[Syndicategt]

Originally Posted by Jeff@topgearsolutions

They weren't racing a on a track surface that was prepped and I think they were at high elevation.

+1 IMO this was poorly written and key details were left out (I'm not sure if that was intentional or not). Guess I expected more from the editorial, the car on the other hand

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Originally Posted by Syndicategt

+1 IMO this was poorly written and key details were left out (I'm not sure if that was intentional or not). Guess I expected more from the editorial, the car on the other hand

I agree completely.

The dyno graphs are about the only worth while material that they expose. Edit- I dont think they showed them yet though?

[R1000K3]

It seems some people doesn't realize 11.5 @128.9 is excellent, especially with a bad 60 foot.

[nafoo]

Originally Posted by R1000K3

It seems some people doesn't realize 11.5 @128.9 is excellent, especially with a bad 60 foot.

It's good, but we've already seen an 11.1 run with upgraded turbos.

[Syndicategt]

Originally Posted by R1000K3

It seems some people doesn't realize 11.5 @128.9 is excellent, especially with a bad 60 foot.

Originally Posted by nafoo

It's good, but we've already seen an 11.1 run with upgraded turbos.

Most excellent considering that wasn't on a prepped track. 11.1 on RB's is fantastic, but a) that was a prepped drag strip and b) that's about the max potential of those turbos. *edit c) that 11.1 run was not done in the hot desert at higher altitude

[GeorgiaTech335coupe]

Originally Posted by nafoo

It's good, but we've already seen an 11.1 run with upgraded turbos.

In a 335 or 135?

[nafoo]

Originally Posted by GeorgiaTech335coupe

In a 335 or 135?

335

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Syndicategt

Most excellent considering that wasn't on a prepped track. 11.1 on RB's is fantastic, but a) that was a prepped drag strip and b) that's about the max potential of those turbos.

The testing at Inside Line also involved 19 back to back runs (with no real cool down). And temps were in 80-85F range at 1200' above sea level. So conditions are vastly different than a drag strip glory run. It's also worth noting that 6MTs have a pretty big disadvantage in that they can't launch in 2nd gear like a 6AT. Which means another 0.3s long upshift.

This was the first real test we subjected the car too. And we've learned a lot from it. We think we have the rear suspension pretty well sorted now and capable of cutting 0.4-0.5s quicker 60' times. Should know soon...

[nafoo]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

The testing at Inside Line also involved 19 back to back runs (with no real cool down). And temps were in 80-85F range at 1200' above sea level. So conditions are vastly different than a drag strip glory run. It's also worth noting that 6MTs have a pretty big disadvantage in that they can't launch in 2nd gear like a 6AT. Which means another 0.3s long upshift.

This was the first real test we subjected the car too. And we've learned a lot from it. We think we have the rear suspension pretty well sorted now and capable of cutting 0.4-0.5s quicker 60' times. Should know soon...

Shiv, when are you going to install a cage? Hurry up and install it so you can quail the naysayers!

[GeorgiaTech335coupe]

Originally Posted by nafoo

Shiv, when are you going to install a cage? Hurry up and install it so you can quail the naysayers!

private track rental = no need for cage

[Wedge1967]

I actually think the new single turbo AT car revs quicker and hits the shift points faster than the car doing the 11s qtr.

Originally Posted by nafoo

335

[Velocity26]

Originally Posted by Wedge1967

I actually think the new single turbo AT car revs quicker and hits the shift points faster than the car doing the 11s qtr.

LM is launching in 2nd and actually has traction ...

[Brey335i]

700+ hp single turbo car and they write that dull of an article. Pretty much the only interesting part was Shiv's new nickname. Chief Exhaust Huffer.

But then again I've never been impressed by IL. Their numbers always seem slow and their opinion biased. And their writing sucks.

Also, LMAO at the comments. I've already recognized a few members. Funny how what you say on here and there doesn't match up huh?

[335iseb]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

The testing at Inside Line also involved 19 back to back runs (with no real cool down). And temps were in 80-85F range at 1200' above sea level. So conditions are vastly different than a drag strip glory run. It's also worth noting that 6MTs have a pretty big disadvantage in that they can't launch in 2nd gear like a 6AT. Which means another 0.3s long upshift.

This was the first real test we subjected the car too. And we've learned a lot from it. We think we have the rear suspension pretty well sorted now and capable of cutting 0.4-0.5s quicker 60' times. Should know soon...

So what are you supposed to do at a drag strip if not glory runs guy? What does that even mean?

[jpsimon]

Originally Posted by 335iseb

So what are you supposed to do at a drag strip if not glory runs guy? What does that even mean?

What he means is that real drag strips with proper prep are in their nature glory runs compared to inside line's testing on bare pavement with far from ideal conditions and no cool downs between the 19 runs.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by 335iseb

So what are you supposed to do at a drag strip if not glory runs guy? What does that even mean?

Magazine testers don't do glory runs. They keep on doing back to back runs unit they get repeatable numbers, NOT the best numbers absolutely possible. Not only do they not have the time to give long cool downs, their idea is to give you numbers that you can repeatably reproduce on the street in real world conditions. This is also why they do testing running backwards on the dragstrip. Their argument is that real streets don't have VHT sprayed on them. So why should they use it when testing? This is also why magazine 1/4 mile results are usually slower than your personal 1/4 mile tests. Not because magazine testers suck or are bad drivers. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Drag racing your own car at a drag strip is very different. For one, you drive your car yourself. You don't have it to someone who has never driven it before and expect him to get the most out of it. Second, you pick and chose your testing days carefully, opting for cool days instead of hot days. Third, your best runs are usually those runs following a long (30-45min) rest. Fourth, you are given a water box and are allowed to do a burn out to clean off/warm up your tires. And lastly, you have a sticky prepped surface which allows you to launch hard with minimal wheelspin. None of this stuff is real world by any means. But it's glorious.

shiv

[nafoo]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Magazine testers don't do glory runs. They keep on doing back to back runs unit they get repeatable numbers, NOT the best numbers absolutely possible. Not only do they not have the time to give long cool downs, their idea is to give you numbers that you can repeatably reproduce on the street in real world conditions. This is also why they do testing running backwards on the dragstrip. Their argument is that real streets don't have VHT sprayed on them. So why should they use it when testing? This is also why magazine 1/4 mile results are usually slower than your personal 1/4 mile tests. Not because magazine testers suck or are bad drivers. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Drag racing your own car at a drag strip is very different. For one, you drive your car yourself. You don't have it to someone who has never driven it before and expect him to get the most out of it. Second, you pick and chose your testing days carefully, opting for cool days instead of hot days. Third, your best runs are usually those runs following a long (30-45min) rest. Fourth, you are given a water box and are allowed to do a burn out to clean off/warm up your tires. And lastly, you have a sticky prepped surface which allows you to launch hard with minimal wheelspin. None of this stuff is real world by any means. But it's glorious.

shiv

But didn't the magazine post the best numbers they got on that day?

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by nafoo

But didn't the magazine post the best numbers they got on that day?

Yes, the best out of the ~20 back to back runs. Which does not yield the best possible result. Even in this best run, the car hit the rev limiter in 3rd gear and cut a 2.0 60' time.

[nafoo]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Yes, the best out of the ~20 back to back runs. Which does not yield the best possible result. Even in this best run, the car hit the rev limiter in 3rd gear and cut a 2.0 60' time.

Nice, I can't get past 2.0 60' time, but that's because I suck at driving =P

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Magazine testers don't do glory runs. They keep on doing back to back runs unit they get repeatable numbers, NOT the best numbers absolutely possible. Not only do they not have the time to give long cool downs, their idea is to give you numbers that you can repeatably reproduce on the street in real world conditions. This is also why they do testing running backwards on the dragstrip. Their argument is that real streets don't have VHT sprayed on them. So why should they use it when testing? This is also why magazine 1/4 mile results are usually slower than your personal 1/4 mile tests. Not because magazine testers suck or are bad drivers. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Drag racing your own car at a drag strip is very different. For one, you drive your car yourself. You don't have it to someone who has never driven it before and expect him to get the most out of it. Second, you pick and chose your testing days carefully, opting for cool days instead of hot days. Third, your best runs are usually those runs following a long (30-45min) rest. Fourth, you are given a water box and are allowed to do a burn out to clean off/warm up your tires. And lastly, you have a sticky prepped surface which allows you to launch hard with minimal wheelspin. None of this stuff is real world by any means. But it's glorious.

shiv

This shoud be noted in the article in the beginning. My .02.

[onesuperboi]

So it suppose to be a realistic test from edmunds with regard to the unprepared track. But, it is unrealistic for anyone to expect to run the car with drag radials, weight reduction, race fuel, and four nozzles for meth. It might have been more realistic with regular performance tires, 91 or 93 octane fuel, and meth.

I'm not sure what it is to proven from the results since there are too many variables to determine the true performance of the car. At least you are the one credited to have the first single turbo running with results and dynos. Everyone else failed in my opinion.

[jpsimon]

Originally Posted by onesuperboi

So it suppose to be a realistic test from edmunds with regard to the unprepared track. But, it is unrealistic for anyone to expect to run the car with drag radials, weight reduction, race fuel, and four nozzles for meth. It might have been more realistic with regular performance tires, 91 or 93 octane fuel, and meth.

I'm not sure what it is to proven from the results since there are too many variables to determine the true performance of the car. At least you are the one credited to have the first single turbo running with results and dynos. Everyone else failed in my opinion.

to me, the results that speak loudest are still his 60-130 time. that is the test magazines should be conducting.