today was good better than last week got 450 miles on the falken and today in sac was realy cold . my last week times are in this post https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=656773
it was better today not that much weel hop but i couldnt bring down my 60ft last week my 60ft was 2.174 this week best was 2.237 so i dont know whats up but here they are

RUN 1
I1 :2.237
I2 :6.077
I3 :9.233
MPH(I3):77.547
I4 :11.938
E.T. : 14.267
MPH :95.910

RUN2
I1 :2.252
I2 :6.077
I3 :9.241
MPH(I3):77.879
I4 :11.948
E.T. : 14.282
MPH :96.700

RUN3
I1 :2.301
I2 :6.098
I3 :9.254
MPH(I3):77.947
I4 :11.963
E.T. : 14.298
MPH :96.609

RUN4
I1 :2.415
I2 :6.260
I3 :9.417
MPH(I3):77.570
I4 :12.121
E.T. : 14.454
MPH :95.611

car
**2001 ITR
motor
**B18C5 (for the people that always ask dont know why but whatever)
modifications.
**Hytech header
**Hytech exhuast (with cat and resonator that came from hytech)
**Spoon Cams & Camgears. valve clearence set at (IN 0.18mm) (EX 0.20mm) thanks to Alan at A&J Racing Motorsports
**AEM cold air intake
**Apexi V-AFC controller
**FPR (wasnt touched)
to view a larger pic add a " .orig.jpg " at the end of the adress when you copy and past it to a browser

copy the shortcut on the bottom link and paste it into a internet browser to view a bigger picture
Bigger Picture Of The DYNO

what u guys think i should be hitting 1/4 mile? i think that im not doing well so was just wondering what the cars potential is thanks in advance

 

What elevation are you running at? I think you can do better than that. I get consistent 2.3 60' times with just an intake and crap stock tires.

 

wen does sac raceway end its grudge matches??

 

190whp and you could only manage 14.2's in Sac.

Elevation is pretty close to zero there isn't it?

I would think you would be mid 13s there easy with what you have.

 

Bet you could hit 13's easily with better tires and better 60 ft. time.

 

MPH is kinda low...no?

 

your car must weigh a lot..

 

very nice. good times. very consistant.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ibspecHATCH &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">MPH is kinda low...no?</TD></TR></TABLE>

That's what I was thinking. Running 14.2's with only a 95-96mph is on the odd side with only a 2.2 60', but it's possible. Just depends on what kind of 60' (high rpm launch or not).

With 190whp I would think your car should be deep into the 13's and trapping well over 100mph. What was the weather like?

 

Sacramento is ~60' in elevation.

Looking at the times here is what I think might be impeding his times:
Weight of the car and driver
slow shifting

I've run 14.3 on ~165whp at Sac and Sears Point. Although all that I'm running at the moment is a 13.7 on BFG's.

Austin

 

EDIT: Austin just posted.

I'm also gauging this by another H-T member (Austin?). I believe he has a similar setup...similar whp...same track. I thought I remember him trapping a bit over a 100mph...running high 13s.

Might have been a bad day.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Austin &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Sacramento is ~60' in elevation.

Looking at the times here is what I think might be impeding his times:
Weight of the car and driver
slow shifting

I've run 14.3 on ~165whp at Sac and Sears Point. Although all that I'm running at the moment is a 13.7 on BFG's.

Austin</TD></TR></TABLE>

I wouldn't say he is slow shifting. He must be doing something right. To only be trapping 95-96mph and still pull 14.2's is impressive especially with not having the best of 60' times (not that 2.2 is bad on street tires). However what isn't adding up is the power compared to the trap speed.

&lt; trapped a best of 100.89mph with only 173whp.

 

if you looked at his graph carefully, I think the power figure is inflated a little by the spike in the end.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ActiveAero &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

I wouldn't say he is slow shifting. He must be doing something right. To only be trapping 95-96mph and still pull 14.2's is impressive especially with not having the best of 60' times (not that 2.2 is bad on street tires). However what isn't adding up is the power compared to the trap speed.

&lt; trapped a best of 100.89mph with only 173whp.</TD></TR></TABLE>

The trap speed isn't all that impressive to me, my car with the icebox and nitto tires did a 14.37 @ 95.5mph with a 2.2X 60ft time.

Here are my most recent times at the same track, it was in the high 90's if I remember correctly:

2001 Type-R
weight ~2,700 lbs(I'm not all that light)
~64,500 miles
Mobil1 has ~2,500 miles, 6 autocross runs, and 24 drag runs(before the event)

I used the BFG drag radials, the newer ones, inflated to 14/15psi warm/hot, using the Hondata launch control set at ~5,300rpm.

T1 2.198
T2 5.882
T3 8.965
MPH 79.973
T4 11.624
E.T. 13.891
MPH 101.405

T1 2.184
T2 5.880
T3 8.968
MPH 79.868
T4 11.631
E.T. 13.897
MPH 101.505

T1 2.125
T2 5.834
T3 8.932
MPH 79.573
T4 11.612
E.T. 13.898
MPH 100.407

T1 2.106
T2 5.803
T3 8.888
MPH 79.077
T4 11.557
E.T. 13.832
MPH 98.476

T1 2.098
T2 5.795
T3 8.870
MPH 79.011
T4 11.525
E.T. 13.791
MPH 98.611

 

Yeah, trap defintely kinda low.

For reference, my R stock (intake only) averages @ 95mph with a 96 as best trap speed. Dynoed @ 170whp a couple months ago.

14.2's are pretty good for the speed you're running but you should be pulling near 100mph.

 

see i dumped my tire psi at 20 and i wanted to conserve the tires so i didnt warm them up i just rolled to the tree last week i warmed them up and hit a 2.174 60ft im thinking if i hit a 2.1x 60ft i atleast could get into the 14.0 or 13.9
and austin dont u have a jdm final drive wouldnt that help out ur 1/4 mile times
also austin whats ur rev limit set too?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by capcon83 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">see i dumped my tire psi at 20 and i wanted to conserve the tires so i didnt warm them up i just rolled to the tree last week i warmed them up and hit a 2.174 60ft im thinking if i hit a 2.1x 60ft i atleast could get into the 14.0 or 13.9
and austin dont u have a jdm final drive wouldnt that help out ur 1/4 mile times
also austin whats ur rev limit set too?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Currently have the JDM FD and a 9,100 rev limiter, shift light at 8,600rpm. The 14.37 @ 95.5 was with stock gearing.

 

i have a stupid question but umm

my best time was like 14.6 with 97-98 mph.

why is his time alot better (more than .5 sec) faster and why is my trap speed higher?

 

Those are very odd times, shitty 60' shitty trap and good ET

Typically, for a 2.2x 60' and a 14.2 I would expect a 97-98 trap.....With a 2.0 60' you should be 13.5ish @ 100 (based on current 60' to trap ratio) which would be pretty impressive.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by itr1244 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i have a stupid question but umm

my best time was like 14.6 with 97-98 mph.

why is his time alot better (more than .5 sec) faster and why is my trap speed higher?
</TD></TR></TABLE>

1. He is driving better (most likely the launch).
2. Your car must be making more power.

With a 98mph trap speed you can break into the 13's on street tires and I mean true street tires, not some DOT approved drag radial. I've ran 13.8-9's with 98mph trap on Potenza SO-3's with a touch less than 173whp.

Austin we are in agreement right? I said his times were nice FOR THE TRAP, but I didn't say the trap was impressive because it is not. Make sense? Not sure if we were on the same page or not.

Even with the small spike at the end it seems the car is making a solid 185whp which should be good for WELL over 100mph trap speeds. I would guess that would be good for traps approaching 101-103mph range if the car was at a decent weight.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JoesTypeS &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Those are very odd times, shitty 60' shitty trap and good ET

Typically, for a 2.2x 60' and a 14.2 I would expect a 97-98 trap.....With a 2.0 60' you should be 13.5ish @ 100 (based on current 60' to trap ratio) which would be pretty impressive.

</TD></TR></TABLE>
dam 13.5 never thought that was possible i thoght the best i would do with 2.0 60ft was a 13.8 i wish i could get down to a 13.5ish