find me another car that ran 14.003@103 with a 60ft that good

hell the fwd celica hit 13.7@101 with the exact same 60 ft and half the torque

this altima SE-R(which is a DE) did this at fontana

im assuming the 60 ft was supposed to be 2.224

either way if he hit that with just an intake its not a slow track

this 6mt sedan did this at your track
same 60ft, et .124 slower but the trap is off by over 4mph...something doesn't add up brosef

that means if you were racing him you would have gotten off the line exactly the same and only pulled maybe 1/2 a car yet been traveling 4 mph faster at the end of the 1/4..I mean I would say you have amazing top end, but if you did your et would have been better and your 60 ft would have been worse

on an unrelated note, it sucks that altima se-rs are faster then G35s..lol

 

I cant wait for Dec 4th. Ima gonna be there!!

 

me too!

 

make some vids

 

^for sure

 

hammerhead, your own example defies your contention...

how did the Altima run 80mph at 9.3 in the 1/8

1/4 Mile ET: 14.210
1/4 Mile MPH: 101.300
1/8 Mile ET: 9.300
1/8 Mile MPH: 80.100
0-60 Foot ET: 6.224

and the 6MT sedan ran nearly 1.5 mph slower but well over a tenth faster (.16)?

1/4 Mile ET: 14.127
1/4 Mile MPH: 98.770
1/8 Mile ET: 9.141
1/8 Mile MPH: 78.740
0-60 Foot ET: 2.172

According to you, only .052 difference in 60'. Why does your own example make sense for the slower ET to have faster trap?

Also, I don't believe for a minute that an Altima with intake ran 14.2 @ 101 in Fontana (unless it was one of the very few days that had 50* temps and he had dropped weight from the car).

AS for example of other 14 sec 103 mph... on a quick Goggle search I found this: http://www.gaownersclub.com/forum/sh...68&postcount=1
I'm sure I could pull up plenty more, but I've wasted too much time on you already...

Bottom line - why would I lie about trap speed? Especially when several other forum members were there?... And if I had a reason to lie, why wouldnt I lie about the ET?. You make no sense and I dont post number to impress... I've raced plenty of coupes, sedans, MT, AT, Z and G37... in 1/4 mile havent lost... so why would I lie about numbers?

 

yeah that grand am ran 14.1@103 with a 2.4 60ft...lol u did it with a 2.1

I'm not saying you lied, I'm saying the slip is probably f'ed up, like when my rsx pulled a 1.7 60ft on street tires...lol

and yeah my example has an et that is .124 slower with almost the same 60ft and a trap that is almost 5mph slower then yours

If you really knew as much about drag racing as you act like you do you would know that something doesnt add up there, same 60 ft, very close et and a trap thats 5mph off?

with that trap and that 60 ft your et should be 13.7 or so, not 14.0

and I posted that guys time because you were making it like that was such a slow track and he was pretty close to your et with much less mods in a 6mt

 

^^^ were the two posted slips on the same day? I've run that track in high 70s and also well over 100... if the 6MT was in the summer and the Altima in winter, its night and day... thats why I said the only way the Altima could have run 14.1 (or.2) is in the 50s... but I still question it.

dsskyline runs as fast at Cecil NA as he did in Fontana with ST. Is that enough proof that the track is as slow as I'm saying? Do you really think there are no NA Gs in So Cal that could run 13s at the tracks you see others posting from?

I'm going to ask Bill (buttkiss) tomorrow if he kept time slips from Bakersfield... one of his has my run on it... I dont remember what the trap speed was, but I'll ask him... Like I said before, I wish I had kept the 14.002 from Fontana (didnt think about keeping it for the trap speed and figured I'd hit 13s, so didnt bother to keep it - little did I know it would lead to a squabble like this )

 

altima was 68 degrees, 6mt g sedan was 75 degrees

question it all you want but at least their times make sense..lol

I dont see any other slips for NA G's at fontana so how am I supposed to know

idk why you think this is a squabble, anyone who knows anything about drag racing knows a 2.1 60 ft with a 103 trap adds up to something better then a 14 flat unless something odd is going on

the track isn't slow, all the times on dragtimes are right in line with what those cars should run

 

this has gone pretty far off topic... Hammer, OCG35 has nothing to prove to you. you don't even have a point, all your doing is trying to prove Mike wrong. you sound like one of those noobs trying to explain how your CAI is so awesome and how we all don't know what we're talking about. please end the madness, you can prove/disprove anything on the internet.

 

im not asking him to prove anything, all I am saying is that his time is that his time is a bit off, anyone who knows anything about drag racing can see that, he even sounds a bit unsure about it. And also he is saying fontana is a slow track when it clearly isn't so I don't see what I want him to prove to me

 

Fontana is an altitude higher than most every 13s track and in a region that has avg ambient temps hotter than most every 13s track (as posted in various threads)...

I've already given you an indisputable example = Derek (dsskyline) used to live out here, he had single turbo on the same coupe that he runs NA at Cecil (MD) now... the ETs were comparable (consistently).

So explain how an FI G runs the same same ET as the SAME G while NA??? When you say the times at Fontana are "normal", okay - but that means the times at many of the low-mid 13 tracks are totally abnormal (as proven by an NA G running as fast as FI G in Fontana). And how am I unsure about the best run I've had at that track??? The only thing I've mentioned is I wish I had kept the slip to shut your @ss up...

It still cracks me up that you spend so much time on this forum going on and on about stuff like this - yet you dont do anythin with/in your G... you rag on other members cars for being lowered/wheels/etc... you want to try and disprove facts with me... all while you sit at your computer all damn day. Why dont you spend some time with your car and add to the experiences rather than argue with people about them... so you dont present such jealously on the forum (and yes, you do come across as jealous often).

 

cecil is a very quick track. friend of mine took his MS3 to etown and pulled 13.9-14.1@99-100, then went over to cecil the next week and ran 13.6@103-104

the reason I argue these things is because of experiences I have had with my cars and at tracks..lol

why dont you explain why everyone who posted fontana times on dragtimes ran fairly normal times, also fontana's 1110 ft elevation(not 1300) does not make a huge difference, its not like 4000-5000 ft

also you keep dodging the main question here of how its possible to run 14.0@103 with a 2.1 60 ft when all the other 14.0@103s on the net had like a 2.4-2.5 60ft. furthermore I am working on my company's website at the moment and responding when I see e-mails so yeah I'm gonna be in front of a computer when I am doing computer work.

what am I jealous of here? Sure I love your wheels, but I really don't see how that is relevent to the current debate.

this is how arguments with me on forums go. I ask someone a question about something that doesnt make sense to me, they dodge the question and make smug remarks because they have no explanation. If you don't want to talk about this anymore, then stop talking about it, I am merely responding to what you are saying.

 

^^^ you keep saying 2.1 as if it's 2.100... I don't remember the hundredths and thousandths, but its high 2.1 (likely very near 2.2, which I usually pull since I launch off idle) - the only specific about the run that I cared about was ET and trap - and that's what is posted (trap was very high 102.9x)

to give you a better idea of how the car performs - here is a timeslip from Famoso (thanks Bill) - .057 faster ET, less than 1mph slower trap with a 60' just under .1 slower... (btw, this track is not nearly as good as I thought it would be - but that's besides the point)

Without the timeslip from Fontana, the squabble is futile.

 

see that proves my point, a much worse 60ft, a lower trap and a faster et

anything between 2.1 and 2.3 is too good of a 60 ft to run a 14.003@103

never said your car couldn't run 13s but you are acting like I did for some reason. I mean you have a tune and cams, you damn well better be in the 13s and faster then nearly bone stock 6MTs