Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 103

bad times at the track

This is a discussion on bad times at the track within the General Help forums, part of the LSx Technical Help Section category; hello everybody i'm new here ................. anyways ..i went to the track yesterday to run to say the least i ...

  1. #1
    King 0f n00bz shady milkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Shepherd, Michigan
    Age
    29
    Posts
    11,775

    blacker than wesleysnipes
    98' trans am

    bad times at the track

    hello everybody i'm new here .................





    anyways ..i went to the track yesterday to run

    to say the least i was really disappointed.

    i ran

    60' 2.004
    330 5.680
    1/8 8.629
    mph 84.61
    1000 11.17
    1/4 13.331
    mph 104.71

    this was pretty consistent through my 4-5 runs. all my times were 13.3xx
    that would be a nice time if i was stock...however i am not . my mods are in my sig.

    D/a
    Density Altitude: 1970 feet
    Relative Density: 94.36 %

    corrected it comes out to 13.0 but still

    so my question to you is...do you think those times are normal?
    mods- suncoast creations hood with functional lt1 style airbox, ls6 intake, QTP longtube headers, QTP ORY, UMI SFC, Adj. LCA with relo brackets, UMI adj. panhard bar, Koni SA and strano springs,Torq Thrust M 17s 9.5 and 10.5 with nitto 555Rs, tuned by Frost
    Quote Originally Posted by Modulistic View Post
    sometimes you get owned, sometimes you own.

  2. #2
    None Shall Pass Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    East of Cleveland, Ohio
    Posts
    3,828

    Black
    99 WS.6 - Modified

    Are you m6? Spin off the line? Gear ratio?

  3. #3
    Exalted Cyclops 67CamaroRSSS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    5,824

    2002 Z28 A4 NBM
    Sadly now demodded :(

    I forgot but aren't you an M6?

    To start: You're leaving a lot at the starting line. 2.004 60' is killing you. Get that down to 1.8X-1.9X and I imagine you'll be closer to 13.0x-13.1x (before correction factor). I'd up the gear ratio (if stock) for a better launch and get stickier tires as I imagine they are up in smoke with any concerted effort. And the 98's truck cam doesn't really have much of a top end pull even with an LS6 intake.

    You'd also benefit from a cutout in the I-pipe.

    There is more to add but this will get you started.
    67 Camaro: K-K + 797-z (look it up), 454/Th400/4.10 12-bolt = 6mpg, PS/PDB/PW tilt, tach, gauges...

    2005 Corvette LS2/M6 Magnetic Red Metallic (What else would it be?) w/ Cashmere interior

    2002 Z28: NBM/Tan, MTI smooth lid, smooth bellows, !AIR, !cats, 1-3/4" QTP SS LT's, 2-1/2" TD's with X-pipe, MagnaFlows dumped at axle, custom welded SFC's, MidWest Chassis body mount adjustable T/A, 3400 stall, 3.23 gears (was 2.73). Tuned: 343rwhp/357rwt (before TD's). Best: 12.559 @ 108+, 1.73 60' @ 3500' DA w/MT ET Street DR's.

    Carbon footprint? CLOWN SHOE!

  4. #4
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    I see an intake, headers and a tune for mods that would have any effect on ET or MPH.
    The DA isn't horrible either, at just under 2000 ft. it's better than most. It's lower than what I normally find in the summer time.

    With that said I wouldn't say your times are horrible, and about on par with an automatic equipped 4th gen with a couple of bolt ons.

    I'm assuming that is an auto,,,,,and race weight plays a huge factor as well.

  5. #5
    O U 8 1 2 Spaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    over here...
    Age
    39
    Posts
    25,692

    []D [] []V[] []D
    1999 trans am

    that mph is right for the time... what rpms are your shifts at???

  6. #6
    King 0f n00bz shady milkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Shepherd, Michigan
    Age
    29
    Posts
    11,775

    blacker than wesleysnipes
    98' trans am

    to add some more detail. I was getting a low voltage input MAF SES about a week or so ago..this was after i cleaned it, it was also intermittent..well that code just magically went away one day ..however i am curious if my maf could be just barely above the threshold and far from operating efficiently causing bad times.

    I also wonder if my stock torque arm is holding back my DRs from getting into the 1.9s or lower

  7. #7
    None Shall Pass Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    East of Cleveland, Ohio
    Posts
    3,828

    Black
    99 WS.6 - Modified

    Quote Originally Posted by shady milkman View Post
    to add some more detail. I was getting a low voltage input MAF SES about a week or so ago..this was after i cleaned it, it was also intermittent..well that code just magically went away one day ..however i am curious if my maf could be just barely above the threshold and far from operating efficiently causing bad times.

    I also wonder if my stock torque arm is holding back my DRs from getting into the 1.9s or lower
    Sounds possible to each.

  8. #8
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by shady milkman View Post
    I also wonder if my stock torque arm is holding back my DRs from getting into the 1.9s or lower
    I doubt it,,,I've seen stock torque arm setups cut 1.6 60 foot times and pick the front tires up.

    You had drag radials and ran 2.00 60 foot times??? I'm guessing an automatic then without a converter???

  9. #9
    O U 8 1 2 Spaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    over here...
    Age
    39
    Posts
    25,692

    []D [] []V[] []D
    1999 trans am

    Quote Originally Posted by shady milkman View Post
    to add some more detail. I was getting a low voltage input MAF SES about a week or so ago..this was after i cleaned it, it was also intermittent..well that code just magically went away one day ..however i am curious if my maf could be just barely above the threshold and far from operating efficiently causing bad times.

    I also wonder if my stock torque arm is holding back my DRs from getting into the 1.9s or lower
    i'm not sure about the maf... but the stock TQ arm is an absolute piece of shit... i cracked mine in half... they flex and then they snap eventually...

  10. #10
    O U 8 1 2 Spaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    over here...
    Age
    39
    Posts
    25,692

    []D [] []V[] []D
    1999 trans am

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebirdjones View Post
    I doubt it,,,I've seen stock torque arm setups cut 1.6 60 foot times and pick the front tires up.

    You had drag radials and ran 2.00 60 foot times??? I'm guessing an automatic then without a converter???
    i've yet to see a stock tq arm fbod lift the wheels...

  11. #11
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Spaz View Post
    Click for full size i've yet to see a stock tq arm fbod lift the wheels...
    Are you kidding me?? I've seen several

  12. #12
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Spaz View Post
    i'm not sure about the maf... but the stock TQ arm is an absolute piece of shit... i cracked mine in half... they flex and then they snap eventually...
    I've been around these things for a long time,,,,and that is the first case of that I've ever heard of. Probably had something else going on,,,,or a defect of some sort.

  13. #13
    O U 8 1 2 Spaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    over here...
    Age
    39
    Posts
    25,692

    []D [] []V[] []D
    1999 trans am

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebirdjones View Post
    I've been around these things for a long time,,,,and that is the first case of that I've ever heard of. Probably had something else going on,,,,or a defect of some sort.
    when i posted about it years ago there were several others who had the same thing happen... it's very common for the stocker to break... usually they break (like mine) where they bolt up to the rear...

  14. #14
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Spaz View Post
    when i posted about it years ago there were several others who had the same thing happen... it's very common for the stocker to break... usually they break (like mine) where they bolt up to the rear...
    Here ya go,,,,stock torque arm, stock lower control arms, stock panhard bar.....you don't need all that suspension crap to go fast with these cars...Can't fault a car that runs 1.5 60 foot times with nothing but adjustable shocks.

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adh4BnfBMBg[/ame]


    I've had these cars since 97 (4 of them) with stock torque arms, alot of racing and street driving and never have I once found the stock torque arm to be an issue. Most certainly on a street car that makes moderate power. You are a rare case my friend.

    As a matter of fact, this particular car tried aftermarket control arms and torque arm and found no gains what so ever, (it just added weight) so the stock stuff went back on.
    Last edited by Firebirdjones; 06-17-2010 at 01:41 PM.

  15. #15
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    PM Rel3rd, he's still on here from time to time, I chatted with him a while back. He'll be the first to tell ya how many runs he's had on this combo without a hickup, and lifting the front tire to boot. He was relentless with the car making over 100 passes or more.

    There are others......

  16. #16
    King 0f n00bz shady milkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Shepherd, Michigan
    Age
    29
    Posts
    11,775

    blacker than wesleysnipes
    98' trans am

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight View Post
    Are you m6? Spin off the line? Gear ratio?
    a4, not really spinning at all..no audio cue at least. i am running 3.23s

  17. #17
    O U 8 1 2 Spaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    over here...
    Age
    39
    Posts
    25,692

    []D [] []V[] []D
    1999 trans am

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebirdjones View Post
    Here ya go,,,,stock torque arm, stock lower control arms, stock panhard bar.....you don't need all that suspension crap to go fast with these cars...Can't fault a car that runs 1.5 60 foot times with nothing but adjustable shocks.


    I've had these cars since 97 (4 of them) with stock torque arms, alot of racing and street driving and never have I once found the stock torque arm to be an issue. Most certainly on a street car that makes moderate power. You are a rare case my friend.

    As a matter of fact, this particular car tried aftermarket control arms and torque arm and found no gains what so ever, (it just added weight) so the stock stuff went back on.
    i'm sure they are some that do... but my case is definitly not rare... i've been around ls1's since 99 and lt1's since 94... so i'm definitly not a noob in that department ...

  18. #18
    O U 8 1 2 Spaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    over here...
    Age
    39
    Posts
    25,692

    []D [] []V[] []D
    1999 trans am

    Quote Originally Posted by shady milkman View Post
    a4, not really spinning at all..no audio cue at least. i am running 3.23s
    time for a stall!!!

  19. #19
    King 0f n00bz shady milkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Shepherd, Michigan
    Age
    29
    Posts
    11,775

    blacker than wesleysnipes
    98' trans am

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebirdjones View Post
    You had drag radials and ran 2.00 60 foot times??? I'm guessing an automatic then without a converter???
    i ran them at 21-22psi and at 18-19psi

    stock converter

  20. #20
    King 0f n00bz shady milkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Shepherd, Michigan
    Age
    29
    Posts
    11,775

    blacker than wesleysnipes
    98' trans am

    Quote Originally Posted by Spaz View Post
    time for a stall!!!
    for sure ...but what concerns me is the fact that last year will A/S i would get 2.1 60 fts ..break loose on the shift to second (thank you frost ) and have to let off to correct and still got 13.6s-13.8s ...so with drag radials and better 60ft times + not getting out of it.. i only was able to to shave .3 :S that is my only concern...if this wasnt the case i wouldnt feel so bad about my times.....


    oh thought i would mention ..thinking on it some more i am running TTMs at the track..they are for sure heavier than stockers ...i guess there are many variables.

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. New track times
    By dpinson in forum Almost Anything Goes
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-27-2010, 09:14 PM
  2. The best of bad track times???
    By GNICTRY in forum Firebird / WS6
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07-07-2007, 03:08 AM
  3. 99 1le track times
    By fraz1le in forum Drag Racing
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-20-2007, 10:45 PM
  4. Track Times??
    By The Rookie in forum Almost Anything Goes
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-25-2006, 06:19 AM
  5. New Track times
    By Camaro9teen96 in forum LT1
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-02-2006, 08:33 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •