2.4L LE5 Performance Tech 16 valve 171 hp EcoTec with 163 lb-ft of torque

Westers 1/4 mile results

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-05-2006 | 09:18 PM
  #1  
avro206's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 04-17-04
Posts: 2,994
Likes: 0
From: Calgary Alberta Canada
Westers 1/4 mile results

I wasn't keen on posting at all but I will anyhow.

Altitude desnsity was @ 5100 ft--awful night for racing.

Previous best: 16.16@ 87.58 (2.5 sec 60 ft)

New best of 16.06 @ 87.19 (2.4 sec 60 ft) Alt 4872 feet

Although I was down in 1/4 mile mph, my 1/8 mile speed was 0.58 mph faster

Only good thing was a 0.01 r/t followed by a 0.001 r/t damn I am good. (third best rt ever)

I am going to go back one of these weeks when the weather is a little more favouable--300 feet won't really help. But I'll hold out hope anyhow.

The car honestly does feel faster and I did alot of runs but thats all I got.

I think I should head up to Edmonton if I ever want to see 15's

Last edited by avro206; 06-05-2006 at 09:43 PM.
Old 06-05-2006 | 09:26 PM
  #2  
savior's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 03-05-06
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
From: Northern NJ
yeah track times can be unreliable due to altitude and conditions - glad to hear you like it!
Old 06-05-2006 | 09:27 PM
  #3  
snowbred's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 02-10-05
Posts: 814
Likes: 0
From: Hackensack, NJ
damn dude you should def take a ride somewhere else to run the car... is there anywhere else up there to run at a better altitude?.. nice run regardless.
Old 06-05-2006 | 09:36 PM
  #4  
avro206's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 04-17-04
Posts: 2,994
Likes: 0
From: Calgary Alberta Canada
Originally Posted by snowbred
damn dude you should def take a ride somewhere else to run the car... is there anywhere else up there to run at a better altitude?.. nice run regardless.

I could do that and will---but without a baseline time at the new elevation I will not know if it gained anything.

Edmonton and Medicine Hat are both about 2400 ft.
Old 06-05-2006 | 09:37 PM
  #5  
avro206's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 04-17-04
Posts: 2,994
Likes: 0
From: Calgary Alberta Canada
Originally Posted by savior
yeah track times can be unreliable due to altitude and conditions - glad to hear you like it!

very true---and hard to duplicate in a manual trans.

Thats why I'll go back again and give it another try.
Old 06-05-2006 | 11:54 PM
  #6  
avro206's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 04-17-04
Posts: 2,994
Likes: 0
From: Calgary Alberta Canada
since I like to be so exact in things I further examined the time slips.

16.06 on 2.492
16.16 on 2.523


As you can see the 60 ft time is not 0.1 differnce---it is 0.031

So the car is 0.069 faster- (16.16-16.06+ 0.031)-so far..makes me feel a tiny bit better.

Still aother trip back should settle this.
Old 06-06-2006 | 12:20 AM
  #7  
3fo893013L's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: 03-30-05
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 0
drive to MI and run at Milan. I bet you will see mid to low 15's all day long
Old 06-07-2006 | 01:05 PM
  #8  
korax123's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: 05-01-05
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
From: Arizona City, AZ
What was the temperature on each night??? Between 65-85 degrees there is a huge difference.
Old 06-07-2006 | 01:35 PM
  #9  
Bandit2941's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 10-28-05
Posts: 589
Likes: 1
From: Upstate NY
Originally Posted by avro206
since I like to be so exact in things I further examined the time slips.

16.06 on 2.492
16.16 on 2.523


As you can see the 60 ft time is not 0.1 differnce---it is 0.031

So the car is 0.069 faster- (16.16-16.06+ 0.031)-so far..makes me feel a tiny bit better.

Still aother trip back should settle this.
The quicker 60' time on the quicker run explains the lack of mph, as well as the quicker ET at the finish line. In general, .01 of 60' is worth at least .03 at the top end. So your 60' was .03 better resulting in a tenth difference at the top end (with a little loss in MPH which is normal in a situation like this).

On the 16.06 run you simply launched it better.
Old 06-07-2006 | 08:59 PM
  #10  
avro206's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 04-17-04
Posts: 2,994
Likes: 0
From: Calgary Alberta Canada
Originally Posted by korax123
What was the temperature on each night??? Between 65-85 degrees there is a huge difference.
Ask and ye shall reveice


19-May Race City


Cobalt 2.4L SS
with INJEN SRI

Air conditions 9pm


Wind E 30 KM/H
Temp 66.2
Humidity 49
Dew point 46.4
Pressure 29.8


density altitude = 4871 feet

Absolute pressure 26.363
Realitve density 86.51

NHRA 4900 ft
Uncorrected Corrected

Best E/T 16.16 0.9393 15.179088
MPH 87.58 1.0647 93.246426

Modular depot 15.14
website 93.09

density altitude= 4872 feet


2-Jun Race City


Cobalt 2.4 SS
w/ Injen SRI+ECM tune

Air conditions 9pm

Wind S 11 KM/H (that would be a head wind)
Temp 68
Humidity 49
Dew point 48.2
Pressure 29.7


Density Altitude = 5109

Absolute Pressure 26.272
Relative Density 85.94

NHRA 5100 ft
Uncorrected Corrected

best E/T 16.06 0.9367 15.043402
MPH 87.19 1.0675 93.075325

Modular Depot
14.99 93.01
density altitude= 5109 feet
Old 06-07-2006 | 09:01 PM
  #11  
avro206's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 04-17-04
Posts: 2,994
Likes: 0
From: Calgary Alberta Canada
Originally Posted by Bandit2941
The quicker 60' time on the quicker run explains the lack of mph, as well as the quicker ET at the finish line. In general, .01 of 60' is worth at least .03 at the top end. So your 60' was .03 better resulting in a tenth difference at the top end (with a little loss in MPH which is normal in a situation like this).

On the 16.06 run you simply launched it better.

not sure why your saying the mph is lower on a quicker 60 time? It shouldn't be.


All I was saying is that both 60 ft times were close and not a full tenth at all.

Even if I ran the 2.492 on the 161.6 run it would not have = a 16.06

Rain is called for this friday--so it will have to wait for another test at which point it makes sense to draw a more definte conclusion.
Old 06-07-2006 | 10:45 PM
  #12  
Bandit2941's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 10-28-05
Posts: 589
Likes: 1
From: Upstate NY
Originally Posted by avro206
not sure why your saying the mph is lower on a quicker 60 time? It shouldn't be.


All I was saying is that both 60 ft times were close and not a full tenth at all.

Even if I ran the 2.492 on the 161.6 run it would not have = a 16.06

Rain is called for this friday--so it will have to wait for another test at which point it makes sense to draw a more definte conclusion.
What I'm saying is that usually runs that get really good 60' times, the top end MPH is a little lower. Not sure why, but I've seen it over and over. Probably because the car has more time to build MPH on a run that started out with tirespin (worse 60') which let it get through 1st gear quicker.

I'm saying that if you had run the same 60' time on the .16 as you ran on the .06, that .16 would have been an .06, get what I'm saying?? A couple hun on the short time transfers to a lot of gain at the finish line. Also - you said the only way you'd see 15's is to travel to better air - get your launches down to where it 60' where it should and you'll be seeing 15's even in 5000' of air.

I'm hoping to get out to Lebanon Valley Dragway(NY) this weekend to get a couple runs on the Cobalt and see if I can't go a few rounds with it. The density altitude up there this time of year is usually around 2500-3000' and as such I'm expecting the cobalt to run 15.40's or so in that air, maybe better if I can find a sweet spot on the launch.
Old 06-07-2006 | 11:20 PM
  #13  
avro206's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 04-17-04
Posts: 2,994
Likes: 0
From: Calgary Alberta Canada
post your times if you get ot the track. Is your car an auto or 5 speed?

Its all in the launch, I agree.

My best 60 ft is 2.403--I suppose a 2.3 is possible. But there will be a limit somewhere.

Heres the thing---ealier this year I was running 40 psi--I did not know--I'd get mad axle hop--so I launched off idle almost--and got the 2.5 sec 60 ft times.

Now with 25 psi and a little more gas I can get 2.4s--but too much and I am back in 2.5s or worse.
Old 06-08-2006 | 09:17 AM
  #14  
Bandit2941's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 10-28-05
Posts: 589
Likes: 1
From: Upstate NY
Originally Posted by avro206
post your times if you get ot the track. Is your car an auto or 5 speed?

Its all in the launch, I agree.

My best 60 ft is 2.403--I suppose a 2.3 is possible. But there will be a limit somewhere.

Heres the thing---ealier this year I was running 40 psi--I did not know--I'd get mad axle hop--so I launched off idle almost--and got the 2.5 sec 60 ft times.

Now with 25 psi and a little more gas I can get 2.4s--but too much and I am back in 2.5s or worse.
Its a stick car. I would think you should be able to run consistent low 2.4 60' times and 2.3's sometimes too. My old Saturn (stock 2 dr twin cam) went 16.16 with a 2.35 60'. Launches like that were hard to repeat though. Especially since I started bracket racing it more and caring less about quickest ET - that thing had a 4000 RPM rev limiter when the car was stopped so I would launch off that. Not the quickest 60' but that bitch was deadly consistent like that.

So you're saying 25 psi in the front tires is the hot setup??
Old 06-08-2006 | 04:24 PM
  #15  
avro206's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 04-17-04
Posts: 2,994
Likes: 0
From: Calgary Alberta Canada
I think 25 psi is good---had no real problem with axle hop (took most of that away)--if I launcehd to hard...it more or less, just spun

you could drive home on that or stop and fill 'er up.

I used to race with my IROC and did 20 psi--and brought a bike pump ot the track.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
bigdeertz
Parts
47
11-17-2016 09:41 AM
RaginChopsuey
War Stories
16
10-27-2015 01:27 PM
HEATON
Parts
12
10-16-2015 07:21 PM
nathan112i
Featured Car Showcase
41
09-30-2015 07:12 PM
grampss
Complete Cars
0
09-27-2015 08:51 PM



Quick Reply: Westers 1/4 mile results



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:23 AM.