Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Take a look at your own passes of late for example. You have done about 5+ 13.4-13.5's and then a 13.0 and a 13.1

If consistency is the issue, I would challenge you to look at the two times alone that were run AFTER the nitrous/over-rich condition was fixed.

13.0 @ 115.15mph

13.1 @ 115.56mph

Within a tenth of each other and also within half of one mph.

The 3 runs before that were revving only to 6krpm as the car was over-fuelling and turning into a slug (as evidenced by the massive black smoke plumes the car expelled just before every gear change.)

The car felt GREAT on the last two passes of the day....A different car that freely revved to a peak of 7298 rpm with gear changes coming within 100 rpm of this each time. Boost was stable and even for the majority of the run and the car suffered none of it's previous bogging up top as the fuel prob was fixed with correct jetting.

Ther point is this. Every time I run the car, I am aiming to get the absolute most out of it for that run. I don't care if i have a bad launch cos something about the WHOLE run could tell me something I didnt know before. I'm gonna come out and say it that I beleive a low 12 is possible in my car with Radial tyres - RIGHT NOW. Tell me why I should aim for 12.7 when 100 years of drag racing maths and some common sense tells me otherwise?!?!? Tell me why I should be dissapointed with running 14.0 in a stuffed-up run on the way to getting there?!?!?!

As a point of interest, after 4 meets and about 15-20 different runs, I am YET to have a day or night at the track where the car runs more than 0.5sec +/- different for the session.

I'm sorry mate but it just doesn't make sense to me to aim for the mud when there's so much better there waiting.

Adrian

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I would really like conformation on this.

What is the quickest ET / MPH that an R32/R33/R34 GTS-T/GTT has run with the std turbo intact and untouched?

Will also start a new post in General Auto asking the same question.

Adrian

 

I just wouldn't be going to the track aiming to knock 0.5->0.9sec off "just like that" because the mph says its possible.  

Why? The whole idea about going to the track is to see how fast you can get the car moving. If its capable, try different techniques until you get there.

If it was that easy many more people would be doing it.

Think about it... you have 12-14sec to do what u gotta do. A minor 0.1-0.3sec stuff up anywhere along that 400m is gonna ruin a good time.

I just think consistency is the key to a 'quicker' time. With a 115mph TS a 12.1 flat would not be out of the question thats a whole 0.9sec faster than what has currently been done

I think this consistency thing you're on about refers to driver ability (ie practice makes perfect). The reason why most people run a super time around slightly slower times is for that 1 super run they got everything right. What they need to do is try and mimic these actions again and again until consistency is achieved. Achieving consistency for a slower time may provide good training for a faster pass but its really selling the car and yourself short.

Hope that makes sense...

13.0 @ 115.15mph

13.1 @ 115.56mph

I'm sorry mate but it just doesn't make sense to me to aim for the mud when there's so much better there waiting.

Adrian

i totally agree there is shit tins left in it going by the mph.

what are your 60ft times outta interest?

Both of those runs were with high 2.2's.

Have gone 2.0 on more than a couple of occassions when the tyres didnt suck.

Hoping for the same mph on 2.0's then 1.8 on some Drag Radials.

Adrian

note... slicks :D

Fair enough i aint got a stock turb, but i ran 12.9 @ 109mph... with 2.1 60ft.

On your average 225 street tyre. And my car weights in the same as yours, and you have a decent advantage with your IRS setup

You need rubber mr 2rismo i think!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Welcome to Skyline ownership. Yes, it is entirely possible parts websites get things wrong. There's a whole world of inaccuracies out there when it comes to R34 stuff (and probably 33 and 32). Lots of things that are 'just bolt on, entirely interchangable' aren't. Even between S1 and S2 R34's. Yes they have a GTT item supposedly being 296mm. This is incorrect. I would call whoever you got them from and return them and let them know the GTT actually uses 310mm rotors. Depending on where you got them from your experience and success will obviously vary.
    • Hi...a bit a "development" on the brakes. I spoke to the guys where i get brakes from...and they are saying that 296mm EBC are for R34 GT-T. I then went to their site: https://www.ebcbrakes.com/vehicle/uk-row/NISSAN/Skyline (R34)/ and search for my car(R34 GT 1998 - it has GTT brakes) and it show me this USR1229 number and they are rly 296mm rotors... So now iam rly confused... The rotors i have now on the car are 310mm asi shown... So where is the problem? Does the whole EBC got it wrong or my calipers are just...idk know what?  
    • Oh What the hell, I used to get a "are you sure you want to reply, this thread is XX months old" message. Maybe a software update remove that. My bad.
    • This is a recipe for disaster* Note: Disaster is relative. The thing that often gets lost in threads like this is what is considered acceptable poke and compromise between what one person considers 'good' looks and what someone else does. The quoted specs would sit absurdly outside the guards with the spacers mentioned and need  REALLY thin tyres and a LOT of camber AND rolling the guards to fit. Some people love this. Some people consider this a ruined car. One thing is for certain though, rolling the guards is pretty much mandatory for any 'good' fitment (of either variety). It is often the difference between any fitment remotely close to the guards. "Not to mention the rears were like a mm from hitting the coilovers." I have a question though - This spec is VERY close to what I was planning to buy relative to the inboard suspension - I have an offset measuring tool on the way to confirm it. When you say "like a mm" do you mean literally 1mm? Or 2mm? Cause that's enough clearance for me in the rear :p I actually found the more limiting factor ISNT the coilover but the actual suspension arms. Did you take a look at how close those were?
    • @GTSBoy yeah sorry i know thery are known for colors bud those DBA are too in colors 🙂 Green will be good enough for me  
×
×
  • Create New...