1/4 mile mph ?

[inkcushion]

What kind of times should you be seeing with a 110-111 mph pass? just curious Thanks Alan

 

[Weazel]

I would think LOW 12s with a good launch, maybe 12.0x

 

[Chris Cornett]

What is the 60' time?

 

[Wht87T]

When I was running those slower MPH's the car went 12.1-12.2 with a decent 60'.

 

[Quick6'n'-K.C.]

its in my sig-

 

[WakkoSS]

Are the Buicks known for lower mphs? My non Buick buddies find it fascinating that my car will run a 12.8 but only at 105 mph. I know some N/A cars in the same time bracket will run 110-111 or so. Buddy's blown Cobra with no traction will run 13's or 14's...at 140mph.

 

[6cylpwr]

Ok, Now THATS a squirrelly sig, Wakko.

Steve

 

[inkcushion]

So if the 60 foot time was a 2 or 2.1 what do you think the 1/4 time should be with a 1.6 or 1.7 60 foot . the 2.1 was 12.50 at 110 mph,so will you gop faster in mph with a lower 60 foot time?

 

[soonergn]

I've run 11.95 @ 111 mph as stated in my sig with a 1.56 60 ft. time. Our cars are better at getting out of the hole rather than having a strong top end charge. Because of this it is easier for us to make the most of a given mph in a quarter mile. This is why you don't want to run a Turbo Supra on the highway - they are the other way around. They don't get out of the whole very well but look out for the top end charge! Their ET's are usually slow for the MPH they run.

It's not so much that we MPH slow, it's more that we ET really well for the MPH!

 

[soonergn]

Your MPH may actually go down a tad with a quicker 60 ft. time because you've effectively given yourself LESS time to accelerate with the same amount of horsepower.

 

[Wht87T]

Alan

Intresting how people bend the truth. You went a 12.50 and Zad told me you went an 11.80.. gee big difference.

 

[Quick6'n'-K.C.]

Originally posted by inkcushion
So if the 60 foot time was a 2 or 2.1 what do you think the 1/4 time should be with a 1.6 or 1.7 60 foot . the 2.1 was 12.50 at 110 mph,so will you gop faster in mph with a lower 60 foot time?

so your car went 12.5 at 110 with a 2.1 sixty foot?

well, it sounds real rich because your top end sucks mph wise vs. the good ET for such a crappy sixty foot-

you dont have a SIGNATURE, so im going to guess does it have a non lockup convertor and a stock turbo?

your midrange looks good 12.5's considering the bad sixty foot, but that top end is weak, what was the 1/8th mile time and mph?

 

[Quick6'n'-K.C.]

Originally posted by soonergn
Your MPH may actually go down a tad with a quicker 60 ft. time because you've effectively given yourself LESS time to accelerate with the same amount of horsepower.

i heard that once before here, i believe it was AZGN who said it-

BUT-

running a 2.0 sixty foot with a NON boosted launch should net you a lower mph VS. running a boosted launch 1.60 sixty foot in a turbo regal.
i race at the track with slicks and real radial tire and i still disagree with that statement- just call me crazy i guess!

my car was running 12.50s at 109 on radials no boost launch
added et streets and dropped the sixty foot from a 2.0 to a 1.76 and DROPPED ET AND GAINED MPH- to the times in my sig-
12.09 at 111 and 112 with the non ported stock turbo elbow.
there was no other change in the car, i was able to make more power down low to get that more MPH cause the car wasnt bogging out of the hole on radials


i think what your saying is that if someone is already running slicks then once therr sixty foot times start diving so does the MPH-
if your looking for good MPH, then run radials and get a crappy sixtyfoot- then again, MPH shows what horsepower the car is putting to the ground-
just my opinion-

BW

 

[bsdlinux]

Originally posted by WakkoSS
Are the Buicks known for lower mphs? My non Buick buddies find it fascinating that my car will run a 12.8 but only at 105 mph. I know some N/A cars in the same time bracket will run 110-111 or so. Buddy's blown Cobra with no traction will run 13's or 14's...at 140mph.

It is called a flat torque curve. Great for drag racing. MPH is great but John Force's crew chief said it best " ET wins races not MPH"

 

[inkcushion]

Hey john why are you such an idiot nobody said that I went 12.50 I'm talking about something hypothetical just trying to get an idea for times .And you know when you asked me not to post on your threads anymore same goes for you, stay off my post I thought we settled this last time ,you stay off mine I'll stay off yours and by the way seeing that your already here have you got your 800-900 hp daily driver block from Cal yet???? I'm waiting to see those 10sec post from your "stock109" block.

 

[Louie L.]

Come on you 2 not again!

 

[oehm]

12.251 @ 113.97 mph with a 1.867 60' time here.

 

[Wht87T]

Ah. That will be the last of my post whoring. I'm just glad to see that others dont appreciate it when its done to them in return.

Oh and alan, dont wry about my car running the number... because when it does you wont know about it.

 

[ijames]

The average for tr's is et=1356/mph so 110.5 mph = 12.27 sec.

 

[Jesse]

This thread looks more like lounge material....

Also John and Alan you two do not see eye to eye on many issues and it seems every time a thread is made by either one of you it turns into a hi-jacking / argument , so please do not post on each others threads so the rest of us can enjoy the thread with out the bickering.

Thanks
Jesse