Corrected is 92 MPH at sea level, Thanks for the math. Maybe the car was out of tune.

 

I ran 13.5 in my 90 L98 with an air foil and 373's...lol

 

Ya gotta love

2002 Chevrolet Corvette (Lingenfelter 427 twin turbo) 1.97 9.24

OMG - I want one!!!

 

Flatlander, not flatliner.

It means when corrected at sea level, you're a dumbass. If you were a flatliner, you'd be dead, and therefore smarter by default. That was a compliment.

 

OMG!

 

A flatlander in Ontario is even better. You have low altitude and cooler air.

 

i miss spelled the word. omg!

 

Misspelling is ok. At least you're not dead.

 

Have you got proof of that? Including the cranium???

RACE ON!!!

 

You misspelled "misspelled" also.

 

chill out man. damn

 

So I did.....

 

Time to pour some gasoline on this fire.

1) my buddy this, my buddy that crap is just that... it's another form of bench racing.

2) This is my favourite - has anyone here ever heard of that nifty thing called a "ringer"?

Yup... a ringer. That's what the manufacturers send to the media. They will all but hand build a car for the press. It's tuned, it's tweeked, it's tested.... just to be 100% sure it is PERFECT.

In the past, the makers have even gone to the extreem of sending modified cars to the tests... one for photo shoots, another, identical in all respects, except sporting a bigger, hotter, motor... one that may not be available! For reference, see 1965 GTO - read Jim Wangers book, Glory Days.

I would not be surprised if a car is computer tuned for magazines these days... in the past, they would retune the distrubutor curve, fuel delivery... you name it... Tires were selected for perfect balance... everything, PERFECT.

Finally, of late, many of the car mags use nearly professional grade drivers to test the performance. Also, Car and Driver has established very consistant test parameters to help reduce the effect of the ringer - 2 direction testing, more then one driver, that kinda stuff. Then averaging the numbers.

At best, the car mags will provide a baseline of sorts.

I remember a huge discourse over in Other Cars... some punk assed kid, MysteryLS1, was trying to tell us how great he was, how much of an expert, and all he was doing was spouting how hot the Fbodies were.

Back in 2000 or 2001, GM High Tech Performance was testing a Camaro SS - this is the source of all of his "genius". They got some serious track numbers off this car, so serious, they strapped it to a chassis dyno... the SAE Net Horsepower, as rated at the crank, with accessories, air box and full exhaust, was 327hp... however, this car was putting 321 down to the rear wheels. Something was fishy in Denmark, yo.

This is what I am talking about. Serious fish factor.

so, please, for the love of God, just take these cars to the track and race them.

Finally, 88BlackZ-51 - What part of altitude don't you understand? I am stunned by the fact you keep jumping on cuisenartvette just cause "it's slow" when you totally miss the fact it's running at 2700'?

 

Also...

Most magazines use a radar gun to perform their performance testing. They don't have timing systems set up like a track uses.

Radar guns aren't nearly as accurate as timing beams.

 

Car and Driver uses a satellite based tracking system to clock their vehicles. They have rarely ever used radar for testing.

In the past, they used a thing called the "5th Wheel". It was a unit that stuck to the side via suction cups that clocked performance. Later, they updated to the current sat based system.

Read this... I am sure my details are off a bit... perhaps I should re-read it!

http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=1

 

Dude, put down the fact books, and come to the race at LACR tomorrow, where you can see actually cars running down the dragstrip. Who knows, maybe you'll actually try it once yourself.

 

Also, lets keep in mind the changes from 85 to 91, mainly heads and roller cam. Those are worth a few tenths.

FWIW, out of my 5 trips to dragstrips, I've seen only ONE other C4 run, besides my own. And that was a fellow forum member. I dunno why that is, either all of them are falling apart, or the owners think they're made of glass. (well, I guess they really are. )

 

you talk'n to me??? I already told ya I was going to Vegas...

 

good points about the elevation at LACR being 2700 ft. not bad for some of the other states running 4400+ft but the air over there sucks. i took my car to a 650ft track after running in LACR and ran 5.1 tenths quicker! no mods done different just better conditions over all. went 14.81 LACR then down to 14.30 in Bakersfield.

TRUST ME and others. LACR isn't the worst in conditions combined with elevation,its one of the worst but not THEE worst. i've only been to 4 different tracks so i can't say much for other states. this wasn't a rant by any means,just tying to show other things factor for worse ET.

 

Traction, for one.

I've seen guys post 1.9 60' times or better on street tires. I'm at 2.15. That's a BIG difference, worth at least a 1/2 second in the quarter. For this reason, I think the 5-60 mph tests in the magazines are legitimate and accurate, but not the standing 1/4mile tests.