Guest scottjuly79 Posted August 9, 2003 Share Posted August 9, 2003 Took my car out to the track tonight, previous best E.T. 13.7@108.5MPH Tonights best E.T. 13.012@111.46MPH, 2.146 60ft. time mods. since 13.7 run: drilled .020 vent hole in M.B.C., turned boost up approx. 1.5 PSI. 12.999 here I come!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgkurz Posted August 9, 2003 Share Posted August 9, 2003 Nice run! 108.5 MPH indicates you were probably at about 300 crank HP, give or take a few HP. I definatley see 12's in your future. Getting your 60ft down with different tires and/or an LSD would do the trick. I too am in search of the 12's this summer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest scottjuly79 Posted August 9, 2003 Share Posted August 9, 2003 108MPH was my old run at a slightly lower boost level, last night MPH was 111.46MPH. Once I hook it up I should be a 12.6/12.7 car. I love the way you can just dial in your desired horsepower level with the twist of a knob on these turbo cars! (to a certain limit of course0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bastaad525 Posted August 9, 2003 Share Posted August 9, 2003 okay not to be redundant, but uh... could you list everything you have again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z-Gad Posted August 10, 2003 Share Posted August 10, 2003 Very Kool!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest scottjuly79 Posted August 10, 2003 Share Posted August 10, 2003 check my signature for a list of my mods. Just added it today! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest scottjuly79 Posted August 10, 2003 Share Posted August 10, 2003 hope it works this time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john kosmatka Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 Scott do you have the saab ic with the metal end tanks or plastic ones. Also how many pounds of boost are you running on it and do you know the pressure drop. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest scottjuly79 Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 Not sure of the pressure drop (I am running 14-15psi. on the manifold side). It is the earlier model SAAB I.C. with the metal end-tanks. I have heard a lot of of negative feedback about this I.C., but I am more than happy with it, and the build quality is better than any other factory I.C. that I have seen. I won't be replacing this baby until I can afford a Spearco! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 Nice times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest szlash280z Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 Thats nice! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jersey Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 Great time Scott! Congrats!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest szlash280z Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 why is it that people dis mustangs and stuff when they do around 14 seconds in stock form? if all your mods translate to a 13 then 14 is still fast. I am all screwed up from hearing too many drag racing stories! I don't know what IS fast! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleeperZ Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 why is it that people dis mustangs and stuff when they do around 14 seconds in stock form? if all your mods translate to a 13 then 14 is still fast. I am all screwed up from hearing too many drag racing stories! I don't know what IS fast! I "dis" Mustangs because up here in Denver, the best they do is low 15s (with excellent driving). New stock cars like the 'Ru STi and the SRT-4 (and the EVO) are just as fast as the LS1s at the strip, at 14s. It takes work and money to get a Mustang that fast, and the stereotypical 'Stang driver thinks he's fast out of the box. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bastaad525 Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 mustangs are fast out of the box, compared to other cars in the similiar price range... or they WERE... your'e right now cars like the Subie's and SRT 4 are giving the GT a run for it's money. Plus they feel a lot faster when you're actually driving them, than the really are, due to that famous mustang torque. So wait... LS1's are only good for 14's?? Sleeper didn't you say LS1's would be more than I could handle? I figure the slowest my car should be, at 2600lbs with me in it, and running 10psi of boost, should be about a 13.9. Then again, Jersey, nearly the exact same setup as me, before his I/C and some other mods... pulled that 13.3. I dont think I could do it that fast, but... you dont think I could compete with the LS1's? I figure after my IC I may even be able to keep up with stock Vettes... not the Z06's of course Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleeperZ Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 I'm talking about 5800' elevation. LS1s should do low 13s down on the left coast (the right too, AFAIK). The Z06 only does mid-high 13s here, so they are no trouble for me. The elevation causes NA cars to lose a full second or more on 1/4 mile ET, where turbos lose less than half a second or less, depending on the car and setup. So even supercharged and mildly tuned turbo Civics lay waste to the Mustangs up here, it's actually quite funny how the Mustangs think they are fast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bastaad525 Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 Learn something new every day... I had no idea that altitude affected turbos so differently. So... to be really fast compared to N/A's, I need to move up into the mountains That's kewl at least now I know I wont lose so much time whenever I finally get my car to LACR, which is at like 2000 feet I believe. Why dont' turbo's suffer as much from altitude though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest szlash280z Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 there is a 1/8th mile track near my house, I was going to go in the NA to test before and after the turbo but didn't get around to it. what's a good time for an 1/8mile run? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleeperZ Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 Learn something new every day... I had no idea that altitude affected turbos so differently. So... to be really fast compared to N/A's' date=' I need to move up into the mountains That's kewl at least now I know I wont lose so much time whenever I finally get my car to LACR, which is at like 2000 feet I believe. Why dont' turbo's suffer as much from altitude though?[/quote'] It's simple really. A boost controller is controlling pressure over atmospheric. For a constant boost level, the atmospheric pressure is about 2 psi lower here in the mountains, so you effectively have only 2 psi less boost with a turbo. So the difference between an NA and a turbo operating at the same boost level is the difference in the absolute pressures : NA car goes from 14.7 psi (1 bar) to about 12.5 psi. The turbo goes from (given 10 psi boost for example) 24.7 psi to 22.5 psi. The percentage loss is considerably less. This is just a crude example. To make the same boost level at altitude, the turbo has to spin faster, and may not be as efficient (it could be more efficient, depends on the turbo), so the power loss may be slightly different. Now the kicker: You can change the boost level of a turbo - at altitude, if intercooled, your power limit is really the fuel system. So up the boost, and make the same power you did down at sea level, and SMOKE THE NA V8s!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drax240z Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 NA's suffer because at 5800 feet the air is significantly less dense than at sea level. This means they don't get as much air into their engine, and basically their volumetric efficiency drops. (well, its not exactly their VE, but I don't think there is a proper term for it) Because turbo's compress the air, the less dense air isn't much of an issue. They will have less losses, and you should be able to turn up the boost to compensate for the less dense air. This is why many small planes are turbocharged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.