That's not true. No video to back this up so you prob won't believe me either but full exhaust, steeda cai, mt dr's on 18's, and 93 tune I ran plenty of 11.8-11.9's(1.7 60's) and I was dynoed @ 417/383. And it's a manual

 

Full weight minus spare tire. Bout 1/2 tank of gas. I weigh 215.

 

Great run and driving! Another question for you is, are you losing the clutch pedal? What i mean is after a couple of high rpm shifts does the clutch seem to be closer to the floor?

I bought a JTR or is a JRT? braided steel clutch line yet to be installed to hpoefully cure this on my car.

 

No, never had that prob

 

i belive you. but unlike most of the bench racers on here I am at the track every wed night and Sunday after noon. i know and have seen first hand what the coyote can really do.

 

I get it after my burnouts, I don't have any issues at WOT.

 

I get it all the time on the street at the track you name it. 4 out of 5 times it will stick to the floor if I wrap it to 7500 or higher. I too have the JHR line didnt help. Swapping out the clutch for a centerforce DYAD hopefully it fixes the issue so I can get back to the track.

 

Yes. Power is one variable but I don't think we need to concern ourselves with "999" others. Ideal 1/4 mile times and trap speeds are very predictable if you know power and weight. This link sums it up nicely.

This calculator was a bit more generous and says you'd need only 445hp at the wheels (and a perfect launch, of course) to pull a 11.9 if the all-up weight of your car (including your carcas) was only 3800lbs (which is optimistic).

I can tell you're not the physics type and aside from your smart *** mouth, I have no reason to think you're a liar...so let's just assume that either your car is lighter than you think or you got a real gem that's making crazy horsepower given your only "slightly" modded condition and that you have an excellent set of stock tires.

Honestly, I hope you're right but I just thought I'd pass along why this is implausible...because it's the internets and that's what people do, right?

BTW, a 10.9 requires 570+hp in one of these cars...which makes sense when you look at the 11 second range 1/4 mile times of a 2013 GT500 which is putting about that much to the wheels but weighs a bit more.

 

Where in these calculators do you put gear ratios? Final drive? Rpm? Tire size? And why do they not show some sort of graph showing needed power production? After all average hp and torque across the usable rpm is far more important than peak hp. Seems to me you trust a web sites old formula (which typicaly has a 10% margin of error. And taking about 400+ hp that's a big freaking difference) over actual racing knowledge. Bench racing is all well and good but don't say someone didn't or can't do something just because you don't trust the internet. And by the way using that type of logic you shouldnt trust that web sites calculator either. After all you don't know who built it or if there math is right.

 

First, it's "THEIR MATH" not "there math."


Read the links. These formulas have been around since the 1950s and they're reliable. I'm not making this up just to win an internet argument.

Gear ratios, etc. can screw things up but assuming they're reasonable, the formula works like a charm.

Check out this one; it even allows you to use flywheel horsepower, estimating a 17% drivetrain loss! Cool...
http://robrobinette.com/et.htm

3800lb Mustang (with driver) with 420hp at the flywheel, 12.79 elapsed time...which is right on what the magazines get! A 440hp Boss? 12.6! Also, spot-on. Math is great.

Again, I hope Slostang is right. It means that he's making quite a bit more power than he thinks and that he's getting best case scenario launches. That's great!

 

It is what it is, the car went 11.96 @119.2 mph. I have GoPro footage of the pass. 38XXlbs car, 209lbs driver. JLT, BBR catless mid, Roush A/B, MGW, SCT, BFG drag radials. Nothing to hide here, I started this thread with the intent to show how happy I was with the new tune not get in a pissing match of "this isn't possible...I googled it". I can tell you the car made 384rwhp BONE stock(well A/Bs) and that was a pretty stout number.

 

Esit

 

It's conceivable that you're up near the 440ish RWHP. Other bolt-on/tuned cars have put down that much but usually with LTs in addition to what you have there...but they're probably only good for 10 rwhp anyway since the stock shorties are so good...but it's not impossible since your motor sounds like a good one.

The other thing that's worth a few tenths are your slicks. Initially, you didn't mention them and I assumed you didn't have them...this makes it seem a bit more likely since it makes that "ideal launch" scenario a lot more attainable and believable.

So let's say you're making 440 at the wheels in the nice cool air and let's say your car is 3850 (since you're a 200+lb guy like me)... with a perfect launch on slicks; 12.00 is what the calculator predicts and the margin of error would certainly allow for four hundredths (.04) of error.

So... this scenario is plausible. It's at the optimistic end but it's not unreasonable.

 

I'd call BS on your Mach1 numbers...not that you lied about your time but that you're way high on the weight (unless you're a 400lb dude)...and your dyno reading was probably pessimistic on the power.

On the other hand, your 2011 GT numbers are right on target. Maybe Slostang can teach you how to drive though!

 

I weigh 285. And with 80lbs of fuel.

 

So let me get this straight. Your totally with magazine editor's running a 12.79 on 245 section street tires. but you don't belive a pro driver with 10" wide bias ply racing slicks would make .8s difference? And again I'll say the formulas have around a 10% margin of error. That's not science. That's just educated guessing.

 

It's "YOU'RE totally [ok?] with" not YOUR.

Your margin of error for grammar is 10%. The margin of error for the calculator is smaller.

The magazines try and try and try to get the best possible times out of stock cars and they're fairly consistent across the board. IIRC, MT got 12.7 out of an '11 GT but the other magazines were in the 12.8-13.0 range. Basically, they're employing pro drivers (like Randy Pobst) and are pretty reliable at giving you the best case scenario. So yes, they're a reasonable standard for comparison's sake.

 

That's all great but u do know there are other variables right? Those numbers were generated off completely stock cars. Now add a good set of drag radials and you can drop 3-4 tenths off that same time without adding any hp or losing any weight. Then add some lower controls arms with relo brackets and drop another tenth or 2(and I have done it). You still haven't added any hp or lost any weight and drop atleast a half second off your et. I know this for fact because that's how I went from mid 12s to high 11's in same car, same weight, same track and roughly same temp(all done in mid summer months.

 

My margin of grammar is typing on a ****ing cell phone. And mags don't always have pro drivers. And they have correct there numbers to SAE for altitude. Here is an idea. Go to ge track. Almost every one has a test and tune day. Quit bench racing and go out to run your car and watch others run theirs. Or just keep reading motor trend. As for me I'll be shooting for 11s. Wheel hop is all that's keeping me out of them. Car runs 115.8 so it has the power. Also trap speeds are way more accurate for power than et's. But what do I know. Just some liar on the interwebs.

 

Here is a thread that has track times with video's, time slips and mods listed of many 5.0's.

http://www.svtperformance.com/forums...ack-times.html