Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

knore, as soon as i finished my run i collected my timeslip then lined up and waited 5mins if that and away i was.

I got 14.0 on my second go and i keep going back around destined to get that 13 sec pass hehe i got it on my 8th run finally

smooth the tyres made a great difference, i was getting 2.1 60" times on most runs they were great

So what method did you use MJ

hold front brakes.. stall up a little .. release?

hand brake?

what rpm launch?

There some good times, but i thought youd get better with 181rwkw

I doubt ill get the times i want my first time too :)

im hoping for low 13s once everythings done

maybe a touch of 12 if im REALLY lucky

knore the only other gtst that beat me was belgarions car which did 13.7 im not including jlnewton though :)

mods and caluation of times in theory dont work the same in real life.......most ppl got 14's

i just held the foot brake with my left foot and revved to about 3k and then when the green light came on i was off :D

i do have brand new falken azenis semi slicks though

knore it all comes down to practise and experience. The first time i went to the track with my skyline i had a full exhaust and pod and 10psi and best i ran was 15.0 heheh.

Alot of ppl talk up how quick their car is on the net........i see it alot on the silvia forums it doesnt mean shit unless you get a timeslip to prove it.

Damn straight, i couldnt agree more, im sick of people saying im driving a 12sec car etc etc

I know mines good for a low 13 with the right driving, realistically will have about 210kw at the wheels when i goto willowbank..

Probably get gavin to tune it as i have sitc aswell.

I did 8 runs, with the 7th being the quickest and the 8th being the first dying scream from my clutch, therefore ending my night before anything serious happened.

Best run

13.467 @ 101.60mph 60 ft 1.895

Not bad for a total stocker with different wheels!

I only ended up having 4 runs as it was my first time out with the Motec installed and it badly needed re-tuning as I couldn't push it past 6000 - 6500 rpm which really affected my times....

My best was my first run:

60ft : 1.916

E.T. : 13.409

MPH : 101.60

Now for a decent tune.....

Cam :D

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...