but I don't believe that those are totally accurate.
My Zero to 60 mph is 3.53 seconds
Thread Starter
Melting Slicks
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,131
Likes: 148
From: Sugar Land TX
My Zero to 60 mph is 3.53 seconds
According to my HP Tuner log I ran a 0-60 mph in 3.532 seconds with a 1.843 60'.
Not much better than what stock Corvette can do. I have headers, intake, tune and udp. This factory torque converter is very tight. My launch rpm at 100% throttle was 1543 rpm. Peak torque of 4600 rpm came in at 30 mph. Did manage an 11.51 @ 120.3 mph 1/4 mile.
Not much better than what stock Corvette can do. I have headers, intake, tune and udp. This factory torque converter is very tight. My launch rpm at 100% throttle was 1543 rpm. Peak torque of 4600 rpm came in at 30 mph. Did manage an 11.51 @ 120.3 mph 1/4 mile.
Race Director
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,331
Likes: 18
From: Missouri City Texas
Ah, I didn't know you had an underdrive pulley...did you put it on yourself? Do you know measureable gains from that alone?
Isn't 3.5 about a half second quicker to 60 than stock? I wouldn't say that's too bad while retaining the stock converter and street tires.
Isn't 3.5 about a half second quicker to 60 than stock? I wouldn't say that's too bad while retaining the stock converter and street tires.
Thread Starter
Melting Slicks
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,131
Likes: 148
From: Sugar Land TX
Ah, I didn't know you had an underdrive pulley...did you put it on yourself? Do you know measureable gains from that alone?
Isn't 3.5 about a half second quicker to 60 than stock? I wouldn't say that's too bad while retaining the stock converter and street tires.
Isn't 3.5 about a half second quicker to 60 than stock? I wouldn't say that's too bad while retaining the stock converter and street tires.
I have high flow cats with my headers now and have not dynoed again.
Thread Starter
Melting Slicks
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,131
Likes: 148
From: Sugar Land TX
Race Director
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,331
Likes: 18
From: Missouri City Texas
That calculator showed mine at 3.2 seconds....damn your 1.5 60s
This is the link: http://home.earthlink.net/~vortmax96/Z28/0-60time.xls
Race Director
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,331
Likes: 18
From: Missouri City Texas
Can't say for sure how much the pulley added Floyd. I did dyno back when I had the Z06 manifolds without the pulley and recorded 409 rwhp. I then gutted the Z06 cats and added the pulley and dynoed 427 on the same dyno and in almost the same ambient temperature. Although the correction should compensate. So I gained 18 hp from gutted cats and UDP. If you assume each gave the same then I got 9 rwhp from the pulley.
I have high flow cats with my headers now and have not dynoed again.
I have high flow cats with my headers now and have not dynoed again.
And did you install it yourself? To put an UDP on is pretty labor intensive in these cars isn't it?
Team Owner
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 27,254
Likes: 136
From: Short Hills, NJ
http://www.wallaceracing.com/0-60_equation.php
I'm curious just how far off it is from an actual HP Tuners log/scan.
I'm curious just how far off it is from an actual HP Tuners log/scan.
Corvette Stories
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
Every 2027 Corvette Engine Explained
Joe Kucinski
Designer Imagines A Corvette That Looks More Like a Corvette Than the Corvette
Verdad Gallardo
10 Ugly Corvettes That We Still Kinda Love
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Most Expensive Corvettes Ever Sold on Bring A Trailer
Brett Foote
10 Things Every Corvette Owner Needs (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
8 Most "Only Corvette Owners Understand" Quirks and Problems
Pouria Savadkouei
10 Reasons the C6 Z06 is Still A Performance Benchmark After 20 Years
Joe Kucinski
How Much Horsepower Every Corvette Engine "LOST" in 1972
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 DOs and DON'Ts for Protecting Your Convertible Top!
Michael S. Palmer
Race Director
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,331
Likes: 18
From: Missouri City Texas
Ah, so you did use a different calculator.
The one you posted shows me 0-60 at 2.97 seconds, which I believe is quite generous versus the calculator I posted up showing me at 3.232.
The one you posted shows me 0-60 at 2.97 seconds, which I believe is quite generous versus the calculator I posted up showing me at 3.232.
Thread Starter
Melting Slicks
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,131
Likes: 148
From: Sugar Land TX
http://www.wallaceracing.com/0-60_equation.php
I'm curious just how far off it is from an actual HP Tuners log/scan.
I'm curious just how far off it is from an actual HP Tuners log/scan.
Floyd, Couldn't find the a value in your link. I did not install the pulley myself. Kurt (98Aggie) installed it for me and did the dyno. He's just outside of Victoria. Great guy to work with.
Safety Car
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,597
Likes: 101
From: TN PA
CI 5-6-7-8-9-10-11 Vet
My 1/8 mile times... 1.88 60' 7.813 @ 92.89.... sweet!
Thread Starter
Melting Slicks
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,131
Likes: 148
From: Sugar Land TX
The way my car has such a variable acceleration I don't think any of the formulas will give an accurate 0-60 bases on 1/8 mile time/speed. I launch very slowly until about 3000 rpm when the power decides to start. Somewhat like turbo acceleration. I tend to believe my HP Tuner log to be the more accurate.
Race Director
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,331
Likes: 18
From: Missouri City Texas
So what was it about my link that didn't work for you, Larry?
http://home.earthlink.net/~vortmax96/Z28/0-60time.xls
I can click on it and use it without any issues and it gives more accurate times (I have used it in the past with my Fbody when I had HPtuners for it to compare it to).
You should just click on the link, click open, enter your 60, 330, 1/8, 1000 and 1/4 ET and then input the new A and B value that it creates into the A and B field (the new values will be right above the graph)
http://home.earthlink.net/~vortmax96/Z28/0-60time.xls
I can click on it and use it without any issues and it gives more accurate times (I have used it in the past with my Fbody when I had HPtuners for it to compare it to).
You should just click on the link, click open, enter your 60, 330, 1/8, 1000 and 1/4 ET and then input the new A and B value that it creates into the A and B field (the new values will be right above the graph)
Thread Starter
Melting Slicks
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,131
Likes: 148
From: Sugar Land TX
So what was it about my link that didn't work for you, Larry?
http://home.earthlink.net/~vortmax96/Z28/0-60time.xls
I can click on it and use it without any issues and it gives more accurate times (I have used it in the past with my Fbody when I had HPtuners for it to compare it to).
You should just click on the link, click open, enter your 60, 330, 1/8, 1000 and 1/4 ET and then input the new A and B value that it creates into the A and B field (the new values will be right above the graph)
http://home.earthlink.net/~vortmax96/Z28/0-60time.xls
I can click on it and use it without any issues and it gives more accurate times (I have used it in the past with my Fbody when I had HPtuners for it to compare it to).
You should just click on the link, click open, enter your 60, 330, 1/8, 1000 and 1/4 ET and then input the new A and B value that it creates into the A and B field (the new values will be right above the graph)
Race Director
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,331
Likes: 18
From: Missouri City Texas
I still think you're doing something wrong with it. When I input the information from your timeslip you posted I get 3.282 seconds.
Your A and B numbers should be 6.3438 and 46.358.
Your A and B numbers should be 6.3438 and 46.358.
Thread Starter
Melting Slicks
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,131
Likes: 148
From: Sugar Land TX