Dissapointing Times! Please Help!
03-10-2003, 01:46 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: OKC,OK, USA
Posts: 20
Dissapointing Times! Please Help!
My friend has a '95 Z with CAI, Mac headers and catback, 58mm TB, 3.73s, 3000 stall, TransGo shiftkit, and SFCs. Saturday night he ran a 13.5 @ 102.7mph with a 2.1 60' time. I think that he should be able to run better than this. Any thoughts on what we need to do? He also has prostars and et streets in the mail.
03-10-2003, 02:45 PM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Vancouver BC, Canada
Posts: 528
I agree for the most part...
I feel with those mods, the car should be a low 13 second car... AT sea level...
So get some altitude correction factors in there, and see where he is after those come into effect...
If he's @ say 3000 or so feet, I think those times are spot on... But he can also really work on the launch, at least a sub 2 second 60 ft with such a high stall and an Auto... Should be fairly easy as well with street tires... I see lots of Auto's with high 1.7-1.9 short times with street tires and high stalls, so that'll bring him down quite a bit with just a better launch...
Have fun!
Jeff
I feel with those mods, the car should be a low 13 second car... AT sea level...
So get some altitude correction factors in there, and see where he is after those come into effect...
If he's @ say 3000 or so feet, I think those times are spot on... But he can also really work on the launch, at least a sub 2 second 60 ft with such a high stall and an Auto... Should be fairly easy as well with street tires... I see lots of Auto's with high 1.7-1.9 short times with street tires and high stalls, so that'll bring him down quite a bit with just a better launch...
Have fun!
Jeff
03-10-2003, 04:59 PM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: WAYNE NJ
Posts: 282
I dont know does a m6 run different i think that the times are ok but my friend had a 95 TA M6 with miminal bolt on's and an edelbrock cat back and he ran 13's at like 102 so i think that isnt great..no headers either so maybe im wrong but i think it should be better...just IMO....
03-10-2003, 05:36 PM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Vancouver BC, Canada
Posts: 528
I feel a bolt on car (full exhuast and CAI), with gears should run low 13's, HIGH 12's @ 105ish
I have ran 13.6 @ 102/3 (see sig) without headers in my M6 car @ 3600 ft elevation... I'm gunning for 12.9's without headers now that i'm back at sea level, but my car is extremely light (3,000 lbs with NO weight reduction) as its quite the base level Z...
A fully loaded 3500 lb auto with full exhaust, gears and a stall, should have little issues pulling down LOW 13's, of course with a good launch, but its an auto, so it *shouldn't* be that hard... But mind you, i've never driven an auto, so I can't really comment on the ease of it
I have ran 13.6 @ 102/3 (see sig) without headers in my M6 car @ 3600 ft elevation... I'm gunning for 12.9's without headers now that i'm back at sea level, but my car is extremely light (3,000 lbs with NO weight reduction) as its quite the base level Z...
A fully loaded 3500 lb auto with full exhaust, gears and a stall, should have little issues pulling down LOW 13's, of course with a good launch, but its an auto, so it *shouldn't* be that hard... But mind you, i've never driven an auto, so I can't really comment on the ease of it
03-10-2003, 06:19 PM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Costa Mesa, CA
Posts: 2,521
Tell him to ditch that 58mm throttle body until he gets some mods that require it. I hope those times aren't normal. I've got the mods in sig+BFG drags+I just bought a 2200 RPM converter and I'm shooting for low low 13s. We'll see I guess.
John
John
03-10-2003, 06:45 PM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Lincoln, NE, USA
Posts: 480
I think it is really hard to believe that your car weighs 3000 lbs with no weight reduction. Even the 1LE's aren't that light and they have are quite a bit lighter than a base Z28. I think the base Z with an LT1 is up in the 3600-3700 lb range so, I hate to do it, but I am raising the flag on you..
03-11-2003, 10:52 AM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Vancouver BC, Canada
Posts: 528
the ONLY options my car has are, the colored coated roof, and Z-Rated tires from the factory, so no speed limiter...
No AC, No power windows, No power doors, Not even a remote truck release...
I also think my car is super light, BUT its been weighted twice now on goverment scales for the purpose of Air Care/Smog and thats the results it shows on the print out I get at the end...
I would like to get it weighed again, as people do give alot of shocked looks when I say thats what it weighs, but I'm going by goverment certified scales, but I suppose they could be wrong
But even my times show that my car is SUPER light... @ sea level, my 13.6 @ 103 run would be 13.0 @ 106, without headers, just 4.10 gears, borla and K&N FIPK and not even a sub 2 second short time... 2.06!
I thought a convertable was in the 3600 lb range, a Base Z is at least 2-3 hundred lbs lighter then that... I think Brent (maybe?) has a listing of some weights for our cars, i should look it up...
Edit: Here is a link showing weight of our cars:
http://www.f-body.org/tech/4th_gen.htm#95weights
I'm not sure if thats completely base model, without any options, but the Z-28 Coupe stands in a hefty 3390... It also shows shipping weight, I assume without fluids maybe? Which comes in 80 lb's lighter again... So i'm 300 lb's shy of that mark... I have a listing of my RPO codes, so I should check against the GM list... I bought my car used back in 96 so I don't have a window sticker or anythign unfortunately
---------
But I also agree, the 58mm Throttle body is total overkill for that car, unless he plans on some major head work and a cam to match, he has NO need of something that large...
Jeff
No AC, No power windows, No power doors, Not even a remote truck release...
I also think my car is super light, BUT its been weighted twice now on goverment scales for the purpose of Air Care/Smog and thats the results it shows on the print out I get at the end...
I would like to get it weighed again, as people do give alot of shocked looks when I say thats what it weighs, but I'm going by goverment certified scales, but I suppose they could be wrong
But even my times show that my car is SUPER light... @ sea level, my 13.6 @ 103 run would be 13.0 @ 106, without headers, just 4.10 gears, borla and K&N FIPK and not even a sub 2 second short time... 2.06!
I thought a convertable was in the 3600 lb range, a Base Z is at least 2-3 hundred lbs lighter then that... I think Brent (maybe?) has a listing of some weights for our cars, i should look it up...
Edit: Here is a link showing weight of our cars:
http://www.f-body.org/tech/4th_gen.htm#95weights
I'm not sure if thats completely base model, without any options, but the Z-28 Coupe stands in a hefty 3390... It also shows shipping weight, I assume without fluids maybe? Which comes in 80 lb's lighter again... So i'm 300 lb's shy of that mark... I have a listing of my RPO codes, so I should check against the GM list... I bought my car used back in 96 so I don't have a window sticker or anythign unfortunately
---------
But I also agree, the 58mm Throttle body is total overkill for that car, unless he plans on some major head work and a cam to match, he has NO need of something that large...
Jeff
Last edited by JeffK95Z; 03-11-2003 at 11:04 AM.
03-11-2003, 02:29 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Albertville,AL
Posts: 95
Sorry, but there is no way that weight can be correct. My 2002 has an advantage because of it's aluminum block and I ordered my car with a CD player as it's only option. No T tops, no pw, pd, Cruise, nothing, I even got cloth seats. I weighed my car 2 weeks ago with the spare out and the jack removed. With me ( 180lbs ) and less than 1/4 tank of gas the car weighed 3460lbs.
03-11-2003, 02:51 PM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Overlandpark, Ks
Posts: 279
i think that tires would really help him. a 2.1 60' isn't going to let his car run to it's potential. with that converter and gear set-up, i would shoot for a 1.7 60's and that might put him into the low 13's high 12's that he should be running. it is all about the launch!
thomas
thomas
03-11-2003, 03:11 PM
#13
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Brunswick, Maine 04011
Posts: 3,665
FYI: Power windows are lighter than the mechanical ones in ur cars...
My car, with me in it, weighs in at 3590 and I weigh 200. Sure there is a roll bar, but no bumper supports, two kirkey racing buckets, no carpet padding, lightweight rims and tires, no console, no back seat, even cut off all the teats under the carpet... Air conditioning is long gone...
And I didn't add a bunch of heavy suspension components either...
My car, with me in it, weighs in at 3590 and I weigh 200. Sure there is a roll bar, but no bumper supports, two kirkey racing buckets, no carpet padding, lightweight rims and tires, no console, no back seat, even cut off all the teats under the carpet... Air conditioning is long gone...
And I didn't add a bunch of heavy suspension components either...
03-11-2003, 03:24 PM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Vancouver BC, Canada
Posts: 528
Perhaps the scales are off... It reads 1330 kg's, so 2.25? lbs in a kilogram? which is 3,025 lbs...
This was without anyone in the car, and perhaps 1/2 tank of gas... I really need to get it weighed again then, as now i'm rather interested to see how much my goverment documents are off by...
I'll let you guys know as soon as I get the car on the scales again!
Jeff
This was without anyone in the car, and perhaps 1/2 tank of gas... I really need to get it weighed again then, as now i'm rather interested to see how much my goverment documents are off by...
I'll let you guys know as soon as I get the car on the scales again!
Jeff
