completely backwards times

[wickedchargerrt]

okay earlier this year i ran with only one mod afe stage 2, and octane booster.
Car had 2500 miles on it, exhaust hadn't even opened up and got loud yet.
14.1 at 98.04 mph
101 degrees out
engine temp 213


Today (7600miles )with afe stage 2, blycream, 180 tstat, 90 degrees out, and engine temp at 194 i consistantly ran
14.7 or 14.6
at 97.03 mph and 97.39 mph.


Wtb (what the bejesus)? All other factors same, gas level, tire pressure, everything. Does my car like heat? How backwards is that?
Either my car runs better hot or octane boost knocked off .5 seconds??????

Whats screwing me up even more is half second more but my mph's are almost identical. I'm so :knockout: :knockout: :knockout:

opinions?

[wickedchargerrt]

also all the other guys i went with ran almost identical -.5 seconds off what we did last time. (srt-4, cavalier). We all did octane booster when it was hot but not today.
Now i know we didnt get no .5 off booster for petes sake, but maybe the fact that i put the booster in 40 miles from track so pcm adaptive strategy could do its thing before we got to the track of adjusting timing, spark and fuel. Maybe that fact made the diff. Hell if i know. This jazz is crazy either way

[TripleTransAm]

Forget the octane booster. What it does is maybe boost octane by .5 if you're lucky. And who knows what the side effects can be (plugged cats? screwed up 02s?).

Could be anything from track prep to fuel quality. Some brands change formulation depending on time of year, and for that matter fuel quality can even vary within the same brand, depending on station. I consistently noticed better times and better MPG with one particular station... it's the only one I ever fueled at before any of my runs in any of my cars.

If it hadn't been for everyone else running off, I'd have said that maybe you need to look into your alignment because believe it or not there's a bit of performance to be lost if you're not pushing straight (don't go by the wheel position or the handling... equal toe in or out can be devastating... my WS6 came from the factory with everything out of whack but ironically cancelling everything out such that the car drove straight).

MPH isn't really what I'd consider identical... if anything the cooler weather should have added 1 mph or so.

7600 miles for an '06 isn't much... maybe short starts and short trips have fouled your plugs? How many runs and how did the times change over every run?


The fact of everyone running slower has me thinking it was something with the track prep. Lots of spinning? Too much VHT making the tires grip too much?

[wickedchargerrt]

yea they went out and sprayed the whole track with water and i was one of the first three cars to run, which i thought was odd.
Alignment is good to go. I do alignments myself about every 2 months or any alignment/ride height change also.
I do have lots of short trips 12 miles or less. Wasnt gonna pop for plugs til my zex kit comes in though.
I ran 3 times. 14.703, 14.655, 14.763 ( in my car). Like i said i wouldnt have been worried had i not run 14.1 's earlier this year.
Also i'm sure experience is gonna come in to play also. I've run at this track over 100 times in the last 10 years. 95% of that was in dodges or driving for other people.
Yes, i certainly assumed better e.ts and mph just from the damn tstat but i was wrong with that. Thanks triple t.a. your one of the guys i was hoping would have a chance to swing in and respond

[TripleTransAm]

Maybe the cooler T-stat is accelerating the plug fouling with the short trips?

[TripleTransAm]

yea they went out and sprayed the whole track with water and i was one of the first three cars to run, which i thought was odd.

Say what?

Spraying the track with water? Umm... why?

[metgo]

How do you 60' foot times compare? Were you launching the same?

[wickedchargerrt]

it looked like water. they certainly sprayed the track with something clear before first runs.

60'
2.231
2.342
2.484

last time i tried to roll into the throttle instead of a smash and grab. My only goal for this year was 100mph in the quarter and i failed. Damn.

I love my tstat though. Thats gonna kill me if i have to take it out. I rarely do drive over 15 miles in a trip though. My week.
mon-fri drive 15 miles to school-5 miles to pick up son for lunch-5 miles to take him back and within 2 min back in car for 10 mile trip home. -then 9 miles to work and 9 miles back.
Sat 10-100 miles to car show, then back home
sun 10 miles to football. Sits for 4 hours 10 miles back home.

[KStryker]

Sorry to get off topic, but with the t-stat mod...i thought anyone could take advantage of it...on the track and even for daily driving to and from work? or is there another reason ur taking urs off?

[CRF450RR]

okay earlier this year i ran with only one mod afe stage 2, and octane booster.
Car had 2500 miles on it, exhaust hadn't even opened up and got loud yet.
14.1 at 98.04 mph
101 degrees out
engine temp 213


Today (7600miles )with afe stage 2, blycream, 180 tstat, 90 degrees out, and engine temp at 194 i consistantly ran
14.7 or 14.6
at 97.03 mph and 97.39 mph.


Wtb (what the bejesus)? All other factors same, gas level, tire pressure, everything. Does my car like heat? How backwards is that?
Either my car runs better hot or octane boost knocked off .5 seconds??????

Whats screwing me up even more is half second more but my mph's are almost identical. I'm so :knockout: :knockout: :knockout:

opinions?


Don't know why you're running slower with those mods. My R/T runs better times in stock trim. It runs 14.2's all day but when I installed a AFE II and a Airhammer, the times were 2 to 4 tenths slower.:confused:

I installed a GSM CAI and we run it last night in the 1/8 mile. The 60' time dropped by 2 tenths to 2.075 and ran a 9.004@78.02 W/stock tire at 30psi, 3/4's tank of gas and a passneger.
There was also a 35 to 40 mph head wind too.

[CHERRY]

Hay WICKED,

Can you post all the numbers of each of you runs in order, or better yet can you scan them into the computer and post them ? I will need to see what the times were when you raced the Charger back in its younger days as well so to say.

I can and will check them out.

Regards
Chuck

[wickedchargerrt]

Don't know why you're running slower with those mods. My R/T runs better times in stock trim. It runs 14.2's all day but when I installed a AFE II and a Airhammer the was 2 to 4 tenths slower.:confused:

I installed a GSM CAI and we run it last night in the 1/8 mile. The 60' time dropped by 2 tenths to 2.075 and ran a 9.004@78.02 W/stock tire at 30psi, 3/4's tank of gas and a passneger.
There was also a 35 to 40 mph head wind too.

Yea like i said i ran 14.1 pretty much stock.

cherry, i'll scan and post in the morning. thanks.

[TripleTransAm]

Ahhh! Someone said "headwind"! That is something we forgot to consider. Also, cooler air isn't always better air, there's humidity and other factors to consider as well. You need to compare DA between both track sessions!

[wickedchargerrt]

right side time on first slip, and mph for 1/8 mile is wrong on first slip
http://i8.tinypic.com/52mlvlc.jpg from earlier this year

recently. Not in order check times on top of slip.
http://i14.tinypic.com/4p1pymt.jpg

[wickedchargerrt]

looks like most of my time was lost before 1/8 mile but like i said all things were equal compared to last time. I powerbraked to 1500, rolled into throttle all but once, esp off on all trips, autostick with tcm shifting (not me) , and one time with mr squiggles off to but that didnt go over so well.

[wickedchargerrt]

Ahhh! Someone said "headwind"! That is something we forgot to consider. Also, cooler air isn't always better air, there's humidity and other factors to consider as well. You need to compare DA between both track sessions!

humidity was terrible. storm was right on us all night and finally soaked the track as we were leaving.
i dont know how to find d.a.. I dont remember it being windy at all i ran about 20 times( like i said i drive for other people too) Normally you can feel that pushing on you but maybe the wind wasnt strong enough to feel it. I really dont remember any wind and that would have jumped right out at me. I have video too but it's terrible quality and i'm not sure how to post it. Also it has some friends running on it too and i dont know how to chop it down to just my runs.

[TripleTransAm]

Big difference in your 60' time right off the bat.

If wheelspin wasn't an issue, cooler air usually meant an explosive off-the-line response with a corresponding drop in 60' times.

What kind of fuel are you using? (brand/octane, etc.).

[elcobra44]

You lost your time on the low end..

Did you change the tire pressure? Spinning off the line at all?

[TripleTransAm]

humidity was terrible. storm was right on us all night and finally soaked the track as we were leaving.
i dont know how to find d.a..

If storms and low pressure systems go hand in hand in your area, that might be your culprit.

Try a nice clear cool evening next time around, and make sure you have fresh fuel in your tank (yes, octane does "degrade" over a very short time, with the higher octane fuels being worse sometimes due to what they use to get that octane boost!).

[wickedchargerrt]

had very very little spin off the line, even when rolling into the throttle. A chirp basically. Tire pressures were 25 rear 40 front first time (april), 30 rear, 40 front last time(sept). (the track's compressor was broken and i have a small leak in lr so i wanted to make sure there was enough air to get home after with warm tires).

octane is just good ol 91 pump , no 93 around here anymore. They all switched 93 outlets to e85 around me

oh yea storms are major around here. I'm a part time storm chaser, and have taken lots of climatology classes in college. Shows ya how popular storms are around here.

[CHERRY]

WICKED,

Here is the link to figure your D.A.

http://www.modulardepot.com/density.php

I also concur that the storm front was your downfall of ET

Chuck

[wickedchargerrt]

based on what info i did have, temp, altitude, speed, mph it corrected to 14.04 at 101. Still seems like its just a ricer excuse for ****ty times. I'd hate to blame it on something outside of my fault but maybe that was the issue. I dunno.

[TripleTransAm]

based on what info i did have, temp, altitude, speed, mph it corrected to 14.04 at 101. Still seems like its just a ricer excuse for ****ty times. I'd hate to blame it on something outside of my fault but maybe that was the issue. I dunno.

I'm no big fan of DA correction as an absolute... it runs what it runs, and different cars behave differently in different air depending on certain aspects of their design (ie. my Marauders threw away all the low-RPM shortcomings they had when air got properly cool... nice dense air to make use of those relatively huge ports, cold air to take away all the timing-related issues... became wild rockets at the track!).

It's the main reason why I cannot put any huge credibility in magazine results when they apply corrections (I'm pretty sure the DA correction programs do not take into account details like "is your engine liable to experience spark retard due to hot cylinder heads? (Y/N): "). LOL!

However, the DA correction tells you what you might have been running at some standard elevation and atmospheric conditions. To run those numbers, you'd need to go find a track at those conditions, and that might never actually happen. But it gives you something to shoot for, knowing that at some track at a lower elevation with some better conditions, you might have run the number you quoted above.


So, I agree with you: not a good idea to go around saying your car does a 14.01 if it never actually ran a 14.01. But it gives you something to shoot for.




Now, to lay your issue to rest, what you would need to do is come up with the necessary correction for your first time, in order to properly compare! In other words, if you standardize your car's performance against the same formulae over two separate occasions, you are removing some of the variables (to a certain extent... see my Marauder rant above, which likely is not covered in any formula out there).

For example, if your 14.7 corrected to 14.01 for your recent conditions, and then you went back and ran the formula for the conditions of your first run and that run corrected to 13.5, then you'd have cause to be worried.

If you went back and got 14.1, you'd have some cause for celebration, it looks like your car would be currently performing slightly better given the worse conditions.

If you go back and you get exactly the same corrected ET or +/- 0.1, then your car is probably performing exactly the same even though with the mods.



All that being said, if we take what your fellow racers were saying about running .5 seconds slower, that would put you around the same overall performance as your first run, and then I'd have to say that your mods are either hurting the car (with break-in, should get quicker) or are not helping at all, which is pretty much what I've suspected all along... but that's for another thread.

[TripleTransAm]

So remember: use DA correction to compare YOUR performances, not against others.

[TopBanana107]

Well...I haven't been able to repeat my best time of 13.846 seconds, that I ran in July I believe. Since then, I ran a best of 14.13. My MPH was also down by 2 MPH. Many miles were put on the car between those times...and I have yet to clean the air filter...which is dirtier than a pig in shiite! With such low miles on your car, wicked, could a dirty air filter be an issue...do you drive in real dusty conditions? I have a feeling that this was one issue that I should have addressed before going to the track last Tuesday!

[CRF450RR]

What do the corrected times mean?

[TripleTransAm]

Corrected to a supposed standard atmospheric condition and altitude.

It allows for comparison of times taken on different track sessions such that you can negate the changing of the atmospheric conditions.

For example, I ran my WS6 every so often to see how it was breaking in (and to see whether I had a "good one" or not as compared to my online buddies). One session I ran 14.1 to 13.9 on a still-tight engine. Next year I ran 14.5-14.7! Conditions were horrible on the second session (hot, humid, ugly...) but I was disappointed. Got some fresh gas and got a 14.4 but then back to 14.5s. No doubt had I plugged in some corrections to eliminate the bad air of the second session (and "standardize" my first session) I might have even seen a small improvement for the second session, but not knowing any better I was extremely bummed.

A few months later, I drove straight off the highway while on my way to my honeymoon, cooled the car down for about 15 minutes, and ran a single 1/4 at a much higher elevation but with cooler air (and with a trunk FULL of luggage) and pulled a 13.6. Wow, I wasn't expecting that. Again, if I had standardized all three runs I might have had an idea if my engine was still improving or not.

The year after I waited for more of less the same conditions (but a different track) and got my 13.4s with no effort.


So imagine a dedicated racer trying to dial in his combinations week after week but having to deal with changing atmospheric conditions as well! This correction tries to make up for these changing conditions.


What the correction CANNOT do is allow comparisons between different models. Maybe you can pull if off between Chargers with the same powertrain but forget comparing models... a Mustang GT might behave totally different as the air cools than a Charger. For instance, my Marauders went from slow-off-the-line pigs to explosive rockets in cold air, while my WS6 doesn't really change much personality in the cold air. You can't factor this different design behaviour into any formula, as much as the magazine racers would like to be able to.

[CRF450RR]

Corrected to a supposed standard atmospheric condition and altitude.

It allows for comparison of times taken on different track sessions such that you can negate the changing of the atmospheric conditions.

For example, I ran my WS6 every so often to see how it was breaking in (and to see whether I had a "good one" or not as compared to my online buddies). One session I ran 14.1 to 13.9 on a still-tight engine. Next year I ran 14.5-14.7! Conditions were horrible on the second session (hot, humid, ugly...) but I was disappointed. Got some fresh gas and got a 14.4 but then back to 14.5s. No doubt had I plugged in some corrections to eliminate the bad air of the second session (and "standardize" my first session) I might have even seen a small improvement for the second session, but not knowing any better I was extremely bummed.

A few months later, I drove straight off the highway while on my way to my honeymoon, cooled the car down for about 15 minutes, and ran a single 1/4 at a much higher elevation but with cooler air (and with a trunk FULL of luggage) and pulled a 13.6. Wow, I wasn't expecting that. Again, if I had standardized all three runs I might have had an idea if my engine was still improving or not.

The year after I waited for more of less the same conditions (but a different track) and got my 13.4s with no effort.


So imagine a dedicated racer trying to dial in his combinations week after week but having to deal with changing atmospheric conditions as well! This correction tries to make up for these changing conditions.


What the correction CANNOT do is allow comparisons between different models. Maybe you can pull if off between Chargers with the same powertrain but forget comparing models... a Mustang GT might behave totally different as the air cools than a Charger. For instance, my Marauders went from slow-off-the-line pigs to explosive rockets in cold air, while my WS6 doesn't really change much personality in the cold air. You can't factor this different design behaviour into any formula, as much as the magazine racers would like to be able to.


Thanks...

I went to the website and put my info in and the corrected time was 13.7's@ 101 mph from 14.2's@ 98 mph.

[wickedchargerrt]

Well...I haven't been able to repeat my best time of 13.846 seconds, that I ran in July I believe. Since then, I ran a best of 14.13. My MPH was also down by 2 MPH. Many miles were put on the car between those times...and I have yet to clean the air filter...which is dirtier than a pig in shiite! With such low miles on your car, wicked, could a dirty air filter be an issue...do you drive in real dusty conditions? I have a feeling that this was one issue that I should have addressed before going to the track last Tuesday!

i actually cleaned my afe the week before the track. I go to a lot of car shows and oil on filters diminishes if it sits in the sun. My afe only had 2k on it when i cleaned it. Not dusty around here either. Just crazy weather.

Oh well, we'll wait til next year. Maybe my diablo will be in by then :knockout:

[TripleTransAm]

Thanks...

I went to the website and put my info in and the corrected time was 13.7's@ 101 mph from 14.2's@ 98 mph.

That just means that theoretically, the way your car was running when it pulled the 14.2, your car should have been able to pull 13.7 at a track located elsewhere at a standard altitude in some other air conditions.

In some cases, the correction can actually look worse than the pulled numbers... if the air is so cold and dense and the track is at very low altitude, the correction will result in a worse value, since the test track was in such exceptionally better-than-standard conditions.

[wickedchargerrt]

i bet if i got these junk stock michelins off i'd gain a full second. haha