, 08:15 PM
There is a huge difference in ET from 2000ft which is average for most tracks to -2000ft which is unheard of besides atco. If you compare your car mod for mod to someone racing at Atco you are going to be kicking yourself constantly.

TransAmWS.6
12-13-2011, 08:30 PM
Sorry guy's, but this is not adding up to me. The trap speed isn't right for the listed mods. I run a 12.05 at 112.8 mph w/a 1.65 60'. I also have 370rwhp,[NA] So, to the op, unless you have a lot of weight stripped out of your car, there are more performance mods then what you have listed.

There is something wrong with your car then, it should definitely be a good bit faster than that, you should be somewhere in the mid 11's I'd say. Bolt-on/properly stalled LS1's are in the deep 12's-high 11's all day from what I've seen. You should reevaluate your setup. OP's car runs real strong though for what it has done to it though.


I have a friend that was kicked off the track for running an 11.55 in a bolt on new edge convertable, [ no cage ].

Seriously, a bolt-on 2V running mid 11's? Riiigghht....

dannyz
12-13-2011, 08:34 PM
OK you must be trolling now. Or just that stubborn. Once again quit racing with a calculator.
This is over your head, and I can't dumb it down for you.

dannyz
12-13-2011, 08:37 PM
No point in even trying to fool the calculator-racing expert here, we're obviously just a bunch of grown men with nothing better to do than exaggerate 1/4 mile times on the internet. :rolleyes:

If my cammed/n20 car only ran 11.5x I'd be upset to, but no need in trying to justify your slow times by calling BS on others.

Nope. Car is fine. I dropped 5 tenth's w/a 75 shot off juice. Zex rates their kit at the flywheel. So the 75 is about 50ish to the wheel's. So the drop of a half second is about dead on.

senicalj4579
12-13-2011, 08:40 PM
Hey man. My car did 12.0 in -1200 da full weight. Now it does 11.9 in 0 da with about a 180lb weight reduction. You will get 11s dude its not that hard with these cars :D

dannyz
12-13-2011, 08:40 PM
What book or calculator does it say that you have to have 372 rwhp to run 112 trap? There are plenty of cars making less than that running 11s.....Why can't you see that -DA can make a car run faster regardless of what horsepower it makes. Dyno numbers are one thing, real world is at the track! Maximizing your set-up and being efficient is where alot of the great ets come from.

Engine motor horsepower calculator-trap speed-quarter formula. Type it in and check it out. It's been around for years.

dannyz
12-13-2011, 08:44 PM
There is a huge difference in ET from 2000ft which is average for most tracks to -2000ft which is unheard of besides atco. If you compare your car mod for mod to someone racing at Atco you are going to be kicking yourself constantly.
Could be. It's highly unlikely his car could run as quickly at any other track w/o his only witness being present.

dannyz
12-13-2011, 08:46 PM
There is something wrong with your car then, it should definitely be a good bit faster than that, you should be somewhere in the mid 11's I'd say. Bolt-on/properly stalled LS1's are in the deep 12's-high 11's all day from what I've seen. You should reevaluate your setup. OP's car runs real strong though for what it has done to it though.



Seriously, a bolt-on 2V running mid 11's? Riiigghht....
You didn't read the whole post. He DID NOT run an 11 second pass. It was a timer malfunction.

N2RACINGLS1's
12-13-2011, 08:52 PM
Sorry guy's, but this is not adding up to me. The trap speed isn't right for the listed mods. I run a 12.05 at 112.8 mph w/a 1.65 60'. I also have 370rwhp,[NA] So, to the op, unless you have a lot of weight stripped out of your car, there are more performance mods then what you have listed.

Do not take this wrong but it is usually all in the setup.

My Formula ran 11.944 ET at 111.17 MPH's at 3,665 lbs., 100% stock internal 91K miles, LS1 intake, stock TB, stock injectors, lid, headers, full exhaust, TH400, stall and 3.70 gears. The car made 329 HP when it had the stock trans with stock convertor and 3.23 gears. I am sure when I added the TH400 and Stall plus the 9 inch rear with 3.70 gears the horsepower went down due to more drive train loss and of course more weight. I would have loved to have had 370 HP to the wheels at that time!!

I have no problem believing the ET or MPH! They said his car has 325 HP to 330 HP.
Congrats to the OP that started the thread on your new best.

N2

green28
12-13-2011, 09:00 PM
Please explain my 3600 lb. bolt-on only (again maybe 320ish RWHP) car running a 11.99 @ 111 in 500+ DA then. That formula is good for getting an estimate and that's it. And there are over a hundred cars on this site that are doing the same.

Now if you are talking about 372 flywheel HP, then the OP's car and mine are both probably over that mark, which is how they can hit those trap speeds.

createnit
12-13-2011, 09:11 PM
nice time! not unlikely at all. Congrats

redtan
12-13-2011, 09:14 PM
Engine motor horsepower calculator-trap speed-quarter formula.

Are you seriously basing all this off a friggin' online calculator?

I put in my car's weight and hp and got nowhere near the ET/trap I hit...

TransAmWS.6
12-13-2011, 09:15 PM
You didn't read the whole post. He DID NOT run an 11 second pass. It was a timer malfunction.

Wow, I just picked up on that, you didn't state that very clearly.

That formula is good for getting an estimate and that's it. And there are over a hundred cars on this site that are doing the same.


I agree, there are far too many variables out there on the real track that can hinder that calculator's estimated times. That isn't a substitute for actually running the car down the track, it's just a rough estimate is all.

Lucas1351
12-13-2011, 09:22 PM
alright, its about time i chime in and just clarify some things. first off, thanks marc, greg, and ron for all your help and advice at the track. and thanks to all the guys on here that believe my times. i was just as surprised to see these times. the DA was approx 2000' below sea level. my 1/8 mile times were 7.631@89.56mph. there are 3 guys on here that were at atco with me on sunday and can vouch for my mods and 1/4 mile e.t.'s that day. my full list of mods are: slp lid. ported/polished tb. ls6 intake. underdrive pulleys. gibson cat-back. b&m shift kit. b&m transcooler. circle d 3400 stall converter. MT dr's. RPM tune. everything else on the car is STOCK except for eibach lowering springs. as far as weight reduction, i removed the spare tire/jack. rear interior plastics/speakers. door panels/front speakers. passenger seat. rear seats. seat belts. the car weighed 3660 with me in it before any weight reduction, so it was no lighter than 3460 on track day. Please remember that this is in december, at ATCO. my car put down 316whp 325wtq in the early fall. id guess and say it was probly making at least 325-330whp on this day. no offense but my car definately does NOT make 372whp

dannyz
12-13-2011, 09:42 PM
Are you seriously basing all this off a friggin' online calculator?

I put in my car's weight and hp and got nowhere near the ET/trap I hit...

I am not surprised. The hp# you used in your calculation was taken from a dyno, right? Some dyno's are very close, some, are not. In my case, it was almost dead on. N/A I had 373 rwhp. My trap N/A was 112mph. On a 75fwhp shot of nitrous, my dyno showed 423rwhp. Trap was 119mph, if I recall. In my case, the dyno was about dead on to the hp numbers that the formula said I was putting down. Trap speed is the most accurate way to determine hp.

ROMERO98Z28
12-13-2011, 09:57 PM
nice run

Kingc8r
12-13-2011, 10:23 PM
Nice times. I say they're believable, I ran 12.87 with bolt ons minus udp,with a stock tune, stall, trans, gears and street tires. With a raceweight around 3700 pounds...it's not that unbelievable especially since it was at ATCO...

TA1364
12-13-2011, 10:32 PM
Could be. It's highly unlikely his car could run as quickly at any other track w/o his only witness being present.

Exactly, DA can change ETs by 3-4 tenths.

SuperSlow02
12-14-2011, 12:03 AM
Dannyz, maybe you didn't realize they've acknowledged the fact that the car will only run that number at that track, at that time of year. -2000DA is rediculous. You need to use more then one calculator...mainly a DA calculator/converter. OP running that quick is completely believable giving the conditions of the track. If you would of been there the same day, you probably would of went .5 quicker too.

Great run OP, cars like that really hurt feelings.

98TADRIVER
12-14-2011, 12:48 AM
in my experience with 100's of passes, it seems like every 900-1000' of DA= .1 second

LS1LT1
12-14-2011, 01:27 AM
While I do agree that the numbers are a little too good for those mods, you have to remember that this is ATCO in December. The so called "downhill" trackAtco is/was an NHRA/IHRA certified track, if it were not compliant and within the rules then trust me, with the power of the internet/www we'd have all heard about it loud and clear by now.



At any other track on the east coast in the summer and he probably runs no better than 12.6s @ 108-109 which is believable.Not true. Those numbers likely could've been duplicated at Englishtown, Cecil, MIR or even Maple Grove if they were open that very same day.



What book or calculator does it say that you have to have 372 rwhp to run 112 trap? There are plenty of cars making less than that running 11s.....Exactly. :nod:
I trapped 113.62mph (on an 11.8 second pass) in my Z28 with only 335rwhp.
I just trapped 127.53mph in my C6 with only 393rwhp on the same day that Lucas and Ron ran.
Those numbers are SAE corrected on a Dynojet.



my 1/8 mile times were 7.631@89.56mph. there are 3 guys on here that were at atco with me on sunday and can vouch for my mods and 1/4 mile e.t.'s that day.I can/will verify this. :nod:

BigB02Z28
12-14-2011, 07:28 AM
dannyz cannot be wrong. The other 20 posters are wrong. Every track across the United States is malfunctioning. 2012 is near, sell your cars and build a bunker. :bang:

Grats to OP, I enjoyed the thread, even with dannyz's antics.:usa:

senicalj4579
12-14-2011, 10:02 AM
in my experience with 100's of passes, it seems like every 900-1000' of DA= .1 second

A drop in da seems to effect my car alot more than what the calculators say and what is being said here in the thread.

My car same mods before the stall...
+2265 da 13.197
+2062 da 13.087
-249 da 12.740
-1245 da 12.638 Best with stock stall

My car same mods with ss3600
+503 da 12.062
-187 da 11.918

It appears the "drop of 1000 da is good for .1" dosent apply to my car? lol

98TADRIVER
12-14-2011, 11:13 AM
A drop in da seems to effect my car alot more than what the calculators say and what is being said here in the thread.

My car same mods before the stall...
+2265 da 13.197
+2062 da 13.087
-249 da 12.740
-1245 da 12.638 Best with stock stall

My car same mods with ss3600
+503 da 12.062
-187 da 11.918

It appears the "drop of 1000 da is good for .1" dosent apply to my car? lol

haha well I wouldnt claim what I said to be the gospel. I should've been a lil more specific lol. Bascially, what I did was take the difference between a summertime pass and a wintertime pass, where the DA was on 2 extremes (-2000 and +2000') that comes out to a total of 4000', divided it by the amount of time i dropped and came up with a rough idea of how much altitude change it takes to = .1 second. There could be other factors that have an effect on times, like your 60'. If the car 60's stronger as a result of the DA change, then that's going to drop some time, as well as pulling in that better air all the way down the track :cheers: nice times btw

N2RACINGLS1's
12-14-2011, 05:56 PM
alright, its about time i chime in and just clarify some things. DA was approx 2000' below sea level. Full list of mods are: slp lid. ported/polished tb. ls6 intake. underdrive pulleys. gibson cat-back. b&m shift kit. b&m transcooler. circle d 3400 stall converter. MT dr's. RPM tune. Weight reduction, i removed the spare tire/jack. rear interior plastics/speakers. door panels/front speakers. passenger seat. rear seats. seat belts. 325-330whp on this day.

Anybody that gets to go racing in negative 2,000 DA should have to work 7 days a week for the next month and then you take a tin can to boot and race it down the track.

You are just a bad man! If you had that 370 HP the OP has that tin can would have ran 11.70's

Just kidding :)

N2

senicalj4579
12-14-2011, 11:26 PM
haha well I wouldnt claim what I said to be the gospel. I should've been a lil more specific lol. Bascially, what I did was take the difference between a summertime pass and a wintertime pass, where the DA was on 2 extremes (-2000 and +2000') that comes out to a total of 4000', divided it by the amount of time i dropped and came up with a rough idea of how much altitude change it takes to = .1 second. There could be other factors that have an effect on times, like your 60'. If the car 60's stronger as a result of the DA change, then that's going to drop some time, as well as pulling in that better air all the way down the track :cheers: nice times btw

HA nice times yourself. 11.07 with boltons and stall?! Can you please explain to me what the big difference is between your car and mine? All my mods are in sig and the race weight was about 3400 doing a 11.918 in -187 da. How are you running so much faster?

LS1LT1
12-15-2011, 12:14 AM
HA nice times yourself. 11.07 with boltons and stall?! Can you please explain to me what the big difference is between your car and mine? All my mods are in sig and the race weight was about 3400 doing a 11.918 in -187 da. How are you running so much faster?This also brings up a little 'sub debate' that a good friend of mine had ventured into a few years back. He has a heads & cam Camaro Z28 automatic making roughly 450rwhp and running high 10s to low 11s depending on the weather and couldn't figure out how in the hell a Corvette C5 of similar power and and even somewhat close in overall weight was still notably quicker/faster than his car, and this applied to quite a few C5s, not just one.
We never actually figured it out entirely but aerodynamics and possibly even weight distribution played a part in it. :)

As far as 98tadriver's car and yours, probably almost half of the ET difference can be traced back to sixty foot alone, very possibly as much as .35 of his ET advantage is attributable to his much better sixty foots (1.49s) over yours. The rest is a combination of a really well matched set up, great air, good track prep, better aerodynamics and maybe his car was a little less than 3400 pounds on that particular day. :drive:

senicalj4579
12-15-2011, 07:31 AM
This also brings up a little 'sub debate' that a good friend of mine had ventured into a few years back. He has a heads & cam Camaro Z28 automatic making roughly 450rwhp and running high 10s to low 11s depending on the weather and couldn't figure out how in the hell a Corvette C5 of similar power and and even somewhat close in overall weight was still notably quicker/faster than his car, and this applied to quite a few C5s, not just one.
We never actually figured it out entirely but aerodynamics and possibly even weight distribution played a part in it. :)

As far as 98tadriver's car and yours, probably almost half of the ET difference can be traced back to sixty foot alone, very possibly as much as .35 of his ET advantage is attributable to his much better sixty foots (1.49s) over yours. The rest is a combination of a really well matched set up, great air, good track prep, better aerodynamics and maybe his car was a little less than 3400 pounds on that particular day. :drive:


Thats a good explaination and I could think of those off the top of my head but no way would I think all that would equal about .9 difference.
You did forget one thing though and thats suspension but still a .9 difference? Do you happen to know the da of his 11.0 run? I didnt get the da I wanted this year. Im usually able to get a -1200 da run in. I only got -187. The way my car responsds to a drop in da I have no doubt my time would be 11.7 or so. But still thats a .7 difference! Also FWIW my swaybar was off the car and I dead hooked. If you watch my left front tire you can actually see it pulled off the ground an inch or two. It didnt appear to have any weight transfer issues.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsG2UrUS7sw

senicalj4579
12-15-2011, 07:53 AM
haha well I wouldnt claim what I said to be the gospel. I should've been a lil more specific lol. Bascially, what I did was take the difference between a summertime pass and a wintertime pass, where the DA was on 2 extremes (-2000 and +2000') that comes out to a total of 4000', divided it by the amount of time i dropped and came up with a rough idea of how much altitude change it takes to = .1 second. There could be other factors that have an effect on times, like your 60'. If the car 60's stronger as a result of the DA change, then that's going to drop some time, as well as pulling in that better air all the way down the track :cheers: nice times btw

I just saw your post and vid on vette forum but couldnt find exactly what boltons you have. Also if I read right over there it looks like your making a good amount more power than me? Think I saw 370 over there in the post? If so then theres the difference right there lol but 370 from just boltons through a stalled auto? Do vettes have better options for boltons or something?

blk/slvr02ss
12-15-2011, 09:00 AM
I just saw your post and vid on vette forum but couldnt find exactly what boltons you have. Also if I read right over there it looks like your making a good amount more power than me? Think I saw 370 over there in the post? If so then theres the difference right there lol but 370 from just boltons through a stalled auto? Do vettes have better options for boltons or something?

There is still a bunch of other things u can do to your car to go faster w/ out going into the motor !!!

LS1LT1
12-15-2011, 10:28 AM
Do you happen to know the da of his 11.0 run? I didnt get the da I wanted this year. Im usually able to get a -1200 da run in. I only got -187. The way my car responsds to a drop in da I have no doubt my time would be 11.7 or so. But still thats a .7 difference!Not sure exactly but it was VERY good air, probably some of the best I've ever run in (and I've run in some great air over the years LOL).




I just saw your post and vid on vette forum but couldnt find exactly what boltons you have. Also if I read right over there it looks like your making a good amount more power than me? Think I saw 370 over there in the post? If so then theres the difference right there lol but 370 from just boltons through a stalled auto? Do vettes have better options for boltons or something?He does have a FAST 90mm intake/90mm throttle body on there so that could be part of the reason for the strong numbers. A FAST won't necessarily give a lot of gain on a stock internals 346 but it does still help. :nod:

98TADRIVER
12-15-2011, 12:00 PM
I just saw your post and vid on vette forum but couldnt find exactly what boltons you have. Also if I read right over there it looks like your making a good amount more power than me? Think I saw 370 over there in the post? If so then theres the difference right there lol but 370 from just boltons through a stalled auto? Do vettes have better options for boltons or something?

My raceweight is an estimated 3300lb but after doing the math, I think I'm gonna lean more toward 3110-3170. After doing some thinking, I wouldnt be suprised if the car dips into the 3090-3100lb range. I want to weigh it sometime so i can stop estimating it lol.

Let's do some math- Curb weight is 3216-3275 from what i read. i weigh 200 dressed. that = 3416-3475. if gas weighs 7lbs/gallon, and I have an 18.5gal tank, i shave105lbs right there. now its at 3311-3370. Besides weight savings from my exhaust, the skinnies drop about 50lbs/pair and i removed 150lbs (everything can be put back in the car) that comes out to 3111-3170lbs. so thats 2.5-3 tenths in weight savings. my 60' time gains roughly .35 sec, thats .55-.65 sec and then the awesome negative DA. According to dragtimes DA calculator, it was -2100' (handhelds at the track will usually read differently) so add another 2 tenths to the difference and you come up with .75-.85 sec :)

As far as mods go- I have longtubes, off road x, straight pipes for my axleback, Vararam Intake, Fast 90mm intake and tb, and a SLP 25% UD balancer pulley, 160* thermostat and an awesome tune. drivetrain wise, a fuddle 3400 converter, transgo hd 2 shift kit, and 3.42 gears. I run on a 275 40 17 MT drag radial

I put down 358rwhp 378rwtq through a locked converter, SAE corrected

Next time I dyno, Im going to make a few pulls with the converter locked and unlocked to see the difference. dyno numbers tend to be higher with a locked converter

Hopefully this helps answer some questions. I have absolutely nothing to hide with this car :cheers:

senicalj4579
12-15-2011, 12:44 PM
My raceweight is an estimated 3300lb but after doing the math, I think I'm gonna lean more toward 3110-3170. After doing some thinking, I wouldnt be suprised if the car dips into the 3090-3100lb range. I want to weigh it sometime so i can stop estimating it lol.

Let's do some math- Curb weight is 3216-3275 from what i read. i weigh 200 dressed. that = 3416-3475. if gas weighs 7lbs/gallon, and I have an 18.5gal tank, i shave105lbs right there. now its at 3311-3370. Besides weight savings from my exhaust, the skinnies drop about 50lbs/pair and i removed 150lbs (everything can be put back in the car) that comes out to 3111-3170lbs. so thats 2.5-3 tenths in weight savings. my 60' time gains roughly .35 sec, thats .55-.65 sec and then the awesome negative DA. According to dragtimes DA calculator, it was -2100' (handhelds at the track will usually read differently) so add another 2 tenths to the difference and you come up with .75-.85 sec :)

As far as mods go- I have longtubes, off road x, straight pipes for my axleback, Vararam Intake, Fast 90mm intake and tb, and a SLP 25% UD balancer pulley, 160* thermostat and an awesome tune. drivetrain wise, a fuddle 3400 converter, transgo hd 2 shift kit, and 3.42 gears. I run on a 275 40 17 MT drag radial

I put down 358rwhp 378rwtq through a locked converter, SAE corrected

Next time I dyno, Im going to make a few pulls with the converter locked and unlocked to see the difference. dyno numbers tend to be higher with a locked converter

Hopefully this helps answer some questions. I have absolutely nothing to hide with this car :cheers:


No no I wasnt saying your hiding anything I just wanna be able to compair things and obviously you like stats as much as I do lol
You have a great setup there man. A -2100 da is out of this world lol. Thats 900da off of what I was hoping to run in myself this year. I was gonna shoot for a 11.7 in -1200. I had the chance but didnt go. I didnt think the da was gonna be that great but I looked at dragtimes and it said -1400 or something. I was pissed lol. Oh well maybe next year. :D

c0ncEpT
12-16-2011, 02:56 PM
Please explain my 3600 lb. bolt-on only (again maybe 320ish RWHP) car running a 11.99 @ 111 in 500+ DA then. That formula is good for getting an estimate and that's it. And there are over a hundred cars on this site that are doing the same.

He is just a bench racer.

My junk is set up just like yours. 3600lbs, bolt ons, MAYBE 330RWHP. My car ran 12.1 @ 113 with a soft 1.70 60'.

By that guys calc our cars must have 380rwhp :ripped:

moge11
12-16-2011, 03:44 PM
what dipshit dont get is that those calculators, even though it says rwhp, is more like flywheel, and are never that accurate anyway... they basically say that a brick s10 of the same weight will run the EXACT same as an Fbody.... dumbass. dude is an idiot...says he cant it dumb it down for us and its over our heads.. WE cant dumb THIS down enough for him...geezz. people these days

dannyz
12-16-2011, 10:01 PM
what dipshit dont get is that those calculators, even though it says rwhp, is more like flywheel, and are never that accurate anyway... they basically say that a brick s10 of the same weight will run the EXACT same as an Fbody.... dumbass. dude is an idiot...says he cant it dumb it down for us and its over our heads.. WE cant dumb THIS down enough for him...geezz. people these days

In your particular case, I was probably over your head as soon as I used a capital letter to begin a sentence.:eyes:

98TADRIVER
12-16-2011, 11:49 PM
No no I wasnt saying your hiding anything I just wanna be able to compair things and obviously you like stats as much as I do lol
You have a great setup there man. A -2100 da is out of this world lol. Thats 900da off of what I was hoping to run in myself this year. I was gonna shoot for a 11.7 in -1200. I had the chance but didnt go. I didnt think the da was gonna be that great but I looked at dragtimes and it said -1400 or something. I was pissed lol. Oh well maybe next year. :D

Thanks! Im sorry i didnt mean to sound like i was directing the hiding thing to you. I was just letting people in general know that! lol

You should be able to pull that 11.7 in some good air. I want to hit 10.99 (or faster) with bolt ons. It's gonna be close, but I have a few more things to do yet :D

moge11
12-17-2011, 04:12 PM
In your particular case, I was probably over your head as soon as I used a capital letter to begin a sentence.:eyes:

If your so smart, let's see the formula. you type out the formula for calculating required hp for a 3600lb fbody.. 12.96@107mph.... See what you come up with..

senicalj4579
12-17-2011, 04:22 PM
Thanks! Im sorry i didnt mean to sound like i was directing the hiding thing to you. I was just letting people in general know that! lol

You should be able to pull that 11.7 in some good air. I want to hit 10.99 (or faster) with bolt ons. It's gonna be close, but I have a few more things to do yet :D

No not all all man. If you hit 10s that would be insane :D
Another thing you have going for ya is Atco. I wanna make it down there to run one of these days. I go to new england dragway and they close end of oct :bang:

moge11
12-17-2011, 06:18 PM
My car runs exactly what it should, to the tenth. You are familier with the law of physics, right? Using the engine motor horsepower calculator-trap speed-quarter formula, his car needs to be putting down 372.80hp to trap at 112 mph. and thats IF his car weighs 3400 pounds with him in it. This is from a well known and accepted mathmatical formula that has been in use around the world for years. [ look it up]. So unless your going to explain to me how it is that his car can defy physics, what else has been done to the car?

you wanna talk about punctuation??? how about you learn to spell... FAMILIAR and mathEmatical...

JWStevens
12-17-2011, 11:50 PM
Even though this is one of the most retarded arguments I've ever heard, its pretty funny. Congrats man, fast car!

98TADRIVER
12-18-2011, 01:24 PM
No not all all man. If you hit 10s that would be insane :D
Another thing you have going for ya is Atco. I wanna make it down there to run one of these days. I go to new england dragway and they close end of oct :bang:

ah that sucks. atco is usually open til dec 11th-12th. 33' above sea level :D

jleews6
01-10-2012, 09:59 PM
my '99 camaro just went 12.01@112.6 with a 1.64 60' at atco. i was impressed but yet a little disappointed to not go 11s on the last track day of the year. the only mods are lid, tb, ls6 intake, underdrive pulleys, cat-back, 3400 converter, shift kit, RPM tune, mickey thompson DR's (on stock wheels) and weight reduction. everything else is stock except for lowering springs

Damn! You should be happy with that. All you had to do was pull the belt and it would have gone in the 11s. Maybe even 11.80s.

DannyZ,FWIW my 01 WS6 went 114 at full weight with only 356 "dynojet" rwhp.:confused:

dannyz
01-11-2012, 10:44 PM
Damn! You should be happy with that. All you had to do was pull the belt and it would have gone in the 11s. Maybe even 11.80s.

DannyZ,FWIW my 01 WS6 went 114 at full weight with only 356 "dynojet" rwhp.:confused:

You have a manual trans.

GtoSpd
01-12-2012, 11:38 AM
You have a manual trans.

And? Whats your point? You going to try to tell us the M6 guys are always faster in the 1/4 now too? Which bullshit calculator did you use to figure that one out?

Pro Stock John
01-12-2012, 12:52 PM
I love that Atco air, wish I could race there.

dannyz
01-12-2012, 05:12 PM
And? Whats your point? You going to try to tell us the M6 guys are always faster in the 1/4 now too? Which bullshit calculator did you use to figure that one out?

Lmao. Pretty much accepted as fact that a manual trans will trap higher then an auto, [ if cars have the same mods ].
Not saying they will run a better e.t. necessarily.
Are you able to grasp that?

WhiteKnight '01
01-12-2012, 05:16 PM
What's the curb weight on the car?

GtoSpd
01-12-2012, 06:48 PM
Lmao. Pretty much accepted as fact that a manual trans will trap higher then an auto, [ if cars have the same mods ].
Not saying they will run a better e.t. necessarily.
Are you able to grasp that?

I grasp the fact that you're a complete dumbass. You should gain some actual track experience before you come here with your paper racing.

dannyz
01-12-2012, 08:16 PM
I grasp the fact that you're a complete dumbass. You should gain some actual track experience before you come here with your paper racing.

You probably missed it, but I have have just a teeny tiny bit of track time. I will challange you to learn to accept the fact that, from time to time, people are going to question claim's that you make. Not just on this forum, but in your everyday life. If you claim to have done something that falls outside of the norm, someone may say "That doesn't sound right". Getting hostile or overly defensive won't help anything. Explanation will. Several people who did not become emotionaly involved in this thread, took the time to point out the favorable track conditions. I, myself, did not take that fact into consideration. And now I have. Your car, on that particular track, on that particular day, had a good trap speed given the mod's you claim. My car is considerably quicker, not a brag, just a fact. So it's not like you beat me in a race and me calling you a cheater.There are an uncountable number of cars on this forum, that would chew me up and spit me out and not even break a sweat. There is always someone quicker. And trust me. I will not be the only person who will ever question something that you have done.

GtoSpd
01-12-2012, 08:39 PM
You probably missed it, but I have have just a teeny tiny bit of track time. I will challange you to learn to accept the fact that, from time to time, people are going to question claim's that you make. Not just on this forum, but in your everyday life. If you claim to have done something that falls outside of the norm, someone may say "That doesn't sound right". Getting hostile or overly defensive won't help anything. Explanation will. Several people who did not become emotionaly involved in this thread, took the time to point out the favorable track conditions. I, myself, did not take that fact into consideration. And now I have. Your car, on that particular track, on that particular day, had a good trap speed given the mod's you claim. My car is considerably quicker, not a brag, just a fact. So it's not like you beat me in a race and me calling you a cheater.There are an uncountable number of cars on this forum, that would chew me up and spit me out and not even break a sweat. There is always someone quicker. And trust me. I will not be the only person who will ever question something that you have done.

That's great, Danny. You preached all that crap about RWHP, and how accurate and over our heads your little internet RWHP=ET calculator was, yet now you admit you didn't even take DA or other conditions into account.....but you have lots of track experience. Ok man. I've only been doing this for a decade, so never mind me.

Not sure if you're referring to my car or OPs car, but mine is a consistent 12.5-12.6 car at -500 to +300' DA, and 12.7 car above that (hopefully 2 tenths quicker after last weekends header install). Look man, I'm usually the first one to call BS on someone, not just here but on other forums as well. But the crap that you spewed to justify your skepticism was honestly making several of us suspect you of trolling.

kinglt-1
01-12-2012, 08:43 PM
You probably missed it, but I have have just a teeny tiny bit of track time. I will challange you to learn to accept the fact that, from time to time, people are going to question claim's that you make. Not just on this forum, but in your everyday life. If you claim to have done something that falls outside of the norm, someone may say "That doesn't sound right". Getting hostile or overly defensive won't help anything. Explanation will. Several people who did not become emotionaly involved in this thread, took the time to point out the favorable track conditions. I, myself, did not take that fact into consideration. And now I have. Your car, on that particular track, on that particular day, had a good trap speed given the mod's you claim. My car is considerably quicker, not a brag, just a fact. So it's not like you beat me in a race and me calling you a cheater.There are an uncountable number of cars on this forum, that would chew me up and spit me out and not even break a sweat. There is always someone quicker. And trust me. I will not be the only person who will ever question something that you have done.

Just give the op his props and move the fuck on for fucks sake. Is it really worth debating this for almost a month? His car runs good for the mods and is completely believable for atco.

dannyz
01-12-2012, 09:10 PM
That's great, Danny. You preached all that crap about RWHP, and how accurate and over our heads your little internet RWHP=ET calculator was, yet now you admit you didn't even take DA or other conditions into account.....but you have lots of track experience. Ok man. I've only been doing this for a decade, so never mind me.

Not sure if you're referring to my car or OPs car, but mine is a consistent 12.5-12.6 car at -500 to +300' DA, and 12.7 car above that (hopefully 2 tenths quicker after last weekends header install). Look man, I'm usually the first one to call BS on someone, not just here but on other forums as well. But the crap that you spewed to justify your skepticism was honestly making several of us suspect you of trolling.

You got about everything wrong. It's not my calculator. It's been on the internet for years. No, I did not take DA into consideration as I clearly stated above. And show me where I said I have lots of track experience? And yes, I did get you and the op mixed up. So props to you and the op on your mid 12 second car. Well done.

dannyz
01-12-2012, 09:11 PM
Just give the op his props and move the fuck on for fucks sake. Is it really worth debating this for almost a month? His car runs good for the mods and is completely believable for atco.

I just did, thank you.