LS Build Disappointed
Staging Lane
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Lol it's like arguing with my 4 year old. He's right, everyone else in the world is wrong...and when he's proven wrong or presented with factual findings (which he doesn't quite understand yet) all he does is cover his ears and goes "nananananananana I can't hear you".
Carry on.
Carry on.
Staging Lane
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
I know, right? His trap speed is terrible but his actual time of 11.6 is very good. Must be the heads.
Staging Lane
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
11.6 is crap. Here's a car my buddy and i built in 1 week. 5.3 from a junkyard, 2.73 gears stock rear 7.5", stock suspension and 10 year old shocks. ET 10.9, ended up running a best of 10.6 with a plate instead of a nozzle, before it was sold.
Jr's camaro 5.3 10 sec pass - YouTube
Jr's camaro 5.3 10 sec pass - YouTube
Staging Lane
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
subeone:
Am I seeing right? Was that a late 90's model Camaro (like the OPs) running 10.9 (nothing like the OPs) at 123mph (like the OPs)? Haha. Oh boy. What have I been saying here all along..
Please list ALL your 1/4 mile stats here for people to see/learn.
Am I seeing right? Was that a late 90's model Camaro (like the OPs) running 10.9 (nothing like the OPs) at 123mph (like the OPs)? Haha. Oh boy. What have I been saying here all along..
Please list ALL your 1/4 mile stats here for people to see/learn.
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
10 LS Engine Myths That Refuse to Die
Verdad Gallardo
chevFTW: Don't get so worked up lol. You're absolutely right, op's ET is slow for his mph and with an optimized converter/suspension/tire/tune/launch could get into the 10s without touching the motor. The only thing I disagree with you on is where you said a tenth in the 60ft is worth almost a second in 1/4 ET. There isn't a chance in hell that going from a 1.59 to a 1.49 in the 60ft is going to get him nearly a second in the 1/4. On a high 10 to low 11 sec car, a tenth in the 60ft is going to drop your 1/4 ET by about 2 tenths tops on a clean pass. The faster the car, the smaller the gain. When my car ran mid 10's, .1 picked up in the 60ft was worth about .18-.21 in the 1/4 pretty consistently.
What others here are saying, is that a 122mph trap speed in a 3500lb car is a bit low in the peak HP department for a drag oriented 414ci LS engine unless he's racing in the rocky mountains. Trap speed vs weight is a direct indicator of HP to the ground. If his weight is in fact 3500, then he's only putting about 450hp to the tires, which sounds about right IMO based on the parts list. His heads/cam/compression selection are more oriented for a mid-range torque application that probably runs really well on the street and is fun to drive. To go "faster", OP needs more cam/compression and better flowing heads. To go "quicker", optimize the rest of the car for the power you've got. Good luck!
What others here are saying, is that a 122mph trap speed in a 3500lb car is a bit low in the peak HP department for a drag oriented 414ci LS engine unless he's racing in the rocky mountains. Trap speed vs weight is a direct indicator of HP to the ground. If his weight is in fact 3500, then he's only putting about 450hp to the tires, which sounds about right IMO based on the parts list. His heads/cam/compression selection are more oriented for a mid-range torque application that probably runs really well on the street and is fun to drive. To go "faster", OP needs more cam/compression and better flowing heads. To go "quicker", optimize the rest of the car for the power you've got. Good luck!
Wowsers...
ChevFTW... just yesterday you didn't know how take a simple voltage reading, yet today; you're giving advice like a world class racer.
Since when did a simple tenth of 60 foot gain nearly one full second on the big end? Do you comprehend how stupid that sounds?
.1 faster worth of 60 foot bring the elapsed time from 11.6 to 10.7
I am positive you are mistaking his AFR reading for his ET, which calls into question every piece of knowledge you attempted to bring to the table.
In actuality, his times are poor. Both ET and MPH. Poorly chosen parts.
ChevFTW... just yesterday you didn't know how take a simple voltage reading, yet today; you're giving advice like a world class racer.
Not sure why everyone's saying the heads and cam and a/f ratio are the problem when you hit 122mph. The power is there.
It seems your take off is hurting your time - big time. If your 60 ft time was just 0.1 of a second quicker, you would've ran a 10.7 (approx) according to an online 1/4mile calculator.
I've also had mates run high 10's with lower top speeds (same car weight).
Maybe heat up the tyres more next time before the run or lower the psi in them..
It seems your take off is hurting your time - big time. If your 60 ft time was just 0.1 of a second quicker, you would've ran a 10.7 (approx) according to an online 1/4mile calculator.
I've also had mates run high 10's with lower top speeds (same car weight).
Maybe heat up the tyres more next time before the run or lower the psi in them..
.1 faster worth of 60 foot bring the elapsed time from 11.6 to 10.7
I am positive you are mistaking his AFR reading for his ET, which calls into question every piece of knowledge you attempted to bring to the table.
Not sure why everyone's saying the heads and cam and a/f ratio are the problem when you hit 122mph. The power is there.
It seems your take off is hurting your time - big time. If your 60 ft time was just 0.1 of a second quicker, you would've ran a 10.7 (approx) according to an online 1/4mile calculator.
I've also had mates run high 10's with lower top speeds (same car weight).
Maybe heat up the tyres more next time before the run or lower the psi in them..
It seems your take off is hurting your time - big time. If your 60 ft time was just 0.1 of a second quicker, you would've ran a 10.7 (approx) according to an online 1/4mile calculator.
I've also had mates run high 10's with lower top speeds (same car weight).
Maybe heat up the tyres more next time before the run or lower the psi in them..
Hey guys I managed to get my car to the track after years of buiding and working out the kinks and am quite disappointed with the results and regretting the way i went with the engine build. With the specs below I ran a best of 11.6x 1/4 @ 122 7.3 1/8 with a 1.59 60 ft. I am just curious as if this is an ideal time for this setup. Specs below. I will admit the wideband was reading 10.8-11.0 afr at full throttle, not sure how much this would affect it.
Staging Lane
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
@Hi-Po: I'm no electrical wizard. But when it comes to performance / going fast, I know my sh*t. 2 different things, though at times can be related. I know how to take a "simple voltage reading" and I clearly know the difference between his A/F and ET and I have a LOT of common sense which some people here clearly don't have. You think because I wasn't 100% sure how to test my TPS volts and asked how to (after correctly listing how I was going to test it) to be 100% sure instead of 99% sure, that makes me some sort of 1/4 noob? Lol, okay. And you're lauging at me and saying I sound stupid hahaha.
@subeone: Yes, I understand 122mph isn't great for a worked 414ci. My point is, a 122mph trap is still good and his 1/4 TIME is very bad for a car with a 122mph trap speed and can't undertand why some people here are freaking out over his trap speed and telling him he needs more power (new heads/cam) when they should be freaking out over his time (launch). The main point of the quarter mile is to see what TIME your car will do, NOT what top speed your car can do in 400m.
Tell us your trap speed on that 10.9 second run and 60ft time. I am trying to get people to understand that the OP should be in the 10's. You would be helping me and the people doubting me, along with the OP if you list all your 1/4 mile details (from that youtube vid you showed).
You and the OP have pretty much identical cars and trap speeds, except your 1/4 mile ET = 0.7 seconds quicker.
And some of these smart individuals here still laugh at me when I tell them the OP can improve his time by 0.9 of a second hahahahahaha! Champagne comedy. I love this place.
The OP's car has a million and one non-engine-related problems and everyone is going on about the heads and cam lol.
@subeone: Yes, I understand 122mph isn't great for a worked 414ci. My point is, a 122mph trap is still good and his 1/4 TIME is very bad for a car with a 122mph trap speed and can't undertand why some people here are freaking out over his trap speed and telling him he needs more power (new heads/cam) when they should be freaking out over his time (launch). The main point of the quarter mile is to see what TIME your car will do, NOT what top speed your car can do in 400m.
Tell us your trap speed on that 10.9 second run and 60ft time. I am trying to get people to understand that the OP should be in the 10's. You would be helping me and the people doubting me, along with the OP if you list all your 1/4 mile details (from that youtube vid you showed).
You and the OP have pretty much identical cars and trap speeds, except your 1/4 mile ET = 0.7 seconds quicker.
And some of these smart individuals here still laugh at me when I tell them the OP can improve his time by 0.9 of a second hahahahahaha! Champagne comedy. I love this place.
The OP's car has a million and one non-engine-related problems and everyone is going on about the heads and cam lol.
Staging Lane
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Not sure why everyone's saying the heads and cam and a/f ratio are the problem when you hit 122mph. The power is there.
It seems your take off is hurting your time - big time. If your 60 ft time was just 0.1 of a second quicker, you would've ran a 10.7 (approx) according to an online 1/4mile calculator.
I've also had mates run high 10's with lower top speeds (same car weight).
Maybe heat up the tyres more next time before the run or lower the psi in them..
It seems your take off is hurting your time - big time. If your 60 ft time was just 0.1 of a second quicker, you would've ran a 10.7 (approx) according to an online 1/4mile calculator.
I've also had mates run high 10's with lower top speeds (same car weight).
Maybe heat up the tyres more next time before the run or lower the psi in them..
.1 off a 60 foot is now equal to .9 off ET
You sure you don't want to rethink that one? Maybe ask a different calculator?
Staging Lane
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
If the OP sorts out his issues, he will shave off 0.9 of a second.
If subeone ran a 10.9, I don't see why the OP can't (or even better it) with an "identical" car and trap speed.
Again, in case everyone missed it. The OP's car has a million issues which he doesn't seem to care about and would rather throw his money around on other things he doesn't need for some reason. I think he has "too much bloody money" and would rather buy new expensive shiny toys/things, then deal with his problems.
Staging Lane
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
From an LS1Tech thread
1.8 60 ft - end velocity is 45.5 MPH
1.7 60 ft - end velocity is 48.3 MPH (added by me. 1.7 time of OP's was missing)
1.6 60 ft - end velocity is 51.1 MPH
1.5 60 ft - end velocity is 54.5 MPH
1.4 60 ft - end velocity is 58.4 MPH
The above values are not going to be right due to the approximations used, but are close. And this is why drag racing is frequently won/lost in the 60 ft time.
"Hahaha you think 0.1 of a second in the 60ft makes that much of a difference? Dream on buddy" lol
From a Camaro5 thread
Member: SmokedSS
Pic of his time slip
60ft: 1.497
1/8: 6.980
1/4: 10.979
MPH: 122.61
Member: Rhino79
Pic of his time slips
60ft: 1.485
1/8: 6.92
1/4: 10.879
MPH: 124.35
Member: Mr.Nasty
Pic of his time slip
60ft: 1.511
1/8: 7.028
1/4: 10.911
MPH: 125.93
Member: Trackman
Pic of his time slip
60ft: 1.459
1/8: 6.606
1/4: 10.343
MPH: 129.23
Interesting..
All Camaro's
All a bit quicker off the line
All with similar trap speeds to the OP's
All doing 10's (like I said he should be doing)
+
In this thread
Member: subeone
Car: Camaro
60ft: ???
1/8: ???
1/4: 10.9
MPH: 123 (I believe)
BOOM
1.8 60 ft - end velocity is 45.5 MPH
1.7 60 ft - end velocity is 48.3 MPH (added by me. 1.7 time of OP's was missing)
1.6 60 ft - end velocity is 51.1 MPH
1.5 60 ft - end velocity is 54.5 MPH
1.4 60 ft - end velocity is 58.4 MPH
The above values are not going to be right due to the approximations used, but are close. And this is why drag racing is frequently won/lost in the 60 ft time.
"Hahaha you think 0.1 of a second in the 60ft makes that much of a difference? Dream on buddy" lol
From a Camaro5 thread
Member: SmokedSS
Pic of his time slip
60ft: 1.497
1/8: 6.980
1/4: 10.979
MPH: 122.61
Member: Rhino79
Pic of his time slips
60ft: 1.485
1/8: 6.92
1/4: 10.879
MPH: 124.35
Member: Mr.Nasty
Pic of his time slip
60ft: 1.511
1/8: 7.028
1/4: 10.911
MPH: 125.93
Member: Trackman
Pic of his time slip
60ft: 1.459
1/8: 6.606
1/4: 10.343
MPH: 129.23
Interesting..
All Camaro's
All a bit quicker off the line
All with similar trap speeds to the OP's
All doing 10's (like I said he should be doing)
+
In this thread
Member: subeone
Car: Camaro
60ft: ???
1/8: ???
1/4: 10.9
MPH: 123 (I believe)
BOOM
Staging Lane
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Just to be clear, when I wrote "(added by me. 1.7 time of OP's was missing)", I meant the OP of that other thread where I got that info from.
This OP (aaron) ran a 60ft time of 1.59 secs.
So when you look at all the numbers and info I've provided in this thread, I'm correct about everything. If he lowered his 60ft time by just 0.1 of second, he should/can be in the 10's. I said he can improve his ET by 0.9 of a second with a 0.1 of a sec quicker 60ft time (while the ignorant laughed) and I have proven it's possible, though 10.8 ET (-0.8s) seems to be the norm for his type of car/power/weight/grip...
Waiting for apologies from those who dissed me and wasted my time..
He should focus on sorting out his cars problems and improving his 60ft time...(wait for it, wait for it)..... by 0.1 of a second (w/o spending thousands on new heads and cam).
While I'm at it..
some more..
LS1Tech member: PewterZ28
2002 Camaro Z28 A3
Internally Stock: 11.76 @ 114.53 w/ 1.60 sixty foot
Cam Only: 10.857 @ 123.53 w/ 1.46 sixty foot
LS1Tech member: mrvedit
1981 Camaro Z28 - LS3 stroker - 10.94 @126mph
LS1Tech member: 82cetuner
2001 WS-6 546 RWHP 530RWTQ 10.84 @ 127 1.52 60ft
This OP (aaron) ran a 60ft time of 1.59 secs.
So when you look at all the numbers and info I've provided in this thread, I'm correct about everything. If he lowered his 60ft time by just 0.1 of second, he should/can be in the 10's. I said he can improve his ET by 0.9 of a second with a 0.1 of a sec quicker 60ft time (while the ignorant laughed) and I have proven it's possible, though 10.8 ET (-0.8s) seems to be the norm for his type of car/power/weight/grip...
Waiting for apologies from those who dissed me and wasted my time..
He should focus on sorting out his cars problems and improving his 60ft time...(wait for it, wait for it)..... by 0.1 of a second (w/o spending thousands on new heads and cam).
While I'm at it..
some more..
LS1Tech member: PewterZ28
2002 Camaro Z28 A3
Internally Stock: 11.76 @ 114.53 w/ 1.60 sixty foot
Cam Only: 10.857 @ 123.53 w/ 1.46 sixty foot
LS1Tech member: mrvedit
1981 Camaro Z28 - LS3 stroker - 10.94 @126mph
LS1Tech member: 82cetuner
2001 WS-6 546 RWHP 530RWTQ 10.84 @ 127 1.52 60ft
10 Second Club
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 3,427
Likes: 226
From: over dere
You can spend a few thousand on new heads and cam for an obviously choked out engine or you can spend a few thousand on bolt ons to fix what you already got.
Be interesting to see a dyno sheet of that hotrod
Be interesting to see a dyno sheet of that hotrod
