Just got back from the Norwalk meet, of the original 60+ cars that had signed up to go only 31 showed....mostly GTOs...some F-bodys.

Although I set a personal best of 12.817 at 110.24 mph I now know how important getting a good 60 is because there is major room for improvement for me there. I was basically at 2.1 all day long. Driver + Brand new Nittos + stock converter I'm guessing were a major contributor to this.

My best times came in 3rd with TC off and going from a normal idle. Anytime I raised the rpms on launch I got some tire spin and lost a few tenths. Live and learn...overall not bad for the first time at the track with my new mods.

R/T.326
60 2.160
330 5.531
1/8 8.312
MPH 87.46
1000 10.763
1/4 12.817
MPH 110.24

Just got back from the Norwalk meet, of the original 60+ cars that had signed up to go only 31 showed....mostly GTOs...some F-bodys.

Although I set a personal best of 12.817 at 110.24 mph I now know how important getting a good 60 is because there is major room for improvement for me there. I was basically at 2.1 all day long. Driver + Brand new Nittos + stock converter I'm guessing were a major contributor to this.

My best times came in 3rd with TC off and going from a normal idle. Anytime I raised the rpms on launch I got some tire spin and lost a few tenths. Live and learn...overall not bad for the first time at the track with my new mods.

R/T.326
60 2.160
330 5.531
1/8 8.312
MPH 87.46
1000 10.763
1/4 12.817
MPH 110.24


HHhhmmm, 110 mph trap speed. MPH dictates horsepower, looks like your down a bit from 430+rwhp...

Your trap indicates around 400 rwhp. Dynos and some dyno operators lie, dragstrip results don't, and the math from dragstip results don't either. I'd be having a long talk with your mechanic and TUNER! Have a nice day.

HHhhmmm, 110 mph trap speed. MPH dictates horsepower, looks like your down a bit from 430+rwhp...

or up in weight, were you using those big chrome rims? He also has that strut tower bar...little bit here and there and it ads up.

or up in weight, were you using those big chrome rims? He also has that strut tower bar...little bit here and there and it ads up.

I know of a certain ctsv that traps in the 115 mph range. It should weigh more than the GTO and it makes the same power on the dyno.

Yeah, maybe it's the strut tower brace. I'm curious to what his previous best MPH was before H/C and major tune session??????????? Also, who's cam did you go with?????

Hes also running a sunroof (more weight) and is an A4, so I could see him weighing in close to 4000 LBS without driver. The CTSV is actually pretty trim, 3850 stock weight. GTO is 3725.

Hes also running a sunroof (more weight) and is an A4, so I could see him weighing in close to 4000 LBS without driver. The CTSV is actually pretty trim, 3850 stock weight. GTO is 3725.

Do you race??? You think the V is trim at 3,850 lbs.?? With 430+rwhp through an automatic, he should be trap'n in the mid teens.

I was there when the car dynoed those numbers....so it did make them.
Yes I was using stock wheels. Drag radials not on Chromed ones. I could be wrong but I think though that I wasn't able to hit the MPH that the car is capable of because I couldn't load up on launch. I was launching from 750 rpm yesterday because it was giving me my best times. When I raised the RPMs on launch the Nittos were spinning...they are brand new and many GTO owners have written that they really need to be broken in until they will hold on launch. MTs are too big unless you roll your fenders.

The only GTO that had a better run then me yesterday was a 04 with a Procharger. He had a 12.7 at 111. I however beat him head to head. I also beat both 04 maggies and every LS2s best times yesterday. The only cars that beat me were F-bodys. Being that there are not a very large number of 2004s in the 12s or lower I'll take what I got. I still place 12th now on the best ET list of another GTO site for 2004 h/c cars.

Now I have a serious question for you, 2c5s: If the Procharger is only running 111mph and I know it dynos around 480-490 would you say he somewhere lost 60-70 rwhp also like your saying I must not be at 430 anymore? Isn't it that we both aren't getting the MPH numbers we are capable of because of our launch?

My Cam is a custom grind by Ed Curtis (EDC) of Flowtech Induction (FTI)...2c5s: you should know who that is since you post on LS1Tech. My previous best was 14.02 at 102 stock with the LPE CAI on stock tires.

http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=493480

http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=493480

I don't understand what the "Y bar" is that was mentioned in the above referenced post.

-K

I do race, and its pretty trim compared to a 300C, the STS,....or a truck lol. :p

I just mean that for being a sedan its not that much heavier than the GTO.

Also, the elevation could be a factor? What was the elevation at the track you ran at?

I've seen about 5 totally stock 05/06s post in the high 12's... don't get your point I know a LS2 can run stock in the 12s.

There is a Y shaped bar under the spare tire well. You must remove the plastic undercar and you will see this bar. It has 4 bolts that come off very easily...weighs about 13 lbs.

Norwalk, Ohio Norwalk Raceway Park - Elevation 852' 1300 State Route 18 Norwalk, OH ... I've been looking at the posts coming in from yesterday and very haven't seen a GTO post a 60 under 2.0 yet. The track was cold and wet in the morning and we were delayed 2 hrs...could that contribute to the high 60 times. One guy who said he averaged under 2.0 last year was also 2.1 or higher yesterday.

Norwalk, Ohio Norwalk Raceway Park - Elevation 852' 1300 State Route 18 Norwalk, OH ... I've been looking at the posts coming in from yesterday and very haven't seen a GTO post a 60 under 2.0 yet. The track was cold and wet in the morning and we were delayed 2 hrs...could that contribute to the high 60 times. One guy who said he averaged under 2.0 last year was also 2.1 or higher yesterday.
Not speaking from experience, but rather from what I have read, track preparation makes a major difference in run times.


There is a Y shaped bar under the spare tire well. You must remove the plastic undercar and you will see this bar. It has 4 bolts that come off very easily...weighs about 13 lbs.


What is the purpose of the bar? I understand why one would want to reduce the car weight, but (not meaning to open a can of worms) wouldn't one want to keep some weight over the rear tires? I think that I saw this issue raised as we moved toward Winter last year (driving in the snow).

-K

I've seen about 5 totally stock 05/06s post in the high 12's... don't get your point I know a LS2 can run stock in the 12s.

There is a Y shaped bar under the spare tire well. You must remove the plastic undercar and you will see this bar. It has 4 bolts that come off very easily...weighs about 13 lbs.

Norwalk, Ohio Norwalk Raceway Park - Elevation 852' 1300 State Route 18 Norwalk, OH ... I've been looking at the posts coming in from yesterday and very haven't seen a GTO post a 60 under 2.0 yet. The track was cold and wet in the morning and we were delayed 2 hrs...could that contribute to the high 60 times. One guy who said he averaged under 2.0 last year was also 2.1 or higher yesterday.


Your 60ft. has very little to do with MPH, your short time dictates e.t., not MPH.

Your 60ft. has very little to do with MPH, your short time dictates e.t., not MPH.

Try to explain this to someone who is not familiar with drag racing. Intuitively, it does not seem correct that someone with a lower trap speed can also have a lower ET, but we all know that this is frequently the case.

-K

What is the purpose of the bar?


The tow hitch attachs to it....mainly used on the Ute down-under.

As far as MPH is concerned ED (EDC) has the the lowest NA 2004 ET I've seen 11.731 @ 114.70 and he says my car should be capable of low 11's with a converter...so we'll see what happens.

I was there when the car dynoed those numbers....so it did make them.
Yes I was using stock wheels. Drag radials not on Chromed ones. I could be wrong but I think though that I wasn't able to hit the MPH that the car is capable of because I couldn't load up on launch. I was launching from 750 rpm yesterday because it was giving me my best times. When I raised the RPMs on launch the Nittos were spinning...they are brand new and many GTO owners have written that they really need to be broken in until they will hold on launch. MTs are too big unless you roll your fenders.

The only GTO that had a better run then me yesterday was a 04 with a Procharger. He had a 12.7 at 111. I however beat him head to head. I also beat both 04 maggies and every LS2s best times yesterday. The only cars that beat me were F-bodys. Being that there are not a very large number of 2004s in the 12s or lower I'll take what I got. I still place 12th now on the best ET list of another GTO site for 2004 h/c cars.

Now I have a serious question for you, 2c5s: If the Procharger is only running 111mph and I know it dynos around 480-490 would you say he somewhere lost 60-70 rwhp also like your saying I must not be at 430 anymore? Isn't it that we both aren't getting the MPH numbers we are capable of because of our launch?

My Cam is a custom grind by Ed Curtis (EDC) of Flowtech Induction (FTI)...2c5s: you should know who that is since you post on LS1Tech. My previous best was 14.02 at 102 stock with the LPE CAI on stock tires.

Here is my advice to you. Go get your car dynoed at another shop or two with a newer Dynojet and verify what you were sold. How do you know the procharger car is putting down 490 rwhp? You ran the same mph....... think.

Here is my advice to you. Go get your car dynoed at another shop or two with a newer Dynojet and verify what you were sold. How do you know the procharger car is putting down 490 rwhp? You ran the same mph....... think.

I can redyno it at GMR Speed...don't know what type Dynojet they have though. I have no reason to doubt what I was sold. EDC doesn't bs about his cams and my entire setup is almost identical to his less the stall and different cam.

As far as the Procharger, I've got no reason to doubt what the guy told me, 2004s typically dyno at those numbers even without any exhaust upgrades.
example: http://www.ls1gto.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73667&highlight=procharger+dyno

I can redyno it at GMR Speed...don't know what type Dynojet they have though. I have no reason to doubt what I was sold. EDC doesn't bs about his cams and my entire setup is almost identical to his less the stall and different cam.

As far as the Procharger, I've got no reason to doubt what the guy told me, 2004s typically dyno at those numbers even without any exhaust upgrades.
example: http://www.ls1gto.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73667&highlight=procharger+dyno

Call and ask them. The only reason I say to use a Dynojet, is that it's the standard everyone compares to. They are consistant and the new one's can't be jacked with to skew results.

04's with just a blower are not usually in the 480 rwhp range. Did you notice the dyno he was on??

It's simple math... weight/acceleration/time.... did you find out what the DA was the day you raced?

I've found that 60" time does usually have a correlation to the trap speed. Usually poor 60" times will lead to poor times but higher traps, and the lower your 60" the lower your trap speed will be.

I've found that 60" time does usually have a correlation to the trap speed. Usually poor 60" times will lead to poor times but higher traps, and the lower your 60" the lower your trap speed will be.


Well then, please elaborate on specifics of what you have found. In other words, please relate your personal experiance. Not something you think you read once...

Well then, please elaborate on specifics of what you have found. In other words, please relate your personal experiance. Not something you think you read once...

With my own car, the times I've gone to the track have always had the same general correlation, And it corresponds to what other people will tell you who actually know what their doing; that the 60" time alters the entire run, that the shorter 60" time leads to lower ETs, but lower trap speeds also, but with the higher 60" the trap speeds also get higher with the ETs.

The lower 60" time means the car has that much less time to begin accelerating which logically points to why the ETs are lower (because you cover more ground quicker) But this also means you arn't going as fast when you finish. Of course the change isn't much, but its noticable.

With my own car, the times I've gone to the track have always had the same general correlation, And it corresponds to what other people will tell you who actually know what their doing; that the 60" time alters the entire run, that the shorter 60" time leads to lower ETs, but lower trap speeds also, but with the higher 60" the trap speeds also get higher with the ETs.

The lower 60" time means the car has that much less time to begin accelerating which logically points to why the ETs are lower (because you cover more ground quicker) But this also means you arn't going as fast when you finish. Of course the change isn't much, but its noticable.

Thanks for the typical general answer. Can you give me a specific example based on YOUR OWN EXPERIANCE??

Here are some examples of my 60' and corresponding MPH.

1.96/116.16
1.74/116.23
2.01/116
1.86/116.09

So the spread is .27 60' and .23 mph. Not very dramatic is it. As a matter of fact, the e.t. at the 1/4 was spread by as much as 3/10's. What's my point you ask, a ****ty launch does not affect MPH as much as you think.

Again, MPH dictates horsepower, e.t. means nothing, toooo many variables.

Thanks for the typical general answer. Can you give me a specific example based on YOUR OWN EXPERIANCE??

Here are some examples of my 60' and corresponding MPH.

1.96/116.16
1.74/116.23
2.01/116
1.86/116.09

So the spread is .27 60' and .23 mph. Not very dramatic is it. As a matter of fact, the e.t. at the 1/4 was spread by as much as 3/10's. What's my point you ask, a ****ty launch does not affect MPH as much as you think.

Again, MPH dictates horsepower, e.t. means nothing, toooo many variables.

I didn't say it was a drastic change, but it is a common accepted principal.

I didn't say it was a drastic change, but it is a common accepted principal.

Well, indirectly you did. You're trying explain why this guy is 3-5 mph slower in the 1/4 than vs. his claimed rwhp. Now suddenly it's not a drastic change. I'll say.

Well like I said before there are any number of reasons why his MPH could be off, the weight of his other mods for one, like the sunroof. But also the fact that with lower 60" times your trap speed will lower.

Well like I said before there are any number of reasons why his MPH could be off, the weight of his other mods for one, like the sunroof. But also the fact that with lower 60" times your trap speed will lower.

Your stuck on 100's of a mph. He's shy 3-5 mph. Can you explain? How much extra weight does he have... 300-500 extra lbs.????

Your stuck on 100's of a mph. He's shy 3-5 mph. Can you explain? How much extra weight does he have... 300-500 extra lbs.????

I don't know how much extra weight he has you'll have to ask him.

I don't know how much extra weight he has you'll have to ask him.

I thought you had all the answers?

or up in weight, were you using those big chrome rims? He also has that strut tower bar...little bit here and there and it ads up.

second post, I asked what he might have on that might add weight, didn't get an answer from him though.