Anyone have any factory freaks?
07-20-2009, 11:45 AM
#21
12 Second Club
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Fairfield, Cali
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ran 12.8 at 108-109 ish.. M6 on street tires 18's all the way around.. SLP CAI, SLP Maff, and stock SLP Exhust. My highest trap speed was at 112mph.. Had the Car dyno on two different dynos.!! One is the dyna pack 4000 which had me at 342HP/350TQ.. The other was a Dynojet which had me at 335HP/349TQ.. You should of seen the GTO guys they were like what..
07-20-2009, 05:04 PM
#23
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: MD
Posts: 1,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
109 traps seem pretty strong to me, I would qualify this car as a "freak."
This thread needs more track times and less dyno numbers. An intake, exhaust, tune ls1 isn't making 360 rwhp, that's like 430 at the crank if you assume only 15 percent drivetrain loss which is BS. I had a dyno operator play with some settings and he printed out a 500rwhp dyno for my car, does that mean I have a freak too????
This thread needs more track times and less dyno numbers. An intake, exhaust, tune ls1 isn't making 360 rwhp, that's like 430 at the crank if you assume only 15 percent drivetrain loss which is BS. I had a dyno operator play with some settings and he printed out a 500rwhp dyno for my car, does that mean I have a freak too????
Now I'm making close to 400 on a mustang dyno with a small 224 cam.
07-22-2009, 08:13 PM
#26
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: DC Suburbs
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was going more off the fact of his ET was very good, due to his driving more so the decent mph. Either way, that is something be happy about. I think basing what a freak is off Track times doesn't really display how the car is a freak. There are a lot of factors including the driver that can influence the result. Dyno numbers tend to show better what kind of power and if the car is a freak or not. Just imo.
Why would he lie?
07-23-2009, 06:29 AM
#27
TECH Resident
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If every dyno read the same then I would trust dyno numbers but so many dynos are played with that I tend to disbelieve a lot of the numbers I hear. A crazy dyno may say that I make 380rwhp stock which means I should run 11s but the best day at the track ever with the best launch ever will not put a stock ls1 in the 11s. See what I'm getting at?
07-23-2009, 03:01 PM
#30
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: OHIO
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My 99 SS M6 had a BEST run of 13.3 @107 on a 2.0 60ft with stock tires and being ALL stock. My stock old 2000 WS6 M6 ran 13.1 @108 with Nittos and a cutout and SPEC stage 3 clutch.
I do know someone who claimed to have ran high 12s in his 2002 SS M6 with all stock power and complete suspension upgrades but I didn't personally see it. Maybe some of these claims are coming from tracks that are down south with VERY low sea-levels ans greaty track preps.
Last edited by 99monguse; 07-23-2009 at 03:10 PM.
07-23-2009, 05:00 PM
#31
I love seeing these! I know what my car runs now with a strong cam/heads...and I know what it did stock...powershifting all three shifts! I call BS on all the guys claiming these outrageous times and dyno #s.
My 99 SS M6 had a BEST run of 13.3 @107 on a 2.0 60ft with stock tires and being ALL stock. My stock old 2000 WS6 M6 ran 13.@108 with Nittos and a cutout and SPEC stage 3 clutch.
I do know someone who claimed to have ran high 12s in his 2002 SS M6 with all stock power and complete suspension upgrades but I didn't personally see it. Maybe some of these claims are coming from tracks that are down south with VERY low sea-levels ans greaty track preps.
My 99 SS M6 had a BEST run of 13.3 @107 on a 2.0 60ft with stock tires and being ALL stock. My stock old 2000 WS6 M6 ran 13.@108 with Nittos and a cutout and SPEC stage 3 clutch.
I do know someone who claimed to have ran high 12s in his 2002 SS M6 with all stock power and complete suspension upgrades but I didn't personally see it. Maybe some of these claims are coming from tracks that are down south with VERY low sea-levels ans greaty track preps.
07-23-2009, 05:32 PM
#32
TECH Regular
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instead of the theory of factory freaks,I believe the difference in 1/4 mile times you see between two identical cars has more to do with how well the vehicle has been maintained,driver skill,and weather.
07-23-2009, 07:04 PM
#33
On The Tree
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SE Florida
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What tires are you cutting 1.73 60'? With just cut-out and lid I was in the 12.90's on nittos w/ 1.9.. 60', if I could have ran a 1.73 60' I would have been a few tenths better on the far end.
07-23-2009, 08:11 PM
#36
400whp/395wtq in my car (ls6 heads/cam fast ud) on nittos with a 4k clutch dump the car bogged to a 1.82 and that's the best I've seen someone do with a stock gear.. 1.73 would be f'n impossible with a bone stock car and stock gears.
07-24-2009, 09:48 AM
#40
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: south jersey. again
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i ran consistent 13.5 at 108-9 all stock. i had lots of tire spin, i have not had it dynoed. as far as running different times and hp output, these cars are production cars not hand assembled that counts for the different times and power output. i have an 2002 ss with an m6 at the time i was running kuhmo tires which in my opinion suck. that was at atco speedway in south jersey. now im in florida and i havent been to the track yet. im still trying to find one close enough to me. plus the fact ill be a spectator for ahwile until my back heals from surgery.