60' isnt really an indicator of HP like this is. 60' is much more traction and driver skill related.

1/4 mile times are just as "ricer" as 60-100. 0-100-0 is more complete metric overall vehicle performance if you wanna get technical, and even more of an indicator of driver skill as well.

Whats ricer is that you guys feel the need to point out that you think 1/4mile times are more important than 60-100 times. I think lap times are more important than 1/4 times, and even more fully exhibit a vehicles performance and i am pretty sure that guys who have two working legs and cant work all three pedals at the same time are mouth breathers.

 

I hate the term 'rice'! It is not rice to compare numbers, no matter which numbers they are. As long as you are comparing equal numbers, then its all a comparison. Its no matter whether they are 60-100, 0-100-0, 1320' times, road course times, as long as there is hard proof that it happened, what's the fuss all about?

All this wasted time and air about which numbers are best to compare is worthless banter, and the time could be spent doing something more productive for the community, like a how to, or something else.

Rice, in my opinion, is a term to describe the visual properties of a car that looks like it fell out of the Fast and furious movies. It has nothing to do about the habits of people, and ESPECIALLY not the numbers they choose to compare.

We all know FWD doesn't get dick for traction, especially on street tires. So, comparing the 1320' times to that of supercars would be completely worthless. So, 60-100 times would be the most 'fair' comparison. Sure, it might not make sense to compare 60-100 to some of you, but to others, it does make sense.

So, let's quit bickering now ffs.

Term, good numbers! I think last I looked I was at like 5.0 sec's. Right on par with the GT3 Porsche, lol. And be sure to get back to me about my previous question about the VCM Scanner!

 

I'll have to do this tomorrow! I haven't done that in a bit!

 

I'll do this when i get my car back in the spring

I expect it to be in the 3.xx second range, possibly... that is, if i get traction at 60.

 

I hope to be sub 5sec.... have to remember I have 2 extra doors and the extra weight... (I'm no small feller)

but I can tell you this car hauls ass!

I just found an older one.... 40 to 85 took 3.67 seconds! but I don't have a clean 60-100 pull.

I guess I'll do that tomorrow

 

4.399, even with losing traction. And Im still working on this new file, had some light KR around 5k, you can see the load go down slightly. Pulling into the 34's VE and 37's on MAF.

 

The 63-100 time was 4.12 seconds on that log. I was cruising at a constant 59 mph if you look a the speed line it is flat until I went WOT. I was not alreay accelerating when I went WOT. Also it was 67* outside when I logged the car. Held 22 psi until 6300 on that run.

This takes all drive skill and most traction issues away and leaves only vehicle performance. No shifting or having to modulate the throttle because of serious wheelspin off the line. I could do a 0-100 but why? I spin until 75-80 normally so why bother? Stock 60-100 time is 8.5 seconds as logged this morning on a car I tuned for all who are interested. His times improved by a full 3 seconds with tuning alone and no pill or MBC.

 

The plate is still opening on my log where I took the start time

And true on the 1/4 times themselves, but trap speed speaks wonders. I should be able to squeak a 116-117 now that Im going 60-100 quite a bit quicker then before!! Have you ever tracked your car Term? I dont remember reading if you did or didnt.

 

Well said Maven.

Nope but the ET would be crap because of traction issues. Probably a 12.9-13.1 at 117 mph. See the clutch slip on that screenshot of mine. Look at the RPM spike but the speed hardly changes right as I hit it.

 

Looks like you need a better clutch. Also, why does your timing drop to nearly 0 advance after the turbo spools?

It is pretty ricey around here. Many people brag about their setup holding more boost than others. Considering that they are all running(and maxing) the same turbo, the person with the most boost actually has the worst flowing engine. FWIW, I could only maintain 17psi with the stock turbo and ported head.

 

Yeah! Well... I push 65 psi outta my stock turbo at redline, obviously my dick's bigger!

Lol.

Off topic... Matt, are you guys still working on the 2.3L stroker?

 

I never got a chance to do a clean run... still too damp all I got was some tire spin...

I'll try again sometime this week...

 

Damn Term, nice!



Oh what, can't win a roll race with your car? Stop getting butthurt just because not everyone wants to dig race. Besides, the car's he can compare his 60-100 time with is amazing.

 

Nice numbers!

I think we have to be a bit quicker stock, 8.5 seconds just seems a bit slow.

 

Some of us only have access to 'unofficial' 1/4 miles with no lights and timers but with PO-lice. lol.

At least HPT lets me log a pull when I can, weather permitting.

 

It does seem slow but you have to remember there is a liitle bit of turbo lag and a full second of electronic throttle control lag. Stock TC cobalts do 0-100 in approx 13.7 seconds. They do 0-60 in 5.4 seconds roughly that leaves 8.3 seconds from 60-100 not counting the fact that the 2nd to third shift is normally made at 69 mph and the fact that you are going from a dead punch not already carrying momentum from before.

I dunno why the timing dropped so much right there. It logged no KR or total KR. That was the only pass that it did that. The load was close to 300% so it might have some bulit in spark retard table that we cannot see.

 

I really hope youre not implying your car is as fast as an aerial atom 300..... Not to hate, but theres just no way. Those cars run 10's.

Looks like it hauls ass though.

 

I would think the Ariel Atom is faster than they reported on there because the New Viper came in at 3.5 seconds, but hard to argue with those screenshots. The last car I tuned pulled several buses on a tuned SRT8 Jeep and the Jeep used to beat him everytime when they were both stock. Jeep Traps 109 mph. Cobalt has a catted DP and a drop in filter and of course my tune.

 

Relax bud, theyre just comparing some latest tune info.

 

Im not saying it isnt quick, its just that its no where near an aerial atom, viper, etc. so that 60-100 chart you listed is kind of innaccurate to say the least.

Either way though, looks good from a tuning perspective. GJ.

 

Good stuff here, Termi.

I've been browsing the DSM forums lately... and they all seem to be all about the 70-90mph time. Definitely a decently good tool for comparison when used properly.

 

lol, where did they get those numbers from?? That sounds retarded.

 

Thats probably their 3rd gear. Lol.

 

yea, pretty much. The DSM's are generally all about low end power ( depending on the build ). Doing 70-90 is not only retarded because its only 20 mph ( lol ) but its really not where they shine.

 

I'm impressed with the terminator tune ha. Good to see someone posting some actual proof of their cars