So I improved alot since my last time at the track..I am VERY VERY pleased with what I ran at this elevation. (I am in the mountains in Canada )

Avro206 was there with me and he calculated the air density at 4716ft above sea level.

(26% humidity, 30" {pressure} mercury, 69F, 33.8F dew point using a 3350ft altitude)

My best two times ( i was running pretty consistant all night too)

14.23 @ 101.49 2.29 60 foot
14.28 @ 102.00 2.35 60 foot

Altitude corrected for all of you that think this is a slow time for stage 2, my times are equal to :

13.36 @ 108.13
13.41 @ 108.24

Anyways... I have lots of good video of my runs (thanks to avro206 ) that i will be posting either tonight or tomorrow in this thread so keep watching.....

View my garage for my mods but i think most of you already know...

 

I had faith you could break 102mph! Way to go

 

sweet time

 

NIce! Let us know when the vids are up!

 

Holy crap, trapping almost 110mph (corrected of course) is awesome, especially for those mods! Congrats!

 

I'm sorry to say but the altitude correction will not net those numbers in the real world! Nice runs!!

 

Yeah I agree. I think a full second off the 1/4 mile time is a little extreme. Who cares about what the corrected times are. You ran what you ran. That's all there is to it!

Congrats on the good times!

 

ok this doesnt really tell us how much the stage kit helped if you dont tell us what you were running before the change

 

Yeah you have to remember that traction problems will be much worse at sea level and those corrected times can't be expected.

 

explain your statement, or should I say opinion?

I got all the realavent numbers and plug them in here.

http://www.modulardepot.com/density.php

Even NHRA correction website backs me up: http://www.gnttype.org/techarea/misc/altitude.html

4700ft correction= et 14.23 X .9419 = 13.4
101.49mph X 1.0619 = 107.7mph




I don't know wether all you doubters or slow or what but this is all about science and math...not what you think.

You people that live at sea-level have it so easy.

I will throw a caveat in there. It is a fact that F/I cars lose less hp less altitude rises.
Conversely, as altitude drops they do not pick up as much powr as a NA car.

However, I'd bet real money that its still a 13.6 car even with this factored in.

He is a great driver and was very consisten last night.

Furthermore, I have driven a car in Calgary at Race City and then the same car in Ontario at St Thomas dragway. With no modifications I gained 0.8 sec and 5 mph.

You do not understand the climate of Calgary. It is an anomally--and yes it sucks. Its unfortunate he could not test his car stock. I will have to observe more stock S/C SS running here. But there was one at the track...15.4@92mph was his best. Seems to me that with Jeykls mods--1 second faster then stock is not entirely out of the question--although it could be a little less since I do not know is the other S/C SS achieved the best possible time.

You think I am wrong.....prove it (not with guesses or opinions)

 

and why is traction worse at sea-level?
His best 60 ft was 2.3--correct me if I am wrong but other have gone the same or better at sea-level, right?

 

nah there right it would be a 13.6-13.8 at 104-106 which still aint bad by anymeans. And your math doesn't figure in real world situations its not flexible to other factors.

 

again....what REAL world condtions are you talking about?? I am all for discussion based on facts.

 

Thanks Darksun


Hey guys,.... Im not trying to get the best cobalt time at sea level or whatever... just trying to explain what we are up against for track conditions here in calgary.... it just plain sucks.

For what the air density was at the time i ran a pretty respectable time and trap speed....



I ran a stock Cobalt.... I ran a 14.23 and the stock cobalt ran a 15.9 on that run... the stock cobalt ran a best of 15.4 last night which isnt bad for this elevation.

A vid of this race will be up soon!

 

I mean its not like where hating but your in the 250-259 hp and if your getting avg launches thats not gonna pull you 108 traps with 13.3 times on stock wheel tire combo. its just reasoning. These correction equations give you alot of the benifit of the doubt that ever thing is perfect. no wind perfect traction no down time between shifts you know bullshit.

 

Yep I agree those are good time for the altitude but you need to get your 60 foot times down and you would be in the high 13's with no corrections !!!

 

damn that really sucks if stock ss\sc's are running 15.4 up there i ran a 15.8 last night in my ls either way you got good times in comparsion nice job

 

I think they are looking at it as sea level = more power and would require more effort to keep the wheels from spinning. I don't know how true that is, but it somewhat makes sense. Then again it requires the driver to fix that, not the car.

 

again what were you running stock

 

Exactly!!! At 5500 feet i made a uncorrected WHP of 214 but a corrected # of 260 whp. I promise you it would be much harder to launch at sea level on stock tires.

 

he has no stock times--he did not race when stock. Seems doubtful a S/C SS could break out of the 15's up here.

 

Sorry for getting you worked up!! Yes, it is my opinion and at sea level other factors weigh in that can slow a car down. Until proven I think Stage 2 is good for 13.8s at best, on street tires, which is enough to sell the kit to me!

 

thats okay---some times it doesn't take much! I realize that the only way to prove is to race at sea-level but the closest sea level) track is 1000kms away.

We have no choice but to collect data and plug it in. I'll agree and say 108mph is pushing it. Maybe 106 would be more realistic.

But he does have the CAI and exhaust on top of the stage 2. He just needs a header

 

yea for all we know you could drive like ****.... probably not but im just sayin we never had before and after track times of stage 2.

 

Good work Jek!
Really like the 102 trap speed @ Calgary altitude
Check PMs
WopOnTour