that in my opinion is an excuse. shore it may be true but from where i sit LS1LT1 has the fastest stock c6 a6 for now don't try to deny his glory on dumb reasoning .when anyone sets a land speed record they don't say well that was at the salt flats. when john force sets a new funny car record its a new record doesn't mater were it is most of the faster times are from driver experience the launch amount of fuel. come on tire pressure is the responsibility of the driver you guys might be big star members but give us a break it was the fastest stock run so far.what do you want same driver air pressure fuel you might as well make shore same guy built all cars on same day.

 

I knew this was coming. No one here is in any way trying to deny his achievement and he has indeed recorded the quickest time for a bone stock automatic. But the fact still remains that non of the times listed are corrected and comparing times from across the country, while a fun endeavor, has to be taken for what its worth.

I am very happy to see so many C6s in the sub 12.5 range for quarter mile times.

But truth be known some of the cars with posted times of 12.4 are running quicker than some of the cars on that same list that have headers, drag radials, CAI, and other mods. Why do you suppose that is?

CYA-VEtt, a seasoned drag racer, running headers and Mickey Thonmpson ET Streets, lists a time only 2 tenths quicker, and on his street tires and again running KOOKS headers, only 1 tenth quicker than that 12.4.

I couldn't agree more, and indeed, I am on your side. The car ran what it ran. But having said all that you can't ignore the impraticality of comparing time slips from different parts of the country.

There was a guy from the C5 fourm here a little while back, bad mouthing the C6 about it's 1/4 mile times. Said that the C5 had been out for 7 years and the quickest ones had run 12.6 bone stock. Showed links to that effect. I believe that there are two or three C5s said to have hit 12.6 completely bone stock.

Said that in 7 years the new Vette was only able to put up a best of 12.49 and he was then referring to the lone 12.499 on the list put up by JSchindler. Said that most C6s were running 12.9 to 13.0 at best and that Chevy had handcuffed the car with "torque management".

He concluded that since there was only about a 3 tenths difference between the C5 and the C6 that it made no sense to buy a C6. When it was pointed out that not enough of us had been to the drag strip, we were told that it was an "excuse."

Now take a look. There are 6 people to post time slips of 12.5 or better in bone stock C6s. We have a 12.2, a handful of 12.4s ....Compare the average of the quickest recorded bone stock C6 times with the average of the quickest bone stock C5s and you can see that the guy who made those remarks about the C6 and how it wasn't much quicker than the C5 seven years later was way off base.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show...8&page=1&pp=20

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show...7&forum_id=108

Its looking more like about a 5-7 tenths difference.

Every time a C6 puts up a 12.4 or better, I PM him.

 

Oh yeah .. wouldn't want to let facts get in the way!

I think I'll find a nice downhill, let's say 70% slope, use a Port-A-Tree timer and get a 9.00 ET slip to post since nothing else matters!

 

It could be a lot of reasons, driver skill, torque management, wheelspin and yes, weather/elevation variances.



True, but whether we like it or not that is how it is. No other LSX motor based board I know of demands the specific distinction between geographical location or weather be made when posting their time slip lists so unfortunately this is what we've got.
Please keep in mind that we are free to move about at will in this great nation and a guy living in Miami in July is MORE than welcome to come on up to Cecil County Dragway in MD in December to run his car if he so chooses.

 

Well I did not know about DA. I was having a very hard time trying to understand why I was only getting 13.2 on a mid 40, low 50 degree day. Seem to be hooking up ok. But now that I look at the weather station board there was a figure of 1610 up there. They told everyone in the begin what the order was but I didn't catch it all. Now I know that was the corrected altitude, or at least thats what I think it was. Humidity was about 65% at a track that is 150'. Does that seem right?

 

Hey Guys
This list was supposed to be for "FUN & Informational purposes" only. If you really want to compare apples to apples, I have all my time slips as well as what was done on a given run (It is a sickness attributable to the accounting profession).

I have previously mentioned this before............. lets get an agreement on the information that we all want and I will PM everybody on the list for that information and then post it. Then, we should be able to compare apples to apples an everybody will be a happy camper.

With regard to what a member runs. (from my prespective) I have been around drag strips for some time but this is my first Vette and I need to feel comfortable in it. (Material difference from a Mustang) Seat time allows the driver to dial in his launch. I have five runs and I am still playing.

I know I should always heat up the tires prior to launching, flash the converter, Ice the intake, carry nothing in the car and run with practically no gas for the fastest times.

BUT I thought the idea was to see just how fast these cars would go in "stock street trim". So I chose not to.......... and still ran nice times. If I chose to run as I would have in competition I know the car will go faster..... so what............ this is for FUN or am I mistaken.

Daren & Marc ran very fast times no one can deny the numbers. There should be no arguments only discussion. Fifteen years ago when we started building my supercharged mustang there was no internet and no one was talking....... I learned by trial and expensive error.

I though the main purpose of this forum is to gain information through others experience. (yea I know besides selling Corvettes & assorted performance parts & service)

I'm almost all caught up with work so if you guys want to make the list more informative now is the time to start......I am always open to suggestions.

 

It could also be track preparation, vehicle weight when run, gasoline octane rating, tire pressure, or wheel alignment. But the fact is that 12.4 bone stock time is a quicker time than that reported by other very capable drivers (nine ball, CYA-Vett, and others) whose cars are actually modified. In some cases with headers, catback, soft compound tires, tunes or all of the above.

If thats the case, and it is, then its more than likely the fact that one car may have been run at a negative DA, I recall Redgar saying that his weather station read -300 at noon, (I believe that you asked what it was in the morning) at that track, and another may not have been so fortunate.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show...37&forum_id=90 post 12.

Density altitude is usually the first place that anyone is going to look when they see a bone stock car posting a time slip only 1 or 2 tenths slower than another car, same make and model with headers on it piloted by a driver with hundreds of passes in a C5 Z06. They know it is more than likely the difference in DA, if not traction, which accounts for the raw results.

In the case of stock and near stock automatic C5 and C6 Vettes, "driver skill" amounts to not much more than being able to do a burnout, being able to keep the wheels straight and being able to mash the gas pedal to the floor.

The time you see posted in my signature run with my C5 (and yes the DA is listed as well) required very little skill compared to that required to turn the same time with a manual. I certainly knew what equipment I would need to run times like that, but as far as "driver skill", I was just brake stalling as high as I could, waiting for the third yellow, coming off the brake and mashing the pedal to the floor like most automatic drivers in stock and near stock Vettes do.
The difference is that I will confess to it.

Yes, I already mentioned that and I don't think that anyone is "demanding" that a distinction between geographical location or weather be made when posting their time slip."

Also many, Ranger and a few others come to mind, will tell you in a minute what DA their times were run in. Especially if it was an unusually low time. Some actually post the DA to further bolster their claim as if to say "no this was not run under optimum conditions" or "yes, I know this was run in ideal conditions."

Yes, and perhaps I will trailer my car to Atco just before it closes next fall and run one of those killer times too. But I doubt it. Because I keep a list of all of my times and correct them anyway. The one you see in my sig corrects out to a 12.2x.

Finally most people who run an unusually quick time will readily tell you that DA played a huge role in it. They will sometimes even give the weather conditions in the description of the run. It is curious that you are not as quick to acknowledge the same thing. Sure it was a great run. But it should be, and indeed will be, like it or not, pointed out by many, that it was run at a usually very well prepped track and at a negative DA.

That doesn't take away from the run, it merely puts it into perspective.

When you take that into account, its a bit presumptious to make a claim to the effect of having the "fastest automatic car here" or anywhere else for that matter. Just because you ran the fastest time on a given day in Jersey, does not mean that car is any "quicker" than one posting a time slip 3 tenths slower running in July in Miami.

 

Need to know the barometric pressure too. Are you saying that you ran a 13.2 at a DA of 1610 feet?

If you ran a 13.2 at a DA of 1610, feet that 13.2 would correct out to a 12.9 at sea level and ideal conditions. And at a DA of -300 feet becomes even better.

Lets just say that if you had run your car at -300 the same way you ran it at a DA of 1610, you would have done much better that 13.2.

http://www.modulardepot.com/density.php

 

Nope that is not it I don't think. The track is only 150'. That is a fact. SO I still don't get it totally but thanks for the link to the site. It's been 30+ years since I did this type of stuff and its nice to learn. I will be getter the next time on getting all the data. Thanks for the site.

 

The list is a lot of fun and it is interesting to see what people have run.

But it can hardly be used for bragging rights.

When a guy says, his car is the "Quickest bone stock automatic Corvette ever?" and "Considering that the C6 autos are all faster than the C5 autos and that the C5 autos are generally faster then the C4s, is it possible that I own the fastest automatic Corvette sold to the public since like 1971? Maybe ever? Gotta do some research on that."

All that based on being at the top of that list, well I sure hope he is just kidding.

 

The track may sit at a physical altitude of only 150 feet. But if the humidity, temperature and barometric pressure were of certain values, the conditions change. The conditions could make the car perform as though it were being run at a higher, or lower physical altitude than the one it is actually physically sitting on.

Sure the track was at physical location which was 150 feet above sea level, but the weather conditions were such that it was like running the car at 1610 feet above sea level. If the track was at a physical altitude of 150 and it was running like it was at 1610, then that is going to play a big role in your results.

Higher altitude, the air is less dense and has less oxygen in it. Internal combustion engines perform better and make more power with dense, oxygen rich air. Lower altitude, the air is more dense and has a higher 02 content in it.

For example, my local track sits at a physical altitude of 1210 feet. But if it is cool enough and not too humid, and the barometric pressure is good, its like running at a physical elevation of only 1015 feet,.... or some number less than 1210 feet.

If I run at that same track in 88* weather and 90% humidity then it could end up being like running at a physical altitude much, much higher than the physical altitude of 1210 feet, and my car will run a slower, and worse, or even a much worse time.

If I am really lucky, and get a day where weather conditions are such that the density altitude is actually a negative number, at my track which sits at a physical altitude of 1210 feet (this is very rare in my area), then my car will run a much quicker time.

A guy who has the luxury or running at a track which already sits at a low physical altitude of 5 feet, 10 feet, 20 feet, 30 feet, 150 feet above sea level, plus runs at a time of year where he has cool weather, low humidity, good barometric pressure,.... the density altitude he runs at will be very low or even negative. You'll sometimes see, DA of -100, -200, -300 feet, etc. His car will make more power, than it otherwise would, due to the comparatively dense, oxygen rich air, and he will run a quicker time than usual, and all else equal, a lower time than a guy running the same exact car but at a higher DA elsewhere in the country.

Indeed, the bone stock car may even post a quicker time than a mild to moderately modded car running at a higher DA on another track, hundreds of miles away, simply because of the lower DA.

So all else equal your car should perform better at a lower density altitude than a higher one. This is why a guy running in Denver in the middle of the summer is not going to be able to make the claim of having "the quickest bone stock C6."

 

hey guys don't get me wrong this is as much fun ,almost! as the run so when i ran a 13.20 it was like i was at your track but really the biggest difference is the amount of torque management in each car.

 

My torque managment is my right foot on the gas and left foot on the clutch

 

Depending upon the density altitude, that 13.20 you ran may correct out to a higher or lower ET is what I'm saying. If you ran it at a DA of +2500 feet it will correct out to lower than 13.2 seconds.

You saying that they have different amounts of torque management in them?

 

Torque managment is the reason my times were not quicker. EVERY time I tried to launch hard, it kicked in. I though for sure I'd run 11's with headers. My C5 did. I suspect after tuning it out I will make it, we'll see.

Dave

 

Dave thanks for chiming in.

Out of curiosity, since you were running those ET Streets, did you notice anything which you would have intreperted as Torque Management when you were running your street tires?

Also, with those headers, you say that you have not gotten the tune yet. When I had my KOOKS on my C5 I would sometimes get false knock. The car would pull timing. Also your A/F ratios with the KOOKS likely changed.

Have you looked into that?

And I agree, you would certainly run 11s with headers, ET streets and a tune.

 

Never, only on sticky tires. I was a non believer 2 weeks ago.

The check engine light is on, it's running really rich.
I'm sure the car is pulling timing, but I would bet it is not when I launch, only on the top end, like the C5 did. When the car pulls timing for knock is has never been as dramatic as it is doing when I launch, the car is really dying. I even put extra gas in it, as I though it was too low.

I will be interested in my dyno run before a tune, I'll put a scanner on it to see how much timing I am losing. My peak HP may be up, but if the car is constantly pulling timing, overall performance would be lost.
With 400HP these cars should be quicker.

Dave

 

Good luck with the tuning. I am sure that with just the headers and ET Streets it should hit 11s easily.

Its sort of a difficult decision. One more question if you don't mind. You say that you know that the car is running rich. If your A/F were dialed in do you think that the car would perform better, without removing torque management if there is such a thing?

The reason why I ask is because if there really is torque management then it is there to protect the drivetrain. I would hate to see you bust something in the drive train by removing it if only a simple dial in of your A/F ratios would do the trick. Especially if you are running those ET Streets.

 

Yes, getting the additional HP out of a good tune will help ET's, my TM is only kicking in on launch (as far as I can tell) I bet a tune is good for at least a tenth, even leaving TM alone.

However, stock cars are breaking rears with TM in place, on stock tires, TM helps the drivetrain, it will not prevent failure 100% of the time. So why not remove it? It's your call.
The ET Streets are easier on the drivetrain than the radials/DR's, the sidewalls flex at launch and reduces the intial shock to the driveline. I highly recommend them. If we're ever at the track together you can borrow them sometime for a couple of passes.

Dave

 

DON'T FORGET VINTAGE THUNDER AT CECIL . WILL BE THERE LAST YR C6'S RAN LOW 13'S.