big hammer

I didn't know you were the mod authoritah

JC316

iTrader: (1)

I have no doubt that hammers car, the youtube vid car, or yours ran the times. It's just that you and hammer like to fudge the numbers, or type/amount of mods.

It 100% invalidates his times when guys like you are using him as the gold standard for bolt on times.


Probability, experience and common sense is how I can call bullshit. Just like I can call bullshit on browns gas getting 100mpg. Power to weight ratio doesn't lie.

big hammer

Power to weight does lie

HioSSilver

iTrader: (8)

It's ok man......all you had to say is "Hio i don't know how you do it but you are the best"

Appearantly your experience and common sense is all that is bullshit.

JC316

iTrader: (1)

I'm not, but if you make a claim, back it up. You come off shady, but that is exactly what you want. You're a troll and an attention *****, I can respect that.

No it doesn't. Find me any other 3300lbs 4th gen with 340RWP that runs 11's@116 and I will take everything back.

You might want to look up narcissistic personality disorder and maybe talk to someone about it, cause you seem to have a lot of the symptoms.


I am straight up saying that those numbers can't be achieved with those mods and 200lbs of weight reduction. It's not about knowledge, it's about impossible. I can youtube race you all day long and prove my point.


Full exhaust, 3.73, stalled, suspension, tire, 340RWP 12.47@108

Full Exhaust, 3.90, Lid, 12.61@114

Lid, Cutout, 4.10, Tire, 12.9@110

LS6 intake, catback, stall, tire, 12.6@107


And the list goes on and on and on. So tell me oh wise one, how exactly did your friend run faster than all of these, and the countless more, with way fewer mods?

Nick.H

Maybe it would be helpful if instead of just calling each other stupid or liars, you made a well balanced argument. And explain why a car can/can't do what you say

Addressed to both parties

big hammer

Power to weight does lie because it's quite simply incomplete information

JC316

iTrader: (1)

Pretty sure that I have.

1. Lack of mods/weight reduction to achieve posted results.

2. Power to weight ratio makes it impossible to achieve posted results

3. Numerous examples of much more powerful and modded cars running much slower than the posted results.

Hio's argument

1. Free mods and stuff all LS1 cars run 110mph

2. Because no one else in the history of cars have achieved what I claim to, yall must be scrubs that don't know how to build a car right.

big hammer

Power to weight doesn't mean a lot.

JC316

iTrader: (1)

Of course there are other factors involved for the ET, but generally speaking the power to weight will define your trap speed.

If you're talking power to weight on say a Honda S2000 vs power to weight on an LS1 camaro, it's apples to oranges. Two completely different styles of engines with different torque curves and powerbands.

When you're talking about an LS1 Fbody to an LS1 fbody, it's very easy to get a baseline. Hence the youtube racing.

Call me crazy, but when someone claims that a near bone stock car runs a full second and 8MPH faster than other, more modified cars, it pegs my BS meter.

JD_AMG

*cough cough*
https://ls1tech.com/forums/11-second...1-113-5-a.html
https://ls1tech.com/forums/11-second...-ws6-11-s.html
https://ls1tech.com/forums/11-second...-11-831-a.html
https://ls1tech.com/forums/11-second...-internal.html
https://ls1tech.com/forums/11-second...-car-11-s.html

While 116mph trap is on the high side, the youtube videos you posted are a bigger joke than you are.
Whats next, comparing hp/l again?

Poppacapp

Hio tends to use major weight reduction, or small shots of nitrous to get those ET.traps

Poppacapp

No, it does not lie. There are many calculators online available. Those calculators use a formula to find the missing numbers to plug in. You have raceweight, trap speed over distance, and horsepower. You can find all 3 values with 2 known numbers. Yall are trying to disprove math..... can't be done.

Poppacapp

And all of those cars that make it a point to brag about this feat are generally shady modded like Hio/Nathan's car. 340rwhp at full stock weight will not get an 11sec run.

JD_AMG

Heres some major flaws in your argument.
You assume the car started at 3500lbs, there are some LS1 fbodies that weigh 3300lbs right out of the factory.
You assume the amount of power its making.
What you and many others always fail to find is others with the same mods as the cars that are in question. Not many go to the length as some do, and the (lack of)results will show that. Not many want to invest the time and money into making a bolt on car work really really well, they rather throw more mods at it and make more power, or setup the car as they see fit. A lot of guys pick through a jegs magazine for random shiny parts and build that way which will have lackluster results. Most guys are building cars their first time around with little/no experience and learning as they go and you will see them making mistakes that if they would do it all over they would be building the car different
So why don't we see more bolt on 11 second cars? Because people don't know any better. Look at the newbs, they immediately want the biggest cam they can run, forget about all drivetrain mods (so many guys think a stock stall or tiny stall is ok, or a stock clutch and hydraulics), run heavy wheels on narrow street tires and stock suspension on cheap lowering springs, heavy *** subs in the back, and the heaviest SFCs they can find.
They usually have a power goal in mind instead of ETs, thinking that will make them king of the streets.

Poppacapp

I can agree somewhat with you. ie.. someone pushing their car through the traps in 3rd gear with tire size vs it shifting to 4th(me) can net better ets... but the differences wouldn't be as vast as we are seeing. Bolt on LS fbodies average 340-360rwhp I assume? Either way, the formulas created to calulate values, hp, trap, weight etc are generally fairly accurate. You are not going to have one 340rwhp car run the average of others. ie. mid 12's... then out of the blue have one with the exact same hp run 11.8s. There HAS to be some variable different on the faster car. Thats just too big of a gap to justify.

NateLS1Mustang

iTrader: (2)

Wrong.

islander033

Proof?

HioSSilver

iTrader: (8)

Well appearantly I'm a troll that backs his **** up because i have proof of what i have either done or helped others do.........what have you done besides get on here and say what can't be done?


Those cars are all pretty bad examples. Why don't you search youtube for some good examples? I'm sure some popped up in your search and you just cherry pucked the bad ones.

My own car went 13.5@108 (like a 2.2x 60)in august heat. I did 2 mods and ran it again with like a 2.1~ and went 13.0@109. Free mods, udp and shitty mac headers w/ory and shitty spec clutch because i broke the oe clutch and it went 12.6 at nearly 113.....on the stock wheels, stock cat back, stock gear, stock tune, stock ls1 intake and no dr

Another a friend had i drove to 13.0@109 it had a cut out and lid only. Strange part on that run is i wasn't sure i had it in 4th si i pulled it out and stuck it back to make sure......that was my only run and it had a stock shifter so i wasn't used to it. Next run no doubt 12s.
I have been
Seems i have been done well with duplicating these outstanding results........maybe you just don't know what you think.

HioSSilver

iTrader: (8)

No nawz....or special fuels needed
To know tge math you have to know the variables to go along with the math. If you don't know those then yes your math is easily disproved.
Lol......it didn't even need suspension mods like you. ....or drag springs like you. Talk about shady. I remember you saying they're just lowering springs ll, talk about shady. You kniw all about it.

Reminder guys......poppa coined the term indirect weight reduction to cover up his own efforts