Welcome to the FirebirdV6.com/CamaroV6.com forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Magnus: 6 out of 138 3.8s on the timeslips page are in the 16's.
I don't consider that many.
Unless you are racing in crap air, your 3.8 should be in the 15's at least or it has problems.<hr></blockquote>
here we go again.....
-first off the timeslip page 99% of them are modded.
-Second Ever think since everyone says 3.8Ls are in 16s are bad drivers or peice of crap cars that maybe the people will not post there times?
-third, I have raced plenty of plenty of cars at the track with 3.8Ls.
and yes they were good running, granted mostly stock and usually autos w/3.08s
Also people not fully practice drag racers too.
But the average driver, in a 3.8L v6 is a high 15 low 16...
-I raced on a consistant basis with a friend who is consistant low 16s, he is near stock though... Cutout and intake.
-My old roomate only pulled a best of a 16.6 our of his 99 v6, but he was an idiot.
-Raced someone in a low mileage bone stock gold 98+ Firebird, auto, ran 16.3s
MY FRIST TIEM OUT IN MY CURRENT 3.8L I ONLY HIT 15s ONCE! ALL RUNS WERE IN THE 16S.
And at the time I had a good 200+ passes in my 3.4L so I was not inexperienced to the track.
The average driver in the average 3.8L runs high 15s, low 16s...
you go on the same timeslip page you were looking at
-7 of them are in 16s
-9 of them ran 15.9s(which likely means they run consistant 16s
-3 more runnin slower then 15.85X, I would think it is likly those guys run consistant 16s(remeber the timeslip page is someone's fastest run not consistant runs)
That is 16 that are probably running low 16s, and maybe 19 of them are runing low 16s.
And you are forgetting all the people you shun off and our embarrassed to say they run anything but a 16, because of peopel like you...
Ever since I hit 14s with very minimal mods I ahve gotten IMs left and right askign me how I did it and they are stuck in the 16s, there slips not posted.
When do you go to the track? Do you go to private invite events only or something, I mean in your picture had you running low 11s, did you have a cage? without a helmet and running against a bike... Something my track woudl never do, and my track is known for being crapy with safety(drunk rednecks everywhere, racing, practicing launches in the staging lanes, heating nitrous bottles with a blow torch, crazy rotaries not runing scatter shields)
But they still do not allow you to run 11s without a helemt, maybe you can sneak by in the street lanes(14.0+ cars, but those are usually only 13 second cars)
If you are in the fast lane (13.99 or faster) thats when they check helmets but are pretty lax about guages.
they used to be even more lax until Steve Grebeck died becasue he lost contorl because they were still letting people run 200+mph 1/4s in a 45 mph headwhind with sand being blown on the track, then not have the safety equipement to cut him out of the car, had to borrow tools from people's trailers.
With this makes me think you go to track rental or private rentals or something.
I go to the track when there are 200-400 cars there and I find a v6 f-body and track it down and find out what it runs to see if I can get some runs against it if were are close.
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by cammed3800: you have a 3.8 and dont think you could hit a 16second time? thats one beat car<hr></blockquote>
If this was posted towards me, yes, my 96 Camaro would only hit low 16's the best I ever got was like a 16.05 or something like that. The only mods that was on that car was a K&N air filter and a flowmaster muffler. So, that car was pretty much stock. What you are not taking into consideration is the elevation that I drag at. Elevation has a lot to do with peoples drag times along with the temperature and humidity. All of this effect peoples 1/4 times. For a pretty much stock 3.8, I think my 96 Camaro did great for the 1/4 dragging at Bristol Dragway. Plus Bristol Dragway has a 3% incline. So your dragging up a 3% incline. Doesn't sound like much, but hey I'm sure it hurts the time a little. Bristols elevation, I know around 2000 ft above sea level, I'll have to go look again. As for my 2000 Camaro, the best so far is a 15.7, but I have not went drag racing since I've added the 1.8 SLP rockers, CIA Headers, 3" American Thunder Cat Back system. I think that'z it I can't remember if I've done anything else or not since the last time I went drag racing. Ohh well, but I guess my point is, everyone on this board lives in different areas. And when wanting to compare 1/4 times you need to look at the elevation at least and also the weather. Then you would get a much closer comparison between the cars on here. ;)
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by cassie: here's a question:
3.4L camaro M5
vs
3.8L camaro A4
who would win?<hr></blockquote>
3.8L easy... Well driven 3.4L in my opinion is a good mid 16 second car. I pulled a 16.8s in mine when it was pretty much stock(single outlet flowmaster)
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MustangEater8251:
3.8L easy... Well driven 3.4L in my opinion is a good mid 16 second car. I pulled a 16.8s in mine when it was pretty much stock(single outlet flowmaster)
3.8L a4 with 3.08s is a high 15, low 16 car.<hr></blockquote>
My thoughts exactly.....but there's a certain member on this board that is convinced that it is the other way of wrong. I guess in his 16 years of existence he was able to infer this.
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by cassie:
My thoughts exactly.....but there's a certain member on this board that is convinced that it is the other way of wrong. I guess in his 16 years of existence he was able to infer this.<hr></blockquote>
there is still a difference in hp/torque
It can be made up with some driving, mods but stock for stock, nope [img]smile.gif[/img]
my car bone stock only ran a 16.05, but that was at a crap track AND i only went once when it was bone stock, now at the same track modded my best is a 15.50, and its capable of 15.3's w/the drag radials if i had a good clutch but thats a whole different story...
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by WickEdSix9838: manuals are way more fun but auto's rule teh drag strip...get one w/a big stall and sticky tires and it'll outrun a manual<hr></blockquote>
Apples to oranges,
Typical automatic fan argument. :rolleyes: You're comparing an auto with an aftermarket stall converter, most likely a shift kit, and slicks to a stock manual? Of course the auto will win. Duh.
Compare apples to apples. Compare an auto with a converter, shift kit, and slicks vs. a manual with a high performance clutch, short throw shifter, and slicks.
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by WickEdSix9838: autos are also way easier on the rear ends and motors because you dont have the sudden jerk you get w/a manual off the line...<hr></blockquote>
Yeah, that jerk is called a hard launch. With a good driver that means you will launch harder than an auto with a high stall converter.
Our Timeslips Page happens to have a lot of auto owners at the top... because not that many manual owners have modified-to-the-teeth cars. That does not mean they are slower. Look at LS1 numbers, 6-speed vs. auto. There are plenty of 6-speed owners out there that run 1.6 60' all day long.
Manuals are lighter, cheaper, more reliable, produce more horsepower, give you better mileage, and give you complete control over the car. Heck, autos need a shift kit and 3.42's just to have any chance of keeping up with a stock manual with 3.23's. Which do you think is faster??? Sure, you go right on ahead and modify your converter. I'll modify my clutch and then we'll see how great your non-streetable suicide convertered car is compared to my fully streetable and very comfortable ride clutch equipped ride is.
Autos suck. Those of you who constantly scream the word "converter" are just making up excuses because you feel inferior. You know the world's fastest sports/race cars have always had manuals for a reason.
Corvette ZO6, Viper, Supercharged 03 Cobra, last year's Cobra-R, the Corvette ZR-1... America's all-time fastest sports cars only come with manual transmissions. Want a Lamborghini or a Porsche 911 Turbo with an auto? Forget it. Think about it.
[ January 06, 2004: Message edited by: Stefan ]</p>
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Stefan:
Yeah, that jerk is called a hard launch.<hr></blockquote>
i'd like to see you do a "hard launch" on the street :rolleyes:
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Stefan:
There are plenty of 6-speed owners out there that run 1.6 60' all day long.<hr></blockquote>
and thats good?, i know plenty of guys that cut 1.4's on stock suspensions with a high stall converter
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Stefan: I'll modify my clutch and then we'll see how great your non-streetable suicide convertered car is compared to my fully streetable and very comfortable ride clutch equipped ride is<hr></blockquote>
ive ridden all around saint louis in a car with a 3800 stall in stop and go traffic and down the highway to get to STL for an hour with no troubles, how is that not streetable? and how is a clutch that you can barely feather on the street? [img]graemlins/slap.gif[/img]
The argument of the fastest cars are autos on the list is do to the msot money put into them... Most autos are fully loaded nice cars, usually cost a bit more, and the person who owns it has a little bit more money...
5-speed is faster... You can cut could 60's with a manual, just get a good driver. Its WAAAAAAy easier to cut a good 60 off a 5-speed then an auto...
If you like the timeslip list so much... my $0 dollar modded 5-speed is beating 76 autos, most likely with couple hundred in mods
So you can't use that as the tell all and end all of a judge of performance.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Raceaholic
Comment