12.72@122mph LOL
#4
Thread Starter
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,838
Likes: 0
From: Lake in the Hills, IL
Originally Posted by BIGBOS
Was this N/A
Na times were 13.1@114... Traction was real bad there many other guys said they were running a half to full second slower than usual
Trending Topics
#13
Originally Posted by ZL1camaro
i dont think ur car pulled that hard on the top end to achieve the trap speed u did, and especially because of ur so called traction problem.
Ur numbers just dont match up!
Ur numbers just dont match up!
#15
Thread Starter
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,838
Likes: 0
From: Lake in the Hills, IL
Ok everyone who doesnt believe here Im gonna post my time slip with a pic of my car with the numbers still on it I hope this suffices u...This is one of them im trying to find the one that was 122.xx
#19
I definitely believe it's possible.. saw the vid and it seems like it was poor track prepping that caused it. 2.16 isn't a horrible 60'... not good either but we're not talkin about 2.4s or anything.
#20
Like I said in the midwest section.
My car several years ago when it was cam, headers, drag radials and a stock clutch with a big TNT wet shot on it went 12.0@126 on 2.1 sixties..did it every time..car would not hook until the top of 3rd gear. never could get the bastard in the 11's..just couldn't get it to hook on the nittos with that big spray kit on it. 12.0 every time.
his times are consistent.
My car several years ago when it was cam, headers, drag radials and a stock clutch with a big TNT wet shot on it went 12.0@126 on 2.1 sixties..did it every time..car would not hook until the top of 3rd gear. never could get the bastard in the 11's..just couldn't get it to hook on the nittos with that big spray kit on it. 12.0 every time.
his times are consistent.