Post your 0-60mph times!!
Jan 27, 2007, 01:30 PM
#31
Account Disabled
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can make numbers do anything you want them to. Just like the guy above thought it was cool to add 30% to my 300whp (Dynojet) to get 390 (even though he said that would only apply to Mustang Dynos and Dyno Dynamics, though they don't read the same). Now, you randomly want to use 17% to change your Mustang Dyno numbers into Dynojet numbers. Ok, why is that? Did someone say the numbers in the calculator are supposedly Dynojet numbers? At best, they're crank HP numbers, but then that's useless, because trying to estimate crank HP makes no sense due to every car having a different drivetrain loss (no, he doesn't know the exact drivetrain loss for every single transmission, plus it's not even a linear % as HP increases anyway).
Sorry, but you do not make 420whp on a Dynojet. Your 116.xx mph trap speed indicates 360-370whp on a Dynojet...very close to your CFT numbers. You did know that CFT was known for reading like a Dynojet, right? If you put down 359whp on Buschur's MD, you'd be trapping 120+. Likewise, 420whp on a Dynojet would be 120-121mph traps...
I don't see any proof in your timeslip, CFT dynograph, nor Jestr calculator. It shows nothing except a 116mph trap, a 359whp dyno, and then some useless numbers. I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that those things are proof of anything. There is no correlation between the first 2 images and the 3rd image, and I can't actually believe that you think there is.
Sorry, but you do not make 420whp on a Dynojet. Your 116.xx mph trap speed indicates 360-370whp on a Dynojet...very close to your CFT numbers. You did know that CFT was known for reading like a Dynojet, right? If you put down 359whp on Buschur's MD, you'd be trapping 120+. Likewise, 420whp on a Dynojet would be 120-121mph traps...
I don't see any proof in your timeslip, CFT dynograph, nor Jestr calculator. It shows nothing except a 116mph trap, a 359whp dyno, and then some useless numbers. I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that those things are proof of anything. There is no correlation between the first 2 images and the 3rd image, and I can't actually believe that you think there is.
You're owning skills are amazing!
Feb 3, 2007, 10:32 AM
#37
Can't you use a data logger like Evoscan or whatever that measures time and mph with high samples per second and just look at the difference in time columns.
Like look at the last entry where you had a mph of zero (launch) and then look at the timestamp of the first entry where you hit ~60, like 61 or 62.
Like look at the last entry where you had a mph of zero (launch) and then look at the timestamp of the first entry where you hit ~60, like 61 or 62.
Feb 4, 2007, 09:51 AM
#41
I was aware of the formulas that allows you to calculate your 0-60mph based on 1/8 mile, 60',330' etc but I never believe those formulas.
I guess that the second more feasible and reliable option is to buy a G-tech. I have one and it gives you every single digit of acceleration:
0-1mph, 0-4mph,0-13mph, 0-10mph, 0-20mph and so on.
Carlos
I guess that the second more feasible and reliable option is to buy a G-tech. I have one and it gives you every single digit of acceleration:
0-1mph, 0-4mph,0-13mph, 0-10mph, 0-20mph and so on.
Carlos
Feb 5, 2007, 03:12 AM
#44
Evolved Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Bavaria, Germany
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm pretty skeptical about how accurate the GTech is, but is still a great tool to compare runs made with the same car and location, or to find out if some mods are yielding any results.
Feb 5, 2007, 07:36 AM
#45
Can't you use a data logger like Evoscan or whatever that measures time and mph with high samples per second and just look at the difference in time columns.
Like look at the last entry where you had a mph of zero (launch) and then look at the timestamp of the first entry where you hit ~60, like 61 or 62.
Like look at the last entry where you had a mph of zero (launch) and then look at the timestamp of the first entry where you hit ~60, like 61 or 62.