NW Run what ya Brung List
10-10-2005, 06:14 AM
#63
10 Second Club
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Southern Maryland
Posts: 3,576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man I got bumped from 14 to 15 a few weeks back. Now i just got bumped to 16. I know I could hit the top 10 if I could get one more run in this year....it sucks to see your name drop on the list.............with the new mods I have now, I should have an 11 sec car. 
10-10-2005, 06:16 AM
#64
10 Second Club
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Southern Maryland
Posts: 3,576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by aja342
Us GTO guys seem to be filling out the bottem of the list.
10-10-2005, 06:17 AM
#65
10 Second Club
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Southern Maryland
Posts: 3,576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i don't think I've seen any GTO's running 12's ever. Not even in videos/mpegs! I know they are out there, I just haven't seen any. And the ones I have witness run the 1/4 run low 14's to high 13's............We got to get these beasts in the low 12's high 11's. 
10-10-2005, 08:43 AM
#67
10 Second Club
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Southern Maryland
Posts: 3,576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rotwiler
I did see some turbo GTO's running 11's, I think the video was on this forum.
10-10-2005, 02:04 PM
#69
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Kent, WA
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When comparing with the F-bods you have both significantly more weight (300-400#), plus you lose about 18% through the drivetrain vs. around 15% for a stock F-bod. The 2005 model is rated at 13.3 by car and driver, which is only a tenth or two more than the SS and WS6. The 2004 is about a half second slower. I haven't seen any stock 12's around here, but there are a bunch of time-slips and videos of 2005's running 12's at some of the faster tracks around the country.
10-10-2005, 04:11 PM
#70
10 Second Club
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Southern Maryland
Posts: 3,576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Crisisman
When comparing with the F-bods you have both significantly more weight (300-400#), plus you lose about 18% through the drivetrain vs. around 15% for a stock F-bod. The 2005 model is rated at 13.3 by car and driver, which is only a tenth or two more than the SS and WS6. The 2004 is about a half second slower. I haven't seen any stock 12's around here, but there are a bunch of time-slips and videos of 2005's running 12's at some of the faster tracks around the country.
I thought that video was kinda lame. How he was driving like that on those skimpy roads........Yeah we all get a little squirly every once in a while, but I try to keep as safe as I can. Call me crazy but I thought it was dumb. Nice car, but dumb driver..........DOn't get me wrong, the trubo setup on the car was freakin awesome, I just thought the giggling and crazy driving on those narrow roads with all those trees wasn't the smartest thing to do........JMO
10-10-2005, 11:09 PM
#73
FormerVendor
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,968
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 00Vette
I saw a vid of a turbo GTO but it wasn't running at the track. It was doing burnouts around the tiny streets of his neighborhood while he giggled. It was stupid.........
I'm now glad that I did not post more of the testing on video. 
Peter
10-11-2005, 12:05 AM
#74
Tech Addict
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: MLT
Posts: 3,755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looked like a blast to me. Keep posting em up. Personally, I boil the tires and laugh my *** off too, that's some of the best fun I have. I love doing it. To each their own. Though I can't do it at will, and for an eternity like that goat can! Those shots from the rear window were sweet. I'd do the same thing if I had a powerplant like that.
I love doing it. To each their own. Though I can't do it at will, and for an eternity like that goat can! Those shots from the rear window were sweet. I'd do the same thing if I had a powerplant like that.
10-11-2005, 03:25 AM
#75
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Kent, WA
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 00Vette
that is alot of drivetrain loss. Why is there so much?
As for the GTO vids from APS, keep them coming!
10-11-2005, 11:38 AM
#76
Actually from the research I have done the vette also has a 17/18% drivetrain loss. A f-body with less rated HP from factory will normally dyno higher than the C5 with higher HP rating. There is a thread on this in the vette section a while back. When figuring out math for hp gains, hp conversions and/or jet sizes, I have been using 17% for vettes and 15% for F-Body.
Robert
Robert
10-11-2005, 04:33 PM
#77
10 Second Club
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Southern Maryland
Posts: 3,576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting.................I did know that the corvette had more drivetrain loss than the F-body, however I didn't konw that the GTO had so much. I also didn't know that they had an IRS setup. Not ideal when drag racing.
To the APS crew, I wasn't aware that it was a test of the drivetrain! I still don't agree with that kind of driving around those areas. Thats why tracks are made isn't it?..........that and to legally have some fun.
I'm glad you posted up, its fun to see new videos, I just didn't think it was as safe as say.........going out to the middle of know where were the trees aren't so close they could read the speedo as you drive by.
JMO...
To the APS crew, I wasn't aware that it was a test of the drivetrain! I still don't agree with that kind of driving around those areas. Thats why tracks are made isn't it?..........that and to legally have some fun.
I'm glad you posted up, its fun to see new videos, I just didn't think it was as safe as say.........going out to the middle of know where were the trees aren't so close they could read the speedo as you drive by. JMO...
10-11-2005, 05:17 PM
#78
Originally Posted by Robert56
Actually from the research I have done the vette also has a 17/18% drivetrain loss. A f-body with less rated HP from factory will normally dyno higher than the C5 with higher HP rating. There is a thread on this in the vette section a while back. When figuring out math for hp gains, hp conversions and/or jet sizes, I have been using 17% for vettes and 15% for F-Body.
Robert
Robert
Ryan
10-11-2005, 06:33 PM
#79
10 Second Club
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Southern Maryland
Posts: 3,576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ryan K
Well, lets see, EXACT same engine yet GM Rates the F-body lower... Its all in sales my friend. The Vette and F-body cars have the same HP. I would say that the F-body actually has a better air intake system but the vette has a better exhaust sytem so its pretty much a draw in engine HP/TQ. Gm rated the F-body lower so it wouldn't upset the vette guys. Plain and Simple. The Vette does have more drive-train loss though, any time the rotation has to change direction, its a loss. CV joints/U-joints, Count those as the prime contributor. F-body 2, Vette 4, Easy math.
Ryan
Ryan
Just having some fun with you Ryan.
10-11-2005, 09:21 PM
#80
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: DFW
Posts: 1,284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ryan K
Well, lets see, EXACT same engine yet GM Rates the F-body lower... Its all in sales my friend. The Vette and F-body cars have the same HP. I would say that the F-body actually has a better air intake system but the vette has a better exhaust sytem so its pretty much a draw in engine HP/TQ. Gm rated the F-body lower so it wouldn't upset the vette guys. Plain and Simple. The Vette does have more drive-train loss though, any time the rotation has to change direction, its a loss. CV joints/U-joints, Count those as the prime contributor. F-body 2, Vette 4, Easy math.
Ryan
Ryan