13 Second car

[rev440]

I just searched and came up with this thread:
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showth...highlight=mach
He said stock it ran 13.6, but with his mods it did 12.1.

Unfortunetly I havent been to the track yet, but plan on going sometime this summer.

Well the engines still stock and its still under 300whp which is impressive.

[Falcon500]

I dont know how to explain it, except the suspension is different, maybe leading to less grip.

Well it did have diffrent tyres that might not of helped plus being the afore mentioned lemon which might explain they the cheif is ailing here.

[GAZ`D]

11 second 1/4 for around £5000 on road legal tyres (205/50/14) taxed and mot`d



http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gary.do...does%2011s.wmv

[freaklt1z28]

i have never seen a stock LT1 do 13's. and my good friend has a 6 speed 97 lt1 i drove for 3500 miles across the country and have raced on numerous times. their not 13 sec cars. if an lt1 is a 13 sec then an ls1 is a 12 second and i sure as hell know that aint true either! low 14's at best from the factory. thats my story and im stickin to it my friend. maybe a WS6 or SS could pull some high 13's out of their ass but when you start talkin about them your no longer talking very affordable anyways

I was browsing the net and came across this, and had to join just because of this hideous thread. Now being a member of Team F-Body (Sacramento, CA), I run across many jealous Mustang guys. He's simply trying to lead you guys into a heated discussion-that's all. Anyone who has "really" frequented a drag strip knows the LT1's are easily 13-second cars. My 1993 with 46k, bone-stock w/ nothing but a removed airbox/sway bar ran 13.87/99 with a 2.0 60-foot. LT1's vary because of their "no-so-good" driveability, or inconsistancy with mileage (some cars). We have guys on our team that have bested anywhere from 14.4/96, to our fastest stock time of 13.69/105 ('97SS/6-spd), so it varies greatly. We attended the annual Fox Car night in March, where they had a pack of '99-'04 GT's, and the stock or near-stock cars were downright 14-second cars, running 14.6-14.1, with the quickest being a Buillitt (14.1). I didn't see one stock or near stock car pull even a low 14.0 that night. My dad's '01 GT/auto dyno'd 217rw bone stock, which even he admitted was pretty lame.

[hightower99]

It must of been because "on paper" its faster.

There something seriously wrong 70lbs that 31 kilos lighter mathematically 1 kilo less is the equvilent of gaining 1 hp so the car must of been more then a lemon

I have been reading this thread and LMAO as I go but I saw this and well...

I am surprised nobody picked this up!

under no circumstances (on cars) is losing 1kg off the body equal in effect to gaining 1HP!!!! maybe just maybe if that kg came of the drive shafts or brakes or anything moving at wheel speed, and if it came off the engine internals then you are looking at more than 1 hp gain.

I would like to see the math for that one falcon because I bet seeing it will either A) give me a headache because it is so dumb or B) make me LMAO! because it is flawed in a very obvious way...

[freaklt1z28]

What do you think is the cheapest way to make a 13 second car?

Easy. Buy a LT1 Camaro and take it to the track!

[rev440]

Easy. Buy a LT1 Camaro and take it to the track!

Do you have any pics of your car?

[Falcon500]

I have been reading this thread and LMAO as I go but I saw this and well...

I am surprised nobody picked this up!

under no circumstances (on cars) is losing 1kg off the body equal in effect to gaining 1HP!!!! maybe just maybe if that kg came of the drive shafts or
brakes or anything moving at wheel speed, and if it came off the engine internals then you are looking at more than 1 hp gain.

I would like to see the math for that one falcon because I bet seeing it will either A) give me a headache because it is so dumb or B) make me LMAO! because it is flawed in a very obvious way...

Well the edelbrock slide rule agree with me and the drag anyliser also agrees with me and while these things ae flawed when used back to back with real results if you can mesure change with the rule or the anyliser normally you can notice a change on track.and specifics well I wasnt being specific because i had enough faith in the human race (some are more evolved then others) not to be nit picky enough to pull it apart quite that litrally of course if you reduce drivetrain or compnentry weight that change would be much more dramatic but in this case noticeable gains can be had when you reduce the weight of a car can it not? and did I say equivilent? thats right i did i didnt say it was the exact same i didnt say it was better i said it was "equivelent" you know kinda like similar.

Also likewise our exeperiance in raceing (A 600 kilo datsun 1000 with a 120hp a12 while before my time the car could pull and incredibly high 13 on a good day....after stripping most of the interior we gained a couple of tenths and barring driver error never saw a 14 again) like wise agrees with me now think about it hard 1 kilo (2.2lbs) is practiacally nothing likewise 1 hp is much the same now from that standpoint wouldent it take many multables to notice a major change? the answer is yes. i never said youd notice a change from an individual of either (and to be specific so you dont attempt to preen me like a primate not im not talking and drivline or moveing part)

Ok the theory is dumb thats why it worked for kevin bartlette? ok so he just happens to of enginerred some of the greatest raceing cars on our shores and just happened to win bathurst obviously a man who doesnt know what hes doing!

The math? well why dont you pick up an edelbrock catalouge and buy one? of the rules their around $30 or the drag racing anyliser i dont know how much they cost nowdays but our old dos version cost us $140 in the early 90s as i said their flawed when put back to back with hard evidence "but" with quality information its suprising how close they can get.

And laugh if you want too its free and haveing tunnel vision pretty bad and a brain the size of a walnut it must come very easily to you. the math involved comes with on track and computer based information and also a brilliant but overtly simply slide rule thats been around around since the 60s.

[KnifeEdge_2K1]

Well the edelbrock slide rule agree with me and the drag anyliser also agrees with me and while these things ae flawed when used back to back with real results if you can mesure change with the rule or the anyliser normally you can notice a change on track.and specifics well I wasnt being specific because i had enough faith in the human race (some are more evolved then others) not to be nit picky enough to pull it apart quite that litrally of course if you reduce drivetrain or compnentry weight that change would be much more dramatic but in this case noticeable gains can be had when you reduce the weight of a car can it not? and did I say equivilent? thats right i did i didnt say it was the exact same i didnt say it was better i said it was "equivelent" you know kinda like similar.

Also likewise our exeperiance in raceing (A 600 kilo datsun 1000 with a 120hp a12 while before my time the car could pull and incredibly high 13 on a good day....after stripping most of the interior we gained a couple of tenths and barring driver error never saw a 14 again) like wise agrees with me now think about it hard 1 kilo (2.2lbs) is practiacally nothing likewise 1 hp is much the same now from that standpoint wouldent it take many multables to notice a major change? the answer is yes. i never said youd notice a change from an individual of either (and to be specific so you dont attempt to preen me like a primate not im not talking and drivline or moveing part)

Ok the theory is dumb thats why it worked for kevin bartlette? ok so he just happens to of enginerred some of the greatest raceing cars on our shores and just happened to win bathurst obviously a man who doesnt know what hes doing!

The math? well why dont you pick up an edelbrock catalouge and buy one? of the rules their around $30 or the drag racing anyliser i dont know how much they cost nowdays but our old dos version cost us $140 in the early 90s as i said their flawed when put back to back with hard evidence "but" with quality information its suprising how close they can get.

And laugh if you want too its free and haveing tunnel vision pretty bad and a brain the size of a walnut it must come very easily to you. the math involved comes with on track and computer based information and also a brilliant but overtly simply slide rule thats been around around since the 60s.

so on a 1.2 tonne car with 100 ish horsepower (old civic) if i loose 200 kilos i'm gaining 200 horsepower right ??

surely you can see this is retarded

this is the most absurd guideline/rule of thumb ive ever heard
loosing 1 kilo is only .07 of a percent loss in weight

gaining 1 horsepower on say a 300 hp car is a .33% inrease in horsepower
now most cars have less then 300hp so that would lead to something on the lines of .33-.5% increase in horsepower

f=ma
f/m = a
decreasing mass by .07% yields acceleration that's .07% faster then stock

now assuming the rule for adding one horsepower is adding 1 horsepower to peak, and adds X horsepower to the rest of the revband based on the percentage increase at the peak then a .33% increase in horsepower = a 0.33% increase in torque

so f=ma again, f/m = a, a .33% increase in torque leads to a acceleration .33% faster then stock

as hightower said, if the mass came off the rotational weight, brakes, wheels, engine internals, the gain from loosing mass would be much greater, but your rule never specified that so I'd have to assume it's weight off the body

this is a very simple formula and by no means is this going to produce accurate figures which would be seen in the real world but this example gives too big a discrepency between the gain from loosing 1kg vs gaining 1hp

now what you might say now is what's the point in removing weight (which has always been the emphasis on true sports and race cars) as opposed to increasing power ... weight is alot easier to remove then it is to add power, removing weight increases the responses of the car in all aspects while adding power only helps in acceleration, though power is ultimately neccesary to hit a high top speed in most cases the gains from decreasing weight and enhancing aerodynamics are much greater

[rev440]

The more modern scale is 100 lbs=10hp.

[Falcon500]

so on a 1.2 tonne car with 100 ish horsepower (old civic) if i loose 200 kilos i'm gaining 200 horsepower right ??

surely you can see this is retarded

this is the most absurd guideline/rule of thumb ive ever heard
loosing 1 kilo is only .07 of a percent loss in weight

gaining 1 horsepower on say a 300 hp car is a .33% inrease in horsepower
now most cars have less then 300hp so that would lead to something on the lines of .33-.5% increase in horsepower

f=ma
f/m = a
decreasing mass by .07% yields acceleration that's .07% faster then stock

now assuming the rule for adding one horsepower is adding 1 horsepower to peak, and adds X horsepower to the rest of the revband based on the percentage increase at the peak then a .33% increase in horsepower = a 0.33% increase in torque

so f=ma again, f/m = a, a .33% increase in torque leads to a acceleration .33% faster then stock

as hightower said, if the mass came off the rotational weight, brakes, wheels, engine internals, the gain from loosing mass would be much greater, but your rule never specified that so I'd have to assume it's weight off the body

this is a very simple formula and by no means is this going to produce accurate figures which would be seen in the real world but this example gives too big a discrepency between the gain from loosing 1kg vs gaining 1hp

now what you might say now is what's the point in removing weight (which has always been the emphasis on true sports and race cars) as opposed to increasing power ... weight is alot easier to remove then it is to add power, removing weight increases the responses of the car in all aspects while adding power only helps in acceleration, though power is ultimately neccesary to hit a high top speed in most cases the gains from decreasing weight and enhancing aerodynamics are much greater

Of course its flawed given how simply i put it and the way it was dreived there is hardly any other way its going to be but as i said the basic rule is tested also 100 kilos is a hard thing to remove unless you have a modern road going car your modifying for raceing (something we where without) that datsun 1000 is an enginering marvel starting at about 625 kilos after we took out its heater (no more then a beefed up demister a hair dryer would of been more effective) all its interior we had it just sitting over the 600odd mark now given the cars lack of anything (weight 600odd hp 120rwhp and massive 4' rubber due to the restrictive guards) almost any change is dramatic to say the least.

And no i never would of asked that queastion the only instance where weight may be an advantage is the salt flats where at a certain speed its been found you need a certain ammount so you dont take off....

The possibility is the scale is more like revs I might have to dust of the 1/4 jr because im not likly to find kbs book in any forseeable time frame. the 1/4 jr doesnt have any scaleseither its just essentially a caculator though it does give a great oppurtuninty to try diffrent gearboxes,diffs,weights etc to get a "rough" idea how or if it might work.

And my response was driven purely by how much i disliked the way hightower put it, im happy to be proven wrong its a great way of learning but being a jerk like that i can tell you what part of my anotomy he can suck. pur;y an emotional response.

[hightower99]

Of course its flawed given how simply i put it and the way it was dreived there is hardly any other way its going to be but as i said the basic rule is tested also 100 kilos is a hard thing to remove unless you have a modern road going car your modifying for raceing (something we where without) that datsun 1000 is an enginering marvel starting at about 625 kilos after we took out its heater (no more then a beefed up demister a hair dryer would of been more effective) all its interior we had it just sitting over the 600odd mark now given the cars lack of anything (weight 600odd hp 120rwhp and massive 4' rubber due to the restrictive guards) almost any change is dramatic to say the least.

And no i never would of asked that queastion the only instance where weight may be an advantage is the salt flats where at a certain speed its been found you need a certain ammount so you dont take off....

The possibility is the scale is more like revs I might have to dust of the 1/4 jr because im not likly to find kbs book in any forseeable time frame. the 1/4 jr doesnt have any scaleseither its just essentially a caculator though it does give a great oppurtuninty to try diffrent gearboxes,diffs,weights etc to get a "rough" idea how or if it might work.

And my response was driven purely by how much i disliked the way hightower put it, im happy to be proven wrong its a great way of learning but being a jerk like that i can tell you what part of my anotomy he can suck. pur;y an emotional response.

Sorry if you took it personally I made my first post like that so that you would notice it and get worked up and give me a good answer.

It seems that you agree that 1kg is not the same as 1hp and that is good, I understand why you said it but it just isn't an excuse. Most engineers know that you can't really have a "sliderule" for such things and they know the quick basic equations that will let them know how much good it does to take off X number of kilos for any given car.

Also about 100kg being hard to get off a car, not so. On pretty much any modern car weighing more than 1000kg will lose at least 100kg if you take out the carpet, sound insulation, back seats, and interior deco. in fact on many cars you would be looking at almost 200kg of weight loss.

KnifeEdge: thanks for putting the math on here and for helping to point out how ridiculous this "sliderule" is.

Oh and by the way Falcon: Equivalent means: Equal, as in value, force, or meaning. Having similar or identical effects. Being essentially equal, all things considered. It doesn't mean vaguely similar...

[chronic]

I was browsing the net and came across this, and had to join just because of this hideous thread. Now being a member of Team F-Body (Sacramento, CA), I run across many jealous Mustang guys. He's simply trying to lead you guys into a heated discussion-that's all. Anyone who has "really" frequented a drag strip knows the LT1's are easily 13-second cars. My 1993 with 46k, bone-stock w/ nothing but a removed airbox/sway bar ran 13.87/99 with a 2.0 60-foot. LT1's vary because of their "no-so-good" driveability, or inconsistancy with mileage (some cars). We have guys on our team that have bested anywhere from 14.4/96, to our fastest stock time of 13.69/105 ('97SS/6-spd), so it varies greatly. We attended the annual Fox Car night in March, where they had a pack of '99-'04 GT's, and the stock or near-stock cars were downright 14-second cars, running 14.6-14.1, with the quickest being a Buillitt (14.1). I didn't see one stock or near stock car pull even a low 14.0 that night. My dad's '01 GT/auto dyno'd 217rw bone stock, which even he admitted was pretty lame.

Thinking about this logically, a removed airbox provides more air to the engine without the restrictions of an air filter, which in turn provides better combustion and, thus, more power. That means that your bone-stock LT1 isn't quite bone-stock. On the other hand, LT1s do have the potiential to run 13's and are great cars. I've seen it happen numerous times. A Mustang freak wants to out-do GM. Won't happen.

[Fleet 500]

don't spoil it now, I want the americans to come in

Okay, I'll come in.

Something of interest I found... a road test of a '57 Plymouth Belvedere tested by Mechanix Illustrated (Jan., 1957). Tested by Tom McCahill...

"As some of you know, I've written books and many articles on foreign sports cars, praising their abilities while tearing down our local products. Today such talk (and it still goes on among the glassy-eyed, close-minded sports car fanatics) is like bucking all over again for William Jennings Bryan as the best man for President. This new Plymouth would give any sedan in the world- and I include the Mercedes 300S and the Bentley- a rough time in trying to shake it on any road course. (I said it and I'm glad- it's been overdue)."

[Fleet 500]

I just checked: I have a 17.6 seconds car.... (0-400 meters)

but I am working on it.....

That time would be acceptable for me.
Any car I own, I would want no more than about 18.5 seconds for the 1/4 mile.

-Fleet
'69 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham (16.0 sec)
'76 Cadillac Fleetwood 75 Limo (low 18s?)
'95 Lincoln Town Car (16.9 sec according to Car & Driver)