Back from the track... And now in the 12 sec club!

Discussion in '1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-' started by Xcessiv, Sep 10, 2005.

  2. Get Guiness to certify the slip and I will believe it. :)
  3. It's already been said. The time slip is probably real, you have made many passes with true ETs and trap speeds. Your car has more hp than a stock or even basic bolt on car. You will not necessarily hear or feel cams in a 4.6. Head work is very likely as well. Even with that, the exaust needs to be free'd up a little.
    I agree with Hotmustang331.

    I have made more than two passes.
    I do live in the south and ran low 13s at 103 best ever on cool, fall night with most
    bolt ons and suspension work. Most runs were in the 101's. The trap speed is the main thing most have probelm with. A stock car doesn't pull like that anywhere up top.
  4. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I've ran [email protected] with a K&N filter, Tri-Ax shifter and Borla catback. I'll admit the conditions were ideal but still think I could have gone 13.4X,

    I finally weighed the car this weekend and my race weight is 3380lbs

    And trapping 107mph on a 125shot is ridiculous. You should be closer to 115 :nice:
  5. If you had gone a 13.4x and made it up in the 60, your trap speed would have been arountd 103. You will not make up the time on the big end without internal work.
    Lot of difference between a 12.97 and 13.5, also 105 and 107. I can make a 14 sec run at 101 or a 13.6 at 98.
  6. The guy's running a 91 octane tune and an O/R midpipe, it can definitely make up for the 2mph difference...

    What's your point ? :shrug:
  7. Our deal is that how come you two guys are the ONLY ones running traps like that with so few mods? And strangly you BOTH are from canada. Noone from the states are running those ETs/traps W/O cams or MAJOR weight reduction.

    I wonder if your track is 400meters? And i wonder if there is a difference? If you notice avenger I have 50 more RWHP and still am not trapping as high as you...and I am a heck of a driver if i say so myself (not to brag lol) and have been told so by many people, so its not that.

    Oh and a raceweight of 3380 is approx 100 pounds less then mine....and that is with you in the car right?
  8. It still hasn't been explained to my level of understanding how a 250 horsepower car is propelled past the finish line 1320 feet away at a speed of 107 mph. I am not saying its impossible...cause I am too inexperienced, but I know alot of people with fast cars, and I have seen alot of cars run, and I have read alot of stats on quarter mile cars. It just doesn't add up. My car makes 75 more horsepower and torque and only traps at 107......I don't get it.
  9. Just by the fact that the Ls1's were not faster tells me that it is not an altitude or weather thing. I believe that that the trap speed is what he says. So far I don't have any reason not to, unless he proves that nothing else is done to the car. The car has to have something else to give it more hp. I don't believe that a stock car will trap 107 with any driver that I know. And that would include a champion driver as well.
  10. This last weekend at Beech Bend raceway in bowling green.
    With mac prochamber, borla catback, SFC, bfg dr's 275x17"s at 14 psi P&P stock upper, K&n drop in c&l inlet, 4.10's Timing bumped to 12 deg, on a 100 nx wetshot.
    60' 1.938
    1/8 8.233
    mph 87.04
    1/4 12.744
    mph 107.92

    all the above but NA
    60' 2.034
    1/8 8.95
    mph 78.81
    1/4 13.947
    mph 98.69

    with a 150 nx wetshot timing at 8deg Bottle almost empty.
    60' 1.905
    1/8 8.124
    mph 89.11
    1/4 12.564
    mph 108.96

    Now clearly I was having issues getting outta the hole. I don't ride the clutch (imo it's too hard on them raced bikes too long not to) and the best I could dump it at was about 2200rpm and hook. I run at full street weight, ie everything and a then some in the car.
    What alot of people forget is people on here are from all over the place weather, driver skill, altitude, all play a big role in your numbers.
    BTW my na passes I was beating a 96 cobra with full exhaust , CAI, and dyno tune he puts down 267.3 schp 272.4 djchp 268.8 sctq 283.9 djctq (est) and some lt1 fbodies. On the 100 shot my numbers were inline with some ls1 cars and on the 150 shot I beat a 3rd gen fbody with a 383 that puts 373hp to the ground. I lost by a fender length on the 100shot to him.
  11. Because our engines have been randomly touched by the hand of God? :rlaugh:

    Seriously... Most "bolt ons" Stangs keep trapping 101-103 mph here too. There are some freaks that are well driven in perfect conditions but it's really not common to see a 105+ mph bolt-ons Stang.
  12. As far as I know, Xcessiv never ran at Pont-Rouge, which is usually where I spend my week-ends / money (no wonder I'm still stock :D ). Obviously, our times have more to do with great weather / driving than your BS shorter / downhill track argument.

    Yes, raceweight includes driver. :cheers:
  13. if the track were shorter the ET may come down, but the trap would be slower.
    I doesn't matter how good the driver is. Other cars don't seem to be out of their element as far as times. If the car ran 107 stock, with a MAC CAI( there's not a spiralmax hidden in there too, is there? ) I truely is a freak.
  14. Well, it's not stock...
    - Tuned predator
    - Catless h-pipe
    - Catback
    - 4.10
    - ET Streets
  15. I went back and looked, my fault for not looking at the mods. I will bet you have right around 250rwhp + or - 5hp. Even if you are at 260 to the ground, without weight reduction, to get out of the 13s is amazing, to trap at 107 is even more amazing. Is all the suspension completely stock? shocks, UCA, LCA, Springs,Struts?
    They don't give the 1/8 mile mph? 330? 1000?

  16. Whered you get your Predator tune? RWTD?

    I have a few more mods, best I can trap is 105.
  17. Ok, my mods consisting of an Xcal2, Mac CAI, Mac Prochamber, and steeda UDPs and I'm only putting down 244. And my top speed on nittos is 97 or so. Mind you that's a ****ty 60'. lol
  18. I was meaning that 400M may be longer lol...but I guess it isnt. Both of you guys are beating the LS1s according to excessive....and avender you have 232RWHP. I still dont get how your trapping higher than F bodys? Maybe canada got so mad at chevy for pulling out on them that they screwed up all the LS1s when they come in for service...which is probably pretty regular. :rlaugh: And all the other mustangs are stock with 16YO drivers.....and the D.A. really is -4000 24/7. See that would explane everything :nice: and it is POSSABLE. (100,000,000-1 odds, but who cares) LOL.
  19. Oh yea ... the conversion rate.

    That's why it's so high! :D
  20. LOL your right, from metric to US's std. :rlaugh: that explains it all. Sorry, just had to...good one tyler.