Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 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; Originally Posted by INMY01TA Matters more on a six speed car. QA1s and not beinng scared of breaking things dropped ...

  1. #81
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by INMY01TA View Post
    Matters more on a six speed car. QA1s and not beinng scared of breaking things dropped my 60 almost a tenth..
    Adjustable shocks are everything. I have a 6 speed car too. I simply boxed in the stock lower control arms and it took care of all the wheel hop,,,and made my 60 foot times more consistent.
    For the power I'm making, I don't see the need to spend money on aftermarket arms and such.

  2. #82
    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 INMY01TA View Post
    Not even necesary. Rel3rd ran just as fast with his all stock suspension cam only A4 as he did after getting full suspension. (QA1s and everythhing)
    Quote Originally Posted by Firebirdjones View Post
    Ya that's what I've been saying. There are a ton of these 4th gens running quick on the stock suspension parts. They just aren't needed for moderate power, 11's is no sweat on stock stuff.

    A great example is shady's car and my own. Comparing timeslips with just headers and a tune, we were nearly identical in times, 60 foot, MPH etc....yet I had absolutely nothing done on my suspension at the time compared to shadys adjustable lower control arms, relocation brackets and panhard bar.

    I have however boxed in the stock control arms and panhard bar since then on both of our 4th gens, as I feel that's really all that is needed. I prefer to keep the stock rubber bushings as well for a quieter ride.
    with my car being lowered also these suspension changes were a necessity. as i DD my car ride is important as well...and having 16s i needed better street tires etc....that is what i was referring to in terms of suspension to handle the stall ....also not to mention eventually i want my car to much faster than 11s etc so i will be happy that i already have a built suspension instead of testing my 12 year old suspension handle all that power. I dont really expect my suspension mods to improve my times currently really. just a supporting mod for the future

  3. #83
    Senior Member Z28Thunder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Broken Arrow, Ok
    Age
    52
    Posts
    4,542

    Arctic White
    2000 Z28

    Quote Originally Posted by shady milkman View Post
    you've never heard of the stock torque arm breaking ?
    Not ounce and I have been racing at our local track since 1981. We have a bunch of 4th gens that run there currently. Several are from 93-97 with LT1's. Many of the 93-97's are in the low 10's and mid 9's. And several of them are still on stock suspension parts. Again I dont doubt the breakage. Just the first time in my 29 years of racing that I have heard of it on a 4th gen f-body. So I learned something new.

  4. #84
    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 Z28Thunder View Post
    Not ounce and I have been racing at our local track since 1981. We have a bunch of 4th gens that run there currently. Several are from 93-97 with LT1's. Many of the 93-97's are in the low 10's and mid 9's. And several of them are still on stock suspension parts. Again I dont doubt the breakage. Just the first time in my 29 years of racing that I have heard of it on a 4th gen f-body. So I learned something new.
    it isnt a common thing ...but i have heard of it happening to people

  5. #85
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Z28Thunder View Post
    Not ounce and I have been racing at our local track since 1981. We have a bunch of 4th gens that run there currently. Several are from 93-97 with LT1's. Many of the 93-97's are in the low 10's and mid 9's. And several of them are still on stock suspension parts. Again I dont doubt the breakage. Just the first time in my 29 years of racing that I have heard of it on a 4th gen f-body. So I learned something new.
    That's been my experience as well. I'm going to take a wild guess in assuming there is probably more going on here than just a stock torque arm breaking out of the blue. It's hard telling what people are doing with these cars anymore or what they have been through.
    Probably more likely due to a run of defective parts that happens from time to time in a mass production type environment.

  6. #86
    Moderator 35th-ANV-SS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wherever life takes me
    Posts
    12,465

    Red
    02 35th LE Camaro SS

    Mastercraft on here twisted his stock torque arm on basically stock power.

  7. #87
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by 35th-ANV-SS View Post
    Mastercraft on here twisted his stock torque arm on basically stock power.
    See,,,,now that's just odd. I can't help but wonder if something wasn't bound up.

    I've seen so many of these things take 175 shots or more right out of the gate, lifting front wheels and running sub 1.5 60 foot times without even flinching.

    If you want to talk about flimsy, you should see the predecessor of these torque arms long before the Fbody got them,,,,they were used by GM in the Hbody Monza's and Vega's starting in 1975. I used to race those cars all the time with muncie's and 406's. Hard little cars to hook, and the torque arms were thin stamped steel with no support designed in like the 4th gens have.
    But I got away with the stock arm on those cars as well without issues.

  8. #88
    Moderator 35th-ANV-SS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wherever life takes me
    Posts
    12,465

    Red
    02 35th LE Camaro SS

    I have an aftermarket torque arm in my car, but I've looked at and picked up my stock torque arm. It weighs 16 lbs and feels pretty stout IMO for a stock piece. Seems as if they've added some reinforcement plates on it to improve the design for sure.

  9. #89
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by 35th-ANV-SS View Post
    I have an aftermarket torque arm in my car, but I've looked at and picked up my stock torque arm. It weighs 16 lbs and feels pretty stout IMO for a stock piece. Seems as if they've added some reinforcement plates on it to improve the design for sure.
    Ya I've noticed that too. I have a 2000 and a 2002,,,and there is a difference in the torque arms just from those years. My 02 torque arm appears to be a little beefier.

  10. #90
    Senior Member INMY01TA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    The great red state of MD.
    Posts
    5,755

    Black
    2001 Trans Am (sold)

    Only reason I changed my torque arm is the Spohn one is sexy and the last suspension item to change. I never worried about breaking it. I have seen a pic on LS1Tech of a broken one tho.


  11. #91
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Staten Island, NY
    Posts
    258

    2007 Cadillac Escalade
    98 Camaro SS, 09 G8 GT

    Am I the only one that thinks something is wrong with an auto with 3.23's with those mods going 13.30's? My car is by no means a freak and in march went 13.003 @ 108.00 on a 2.004 60' (time slip on my fquick page). That was with a lid, LM1 catback, and Thunder Racing Ported MAF ends. I was running 17x9's on all four corners with 275-40-17 Kumho's. I would get the car checked out. I would think you should be running 12.7-12.8 with those mods at least. Shady, please don't think I'm trying to insult you or your car because that is the furthest from what I'm saying. How's the airfilter look? How's the fuel filter? How about the plugs? Something is up. Get the car on a dyno, I think your losing power somewhere.
    Last edited by Deezl SS; 06-21-2010 at 12:05 PM. Reason: my spelling FTL!
    1998 Sebring Silver Camaro SS Convertible
    Cammed, Geared, Stalled and soon to be blown via F1-C
    2009 Stryker Blue Pontiac G8 GT
    Kook's 1 7/8's LTH's and catted X, Pypes A/B, Vararam, Tune
    2007 Black Raven Cadillac Escalade
    Vararam, Leveling Kit, 33's

  12. #92
    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 Deezl SS View Post
    Am I the only one that thinks something is wrong with an auto with 3.23's with those mods going 13.30's? My car is by no means a freak and in march went 13.003 @ 108.00 on a 2.004 60' (time slip on my fquick page). That was with a lid, LM1 catback, and Thunder Racing Ported MAF ends. I was running 17x9's on all four corners with 275-40-17 Kumho's. I would get the car checked out. I would think you should be running 12.7-12.8 with those mods at least. Shady, please don't think I'm trying to insult you or your car because that is the furthest from what I'm saying. How's the airfilter look? How's the fuel filter? How about the plugs? Something is up. Get the car on a dyno, I think your losing power somewhere.
    that was my original thought too ..i was expecting 12.9-13.0. My filters are fine, just have been changed. I was getting a slow response time on my passenger side 02 about a month ago. so after i fixed that problem i took out 2 of my spark plugs just to make sure..they were fine. I was also getting a low input SES for the maf. this was before and after i cleaned it... One day it just disappeared. however levi, the one who i ran against told me he was noticing a healthy amount of black smoke on my shifts and decel...so i think my maf is still bad, just barely functioning enough not to trip the SES. or maybe something else is going on...unfortunately i dont have anyone near that has hp tuners so until then i am kind of shooting in the dark.

  13. #93
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Staten Island, NY
    Posts
    258

    2007 Cadillac Escalade
    98 Camaro SS, 09 G8 GT

    Do you have someone nearby that also has an ls1 you can swap MAF's with just to test? If not, shoot me a PM.

  14. #94
    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 Deezl SS View Post
    Do you have someone nearby that also has an ls1 you can swap MAF's with just to test? If not, shoot me a PM.
    i'll have to check a few friends to see if i can.

  15. #95
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Deezl SS View Post
    Am I the only one that thinks something is wrong with an auto with 3.23's with those mods going 13.30's? My car is by no means a freak and in march went 13.003 @ 108.00 on a 2.004 60' (time slip on my fquick page). That was with a lid, LM1 catback, and Thunder Racing Ported MAF ends. I was running 17x9's on all four corners with 275-40-17 Kumho's.


    I guess so. With you being in NYC and nearly sea level, I'm assuming you probably ran at a track with close to those conditions as well.

    Shady ran with a 2,000 DA and I ran with a 3,000 DA,,,,and our times are pretty darn close, with our mods being identical. I ran a pretty heavy race wieght though, not sure what Shady has for weight.

    In any event,,,,I'm sure with better conditions for either of our cars we could get down to bottom 13's easily enough.

  16. #96
    TunedbyFrost.com Tuner Frost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA
    Posts
    2,415

    LS1.com Sponsor
    GM Tuner

    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
    A low voltage input will put the car in SD. You will lose 4deg of spark at WOT (not in general, but YOUR calibration) and the car will run off the secondary VE for fueling instead of the MAF.

    The MPH does look a bit low.

  17. #97
    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 Frost View Post
    A low voltage input will put the car in SD. You will lose 4deg of spark at WOT (not in general, but YOUR calibration) and the car will run off the secondary VE for fueling instead of the MAF.

    The MPH does look a bit low.
    the SES isnt on though...hasn't been since around when i talked to you...so i shouldnt be on SD correct?

  18. #98
    TunedbyFrost.com Tuner Frost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA
    Posts
    2,415

    LS1.com Sponsor
    GM Tuner

    You are only in SD if P0101-0103 are active.

  19. #99
    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 Frost View Post
    You are only in SD if P0101-0103 are active.
    ok that is what i thought...but why am i getting black smoke on decel and shifts ..i assume im running rich...but no codes are tripping the SES ..so i dont know. nothing should be wrong with my tune, since i was not always puffing black smoke if you get a chance could you check my tune and see if anything looks out of place etc ? i doubt it as both of your tunes you had for me are outstanding....i think my maf is just reading funky and causing this fueling issue

  20. #100
    Hide ya kids Hide ya wife 94ss06gxp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Shepherd MI
    Posts
    119

    Silver, Stealth Gray
    97 SS CLONE, 06 GP GXP

    was more of a grey colored smoke.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 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
  •