Chrysler 300C & SRT8 Forums banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,395 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Was at the track again and was able to trap 120 + change in miles per hour. That is the fastest trap thus far for me and I've only seen a few others trap that high. Still running my stock tires and that is costing me. Best 60' is 1.86 today. But was able to run another 11 second time @ 11.99.

DA correction below on my 120 MPH run

Based on:
Temp: 63°
Humidity: 40%
Track Altitude: 1400 feet
Pressure: 30.14 in.
Density Altitude = 1842 feet
ET MPH [email protected] Corrected [email protected]

They said the track would open at 10 a.m. but the slow pokes took an hour and a half to get it prepped. That in itself raised the DA due to things heating up.

It was Mustang SVT Club day. I raced 7 mustangs from Roushe to the new 500 GT and smoked all of them. They were hanging their head pretty low when the old four door tank would drive by. Pretty cool guys though.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,091 Posts
hehehehehehehe

Good way to spank the horses Moose! Bet they won't even speak about the loss in their forum!
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
23,441 Posts
I don't know about spankin' horses or monkeys for that matter, but he's sure into spankin' mooses (can't be mice can it???).

Soon they'll be putting signs up there, "Danger, Moose Crossing VERY Fast"



Nice runs there Devin!!!

Bernie
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,395 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Thanks guys! There was a guy taking some videos and I gave him my business card to forward the vids. So when I get them I'll update the thread.

The SVT and other Mustangs are bad ass. I thought they would spank me but the mighty SRT took them down, lol.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,955 Posts
I raced 7 mustangs from Roushe to the new 500 GT and smoked all of them. They were hanging their head pretty low when the old four door tank would drive by.

HAHAHAHAA!!

That's just priceless.

Good job Moose! Way to represent the 4-d00r-Tank!


I can imagine what people must have acted like. I was with JMatt at the track last fall and people's jaws would literally drop when he'd pull 11's in a family car. It almost makes me want to put spray on my car............almost. :biggrin:

Keep the shiny side up buddy!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,049 Posts
thats awesome, i have never been to the track but i would LOVE to hit times like that. way to represent 2 ton land yachts at the track!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
Very impressive run! I would be very curious what your car's dyno results were pre and post mods. You obviously hit on the right mods together.

Again, congrats. You would have taken a lot of money from me if you had given me your list of mods and prior to your run would have told me you were going to run in the 11's at 120.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
803 Posts
NICE! I haven't been playing with my car lately but I plan to go back to the track and improve on my 12.2 @ 116 (uncorrected).

My changes will be a working catalytic converter, new toyo tires and the speaker box removed from the car.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,395 Posts
Discussion Starter #10 (Edited)
Guys, thanks a lot for the props.

VVV, I could only imagine seeing JMatt at the track turning some heads. That's one guy that does not mess around at the track, well, at least when he's running. He's putting up some strong numbers that's for sure.

Casey, I wish you were there too! We would have been going back to the garage to install another kit, haha

Dry Heat, it is un-real and I agree with what you say. And there is no driver involved. It is set up so perfect it's just gas and go. I can post 12.01 to 12.10 all day long. And the runs Saturday were all from a 3/4 full tank of n20. Had I had time to fill my other bottle I would have been even better. My high pressure was 1075 and my best runs will come from 1175 psi. I cooked that baby all I could but it just didn't have enough. By the time I was at the end of the track it was all the way down to 700 psi.

IGOTTA, I gotta give you credit. A long long time ago I saw your car with n20 and I studied it. I saw that you were having zero problems and that was good enough for me. I've never looked back. I know we can get your baby in the 11's. Once I tuned my car it went from 12.4's to 12.00 11.98/99. Now it's your turn.

And I can't say it enough. You can't judge a single car's best time at a track for overall times. I was up against cars that run in the high elevens at most tracks, but all they could muster up was mid 12's. It's all about the track, the car, that day.

Here are a few runs that were one right after another to show how consistent the car is...and I've got tons more. I'm car 8.

Also still waiting for some vids to be emailed.


And my all time best...for now.

http://s73.photobucket.com/albums/i213/archiemoose/?action=view&current=timeslip-1.jpg
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,117 Posts
You probably need to recalc...

DA correction below on my 120 MPH run

Based on:
Temp: 63°
Humidity: 40%
Track Altitude: 1400 feet
Pressure: 30.14 in.
Density Altitude = 1842 feet
ET MPH [email protected] Corrected [email protected]
Hey Moose...I'm guessing that you used one of those charts that convert your times from altitude to sea level. Unfortunately those charts assume that the barometric pressure is the SAE standard of 29.234 for both. If you correctly apply the SAE to your numbers including the barometric pressure and humidity I think you will find only about a .08" difference in your time slips and corrected numbers. Because the actual correction is to the horsepower, and one must make a educated guess as how much that would affect your ET, the .08" is based on a horsepower of 480 at the wheels(This includes your 100 shot). 11.93 ET is nothing to sneeze at and congrats are in order just the same.:fing02:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,395 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Hey Moose...I'm guessing that you used one of those charts that convert your times from altitude to sea level. Unfortunately those charts assume that the barometric pressure is the SAE standard of 29.234 for both. If you correctly apply the SAE to your numbers including the barometric pressure and humidity I think you will find only about a .08" difference in your time slips and corrected numbers. Because the actual correction is to the horsepower, and one must make a educated guess as how much that would affect your ET, the .08" is based on a horsepower of 480 at the wheels(This includes your 100 shot). 11.93 ET is nothing to sneeze at and congrats are in order just the same.:fing02:

Do you not see where I had to input for the barometric pressure and humidity? And the humidity was actually less than I put down and would probably favor the run even a little better. Another thing is, the calculation you see was for a run that I did not get a chance to post i.e. [email protected] MPH. Please correct me if I am missing something.

As for corrected times, I really don't read much into them. I only put them down (sometimes) to show what the car could have done in better conditions. However, DA is a HUGE factor when running cars like we do. And we only see DA's get to about 300 once each winter and when that day arrives my wife has my day planned, lol.

If you have ''the'' method figured out, go right ahead and recalculate all you want...

Moose.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,117 Posts
Do you not see where I had to input for the barometric pressure and humidity? And the humidity was actually less than I put down and would probably favor the run even a little better. Another thing is, the calculation you see was for a run that I did not get a chance to post i.e. [email protected] MPH. Please correct me if I am missing something.

As for corrected times, I really don't read much into them. I only put them down (sometimes) to show what the car could have done in better conditions. However, DA is a HUGE factor when running cars like we do. And we only see DA's get to about 300 once each winter and when that day arrives my wife has my day planned, lol.

If you have ''the'' method figured out, go right ahead and recalculate all you want...

Moose.
Hey Moose...I used the posted temperature of 63 degrees Fahrenheit, the posted humidity of 40 percent, the posted altitude of 1,400 feet, the posted barometric pressure of 30.14 inches of mercury. With those numbers I get a correction factor of 1.018. What correction factor do you get? If I apply that factor to you horsepower (480) I get 488 corrected, or a 8 horsepower correction or a .08" ET correction.

I agree that DA is huge, but is seems that you might have left out the density part of the density/altitude in your correction. And as the numbers show in this particular case the density is a bigger part than the altitude.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,395 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Hey Moose...I used the posted temperature of 63 degrees Fahrenheit, the posted humidity of 40 percent, the posted altitude of 1,400 feet, the posted barometric pressure of 30.14 inches of mercury. With those numbers I get a correction factor of 1.018. What correction factor do you get? If I apply that factor to you horsepower (480) I get 488 corrected, or a 8 horsepower correction or a .08" ET correction.

I agree that DA is huge, but is seems that you might have left out the density part of the density/altitude in your correction. And as the numbers show in this particular case the density is a bigger part than the altitude.
How about MPH? Did you get a correction for that? I'll post the web site that I use when I get to the computer that has it on my favorites. What are you using?

I have a very close friend that is a Super Modified drag racer and he has all the goodies that nail down the DA correction to a science. I'll report back.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,117 Posts
How about MPH? Did you get a correction for that? I'll post the web site that I use when I get to the computer that has it on my favorites. What are you using?

I have a very close friend that is a Super Modified drag racer and he has all the goodies that nail down the DA correction to a science. I'll report back.
Hey Moose..I was just leaving my office when I saw your response and realized that I don't know if you posted absolute pressure or not? That might be the difference in our calcs. I'll check back later tonight for your answer and we can talk more...

Edit: This is a convenient online calculator that I use from time to time Engine Tuning Calculator - dew point. The site has quite a bit of information for the inquisitive at heart. To follow up on my earlier though regarding absolute pressure. Did you record your own pressure by taking an altimeter to the track, zeroing it out, and recording the absolute pressure? That would give a false or artificial pressure reading and skew the correction. How did you get your pressure. Did the track give it to you? Pressure is almost almost always given in sea level corrected units by weather stations and is what I assumed yours was.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,395 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Hey Moose..I was just leaving my office when I saw your response and realized that I don't know if you posted absolute pressure or not? That might be the difference in our calcs. I'll check back later tonight for your answer and we can talk more...

Edit: This is a convenient online calculator that I use from time to time Engine Tuning Calculator - dew point. The site has quite a bit of information for the inquisitive at heart. To follow up on my earlier though regarding absolute pressure. Did you record your own pressure by taking an altimeter to the track, zeroing it out, and recording the absolute pressure? That would give a false or artificial pressure reading and skew the correction. How did you get your pressure. Did the track give it to you? Pressure is almost almost always given in sea level corrected units by weather stations and is what I assumed yours was.
Very nice. I re-calculated and it looks like 11.93 corrected on that chart.

There is a lot of people that don't believe much in DA. Here is something right out of that article.

The SAE J1349 relative horsepower calculation shows how air density alters the power output of a properly tuned engine. For example, at 85 deg F, 30.14 in-Hg barometer reading, 58 deg F dewpoint and 5000 ft altitude, the engine only produces about 81.1% of the rated horsepower.

That is huge...

Thank you midnight.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,117 Posts
Come on now...

Very nice. I re-calculated and it looks like 11.93 corrected on that chart.

There is a lot of people that don't believe much in DA. Here is something right out of that article.

The SAE J1349 relative horsepower calculation shows how air density alters the power output of a properly tuned engine. For example, at 85 deg F, 30.14 in-Hg barometer reading, 58 deg F dewpoint and 5000 ft altitude, the engine only produces about 81.1% of the rated horsepower.

That is huge...
Thank you midnight.
So you are really thanking me for providing you will proof that someone else is impacted more by living at 5000 feet than you at 1400 feet, and testing their engine on a day that is 22 degrees warmer than when you ran? The world already knew this!

We both have already stipulated that pressure,temperature, altitude and humidity impact our engine performance. And yes if you use a pressure of 30.14, a temperature of 85 degrees, a dew point of 58 and an elevation of 5000 feet, you indeed get a correction of 18.9 percent.

Now if you were to plug your pressure, temperature, dew point and elevation into the same equation you would get a correction factor of 1.8 percent.

Now there are a number of other factors I would like to discuss that may be influencing these differences including, SAE, DA, Nitrous, and decreased air resistance at altitude. They will take me a little while to get down into words but I will get back to you as soon as I get a chance.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,117 Posts
Moose... I owe you an appology!

Very nice. I re-calculated and it looks like 11.93 corrected on that chart.

There is a lot of people that don't believe much in DA. Here is something right out of that article.

The SAE J1349 relative horsepower calculation shows how air density alters the power output of a properly tuned engine. For example, at 85 deg F, 30.14 in-Hg barometer reading, 58 deg F dewpoint and 5000 ft altitude, the engine only produces about 81.1% of the rated horsepower.

That is huge...

Thank you midnight.
I must have had my head up my a$$ when I wrote my last response. Sorry! I focused in on your bold type and didn't see the top line and took rest as sarcasm. As I just re-read your post I finally took the time to read the whole thing and understand it was sincere. Again my most humble apologies.

I'm glad you were able to read the documentation on the web page. I found there to be a lot of good information.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
456 Posts
Well done do you have videos Moose ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,222 Posts
Moose play nice with those Stangs lol I have sitting next to the C but it will never and I repeat never be a racer lol. The car is all about saving me gas on the Spring and Summer commute to work.

Corrected or uncorrected your times are more than respectable in any racing circle for the vehicle you're running. If I had a STR8 moving that fast--I'd have no drivers license by now lol

Can't wait for the videos!
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top