2 passes on the ta49

your best sixty foot in that time frame was a 1.52 with your RPE motor
I gave very little to no details as I progressed with that combo as things were going on as the car was raced,afterwards as I changed combos I share some of my experiences,but it never what I'm currently doing,sorry but not sorry
 
What dont you understand?thought I explained above,those threads talk about boost numbers and 10s and low 11s on a 49 turbo some of which my car at the higher weight maybe that's why your confused.my car never was stuck at 1.58 60ft,it used to do that off a 1lb leave on the converter, right off the foot brake, the 1.52 60ft was on a rpe motor that's when I was breaking it in at low boost and low timing on pump gas and meth I was shocked that it ran damn near the other combo not even trying.you seem to be pulling and picking and trying to move timeframes about posts.ive posted plenty of data regarding 49 turbos and nearly stock motors.keep saying this but they need to be squeezed at higher weight and must 60ft and 330 to run a number.at lower weight difference story,I've had 2 cars at 2 different weights show the same thing as well as my few of my friends cars show nearly identical results.
Just pulled a slip June 2004,race gas and lower weight,1.44 60ft,6.96 1/8 @98.88 mph,10.92@@124.10mph.
 
Again it's your story. There was no reason for you to hide anything in 2008 to 2014 because all those numbers you posted was not impressive for a street car, they were average. The search function is a powerful tool. Read what you left out there for others to read. Your claiming something that never happened the way you said it did. 10 sec and 11 sec Buicks weren't "really fast" in 2008 or 2010. I ran 10.61@126mph back in 1994 with the same car I have today and paid it forward online so guys like yourself had things to look at when you were struggling 14 years later in 2008. You can do a search on me, I encourage it, on both boards (turbobuick and turbobuicks) There comes a point where honesty and integrity have to line up. I have never faltered in that area in the history of me owning a Buick and never had my ego invade a thread and belittle anyone.
 

Attachments

  • 0 bytes · Views: 60
Again it's your story. There was no reason for you to hide anything in 2008 to 2014 because all those numbers you posted was not impressive for a street car, they were average. The search function is a powerful tool. Read what you left out there for others to read. Your claiming something that never happened the way you said it did. 10 sec and 11 sec Buicks weren't "really fast" in 2008 or 2010. I ran 10.61@126mph back in 1994 with the same car I have today and paid it forward online so guys like yourself had things to look at when you were struggling 14 years later in 2008. You can do a search on me, I encourage it, on both boards (turbobuick and turbobuicks) There comes a point where honesty and integrity have to line up. I have never faltered in that area in the history of me owning a Buick and never had my ego invade a thread and belittle anyone.
What are you talking about?I came on here in 2006 and had already ran 10s on a 49 I dont think I was struggling at all with that combo.i never asked or took any teck from you i dont even know you.a 10/11sec street car was fast back in the 90s/2000 especially one that you could drive 4hrs round trip to the track.but hey if you want to quote me and switch the timelines go right ahead.
 
Again it's your story. There was no reason for you to hide anything in 2008 to 2014 because all those numbers you posted was not impressive for a street car, they were average. The search function is a powerful tool. Read what you left out there for others to read. Your claiming something that never happened the way you said it did. 10 sec and 11 sec Buicks weren't "really fast" in 2008 or 2010. I ran 10.61@126mph back in 1994 with the same car I have today and paid it forward online so guys like yourself had things to look at when you were struggling 14 years later in 2008. You can do a search on me, I encourage it, on both boards (turbobuick and turbobuicks) There comes a point where honesty and integrity have to line up. I have never faltered in that area in the history of me owning a Buick and never had my ego invade a thread and belittle anyone.
You still dont get it
 
Again it's your story. There was no reason for you to hide anything in 2008 to 2014 because all those numbers you posted was not impressive for a street car, they were average. The search function is a powerful tool. Read what you left out there for others to read. Your claiming something that never happened the way you said it did. 10 sec and 11 sec Buicks weren't "really fast" in 2008 or 2010. I ran 10.61@126mph back in 1994 with the same car I have today and paid it forward online so guys like yourself had things to look at when you were struggling 14 years later in 2008. You can do a search on me, I encourage it, on both boards (turbobuick and turbobuicks) There comes a point where honesty and integrity have to line up. I have never faltered in that area in the history of me owning a Buick and never had my ego invade a thread and belittle anyone.
Those quotes a from 2014 about my old combo from years ago,I was flying in 2014 with the rpe motor,didnt take long to go fast and racing every weekend and I kept it to myself.i dont owe you a thing.and you cant find any posts on it till way after I did it and I didnt post the combo and still wont.
 
I ran 10.61@126mph back in 1994 with the same car I have today
Frankly I dont give a shit what you ran.ive had alot of different combos through the decades and iv posted about some experiences and you try to cut and paste your way manipulating the times I ran the ca and the weights and fuel I ran it with and guess what its olds news did it 21 years ago and 1000s of passes ago,and 4 different motors ago.
 
The name of thread was 2 passes not everyone I ever made with the 49 turbo and every fuel and tuneup I tried it with.
 
Lol, don't flip it on me. Anybody that can read can search your user name from the time you started posting til now. You were very consistent back then with your TA49 combo in 2006 all the way to 2014. That went 11.1 and hit a brick wall and needed nitrous to run in the 10's and run 125mph. Without it you were under 120mph with a 4.11 gear. You mentioned it over and over and over again in multiple threads, not just 2. And never did you ever mention any sixty foot better than a 1.55. Again these are "YOUR" words, not mine. 1.42 back then never happened, if it did, you would be all over the board with it. Go back and read what you put out there in 8 plus years of you mentioning this combo from 2006 to 2014. Why lie about is what I want to know. I gain nothing from enlightening you on this "YOU" posted.
 
That went 11.1 and hit a brick wall and needed nitrous to run in the 10's and run 125mph. Without it you were under 120mph with a 4.11 gear. You mentioned it over and over and over again in multiple threads,
That's at a higher weight and running pump gas on alky on radials driving to the track.
 
You were very consistent back then with your TA49 combo in 2006 all the way to 2014.
Again your just not getting it,I didnt run that combo in that car in 2014.you keep messing up cars and combos and timelines throwing out bullshit.
 
Again your just not getting it,I didnt run that combo in that car in 2014.you keep messing up cars and combos and timelines throwing out bullshit.
I never said you did. Your not getting it. You have referred to your "old" combo well past the time you ran it..... all the way past 2014. It's your bullshit not mine. You never changed your story until now when you overinflated what really happened. You talked about this combo in every TA49 thread that was talked about on this board in that span of time. Take time and read your own stuff for Pete sakes.
 
I never said you did. Your not getting it. You have referred to your "old" combo well past the time you ran it..... all the way past 2014. It's your bullshit not mine. You never changed your story until now when you overinflated what really happened. You talked about this combo in every TA49 thread that was talked about on this board in that span of time. Take time and read your own stuff for Pete sakes.
Mike,

I think you might be coming down a little hard on Mr. Spool.

Over time details get lost and stories get modified. Keep in mind after sharing misinformation and half truths with the unwashed masses for over a decade he's now a infamous and successful street racer. He has thousands of drag strip passes under his belt. His current combo is a closely guarded secret and he is forced to race No Time so his competition doesn't know what's up his sleeve.

Hell, based on his magic tuning abilities and secret engine builder the sky's the limit! We're talking 9 flat on a stock block with unported heads, a stock turbo, stock crank in a 4500 lb Regal with him, Scooby Doo, the boomin' sound system, the spare tire and jack in the trunk. This kid's got it all worked out. We just need to quit now.

Neal
 
Mike,

I think you might be coming down a little hard on Mr. Spool.

Over time details get lost and stories get modified. Keep in mind after sharing misinformation and half truths with the unwashed masses for over a decade he's now a infamous and successful street racer. He has thousands of drag strip passes under his belt. His current combo is a closely guarded secret and he is forced to race No Time so his competition doesn't know what's up his sleeve.

Hell, based on his magic tuning abilities and secret engine builder the sky's the limit! We're talking 9 flat on a stock block with unported heads, a stock turbo, stock crank in a 4500 lb Regal with him, Scooby Doo, the boomin' sound system, the spare tire and jack in the trunk. This kid's got it all worked out. We just need to quit now.

Neal
Cant do any of that dont you need a crowler crank and a stage block to run 10s on a 49.if you guys are really trying hard with you not needed stage junk you should have quit a long time
 
Top