Video from saturday. Me Vs 92 Mustang Gt

linenoise · Post by **linenoise** » Mon May 01, 2006 8:30 pm

http://media.putfile.com/Twilightblue92_Linenoise

Car 132 (Me) Car 122(Twilightblue92)
Dial In 14.20 14.50
React +.3029 +2260
60' E/T 1.9611 2.2302
330' E/T 5.7441 6.0948
1/8 E/T 9.0120 9.2869
1/8 MPH 80.50 77.20
1000' E/T 11.8689 12.0421
1000' MPH 85.09 87.68
1/4 E/T 14.3010 14.6571
1/4 MPH 92.39 80.32

alltrbo · Post by **alltrbo** » Mon May 01, 2006 8:35 pm

Nice. That's a mostly stock 2 .8 with a 70 shot?

What is done to the Mustang?
Good run, I see that he braked too hard so you won, hehe.

Very nice looking Fiero. :thumbleft:

linenoise · Post by **linenoise** » Mon May 01, 2006 8:49 pm

alltrbo wrote:Nice. That's a mostly stock 2 .8 with a 70 shot?

What is done to the Mustang?
Good run, I see that he braked too hard so you won, hehe.

Very nice looking Fiero. :thumbleft:

4.9 on a 100 shot. with issues Actually we were bracket racing hence my later leave. and he trip the lights before a me and didn't break out.
he wouldn't say what was done to his car other than he's adding a S/C soon.

alltrbo · Post by **alltrbo** » Mon May 01, 2006 9:59 pm

Oh, heh. I skimmed through your Nitrous issues thread since I don't know much about nitrous except the basics. Running right you should have 300hp or thereabouts on the 100 shot, right? Should be way way faster I'd think.

I was only thinking about how you were closer to your dial-in without breaking out than he was. Had forgot how R/T figures in.

It's gotta suck to add a supercharger to a V8 just to run low 13's.

linenoise · Post by **linenoise** » Mon May 01, 2006 10:04 pm

alltrbo wrote:Oh, heh. I skimmed through your Nitrous issues thread since I don't know much about nitrous except the basics. Running right you should have 300hp or thereabouts on the 100 shot, right? Should be way way faster I'd think.

I was only thinking about how you were closer to your dial-in without breaking out than he was. Had forgot how R/T figures in.

It's gotta suck to add a supercharger to a V8 just to run low 13's.

Yeah 300HP at the Crank in theory. No where close to that from what I'm seeing, tuning time.

Shaun41178(2) · Post by **Shaun41178(2)** » Mon May 01, 2006 10:08 pm

Cool vid. but someone should learn how to use the zoom on that thing. By the mph he let off at the end. Gotta work on that RT too. He had a whole car on you at the light.

We need more fiero owners doing this.

linenoise · Post by **linenoise** » Mon May 01, 2006 10:20 pm

Shaun41178(2) wrote:Cool vid. but someone should learn how to use the zoom on that thing. By the mph he let off at the end. Gotta work on that RT too. He had a whole car on you at the light.

We need more fiero owners doing this.

He had .3 Sec leave on me as it was a dial in race. Yeah he left off on the end not to break out. his new PB was 14.2 that day. I really need to get my car runnig right. Why the fuck did I get talked into this motor over the 3800 Sc.

Shaun41178(2) · Post by **Shaun41178(2)** » Mon May 01, 2006 10:27 pm

yea but your .3 RT didnt' help much either. He had a .3 because of hte dialin, he cut a .2 to your .3 which means he really had .5 head start on you. Not saying you would have beat him to the end if you cut a better light, but it might have been closer. Thats bracket racing though for ya.

Also just for alltrbo, mustangs of that year ran high 14's low 15's stock, so to get low 13's by adding a blower isnt' bad esp when you start in the 15's

alltrbo · Post by **alltrbo** » Mon May 01, 2006 10:38 pm

I know this very well. It doesn't change the truth of my statement any.

Same goes for thirdgens.

product1620 · Post by **product1620** » Mon May 01, 2006 10:55 pm

Stop being a hater!

Indy · Post by **Indy** » Wed May 03, 2006 1:02 pm

Nice run. Always good to see Fieros going down the track, no matter what's powering them.

<--- Mustang/Ford hater (even the fast ones suck!) hehehehe

product1620 · Post by **product1620** » Wed May 03, 2006 9:16 pm

DIAC! both of you!

GmetalGT · Post by **GmetalGT** » Tue May 09, 2006 3:17 pm

I ran a best of 14.2@99 in my 88 5.0 coupe when stock. The engine was stock but I had 18" wheels and a 2" drop wich doesnt help the ET on those cars. It pulled 13.6 with slicks.

Fox body GT's with an auto may be closer to high 14's - Low 15's stock.

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Tue May 09, 2006 3:19 pm

a dropped stiffer suspension hurts ET's on pretyt much everything RWD

and big wheels - well they hurt everyone that roles ont he grounds et's

The Dark Side of Will · Tue May 09, 2006 3:42 pm

Well, anything with a solid rear axle.

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Tue May 09, 2006 3:51 pm

The Dark Side of Will wrote:Well, anything with a solid rear axle.

soft suspension = weight transfer to the rear = traction .. don't see how solid or independant has much to do with that

Mach10 · Post by **Mach10** » Tue May 09, 2006 3:56 pm

Doesn't that have something to do with the solid axle trying to torque the car over, pushing all the weight on one rear wheel?

The Dark Side of Will · Tue May 09, 2006 4:20 pm

Lowering a solid axle car typically screws up the anti-squat geometry.

Soft springs just waste time. Stiffer springs load the tires more quickly, but demand better geometry and damping.

alltrbo · Post by **alltrbo** » Tue May 09, 2006 6:20 pm

GmetalGT wrote:I ran a best of 14.2@99 in my 88 5.0 coupe when stock. The engine was stock but I had 18" wheels and a 2" drop wich doesnt help the ET on those cars. It pulled 13.6 with slicks.

Fox body GT's with an auto may be closer to high 14's - Low 15's stock.

Otherwise bone-stock? I can believe it, but most 5-speeds I've ever heard of run midhigh 14's best, usually. I here of a lot of them running low-mid 15's.
Thirdgens are the same way, but there are/were quite a few later L98 (auto only) cars running low 14's stock.

Either way, low 14's is SLOW these days.

The Dark Side of Will wrote:Lowering a solid axle car typically screws up the anti-squat geometry.

'Tis true, but remedied by more suspension mods/tweaks. Even after those lowering still hurts traction, I think because of less weight transfer (lower vertical CG).

Goshdernit, everything I know tells me my Camaro's setup is going to be a stupid idea, heh. Well at least tire smoke will give you a headache. :thumbleft: DOH

product1620 · Post by **product1620** » Fri May 12, 2006 1:17 am

All the drag cars that i've been around use stiff springs up front and soft in the rear, so the front is pulled up and the rear is pushed down so the weight is shifted to the rear, to give more traction to the drive wheels.