The valve stem seals. The way he says it's smoking it would indicate a bad valve stem seal. My talon did the same thing. They either wear out or get popped loose on the guide. Oh, compression was tested and was even between 115 and 120.

 

This thread just makes me laugh....

My peak torque came at 6,500rpms by the way....

CJ

 

so much to read omg i could only read the first page haha.

 

yeah, I think I'm done typing in this thread. My fingers hurt

 

2 things.


1) GLHS...Youre a ******* tool for asking for help from people and then pulling some shitty attitude when you dont hear what you want to. If youre so sure about what your car should be running, then why the hell isnt it doing it? Maybe if you sat your fatass ( Yes...5'10" and 203lbs is FAT ) in your car and PRACTICED instead of bringing all your bullshit here, youd run faster!


2) An NA FC is not gonna get into the 13's...Im sorry. Unless youve done engine work or the thing is on the bottle, its not going to happen.

But then again..It looks like you know the answers to everything so Im kinda stuck here wondering why you posted in the first place.

 

I really didn't ever get the anwser, it was simple.

Will slicks get me into the 13's, if I am running 98 mph now.

All I ever read was my time was off the track is wrong.

I never heard about my simple question about slicks.

I have been told by several friends that race, that I can expect 1 1/2 second gains, by adding slicks. So I was curious to find out from other people who owns RX7s with alot of weight removed with similar mods, and run SLICKS, what their experiences are. If you haven't run slicks on a similar car, don't bother giving your opinion.

Thanks.

 

Slicks are usually good for a 1/2 second, not 1 1/2.
.
.
.
.
.
I said USUALLY. :-)

 

Yup, .5 sec is about right. My buddies Chevelle went 14.7 @97mph no slicks..put slicks on it and it went 14.15@94mph. He bracket races, so slicks are the most consistent.

 

cbrock:
I now have a better understanding of drag racing, at the expense of your nerves. Thanks!

I think its funny watching the top fuelers haul *** of the line and then break down or crash and still get a 10 sec run, while I will probably never see the 14s.

What the hell, I'm an autocrosser anyway.

 

i run a 15.5 at 92 with a 89 n/a with street port, 3mm seals, exhaust, intake, wires, ports wired open. THe basics and a few others

 

lots of wheel spin in first and some in second. Wider tires or drag radials. I will post times when i hit the 1/8

 

cbrock..... you are looking at it all wrong.

with a good launch a car will have a higher MPH than if that same car had a bad launch, because it gets up to speed quicker.

you are not seeing this.

 

Peejay, give it up. He has numbers to prove his point. All you have is, well what do you have?

 

I'm waiting to see his "numbers".

 

No, His ogic is very unflawed. Some of you guys don't get it do you.

Lets take for example the Honda S2000. IF you launch with out spinning the tire you get around a 13-13.7. If you rev,e-back, slip clutch reving to power band, drop, roast tires into and through most of 1st gears power band you get 11s.

Do a little experiment. Get on a concrete surface that is flat. mark off a "track of about two to three yards, Take a mouse trao, attach wheels to the bottom of it that are rubber, put a string on the snapper peice of the mouse trap, whined the wheels up on the string. Now set it on the ground and let her go. Time it. Now do the same thing and hold it up alittle and let the tires spin for a sec, then put it down and dont hole it or the wheels will stop. Time it as well. The one you held up will be a bit faster in the track but perhaps a bit slower in time depending on how long you have it off the ground.

Now as for being slower in ET and fast in Trap depends on gears. If you were to take a TII with the stock gears and one with the gear hight of an N/A, the Stock geared TII would be Quicker in ET but slower in Trap..

But as for the reason it goes that fast is posible to be because of the driver. A bad launch but exellent everything else will make up for some but not all the lost time.
regards,
Charles

 

And this is the STUPIDEST thing Ive ever heard. Saying that changing your tires will get more torque to the ground is like saying that changing your tires will get more HP to the ground ( Since we all know that ((Tq*RPM)/5252) = HP .... Or do we? ).


If it was true, youd see all the dyno queens swapping out the smallest tires out there to get bigger numbers.

 

changing tire size would change the final drive ratio, which would change acceleration by a small degree.

doesn't change the actual figures to the ground, though.
It takes more revolutions of a 14'' tire to equal the same distance covered by a 16'' tire.

 

Someone gets it!

 

Smaller rims do increase the amount of torque applied to the ground, vs larger rims running the same size tire height.

If you don't think so, find something thats proves this otherwise.

 

So you're saying with a 14" wheel, same sized tire...you'll put more torque to the ground??? The diameter should be approx the same if you sized them right. Torque is equal to the force being applied times the distance from the point you're looking at. Changing the tire OVERALL size will have an effect on torque. Having a just a smaller diameter wheel (same overall height) will do nothing except lower the inertia it takes to spin it. Are you using a stock 87-88 T2 wheel as our 16" wheel and saying that the 14" is lighter and therefore requires less power to turn-over? If that's the case then you'd be correct. Will it be a huge difference...eh, not really.

Peejay? What numbers do you want to see??? I've raced many different cars but not in this order
91 Nissan stanza 15.1@91 w/50shot 2.2 60ft
91 AWD talon 11.98@116mph 1.7 60ft
95 Impala SS 14.9@93mph 2.1 60ft
88 T2 14.7@98mph 2.4 60ft

Buddies cars I've watched
Ford Escort ZX2 15.9@88mph
66 Chevelle 14.15@94mph
92 AWD talon 12.7@101mph

 

So...who's going to be the first to raise the BS flag? My finger can't......hold....back....for...much........longe r.....

 

Peejay, read before you say something stupid. Here are the numbers he put on the first page.

Example: (the A after the E stands for automatic)
SS/E 9.58 158.98 03/23/02 Mike Cates - Milan, TN
'68 Chev Camaro Memphis, TN
SS/EA 9.55 137.50 03/23/02 Blair Patrick - JASPER, TN
'68 Ford Mustang Memphis, TN

This explains the higher speed w/ a lower ET due to tire spin. Understand yet? These are ideal experimental numbers!

 

ANOTHER double post....damn. I guess this is what I get for trying to do work stuff while looking at this crap.

 

I can't get the extra smilies to show up or I woulda done it awhile ago. Unless you're talkin about the cars I've raced. Heres the mods on the cars I've personally run.

Nissan: Full exhaust, CAI, NOS, AFC, ACT clutch

Impala: Flowmasters, CAI, modified MAF (moms car, couldn't resist )

AWD talon: FMIC, 20g, 550 injectors, walbro, ACT and 9.5lbs fly, 40 overbore, 2nd gen pistons exhaust mani and MAF, 3" exhaust, AFC...etc...etc...etc

T2: (at the time) K&N, boost set to 6.5-7psi full weight

The Nissan was wrecked by my bro and the talon broke 7 trannies (1994 *strong* transmissions) before I called it quits on the DSM scene. **** the last one that broke was built by John Sheperd using his special tranny recipe. Now I'm RWD for life.

All these were run at Norwalk or dragway 42 in Ohio.

 

The rotary axle torque is converted to a linear motive force by the tires:

LTF = ATQ / TRADIUS

where:

TRADIUS = tire radius (ft)
ATQ = axle torque (ft-lbs)
LTF = linear tire force (lbs)

What this all boils down to is, as far as maximum automobile acceleration is concerned, all that really matters is the maximum torque imparted to the
ground by the tires (assuming adequate traction). At first glance it might seem that, given two engines of different torque output, the engine that produces the greater torque will be the engine that provides the greatest acceleration.

This is incorrect and it's also where horsepower figures into the discussion. Considering only the torque
peak neglects the potential torque multiplication offered by the transmission, final drive ratio, and tire diameter.

It's the torque applied by the tires to the ground that actually accelerates a car, not the torque generated by the engine. Horsepower, being the rate at which torque is produced, is an indicator of how much *potential* torque multiplication is available. In
other words, horsepower describes how much engine rpm can be traded for tire torque. The word "potential" is important here. If a car is not geared properly, it will be unable to take full advantage of the engine's horsepower.

so example would be, 2 cars with exactly the same engines, with same size tire height, the car with the 14" wheels vs the car with 16" wheels. The car with 14" wheels will produce more torque to the ground, being the diameter is 2" less than the 16" rim.

I just haven't calculated the exact numbers for the difference in lbs for the 2".

Again this is just an example.