Just thought I'd post up the most recent runs I made with the car. I was only able to get 2 passes in, broke an axle on the first attempt, and broke out of my dial on the third attempt.
I got my new best time on the last run, though! I was pretty excited, although I was hoping for a 10 second pass. Can't complain too much, though, seeing that I am still unable to shift above 6500 rpm, and I'm running a 1 year old set of 24.5 x 8.0 slicks. Oh, and the fact I'm still on a stock bottom end, and therefore unable to rev the car out to the turbo's happy place...LOL!
Anyway, enough of the excuses. On to videos!
11.47 @ 127.75 mph
...and the 11.24 @ 129.77 mph
Timeslip for the 11.24 pass, since it's impossible to see in the video...
So, no 10 second pass this time. But maybe next time! I hope to have about 4 changes made to the car before the next time it goes out. Those changes being: 26" slicks, Coilovers to fit said slicks, RageTek accelerator shaft, and a twin disc clutch. Then, maybe then, I'll get the elusive 10 second pass on the stock bottom end that we've all been waiting for!
__________________
2004 Solar Yellow SRT-4 - AEM EMS - AMS37R Turbo Kit - Custom fuel system - JMCylinderhead/Crower S2 cams - Stock bottom end...for now, anyway!
Best E.T. to date: 11.24
Best MPH to date: 129.77 MPH
Is this on the 600WHP tune? Good times but I would have thought the MPH would be a lot higher with 600WHP no?
Yeah, 600 whp tune. One thing to remember, though. That was 600 WHP SAE corrected, which is going to inflate the numbers a bit. Actual power output without the correction is actually 550 WHP. So, with that said, the traps are better represented by the actual power output.
Also, the other thing that has an impact on the traps mis-representing the power is "POWER UNDER THE CURVE". The car makes awesome peak power, but it's all up top (high rpm). Being that I'm on a stock bottom end, I can't rev the motor out as high as is needed to get the best results. If I were able to bring the car to 8000+ rpm, the traps would increase significantly, without increasing boost pressures, because I would be keeping the car in it's powerband, and not shifting out of it just when the going gets good.
One thing to remember when considering correction factors, is that on a turbo'd car, elevation doesn't make "AS" much of a difference as it does with a N/A car, unless you're running the turbo to it's maximum potential.
So taking this into account, 550 WHP uncorrected on a turbo'd car that isn't running close to it's max potential means that the SAE correction to 609 WHP is going to be greatly inflated.
A true correction factor that takes the turbo into account might add around 15 - 20 WHP, not 60 WHP.
At the time I posted the numbers of 609 WHP, I should have clarified this more. Although, I have to admit, at the time that we dyno'd, I didn't really think much about this little fact.
Also remember, the car is pretty much full weight, whatever that amounts to with a 175 lbs. driver. Only form of weight reduction the car has is a carbon fiber hood, and no spare tire/jack.
damn nice man.. chuck, on a serious note... how of course a lot of people will say that your engine will blow soon enough since its stock.. what's your take on that? i'll be happy with a 10.99 run.. recently i just messed up the motor though, was running way too rich and washed out some stuff in there.. oil in 1 cylinder and coolant in another.. found a stock longblock for 600 but was thinking of just parking the car in a friends garage n taking it apart. then getting it built up some..
__________________
mike, itzcokey@aol.com FS drive side head light $50 + shipp (obo); stock ic $60+ shipp; silver wing perf cond 100$ obo; crash bar 50 + shipp; stck cold side
AutoForums.com is the premier network of enthusiast-owned
enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
We operate more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share
experiences and opinions as a community.