Topic: So who is going to bandimere tomorrow 4-9pm (Read 774 times)

LOS · « **Reply #25 on:** June 18, 2009, 11:04:00 AM »

You can post the magic number though. Better be less than 20

Southcross · « **Reply #26 on:** June 18, 2009, 11:07:12 AM »

Quote from: LOS on June 18, 2009, 11:04:00 AM

You can post the magic number though. Better be less than 20

lawls.... even when the Dasher had a N/a engine, and I had a insta-leg-cramp and couldn't shift into 3rd gear... I still "rolled" better than a 20

sad_rocc · « **Reply #27 on:** June 18, 2009, 11:31:20 AM »

Wouldn't stretched tires make your car fast? Less friction from a narrower contact patch?

mikeminnillo · « **Reply #28 on:** June 18, 2009, 11:33:00 AM »

my best was a 17.3 @82mph. at sea level i ran a 15.3 @ 91 mph.

Southcross · « **Reply #29 on:** June 18, 2009, 11:48:49 AM »

Quote from: mikeminnillo on June 18, 2009, 11:33:00 AM

my best was a 17.3 @82mph. at sea level i ran a 15.3 @ 91 mph.

The Dasher's best n/a run was a 17.0x

yokust · « **Reply #30 on:** June 18, 2009, 12:58:05 PM »

Quote from: mikeminnillo on June 18, 2009, 11:33:00 AM

my best was a 17.3 @82mph. at sea level i ran a 15.3 @ 91 mph.

A 1.8t Stock MK4 up here runs a 15.6@90ish

Sucks to be a dumb VR huh

yokust · « **Reply #31 on:** June 18, 2009, 12:58:49 PM »

What did the RS6 run?

p3u · « **Reply #32 on:** June 18, 2009, 02:26:26 PM »

13.8 at 103.5

But before you say you told me so it wasn't making full power till about 5500rpm on each run. All three runs were crap, threw maf codes after each one. Fortunately I logged all three runs, I have yet to look at the information in detail. One thing I will say is the Vag logs were spot on with the times and speed I did, which shows that my 11.1 0-100 I did was correct, vs the 13.2 at bandimere

I also did a 14 dead even, that run was even worse in the beginning, no power till half through 2nd, but I did get a 105+ trap speed once the car started to work properly.

I wonder if the lower elevation caused issues with the 91 craptane?

I'll send you my logs if you're interested to see if you can see what happened. I also did one log on the way home, power brake launch just like on the strip, slightly up hill even and blew away the numbers I did up there.

Barry · « **Reply #33 on:** June 18, 2009, 03:01:36 PM »

yeah... well, one thing you are not taking into consideration Jon was the track surface... you are slipping and sliding down a track on street tires, when the track is covered in racing rubber.... hmm...

I personally think you should be happy with the sub 14 second time.

Southcross · « **Reply #34 on:** June 18, 2009, 03:14:13 PM »

when hot rubber comes off the tire and breaks down.... it turns into oil, what its made out of

scurvy_bandit · « **Reply #35 on:** June 18, 2009, 03:21:07 PM »

hot rubbers? WTF are you talking about??? Jk

Anyhow... Mike wtf. I ran a damn 16.7 in my 2.0 at 345ft! lol

Maybe that douche at Dirty Birdy was right about VRs hitting a wall? jk...

Mike I cant believe that! Are your new wheels heavier? Get some donuts!

p3u · « **Reply #36 on:** June 18, 2009, 03:23:36 PM »

Quote from: GotMyDub on June 18, 2009, 03:01:36 PM

yeah... well, one thing you are not taking into consideration Jon was the track surface... you are slipping and sliding down a track on street tires, when the track is covered in racing rubber.... hmm...

I personally think you should be happy with the sub 14 second time.

I didn't have any slipping.

The only person I saw the entire night that had any slipping, other then at launch, was this turbo diesel with probaby over 1000ft'lbs, that did an 11.6

yokust · « **Reply #37 on:** June 18, 2009, 05:09:31 PM »

Quote from: p3u on June 18, 2009, 02:26:26 PM

13.8 at 103.5

But before you say you told me so it wasn't making full power till about 5500rpm on each run. All three runs were crap, threw maf codes after each one. Fortunately I logged all three runs, I have yet to look at the information in detail. One thing I will say is the Vag logs were spot on with the times and speed I did, which shows that my 11.1 0-100 I did was correct, vs the 13.2 at bandimere

I also did a 14 dead even, that run was even worse in the beginning, no power till half through 2nd, but I did get a 105+ trap speed once the car started to work properly.

I wonder if the lower elevation caused issues with the 91 craptane?

I'll send you my logs if you're interested to see if you can see what happened. I also did one log on the way home, power brake launch just like on the strip, slightly up hill even and blew away the numbers I did up there.

Thats because your logs, like mentioned before DONT MEAN CRAP and dont have anything to do with reality.

And they werent close at all, 0-100@11.1 but what it did was 0-103@13.8

It did not take your car 2.8 sec to go 3mph, even more so at speed where these cars really shine. Dead stop launches are not animals until about 40mph

But just so you know its only about .5-.8 faster on a turbo car from here to sea level. So at best your car at sea level would run a 13.0. Not possible to run a low 12's.

But congrats

on getting a good time out of it. I know i chipped RS6 in town w/GIAC that can barely run 13.8's consistantly. So i was very happy with my APR tune running 13.5's consistantly up here

p3u · « **Reply #38 on:** June 18, 2009, 05:34:36 PM »

Quote from: yokust on June 18, 2009, 05:09:31 PM

Quote from: p3u on June 18, 2009, 02:26:26 PM

Thats because your logs, like mentioned before DONT MEAN CRAP and dont have anything to do with reality.

And they werent close at all, 0-100@11.1 but what it did was 0-103@13.8

It did not take your car 2.8 sec to go 3mph, even more so at speed where these cars really shine. Dead stop launches are not animals until about 40mph

I don't think you understand what I was saying. I have done logs on two different occasions of doing 0-100mph in 11.1 seconds, not at bandimer. At bandimere the car ran like poo and I vag logged 13.2 seconds to 100mph during my best run.

The Vag logs I did on all my runs gave me the exact same speed and time as the time slips, so the runs were spot on with vag readings.

So what I was saying is my car didn't run correctly, it felt and went very slow off the line each time. Should have been faster.

yokust · « **Reply #39 on:** June 18, 2009, 06:07:48 PM »

You are high if you think your car will go any faster.

But keep dreaming buddy

yokust · « **Reply #40 on:** June 18, 2009, 06:24:42 PM »

Here is a calculator for you

http://robrobinette.com/et.htm

http://www.jcalculator.com/?c=1_4_mile_calculator

Enter in 4500lbs, which is close to what mine weighed in with me in it, and 349awhp. Which is proven dyno hp numbers of what they put to the ground.

Both sites give you 13.65 which is sea level time that the car could run under perfect everything conditions. So add time for altitude and sorry buts its not going any faster

Corrado Adolescent · « **Reply #41 on:** June 18, 2009, 07:45:42 PM »

haha mike my corrado did 17.2 before my chip. now i can say my car is faster.

Southcross · « **Reply #42 on:** June 19, 2009, 07:17:31 AM »

lawls... I need to find that slip again
edit... found my thread from 2007... but no scan of the slip (it may be blocked at work

)
17.086 @ 78.11

Giggidy · « **Reply #43 on:** June 19, 2009, 08:55:06 AM »

that's relatively quick for a tow truck

scurvy_bandit · « **Reply #44 on:** June 19, 2009, 11:12:08 AM »

Id like to see what my time now is and compare it to a time I'll run in August after I do some work...

lnferno · « **Reply #45 on:** June 25, 2009, 09:10:59 PM »

That RS6 beat my B7 A4 2.0T's time of 13.9. I wish I would have taken it back to the strip after I put on the upgraded fuel pump, FMIC, and tuning. That sucker would have been in the mid 13s for sure. Oh well, will never know now. One of these days I'll bring the B5 S4 to the track. Should be interesting to see what an additional 200+ hp over my old B7 A4 will do

News:

Author Topic: So who is going to bandimere tomorrow 4-9pm (Read 774 times)

Facebook Comments