I think our cars are extremely underrated.

Discussion in '1994 - 1995 Specific Tech' started by rudeone707, Dec 9, 2003.

  1. Last night a did a couple pulls and i found out i had 640 RWHP and 890 RWTQ with the mods listed below. I also hit 11.7 in the 1/4 with a 2.7 60ft monitered by G-tech. I never knew my car was that fast. I think the aluminum radiator put me over the top.
  2. Damn Rude, what's your secret? I want one the 440 rwhp adding radiators....Not to mention the torque!!

  3. Did you drive it off a cliff? That's the sad part about the G-Tech; they don't adjust for incline or decline.

  4. Put the crack pipe down and back away from your G-Tech display. :D

    :shrug: I need to put my bong down too.
  5. oh.....my.......god

    Dude you better say your joking, or I fear you may be flamed to OBLIVION!!!!
  6. but it has to be true. the G-Tech said so. I always obey what it tells. blinking lights. can't stop teh blinking.
  7. [​IMG]

    But it did say that i had that godly amount of HP. My friend bought it and i tested it out, it was such a waste of money on his part.
  8. Actually your car is slow as hell for the power you're putting down. You should be deep into the tens or better w/ 640 rwhp. I'd say with some better suspension mods you will get your 60ft times down and drop a couple seconds off your ET. :D
  9. Its just that my super powerful car couldnt hook. I was thinking about making my runs with slicks but i didnt feel like pulling them out of my shed.
  10. yea hook me up with one of them radiators as well

    On a serious note, i think its funny when i meet people and they are like yea dude i ran a 12.8 on my gtech! Im just like well what did it run at the track?
  11. I ran a 15.8 with the g-tech, 14.5 at the track :lol: I didnt buy one but borrowed it from a friend. glad i didnt waste the money on one either
  12. ya know i've never really understood the g-tech tool. its not real time, its not a engine dyno..its basicly bench racing IMO..a given set of variables that solves for another...

    the 94 computers suck ass. straight up. the eec1v retards timing betweeen shifts, it hates almost any type of engine mod sans a CAI, or other BS mod..

    i'm puttin in an a9l soon
  13. 93 Computers are alot better! that's why I swapped my 95 for one! lol
  14. damn... i had no idea those g-tech things were so off... scratch that from the wish list...
  15. I think the GTech's are fairly accurate for 1/4 mile, ASSUMING you have a flat (get out your level, oh, wait, not all of you are bricklayers...) surface to zero the thing out on. As for the HP, well, you'd have to know the exact weight of your vehicle in order for that to work, so get out your scales and put one under each tire.

    What i'm getting at is that the gTech's are actually very acurate for what they are... A substitute...
  16. I dont think you can say racing down some side street is the same as racing at the track.. The track is just so much different, and i would never congratulate someone on G tech times. I think they are a waste IMO.. The 150+(or whatever they cost) could get you a ton of runs down the track.
  17. As long as you use it properly, they are plenty accurate. There have been a couple of threads on this website about people using them WHILE at the track, and getting very, very close numbers. I use mine and find it to be accurate enough for me.

  18. If you have an uneven surface, you can do 1/4 mile in each direction and average to get close, but level is better. I have been using a VC-200 (14 years) as a tuning tool and an indicator of ballpark numbers and have come quite close to the dyno resutls.