Take back the keys!

Figured this forum thrives off bench racing so you guys might think this is kind of cool

http://www.stealth316.com/2-calc-hp-et-mph.htm

Go into the bottom and type in your weight and your power level and it will calculate your ideal 1/4 mile time.
Obviously its not going to be entirely accurate because there are way too many factors to list (launch, temp, track, track conditions, driving, etc)
But it's kind of cool to get an estimate.

9.7@142!! nice.

through some fucking around with that calculator, it seems at least for me hales is the really only accurate one as far as MPH is concerned.

I did Gary's times to with the weight of his car and him in it ~ 3700lbs (got my weight from autotrader, I called him 200lbs ) With that formula his HP numbers were only 1 off... the others are like over a 100 off from eachother... so I don't think they take into account a good driver/60ft time as much as they should.

hales is the only one that seems mildly accurate, i played with my own numbers 3600 lbs 104 trap (on a 2.6 60ft) i ran a 13.3.
It put me at a 13 flat which seems right on with a 1.7-1.8 60ft

humm.. well.. might as well throwaway the peice of paper that had the mass amount of math formulas on it that i was working on today in study hall.. this is what i was trying to figure..

you really think my car is factory weight??? haha, keep thinking that

i dont believe all that stuff anyway... theres alot more factors such as; drivetrain, gearing, driving, torque/horsepower curves, 60', weather, track conditions, etc...

cory, if you run a 9.7 @ 145 i will give you my trans am straight up... because at that point i give up

g3ar5hift3r wrote:hales is the only one that seems mildly accurate, i played with my own numbers 3600 lbs 104 trap (on a 2.6 60ft) i ran a 13.3.
It put me at a 13 flat which seems right on with a 1.7-1.8 60ft

didn't i stay side by side with you in my srt going down market last year??

SVT THIS wrote:you really think my car is factory weight??? haha, keep thinking that

i dont believe all that stuff anyway... theres alot more factors such as; drivetrain, gearing, driving, torque/horsepower curves, 60', weather, track conditions, etc...

cory, if you run a 9.7 @ 145 i will give you my trans am straight up... because at that point i give up

No I dont think your car is factory weight, it has a cage and you in it, so therefore.. not factory.

I dont buy into it that much either, however the numbers that one equation is spitting out is HELLA close....

Its actually 9.7@142 we will see eh? haha, pump gas first... but there is always race to be had.

At my weight and power level, it's giving me a 10.8 @ 135. Which I have seen done with similar set ups close to mine. But I don't think i'm going to be able to perfectly drive myself into 10's. Oh well, Fast enough

SVT THIS wrote:

g3ar5hift3r wrote:hales is the only one that seems mildly accurate, i played with my own numbers 3600 lbs 104 trap (on a 2.6 60ft) i ran a 13.3.
It put me at a 13 flat which seems right on with a 1.7-1.8 60ft

didn't i stay side by side with you in my srt going down market last year??

hm that was probably more than a year ago... closer to when i got the car together the first time. At that point i was running a 600cfm and it was running pretty lean. I bumped up to a 650 mechanical and changed the lines/pump/regulator/etc. last year, it made a pretty big difference. It took me a while to get all the bugs worked out of that motor, last summer was pretty much the first time everything was running well consistently.

I took it to the track quite a few times last summer... consistent 13.3-13.4 @ 102-104 on those shitty 8" street tires cutting 2.6-2.7 60fts lol

Rb25Cory wrote:No I dont think your car is factory weight, it has a cage and you in it, so therefore.. not factory.

all four of my convo pros weigh approx what one of my factory chrome wheel weighed, i took out both power leather seats for plastic buckets, took out leather back seat, removed all soundproofing (i still dont know why i wasted my time doing this) removed a/c and heater system, removed the air/egr system, removed all duct work behind the dash, took off tcs/cruise control, replaced metal tank with plastic fuel cell, replaced the factory 15 lbs/side motor mount arms with solid ones, replaced factory metal hood with fiberglass ram air hood, got a 15 lb flywheel to replace the factory 25 lb unit, took off cats, replaced steel exhaust manifolds with stainless headers, exhaust exits before the axles, bullit style mufflers instead of the 5968 chamber factory muffler

...and i have a cage

so i guess it weighs 3700 lbs right?

SVT THIS wrote:

Rb25Cory wrote:No I dont think your car is factory weight, it has a cage and you in it, so therefore.. not factory.

all four of my convo pros weigh approx what one of my factory chrome wheel weighed, i took out both power leather seats for plastic buckets, took out leather back seat, removed all soundproofing (i still dont know why i wasted my time doing this) removed a/c and heater system, removed the air/egr system, removed all duct work behind the dash, took off tcs/cruise control, replaced metal tank with plastic fuel cell, replaced the factory 15 lbs/side motor mount arms with solid ones, replaced factory metal hood with fiberglass ram air hood, got a 15 lb flywheel to replace the factory 25 lb unit, took off cats, replaced steel exhaust manifolds with stainless headers, exhaust exits before the axles, bullit style mufflers instead of the 5968 chamber factory muffler

...and i have a cage

so i guess it weighs 3700 lbs right?

yeah you forgot about a 225-250lb Gary. lol, which was calced into that weight as 200lbs adding to the factory 3500ish. Go put it on a scale like I did and then you will know FOR SURE. Its the only way.

Some of you guys seem cool and all, but I think there will be ALOT of dissapointment if you're all planning on going 9s and 10s

I know what my car makes, what it's approximate weight is, and I'm shooting for a slightly more realistic (higher) number than what get's spit out by the bench calculator, and that's not even that fast

Point being, no one 'runs' shit until you try and get that thing down QCR in any way shape or form.

RSbeast wrote:Some of you guys seem cool and all, but I think there will be ALOT of dissapointment if you're all planning on going 9s and 10s

I know what my car makes, what it's approximate weight is, and I'm shooting for a slightly more realistic (higher) number than what get's spit out by the bench calculator, and that's not even that fast

Point being, no one 'runs' shit until you try and get that thing down QCR in any way shape or form.

lol I hope you don't think I was serious haha.

RSbeast wrote:Some of you guys seem cool and all, but I think there will be ALOT of dissapointment if you're all planning on going 9s and 10s

I know what my car makes, what it's approximate weight is, and I'm shooting for a slightly more realistic (higher) number than what get's spit out by the bench calculator, and that's not even that fast

Point being, no one 'runs' shit until you try and get that thing down QCR in any way shape or form.

I dont recall anyone saying they were going to run anything.
They just plugged in their weight and power and posted up their number.
I know what my set up is capable of... And I also know what my driving is capable of

Unless you have a real life dyno #, and a scaled weight with a driver then it seems a little childish with no other factors considered.

You guys bicker with a man with an 11 sec car trapping @120mph.

I just want to see someone acually TRY and run a comparable time. Much less plugging in #s ' I think this and this and I should go 9/10s at 130/140'

I garunfuckintee someone is going home upset..

you can generate basic #s all day, but there are sooooooo many factors to include. Including the utter lack of TQ in a few apps here.

I'm not saying you cannot run these times, or beat gary's old time (its not THAT hard) but it's not going to be easy. I just think it's more of 'hahaha according to this I'll smah you' without so much as touching some VHT.

It comes off as weak.

RSbeast wrote:Unless you have a real life dyno #, and a scaled weight with a driver then it seems a little childish with no other factors considered.

You guys bicker with a man with an 11 sec car trapping @120mph.

I just want to see someone acually TRY and run a comparable time. Much less plugging in #s ' I think this and this and I should go 9/10s at 130/140'

I garunfuckintee someone is going home upset..

you can generate basic #s all day, but there are sooooooo many factors to include. Including the utter lack of TQ in a few apps here.

I'm not saying you cannot run these times, or beat gary's old time (its not THAT hard) but it's not going to be easy. I just think it's more of 'hahaha according to this I'll smah you' without so much as touching some VHT.

It comes off as weak.

lol Tom, no need to take some of this talk seriously.

As Nick just stated even in his post that he wouldn't be able to drive it to that time, even if he was capable or going to be.

That first number I threw out was a joke as IF I was pushing my setup to the MAX. IE 30-35lbs and on c-16. Which I do not plan to be doing. I just did it for shits and giggles by NO means was I serious.

No need to get upset over a little fun, I don't think anyone in here was being super serious.

That one calculator is fairly close, even if it is a calculator....

I know what it takes to run those times, I've tracked my car more times than I can count, I drive the shit out of it because thats what I made it for. Frankly I cant wait until its finished so I can get back to QCR for some shake down runs with "My Name is Gary, I talk in 3rd Person"

I suggest you join us as well!

RSbeast wrote:Unless you have a real life dyno #, and a scaled weight with a driver then it seems a little childish with no other factors considered.

You guys bicker with a man with an 11 sec car trapping @120mph.

I just want to see someone acually TRY and run a comparable time. Much less plugging in #s ' I think this and this and I should go 9/10s at 130/140'

I garunfuckintee someone is going home upset..

you can generate basic #s all day, but there are sooooooo many factors to include. Including the utter lack of TQ in a few apps here.

I'm not saying you cannot run these times, or beat gary's old time (its not THAT hard) but it's not going to be easy. I just think it's more of 'hahaha according to this I'll smah you' without so much as touching some VHT.

It comes off as weak.

Hmm.. Somebody is getting a bit uptight, Yours come out to be a 13 or something?

I posted it for fun and also stated in my first post that there are many factors and not to take it as completely accurate. If you want to argue about lack of torque with me though..

Here is a very similar set up to mine. He posted his weight and power level so you can check it on the calculator if you wish.
Even included a nice little video.

http://www.honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=2081513

i just hope to run 10.90s on motor and 9.90s on juice

my goal is 9.90s also, should make about 850ponies on pump @ 20psi... theres always 110octane at 30+psi... but i dunno if i wanna push it

too much money invested into it at this point to risk blowing it up

Glad to see we're not being serious about this!

I just plugged in some of my runs from last season and it was telling me that on a my times on the 150 shot that I had 668 HP DAMN...! Stock LS2's (the engine my SS had) made in the a claimed "underrated" 400 flywheel HP. So lets say that means I was maybe making 410-420 or maybe I had a weak one.....ya never know. ADD the 150 shot and you would never get into the 660 HP range.

Again its hard to figure in TQ into any of this and that plays a major factor when it comes down to track times. Calculators are only as good as the info you enter into them and the minds that created them originally.

LSXhilarating wrote::lol: Glad to see we're not being serious about this!

I just plugged in some of my runs from last season and it was telling me that on a my times on the 150 shot that I had 668 HP DAMN...! Stock LS2's (the engine my SS had) made in the a claimed "underrated" 400 flywheel HP. So lets say that means I was maybe making 410-420 or maybe I had a weak one.....ya never know. ADD the 150 shot and you would never get into the 660 HP range.

Again its hard to figure in TQ into any of this and that plays a major factor when it comes down to track times. Calculators are only as good as the info you enter into them and the minds that created them originally.

Which calc were u using? Hales is the only decent one. I figure that tank weighs about 4700-4800 lbs with u in it... your numbers on the calc work out to roughly 520-540 hp, which seems somewhat accurate for 150 shot on that motor. I dunno where u were getting 660 from o.O

Only time I got it weighed was with the half tank and me in it and it was over 5000 lbs. Wet weight on those things were a lot more then the advertised weights GM posted in their info. I myself couldn't believe it. I got the scale print out somewhere...if I find it I will post it up.

i believe u, i was just going on what gm said they weighed.... so say it weights 5500lbs, ur still only looking at 580hp est. Sure thats a bit high still, but its not off by a ton. I'd assume roughly 550 flywheel hp on the 150 shot

By my guess it be in the 550-560 range but it was probably making that if not more in torque.

Hales seemed kinda close but again they are only as good as the info you put in them.