Dyno Queens in here :)
10-09-2002, 07:16 PM
#61
Re: Dyno Queens in here :) What about 60-100 times? 100-150, top speed? Alot of built LS1's, especially h/c cars, dyno high hp, but lower tq. Maybe they don't run 10's, but how do they pull on the highway? There is more to real world testing a dyno # than one quarter of a mile.
10-09-2002, 07:35 PM
#62
Formerly 4mulaJoe
Thread Starter
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: hou
Posts: 2,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Dyno Queens in here :) </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by TXCAMSS:
<strong>I think I know where you were trying to go with this thread Joe and I to had been wanted to get a guestimated comparison of RWHP/ ET results. I personally don't get off to dyno numbers, in fact I have only dyno'd once and I wasn't impressed I guess because I didn't have before and after comparison. I was however impressed with the results SOTP (Buttometer). I see guys cranking out 440-460 "peak" RWHP that can't hang anywhere near the tail lights of my wife in her Grocery getting, school bus , work driven SS. My point being, I am like ol' Joe . It's nice to get an across the board view of about what a given vehicle with appx 400-420 RWHP might run at a given weight. Yeah, it's a guess that has alot of variables, but we can always add or subtract to get a ball park idea. This thing got stirred up pretty good over a simple statement. I think we all need to have a "group hug".lol.
Joe- It's faster than you think or will be. You have the driving down, the traction and ideal track. All we need now is good cool dry air. I think about -1800 DA ought to do it.lol Good luck.
BTW- You would have smoked our butt bad. You know what I mean.Take care.
James</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">TXCAMSS has the right idea. I just wanted to straight numbers. As much info as possible. For those with a bunch of excuses, you need just wait untill you have a time your happy with to post it. It looks VERY LAME to post a time then make a shitload of excuses about why it isn't as fast as you'd like. Either way, there is some good info in this post if you sort through all the trash talking.
<strong>I think I know where you were trying to go with this thread Joe and I to had been wanted to get a guestimated comparison of RWHP/ ET results. I personally don't get off to dyno numbers, in fact I have only dyno'd once and I wasn't impressed I guess because I didn't have before and after comparison. I was however impressed with the results SOTP (Buttometer). I see guys cranking out 440-460 "peak" RWHP that can't hang anywhere near the tail lights of my wife in her Grocery getting, school bus , work driven SS. My point being, I am like ol' Joe . It's nice to get an across the board view of about what a given vehicle with appx 400-420 RWHP might run at a given weight. Yeah, it's a guess that has alot of variables, but we can always add or subtract to get a ball park idea. This thing got stirred up pretty good over a simple statement. I think we all need to have a "group hug".lol.
Joe- It's faster than you think or will be. You have the driving down, the traction and ideal track. All we need now is good cool dry air. I think about -1800 DA ought to do it.lol Good luck.
BTW- You would have smoked our butt bad. You know what I mean.Take care.
James</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">TXCAMSS has the right idea. I just wanted to straight numbers. As much info as possible. For those with a bunch of excuses, you need just wait untill you have a time your happy with to post it. It looks VERY LAME to post a time then make a shitload of excuses about why it isn't as fast as you'd like. Either way, there is some good info in this post if you sort through all the trash talking.
10-09-2002, 07:37 PM
#63
LS1Tech Co-Founder
iTrader: (34)
Re: Dyno Queens in here :) 11 Bravo, mph #'s from the track hold some value, if we assume most folks can drive fairly well. a 12.5@121mph car will run 11.4@120mph with slicks... the mph numbers will carry thru to a large extent.
10-09-2002, 07:52 PM
#64
TECH Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Dyno Queens in here :) You are going to need more than 120mph to run tens in a six speed F-bod without having a SMOKING FAST sixty foot and lightning fast shifting.
I think around 123-124mph will get you tens on a high 1.4 low 1.5 sixty and great driving with a 3400-3500 raceweight 6speed car.
Just my opinion of course <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> I wish someone could prove me wrong.
Cheers,
Chris
<small>[ October 09, 2002, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: Chris ARE 360 ]</small>
I think around 123-124mph will get you tens on a high 1.4 low 1.5 sixty and great driving with a 3400-3500 raceweight 6speed car.
Just my opinion of course <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> I wish someone could prove me wrong.
Cheers,
Chris
<small>[ October 09, 2002, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: Chris ARE 360 ]</small>
10-09-2002, 08:15 PM
#65
Re: Dyno Queens in here :) </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Pro Stock John:
<strong>11 Bravo, mph #'s from the track hold some value, if we assume most folks can drive fairly well. a 12.5@121mph car will run 11.4@120mph with slicks... the mph numbers will carry thru to a large extent.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Don't get me wrong, I know mph on the track can help show the true hp. And 1/4 racing is cool. But what better test of hp than a top end run? My 330 hp LS1 with a 3800 stall could *probably* beat a 360 hp M6 in the 1/4, all things being equal. For instance, the 600+hp Supras that run high 11's. High dyno #'s, weak track times. Their tq #'s aren't as high. We all know what they can do on the highway. They are no joke there. The Colonel ran 11.5 w/ 316 hp (!). Awesome. But, what would be the outcome of a race with a 400hp LS1 at on the interstate? That's all I'm getting at. Guess it depends on how you set up your car.
<small>[ October 09, 2002, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: 11 Bravo ]</small>
<strong>11 Bravo, mph #'s from the track hold some value, if we assume most folks can drive fairly well. a 12.5@121mph car will run 11.4@120mph with slicks... the mph numbers will carry thru to a large extent.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Don't get me wrong, I know mph on the track can help show the true hp. And 1/4 racing is cool. But what better test of hp than a top end run? My 330 hp LS1 with a 3800 stall could *probably* beat a 360 hp M6 in the 1/4, all things being equal. For instance, the 600+hp Supras that run high 11's. High dyno #'s, weak track times. Their tq #'s aren't as high. We all know what they can do on the highway. They are no joke there. The Colonel ran 11.5 w/ 316 hp (!). Awesome. But, what would be the outcome of a race with a 400hp LS1 at on the interstate? That's all I'm getting at. Guess it depends on how you set up your car.
<small>[ October 09, 2002, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: 11 Bravo ]</small>
10-09-2002, 09:06 PM
#66
D(irecto)r Pepper
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Houston Raceway Park...in TEXAS.
Posts: 1,952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Dyno Queens in here :) </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by badls1:
<strong>Raughammer you got the MTI stuff right. Well everyone knows MTI rocks. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
I ve always like their stuff and everything. Most of my stuff cam thru them.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Me too man, me too. I could'nt be happier.
p.s., James Day, good to see ya posting. Pretty happy with the new set up?
JC
<strong>Raughammer you got the MTI stuff right. Well everyone knows MTI rocks. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
I ve always like their stuff and everything. Most of my stuff cam thru them.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Me too man, me too. I could'nt be happier.
p.s., James Day, good to see ya posting. Pretty happy with the new set up?
JC
10-09-2002, 09:33 PM
#67
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Objects in mirror no longer matter.
Posts: 1,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Dyno Queens in here :) </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by RAGEman:
<strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Don't think for one minute that I didn't already know you could do that. I said "an easy, simple way," and I don't consider that easy. Not easy enough for everyone to start doing it, at least. The point is that area under the horsepower curve is a much more revealing measurement than just peak numbers.</strong>[/QUOTE]
If averaging a few numbers in a spreadsheet is too hard for you, then stop saying "the area under the curve is a much better bla bla bla". Since its area under a curve that matters for a given powerband, the easiest direct comparison between two setups is to overlay the graphs if possible. Since you can save dynojet files and email them, I don't see comparing two dynos directly as being hard at all.
<strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Don't think for one minute that I didn't already know you could do that. I said "an easy, simple way," and I don't consider that easy. Not easy enough for everyone to start doing it, at least. The point is that area under the horsepower curve is a much more revealing measurement than just peak numbers.</strong>[/QUOTE]
If averaging a few numbers in a spreadsheet is too hard for you, then stop saying "the area under the curve is a much better bla bla bla". Since its area under a curve that matters for a given powerband, the easiest direct comparison between two setups is to overlay the graphs if possible. Since you can save dynojet files and email them, I don't see comparing two dynos directly as being hard at all.
10-09-2002, 09:37 PM
#68
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Objects in mirror no longer matter.
Posts: 1,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Dyno Queens in here :) </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by 11 Bravo:
<strong>For instance, the 600+hp Supras that run high 11's. High dyno #'s, weak track times. Their tq #'s aren't as high. We all know what they can do on the highway. They are no joke there. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually the single turbo supras make way more tq than any all motor LS1 out there. It takes torque to make horsepower unless you are turning some crazy rpms, and supras wont shift past 7 grand on stock cams. These 500+ rwtq supras arent running quick times because the acceleration down the quarter is directly related to the applied power. Laggy turbo setups spool violently and break traction with ease, so its very hard to hook up and get a smooth launch with a supra. However, once they hookup they fly.
<strong>For instance, the 600+hp Supras that run high 11's. High dyno #'s, weak track times. Their tq #'s aren't as high. We all know what they can do on the highway. They are no joke there. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually the single turbo supras make way more tq than any all motor LS1 out there. It takes torque to make horsepower unless you are turning some crazy rpms, and supras wont shift past 7 grand on stock cams. These 500+ rwtq supras arent running quick times because the acceleration down the quarter is directly related to the applied power. Laggy turbo setups spool violently and break traction with ease, so its very hard to hook up and get a smooth launch with a supra. However, once they hookup they fly.
10-09-2002, 09:50 PM
#69
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Cali
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Dyno Queens in here :) </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Colonel:
<strong>"its 360rwhp and running 11.5 its possible if you had a car that weights in around 2500lbs."
What's so hard to believe about that? I ran 11.56@115.54 MPH with 316 RWHP. The raceweight was 3285. It's not about how much power you make but how you put it to the ground.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If thats the case how much power are you making on the wheels and what is your times with that power. I am just trying to see how much better you got with the diffrent horsepower numbers.
<strong>"its 360rwhp and running 11.5 its possible if you had a car that weights in around 2500lbs."
What's so hard to believe about that? I ran 11.56@115.54 MPH with 316 RWHP. The raceweight was 3285. It's not about how much power you make but how you put it to the ground.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If thats the case how much power are you making on the wheels and what is your times with that power. I am just trying to see how much better you got with the diffrent horsepower numbers.
10-09-2002, 10:19 PM
#70
TECH Resident
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Dyno Queens in here :) </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Fenris Ulf:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by RAGEman:
<strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Don't think for one minute that I didn't already know you could do that. I said "an easy, simple way," and I don't consider that easy. Not easy enough for everyone to start doing it, at least. The point is that area under the horsepower curve is a much more revealing measurement than just peak numbers.</strong>
If averaging a few numbers in a spreadsheet is too hard for you, then stop saying "the area under the curve is a much better bla bla bla". Since its area under a curve that matters for a given powerband, the easiest direct comparison between two setups is to overlay the graphs if possible. Since you can save dynojet files and email them, I don't see comparing two dynos directly as being hard at all.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I didn't say it was too hard, I said I didn't consider it easy. In fact, if you would learn to read, you'd see that I also said that it wasn't easy enough for everyone to start doing it. I never mentioned it being at all difficult for me, personally. It's not going to do any good for one person to start doing it if no one else does it. So, I will continue to say whatever I darn well please, and your commands will continue to have no effect on me. That said, you're right about comparing graphs. But, I was talking about using a single number (like peak HP), and was explaining why a single area-under-the-curve measurement would be a better figure to compare to others'. Either way (figuring area for some RPM range or comparing graphs) for SURE beats just comparing peak HP numbers, which was my point.
<small>[ October 09, 2002, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: RAGEman ]</small>
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by RAGEman:
<strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Don't think for one minute that I didn't already know you could do that. I said "an easy, simple way," and I don't consider that easy. Not easy enough for everyone to start doing it, at least. The point is that area under the horsepower curve is a much more revealing measurement than just peak numbers.</strong>
If averaging a few numbers in a spreadsheet is too hard for you, then stop saying "the area under the curve is a much better bla bla bla". Since its area under a curve that matters for a given powerband, the easiest direct comparison between two setups is to overlay the graphs if possible. Since you can save dynojet files and email them, I don't see comparing two dynos directly as being hard at all.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I didn't say it was too hard, I said I didn't consider it easy. In fact, if you would learn to read, you'd see that I also said that it wasn't easy enough for everyone to start doing it. I never mentioned it being at all difficult for me, personally. It's not going to do any good for one person to start doing it if no one else does it. So, I will continue to say whatever I darn well please, and your commands will continue to have no effect on me. That said, you're right about comparing graphs. But, I was talking about using a single number (like peak HP), and was explaining why a single area-under-the-curve measurement would be a better figure to compare to others'. Either way (figuring area for some RPM range or comparing graphs) for SURE beats just comparing peak HP numbers, which was my point.
<small>[ October 09, 2002, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: RAGEman ]</small>
10-09-2002, 11:28 PM
#71
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Dyno Queens in here :) With my old setup Heads 215/221 cam L-tubes etc. (very cheap setup from IRS, very good).
Car: Camaro SS (M6)
Lunching at: idle
Gears: Stock (3.42)
Tires: Nitto Drag radials
Weight: Stock (I have no idea what it is)
RWHP: 393
RWTQ: 38x
1/4: 12.4x @ 117
New setup in my sig, but no track times yet! I want it to get cooler first!
Car: Camaro SS (M6)
Lunching at: idle
Gears: Stock (3.42)
Tires: Nitto Drag radials
Weight: Stock (I have no idea what it is)
RWHP: 393
RWTQ: 38x
1/4: 12.4x @ 117
New setup in my sig, but no track times yet! I want it to get cooler first!
10-10-2002, 12:05 AM
#73
TECH Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Dyno Queens in here :) </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Chris ARE 360:
<strong>JmX that is silly.
I have seen dyno differences of 15RWHP on the same car within a couple of days on the same dyno. (Just due to weather changes nothing else and that is corrected!)
ET/mph when given with raceweight, DA and wind, gearing, tranny type is a MUCH more accurate way of telling if a combo is making good power.
I wont even get into the discrepancies of comparing between different dynos LOL!
Chris</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I will continue to disagree. 15rwhp, big deal. thats like 0.15 second on an ET or 1.5mph. I see cars dyno 20rwhp different too on dynos. Hrm, that kinda fits in with my 5% figure doesnt it? Just like I could drive to HRP tomorrow and shave off 2 tenths and gain 2mph over my local track.
Give me a 10 second fbody, put normal tires, stock gears back in, full interior back in, and let me launch it straight off idle AT MY TRACK and I'll guaruntee I'll run a low 12 every time.
Hey look, its a 10 second car running consistant
12's. You ever see a 400rwhp car dyno consistant 300's? Nope.
<strong>JmX that is silly.
I have seen dyno differences of 15RWHP on the same car within a couple of days on the same dyno. (Just due to weather changes nothing else and that is corrected!)
ET/mph when given with raceweight, DA and wind, gearing, tranny type is a MUCH more accurate way of telling if a combo is making good power.
I wont even get into the discrepancies of comparing between different dynos LOL!
Chris</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I will continue to disagree. 15rwhp, big deal. thats like 0.15 second on an ET or 1.5mph. I see cars dyno 20rwhp different too on dynos. Hrm, that kinda fits in with my 5% figure doesnt it? Just like I could drive to HRP tomorrow and shave off 2 tenths and gain 2mph over my local track.
Give me a 10 second fbody, put normal tires, stock gears back in, full interior back in, and let me launch it straight off idle AT MY TRACK and I'll guaruntee I'll run a low 12 every time.
Hey look, its a 10 second car running consistant
12's. You ever see a 400rwhp car dyno consistant 300's? Nope.
10-10-2002, 12:12 AM
#74
Re: Dyno Queens in here :) John I think your - 800 is alittle off
U posted THIS INFO Raughammer 10.663 124.020 1.38 3200 (-1569) 98 Z28 Y Y Y N/A 346 A4 Yank Thruster Pro 4400
Little better air than -800 <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />
Terrys also correct,the BEST u ran on a STOCK shortblock was 10.80's.
Just keepin it real.....
JS
<small>[ October 09, 2002, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: JS ]</small>
U posted THIS INFO Raughammer 10.663 124.020 1.38 3200 (-1569) 98 Z28 Y Y Y N/A 346 A4 Yank Thruster Pro 4400
Little better air than -800 <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />
Terrys also correct,the BEST u ran on a STOCK shortblock was 10.80's.
Just keepin it real.....
JS
<small>[ October 09, 2002, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: JS ]</small>
10-10-2002, 12:14 AM
#75
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Simi Valley, CA
Posts: 4,712
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Dyno Queens in here :) Take it from a guy who knows how to run good ETs, dyno numbers are the best way to compare combos on the Internet.
..but always remember just because you dyno well doesn't mean you have a quick car. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />
..but always remember just because you dyno well doesn't mean you have a quick car. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />
10-10-2002, 12:14 AM
#76
10 Second Club
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kansas City, KS
Posts: 2,893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Dyno Queens in here :) 11.700@118.7 hiting the limiter in 2nd and grinding the crap out of it then hitting the limiter in 3rd about 100 before the traps.
456 rwhp 435 rwtp, untuned.
stock 3.42 10 bolt.
456 rwhp 435 rwtp, untuned.
stock 3.42 10 bolt.
10-10-2002, 12:43 AM
#77
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Cali
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Dyno Queens in here :) Hey Terry for those stock F-bodies running 12.5's are they on street tire? I dont think so. Plus man you realy like to work your mouth alot. If you read correctly I said it it spun all the way to 3rd gear. you know what will be funny seeing you run on street tires. hey terry lets do this I ll bring you set of wheels with street tires, put them on and lets run. Oh did i mention I have broken ring gear. But i dont care i ll still be over with a broken rear end, shove the number in your face. what do you think. street tirs vs street tires, unless you could get me 12 bolt and pair of slicks. i dont like people who back out. So whats up?
10-10-2002, 12:58 AM
#78
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Simi Valley, CA
Posts: 4,712
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Dyno Queens in here :) I can understand why you're afraid to put slicks on your car, when you do that and STILL run 12s you'll be forced to accept how slow your car is. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />
My rear end is making a lot of noise too, how about I bring a set of slicks for you? We can run for $200 or something to make it worth the trouble. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />
My rear end is making a lot of noise too, how about I bring a set of slicks for you? We can run for $200 or something to make it worth the trouble. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />
10-10-2002, 10:04 AM
#79
LS1Tech Co-Founder
iTrader: (34)
Re: Dyno Queens in here :) 11Bravo, I don't what the formula is for measuring rwhp by doing a top end run.
But I do know that there are like 5 different drag calculations you can use to figure out power based on a 1/4 mile pass.
Col's 11.5 was done with significant weight reduction you need to factor that stuff in. My M6 examples were all around 3500-3600 raceweight.
And an average weight M6 will need about 124mph to hit 10's for sure, maybe 125.
But I do know that there are like 5 different drag calculations you can use to figure out power based on a 1/4 mile pass.
Col's 11.5 was done with significant weight reduction you need to factor that stuff in. My M6 examples were all around 3500-3600 raceweight.
And an average weight M6 will need about 124mph to hit 10's for sure, maybe 125.
