New best!

[Camarorulz]

Went to the track tonight and I'm not too disappointed because I know the car has MUCH more in it. I'm running thin sidewall street radials with a high stall converter, so the '60s just weren't going to be there. I'm running the Comp GT2 cam as well for those of you who don't know. Top that off with a slick track and there you have it. Best run was the FIRST run:

R/T; .155 (don't care)
'60: 2.262
330: 6.172
1/8: 9.459
MPH: 74.52
1000: 12.328
1/4: 14.775
MPH: 92.09 (I don't think this is right: traps seemed to be reading slow)

Second best run: This would have been a damn good run with a decent '60:

R/T: .916
'60: 2.443
330: 6.366
1/8: 9.658
MPH: 74.52
1000: 12.529
1/4: 14.980
MPH: 91.80

The rest of the time was like playing slip 'n slide: one time they just got through mopping the track and I think I lined up right in some water. Needless to say that didn't go well. Another time I just decided to floor it after stalling at 3k, and I think I spun through at least the 330. By the time I got some decent practice in, it cooled off significantly and traction went to $hit. I ran a worst of 16.6 with like a 2.8 '60 LMAO. Drag radials are a MUST before the next trip. Any suggestions? I'm thinking MTs.

I don't think I saw anyone dead hook except for the guys with slicks. A bunch of guys with DRs had trouble hooking. The reason I did so well (comparatively) on the first run I think was because I was one of the first people there and they had just prepped the track.

[Shodown]

Re: New best!

MT's are good tires, but they are expensive and you really have to heat the hell out of them to get them to hook. You dont get that many miles out of them either.

I have heard nothing but good things about BFG DR's though. Im getting a set of them this summer. :rock:

[Shirl]

Re: New best!

Congrats on the new best. Get those 60 fts. down and it's low 14's for you. :) DR's should do the job as long as the track is is clean. BTW, do you have any tuning done to the car? I'm thinking you should even be in the high 13's. (It looks like you have a lot of work done to the car so far.)

[dmw319]

Re: New best!

i agree with the 60 ft comment by shirl. when i was NA i ran 14.8 with a 2.1 60ft. your car has better times in it i bet you. either way, nice new best!

[airattack111]

Re: New best!

i agree with the 60 ft comment by shirl. when i was NA i ran 14.8 with a 2.1 60ft. your car has better times in it i bet you. either way, nice new best!

I think the DA where he races isn't to great.

[Camarorulz]

Re: New best!

Shirl, my car is dynotuned. It made 201 rwhp and 230 rwtq. It definitely should run low-14s with a good '60, but I dunno about high-13s. I don't want to be too optimistic.

Thanks for the responses, I'll be getting DRs asap and post some new times. You're definitely right about it having more in it.

airattack, I think you're right about the DA but to be honest I don't really understand that much.

[dmw319]

Re: New best!

whats the name of the track you went to?

[Camarorulz]

Re: New best!

I go to Thunder Valley Raceway in Noble, near Norman.

On March 3 the minimum and maximum relative humidity numbers in Norman were 62% and 54%, respectively.

As of 7pm on March 3, the DA in Noble was 197 feet according to a calculator I used. This is my data input:

Altitude: 1194 ft
Temp:42 fahrenheit
Altimeter: 30.08 inches Hg
Dewpoint: 14 degrees F

These conditions are very similar to those when I ran my car.

I know all the data, now what does it mean? :)

[airattack111]

Re: New best!

Hmm, that sounds like a pretty good DA to me?

[Greg94Red392]

Re: New best!

I dont think you'll be running 13 anything with 201rwhp.

[Camarorulz]

Re: New best!

I dont think you'll be running 13 anything with 201rwhp.

HAHAHAHAHA...........now it's on. :rolleyes:

We'll see what it'll do with some DRs. I don't even have LCAs, so that's next.

[FloydSummerOf68]

Re: New best!

MT's are good tires, but they are expensive and you really have to heat the hell out of them to get them to hook. You dont get that many miles out of them either.

I have heard nothing but good things about BFG DR's though. Im getting a set of them this summer. :rock:

MT's are LIGHTYEARS better than BFGs and you do NOT need to heat them up a lot. A 5 second burnout should be all you need at most.

Also, what are the supporting mods? 200rwhp for a cammed car is weak sauce.

Get yourself drag radials and a converter next...I'd go 4000 if you plan to stay n/a and you'll be seeing low 14s very easily.

[Camarorulz]

Re: New best!

If you had read the first post, I mentioned I already have a high-stall converter, and to be perfectly honest I think 4000 is WAY too high for a car that I drive every day. I don't plan to stay NA anyway...

As for the RWHP being "weaksauce" I don't really agree. Going by dyno numbers is just not a good way to judge a car's capabilites. That's not just coming from me, but from someone who has been racing/tuning/building cars for many years. Dyno numbers should really be used for tuning, before and after purposes only. They're not really an accurate gauge of a car's capability. A high stall converter will sap numbers on the dyno but take boatloads off track times. With decent traction it should hit low-14s. That's not "weaksauce" by any means. Air conditions affect dyno numbers, just as they do track times. Different dynos make different readings (even if you're comparing two Mustang dynos or two Dynojets, chances are they will read differently.)

As for supporting mods, I have 3.42s, exhaust, and as mentioned, a converter. LCAs and an aluminum driveshaft are in my plans as well as the DRs.

I think I'm to the point where i'm not even going to post any new times on here unless they're something I'm REALLY damn proud of, because that seems to be the only thing anyone does anyway.

[FloydSummerOf68]

Re: New best!

You're preaching to the choir man :P

I hate dyno numbers being posted as a form of a cars capability and I always say that its a means of tuning. I JUST made a post on digitalcorvettes.com saying just that...dynos are for tuning and tracks are for testing.
The fact that you have a converter makes it totally understandable that you only put down 200rwhp with a cam.

Get some drag radials and you should pull off about 6 tenths of a second pretty easily with a good 1.8-1.9 60'.

And 4000 is not too big for a daily driver, but if you want to do a power adder it'll end up being too loose.

Good luck with your build...I love seeing other cam guys running. Maybe someday I'll get some competition for my cam-only record ;)

I'm still concerned with your trap though...its quite low. I trap 97-100mph in my cammed auto. What is the DA that you are running at?

[Camarorulz]

Re: New best!

Dude, I dunno about the trap, because if you really break down the slip it just doesn't work.

1) I have a *mediocre* '60 AT BEST
2) It still ran 14.7
3) With a good '60 it would've been a low-14.
4) So how could it run 14.7 with a mediocre '60 and still trap low? In order to get that et with that mph it seems like I would have a bolton car with a DAMN good '60, not a cammed car with a bad one.

I don't know if I'm really getting across what I'm meaning to say. It just seems like with that '60 I would be trapping HIGH to run 14.7, not low, assuming the car has low-14s in it, which I'm 99% sure it does.

I think their traps don't read right or something, but whatever. I was trapping 86 mph out there consistently before, now I'm trapping about 92 consistently, so that's a 6mph avg increase. You're right though, it does seem very low. I thought the traps were low before, too. I calculated the DA on the first page in one of my posts.

I'm kicking around going up to Tulsa to run it next time, it's a better track from what I've heard.