any g sedan owners run any of these?
#61
You've done it since you became a member... constantly bashing the G in general, then moving on to bashing modded Gs... you simply seem bitter and jealous (just telling you how you come across to me).
#62
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
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
As for Famoso comparo - that run was fractions of a second difference (ET was just over 5 one hundredths of a second faster) and trap was less than 1mph slower... 60' under one tenth difference.
Far from the drastic difference you portray it to be. So how is it so unusual at Fontana and not Famoso?...
#63
btw hammer, with cams/headers and rev limiter bumped to 7500, hp remains past the typical 6300 drop - it still drops, a little later in the rpm range, but hp is still higher in the upper rpm than it was pre-cams/headers... so I'm finishing the 1/4 much stronger than before (which could explain your concern).
#64
btw hammer, with cams/headers and rev limiter bumped to 7500, hp remains past the typical 6300 drop - it still drops, a little later in the rpm range, but hp is still higher in the upper rpm than it was pre-cams/headers... so I'm finishing the 1/4 much stronger than before (which could explain your concern).
Hammerhead i-Eagle Thrust- You need to understand that his car is not a typical VQ35DE. It has cams and it's powerband has been shifted about 1000rpms higher and it breathes harder and longer in the mid to upper rpms.
#65
I don;t mean just jealous of me (or my wheels)... I mean jealous in general... you constantly comment negatively on other members rides (and that's even what started this in this thread):
^^^obviously sarcasm
You've done it since you became a member... constantly bashing the G in general, then moving on to bashing modded Gs... you simply seem bitter and jealous (just telling you how you come across to me).
^^^obviously sarcasm
You've done it since you became a member... constantly bashing the G in general, then moving on to bashing modded Gs... you simply seem bitter and jealous (just telling you how you come across to me).
when I see something I like I say it and when I see something I don't like I say it. What are you even arguing here man? What is it that you think that I think your car can't do because I am really not sure.
The wheel comment wasn't exactly sarcasm, volk CE28s are nicer wheels then kosei ks-t1s so I don't why how thats sarcasm..lol. It was more of a dig that G35 drivers are more concerned with looks and street cred then driving dynamics. I mean I make a harmless joke and you get all offended by it..maybe you should calm down since you obviously don't seem to understand anything I say to you.
Also jealous means I want something they have, I compliment peoples cars who I would be jealous of(pretty sure I have complimented your car on more then one occasion).
#66
The exact point I was going to make. IMO, your cams have sucked out a bit of power in the lower rpms; therefore, effecting the car's 0 to 330' time. After that, the car is sailing and adding lots of MPH. I'd imagine the mph gain in the last 1/8th mile is 23mph+. It's very common for higher strung motors to post relatively high MPHs in relation to a "clean run" 60'. If you had a higher stall torque converter, the ET to MPH would make a lot more sense because you could launch closer to the powerband.
Hammerhead i-Eagle Thrust- You need to understand that his car is not a typical VQ35DE. It has cams and it's powerband has been shifted about 1000rpms higher and it breathes harder and longer in the mid to upper rpms.
Hammerhead i-Eagle Thrust- You need to understand that his car is not a typical VQ35DE. It has cams and it's powerband has been shifted about 1000rpms higher and it breathes harder and longer in the mid to upper rpms.
they say every .1 in the 60 ft is roughly equal to .2 at the 1/4, so a car that runs 13.9@102 with a 2.2 60 ft would run 13.6-13.7 with a 2.1 60 ft and a better trap speed..possibly even 13.5, not 14.0
the only thing I am arguing here is that his slip is either a track error or he didn't copy it right
this is a 14.0@103
terrible traction, not a 2.1 60 ft..lol
14.1@103 2.4 60 ft
you can't run that time with a clean launch
Last edited by Hammerhead i-Eagle Thrust; 11-22-2010 at 03:43 PM.
#67
if that were true his then explain his perfectly normal sounding 13.9@102 with a 2.2 60 ft
they say every .1 in the 60 ft is roughly equal to .2 at the 1/4, so a car that runs 13.9@102 with a 2.2 60 ft would run 13.6-13.7 with a 2.1 60 ft and a better trap speed..possibly even 13.5, not 14.0
the only thing I am arguing here is that his slip is either a track error or he didn't copy it right
they say every .1 in the 60 ft is roughly equal to .2 at the 1/4, so a car that runs 13.9@102 with a 2.2 60 ft would run 13.6-13.7 with a 2.1 60 ft and a better trap speed..possibly even 13.5, not 14.0
the only thing I am arguing here is that his slip is either a track error or he didn't copy it right
off)...
As for Famoso comparo - that run was fractions of a second difference (ET was just over 5 one hundredths of a second faster) and trap was less than 1mph slower... 60' under one tenth difference.
Far from the drastic difference you portray it to be. So how is it so unusual at Fontana and not Famoso?...
As for Famoso comparo - that run was fractions of a second difference (ET was just over 5 one hundredths of a second faster) and trap was less than 1mph slower... 60' under one tenth difference.
Far from the drastic difference you portray it to be. So how is it so unusual at Fontana and not Famoso?...
also, prior to cams/headers I would run 14.1xx-14.2xx at about 100-101 with low 2.2x 60' (much more in line with what you feel is normal)... the car just doesnt run that way these days - the top end is totally different.
#68
but your famoso slip had a worse 60ft then your fontana slip which explains the 9.1.
you are right about the 1/8ths pretty sure my rsx hit a 9.3@79 or 80 with a 2.3x 60 ft and ended up doing 14.3x@99.x. then a pulled a 2.2 and a 9.2 in the 8th but kpro's lean protection was tripped when i shifted to 4th so that ended up being a 14.9@75
you are right about the 1/8ths pretty sure my rsx hit a 9.3@79 or 80 with a 2.3x 60 ft and ended up doing 14.3x@99.x. then a pulled a 2.2 and a 9.2 in the 8th but kpro's lean protection was tripped when i shifted to 4th so that ended up being a 14.9@75
#69
but your famoso slip had a worse 60ft then your fontana slip which explains the 9.1.
you are right about the 1/8ths pretty sure my rsx hit a 9.3@79 or 80 with a 2.3x 60 ft and ended up doing 14.3x@99.x. then a pulled a 2.2 and a 9.2 in the 8th but kpro's lean protection was tripped when i shifted to 4th so that ended up being a 14.9@75
you are right about the 1/8ths pretty sure my rsx hit a 9.3@79 or 80 with a 2.3x 60 ft and ended up doing 14.3x@99.x. then a pulled a 2.2 and a 9.2 in the 8th but kpro's lean protection was tripped when i shifted to 4th so that ended up being a 14.9@75
Okay - we've beat this **** to death - there isnt any more to be said really... I've posted slip that is off by only fractions of a second (all areas under a tenth and in some areas of the track less than half a tenth) and within less than 1mph difference. I cant get any more detailed than that.
#71
if that were true his then explain his perfectly normal sounding 13.9@102 with a 2.2 60 ft
they say every .1 in the 60 ft is roughly equal to .2 at the 1/4, so a car that runs 13.9@102 with a 2.2 60 ft would run 13.6-13.7 with a 2.1 60 ft and a better trap speed..possibly even 13.5, not 14.0
they say every .1 in the 60 ft is roughly equal to .2 at the 1/4, so a car that runs 13.9@102 with a 2.2 60 ft would run 13.6-13.7 with a 2.1 60 ft and a better trap speed..possibly even 13.5, not 14.0
#72
#73
At the time no one had done cams and headers only (without full build)... I had some extra time and extra cash so I gave it a try...
I should preface that I met Mike Kojima at an event and we talked briefly about mods beyond basic bolt-ons... he stated he thought there were gains to be had from cams and headers (obviously a common muscle car mod and even back in HS we did this to mini trucks and VW bugs)... there were some gains, but imo definitely not worth the cost (or the time and effort if installing yourself) - not the kind of gains you see in many other cars with the mod.
#74
#75
no, and no.
At the time no one had done cams and headers only (without full build)... I had some extra time and extra cash so I gave it a try...
I should preface that I met Mike Kojima at an event and we talked briefly about mods beyond basic bolt-ons... he stated he thought there were gains to be had from cams and headers (obviously a common muscle car mod and even back in HS we did this to mini trucks and VW bugs)... there were some gains, but imo definitely not worth the cost (or the time and effort if installing yourself) - not the kind of gains you see in many other cars with the mod.
At the time no one had done cams and headers only (without full build)... I had some extra time and extra cash so I gave it a try...
I should preface that I met Mike Kojima at an event and we talked briefly about mods beyond basic bolt-ons... he stated he thought there were gains to be had from cams and headers (obviously a common muscle car mod and even back in HS we did this to mini trucks and VW bugs)... there were some gains, but imo definitely not worth the cost (or the time and effort if installing yourself) - not the kind of gains you see in many other cars with the mod.
Why didnt you do a Torque converter install at the same time as DaveO and Gurgen?