Dock

I have no problem with the quarter being his measuring criteria, but it's a measurement that doesn't evaluate the upgrade as accurately, or provide as broad a picture, as using several other tests. Why do you think automobile magazines use many other measurements in addition to the quarter?

Gary (Fl)

Dock,

I agree with you on a full rounded test...

But in Mark's case that is not what he is testing the packages for... He does say up front he is looking for qtr times... So people are smart enough to understand that his view will be from that aspect and that one alone... I hope...

Dock

Gary - I think there have been some very cogent replies concerning this issue over on 6speed (the "Drag raced my stage 2" thread), especially post #47.

Zippy

Dock - I think this issue is very simple and getting ones own perceptions and desires involved in this particuliar discussion is flawed. Markski wants a proven 10 second 996TT. Simple and straight forward.

Gary (Fl)

And read futher in the thread and everyone is hugging.... Typical 6speed BS which is why I don't even browse it anymore....

Proof is in the puddin....

All you have to do is get the cars that you want to compare to a track.... Get the same driver to do a few runs in each and post the slips.... Same conditions, same driver, no excuses.....

I'm not looking for that type of performance myself so I just pulling out whatever info I can that applies to me.....

Dock

The issue isn't very simple. Quarter mile times vary based on the track/weather/driver's skills/set up of the car. It is pretty unscientific when it is used as a measuring device unless it's done (as Gary states above) on the same day/track/driver, and even then there will be variances.

And pointing out that there are several other markers that can be used to evaluate the power claims of various tuners is not flawed...we all realize this to be true.

Zippy

If tuner "X" states, "We ran ? 1/4 mile runs and results ranged between 11.1 and 10.9 - see all video and slips on our site - under these conditions /temp/tires/octane etc", the facts posted could be used as the consumer chooses.

If a consumer is not interested in the other "markers", that's his/her prerogative. I'm not suggesting what is right or wrong. Of course there are other markers, some of the best of which are NEVER quoted in North America IMO. But that's not the point as the consumer in question appears to be interested in 1/4 times specifically.

markski

I think its cool to have another way of measuring a performance of a car... like a 1/4 slip... It definately would help me 2 years ago when I was doing one of my 3 upgrades...
it doesnt tell the whole story... but so doesnt a duno graph...

Gary, did u figure out ur problem?

johnyg

Marksi was right, stage 2 PSI 480 tip with ep2 quiet ran best et of 11.91 at 119.9 mph. I launched it wrong (foot brake instead of ebrake) but still not too shabby. I agree that my car is quicker on the highway than many other cars with slightly better et's. My worst run was a 12.1 at 118 and change. Maybe I should bracket race it? First three runs were within a tenth of each other and mph was 119 and change.

sharkster

E-brake won't help you very much. You do want to use the foot brake for launching hard.

markski

thanks... I simply had a few differnt stages and I went tot he track with each one.. so I know... but u also make a good point.. that on the highway ur car will be faster then other 11.9 1/4 cars..... good run BTW.
markski

markski

Yes of course... I have one... it runs 10.2s on slicks and 10.5s on street tires...
Im just stupid enough to do it to a P car...

Zippy

Mark, the Dockster seems to have trouble grasping your passion 4 the 1/4.

markski

funny.... I used to watch in TV when I was young... so now I figured its my time... Hows ur stuff coming along.. WGsss... did u get a hold of Stephen.. he should be able to tell u exactly what to do... BYW- the misfires are probably due to plugs... any updates on that ?

Zippy

Misfires are gone (4 now) It's warmed up a little hear. I think the 986 MAF / cold weather may have had thing running a bit too rich at startup. I'm trying to hunt down a foofoo valve meter to accurately set my turbos to 1.3 bar. 1.2 is a LOT different than 1.1