When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Mustangs are all fine and well, got a buddy with a 408 LS swapped foxbody. But you don't go around trying to pimp the mustang on here like you do the Camaro and the almighty LS6... with 3 year old numbers and apparently timing errors. So post up the slips on that car. I've never wavered on my request so no chasing tails here.
Ypu are chasing your tail. There is a thread on tech all about it. It's not this thread....it's my own thread. Even a vid on there.
Are 3 yr old numbers not valid? When did that happen? I didn't know days, weeks, moths or years invalidated track time
Originally Posted by islander033
Yes, not even close to my best. Keep trying doe!
We can compare your ~3000lbs car vs ~3300lbs car....but we all know you want no part of that. lol
But na to na your 3300lb built 4.6 runs 12s
Originally Posted by big hammer
Last winter— we dinod around the same HP
then we both went to the track and I went a lot quicker and faster so I dunno
His 10.7x is a timing error. Unless you think his car can magically 1.26 60ft....
He’s also a known liar. Wow
Hell no I don't believe it 1.26 sixty'd but I thought it was possible the ET/MPH was still accurate even if the 60' was off, no? Thinking about it it doesn't make sense, but if the car had another run within a couple tenths it seems at least possible.
I race too much to keep a running average. You are pretty much retired and someone else made that average...not me.
But... your average with your 2 car for last year is mid/high 11's and mine is low/mid 9s.
2 second gap is huge.
ddnspider: yes it's possible the et is still good on that slip, no one would question it if Hio ever backed it up. But he retired the car right after.... pretty shady if you ask me.
It don't make sense to me either and i was in the car. It's not like I've ever claimed it was anything other than a crazy *** pass.
And no matter how much math islander and cobro crew throws at it they can't prove it didn't happen.
Anyone else find it funny islander has a whole layout of my passes but can't answer what his own average was?
Mr. Morris already explained what it most likely was at least a couple times before. He's too leave-headed to say anything otherwise. F'rs aught to just put it to rest.
Originally Posted by Mike Morris
1.2 was something tripping the beams. I had it happen twice there with my MR2. It still ran the normal 1/4 times. What is scary is that car and others were 2 tenths faster at Cecil than that hillbilly dump Mason Dixon
I race too much to keep a running average. You are pretty much retired and someone else made that average...not me.
But... your average with your 2 car for last year is mid/high 11's and mine is low/mid 9s.
2 second gap is huge.
ddnspider: yes it's possible the et is still good on that slip, no one would question it if Hio ever backed it up. But he retired the car right after.... pretty shady if you ask me.
Well you seemingly don't race to much to keep my average......so that first statement is a utter bullshit lie
The only one shady here is you......trying to average 2 cars. Especially when you only own 1.5 car.
The car has been down for a while. Certainly not in raceable condition even now.....so why would i race it in that form?
Originally Posted by R6cowboy
Mr. Morris already explained what it most likely was at least a couple times before. He's too leave-headed to say anything otherwise. F'rs aught to just put it to rest.
You see the issue here is if what mike said was accurate i woulda never passed the car in the other lane. Especially with him treeing me. It is impossible to pass a car that 60s a 1.4x with a slower 60' in the 60' especially when treed.
...
You see the issue here is if what mike said was accurate i woulda never passed the car in the other lane. Especially with him treeing me. It is impossible to pass a car that 60s a 1.4x with a slower 60' in the 60' especially when treed.
Now splain dat.
Simple, the car in the other lane didnt 1.4x sixty. This is where you respond and say it was a race car running xx.xx times all day. Fine, but on THAT pass, there was a timing error, possibly with both cars, which is completely plausible.
Edit....and this is why it gets brought up cause you make posts like whats quoted that imply you actually believe the 60' time was accurate.
Actually I own legally own 100% of cobro. Morally/ethically I own half of the team car.
It's been way faster than you've ever been....like ever...and ever will be. lol
You see the issue here is if what mike said was accurate i woulda never passed the car in the other lane. Especially with him treeing me. It is impossible to pass a car that 60s a 1.4x with a slower 60' in the 60' especially when treed.
Now splain dat.
Where the vid of that pass for the proof...or is this just lies like usual?
Simple, the car in the other lane didnt 1.4x sixty. This is where you respond and say it was a race car running xx.xx times all day. Fine, but on THAT pass, there was a timing error, possibly with both cars, which is completely plausible.
Edit....and this is why it gets brought up cause you make posts like whats quoted that imply you actually believe the 60' time was accurate.
It wasn't a race car it was a supercharged auto 5br0. Yes he did 1.4 60s all day. No he didn't mess up on that run.......i talked to him afterwards about it. A friend that was there talked to him also. All in my thread about that day.
The 60' was accurate. If it wasn't i woulda never passed him.
Do you have problems with 300whp cars doin 1.5 60s?
Originally Posted by islander033
Where the vid of that pass for the proof...or is this just lies like usual?
Done said several times there is no vid.....are you stoopid. Or do you only hear what you want.
It wasn't a race car it was a supercharged auto 5br0. Yes he did 1.4 60s all day. No he didn't mess up on that run.......i talked to him afterwards about it. A friend that was there talked to him also. All in my thread about that day.
The 60' was accurate. If it wasn't i woulda never passed him.
Do you have problems with 300whp cars doin 1.5 60s?
Done said several times there is no vid.....are you stoopid. Or do you only hear what you want.
Do you have problems admitting when you're wrong? Thanks for making my point.....you DO believe it 1.2x 60 footed lmao. 300hp and 1.5....i can believe if the race weight is right. I also believe in physics, Do you want to go on record that your car is a Swiss cheese tin can at 2500lbs and that's why it 1.2 sixtyd? Go for it, at least you'll own up to something. Either it 1.2 and weighs nothing or it's greater than 3000lbs like you've posted elsewhere and it didn't 1.2, pretty simple.
You see the issue here is if what mike said was accurate i woulda never passed the car in the other lane. Especially with him treeing me. It is impossible to pass a car that 60s a 1.4x with a slower 60' in the 60' especially when treed.
Now splain dat.
Don't you have the slip of the 1.26 60' run? I thought you had posted it before...?
Do you have problems admitting when you're wrong? Thanks for making my point.....you DO believe it 1.2x 60 footed lmao. 300hp and 1.5....i can believe if the race weight is right. I also believe in physics, Do you want to go on record that your car is a Swiss cheese tin can at 2500lbs and that's why it 1.2 sixtyd? Go for it, at least you'll own up to something. Either it 1.2 and weighs nothing or it's greater than 3000lbs like you've posted elsewhere and it didn't 1.2, pretty simple.
So a near full weight 300whp car can 60 in the 1.5s but a lighter more powerful car can't do any better. That's what your saying all while trying to cover your *** here.
Thanks for making my point.
There is nothing is physics that says it can't be done.
I have been on record many times saying the rw was 3250 that day.......so a broken record you are.
Originally Posted by islander033
So no proof...just cool lies. LOL
Yea...the proof is the slip. The lies are what's trying to devalue the slip.
Strange how that works eehh.
Originally Posted by R6cowboy
Don't you have the slip of the 1.26 60' run? I thought you had posted it before...?
Islander has it.
Yes i have posted it before. Besides....all the info to it is right above except for the other lane.
So a near full weight 300whp car can 60 in the 1.5s but a lighter more powerful car can't do any better. That's what your saying all while trying to cover your *** here.
Thanks for making my point.
There is nothing is physics that says it can't be done.
I have been on record many times saying the rw was 3250 that day.......so a broken record you are.
Yea...the proof is the slip. The lies are what's trying to devalue the slip.
Strange how that works eehh.
Islander has it.
Yes i have posted it before. Besides....all the info to it is right above except for the other lane.
Do you agree that the faster you go the more power it takes to go faster? Have you bothered to look up NHRA and prostock times? How do you explain how they run in the 1.2x sixty times? Do you somehow have the same power to weight ratio for the 1st 60' as NHRA cars, but the rest of the 1/4 mile they make an additional several hundred HP more?
It really isn't that difficult, you're salty and cling to this number thats based on a timing error. If you ran a 9.0 1/4 mile that was a timing error, you'd cling to that number too. Hence the reason everyone says do it once and its a fluke, do it twice and its true/real.
01-22-2018, 11:26 AM
