These don't really do 13.53 stock do they ?
Moderators: FAOA Administrators, FAOA Moderators
Just for comparisons sake:
My stock 25th T/A. auto, 3.23 rear ran 13.97@101 At Englishtown (And a run to back it up)
My stock 94 T/A GT. auto, 3.23 rear ran 14.2@98.
So add a few extra Hp for a hawk, subtract some weight for a Formula...and I can see 13.5's being possible.
My stock 25th T/A. auto, 3.23 rear ran 13.97@101 At Englishtown (And a run to back it up)
My stock 94 T/A GT. auto, 3.23 rear ran 14.2@98.
So add a few extra Hp for a hawk, subtract some weight for a Formula...and I can see 13.5's being possible.
1984 Trans Am
1994 Trans Am GT
1994 25th Trans Am #1901
1995 Comp T/A #5
1999 Trans Am LS6
www.earlythirdgen.com/forums
1994 Trans Am GT
1994 25th Trans Am #1901
1995 Comp T/A #5
1999 Trans Am LS6
www.earlythirdgen.com/forums
-
- Posts: 255
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:04 am
Talk about getting it strait from the horse's mouth!
Thanks Dave can't wait to see what she does.
And if I have to take driving lessons and take it to NJ to get a decent time, I'll do it because I am like that.
Thanks Dave can't wait to see what she does.
And if I have to take driving lessons and take it to NJ to get a decent time, I'll do it because I am like that.
Dave Hamburger wrote:Whenever we would test a vehicle, we would test at Englishtown, NJ during March in optimal conditions.
We used an average of three drivers (magazine, a professional and an SLP tech) - the average time would be the printed time.
The F-bodies are all over the board with times, I remember in '97 we tested a bone stock SS 6spd car and the average time we pulled was somewhere in the 13.38's. Scott Kallita (top fuel driver) got in the car and then ripped out a 12.27 and he backed it up with a 12.29! (we didn't advertise that time). In 1999, I drove a bone stock Formula Firehawk six speed at Napierville Dragway outside of Montreal. Out of the box I ran 13.30's and then with my slicks I ran a 13.05.
Sea Level, Barometric Pressure, Track Conditions, Driver capabilities and the car all play a part in your ET's. Just because you may be in Denver at Bandimere Speedway and you run a 14.40 doesn't mean your car is slow. Adjust the ET based on your altitude and you may be surprized!
-Dave
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:37 pm
- Location: Toms River, NJ
- Contact:
25thhawk wrote:I can't really see a bone stock 97 SS even getting into the 12's, let alone a 12.27. Pro driver or not, I hope that was a typo.
Ryan
No typo whatsoever - I have a beta video somewhere of the runs. He powershifted the entire way and really hurt the tranny on the 3rd pass, but at that point we were done for the day. I believe the run also aired on Motorweek TV. Also keep in mind that this was a cloth seat, crank window car.
-Dave
-
- Posts: 398
- Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 3:12 pm
- Location: Frisco, TX
- Contact:
I wonder if that was a bone stock LT4 SS? 13.38 sounds about right for a bone stock LT4 car. I really can't see 12.27 on a stock f-body (even an LT4) no matter who is driving it. Even with slicks I can only see an LT4 car running high 12s in stock form, or maybe 12.6 or so if they really nailed the 60' time. The best I've ever heard of for a stock f-body 60' time is a 1.6, so that's .4 better than the 2.0 60' I pulled on my 13.2 run, which would give a 12.8. Using a decent 1/4 mile calculator, based on 3500lbs (which is being optimistic with a driver), for 300RWHP you get 13.21. To get a 12.2, a 3500lb car w/driver would need 375RWHP, or a 311RWHP car (what my ECM tuned LT4 Hawk puts out) would need to weigh just under 3000lbs w/driver. I really don't see either one of those conditions happening with a stock SS (even an LT4 SS). I could possibly see it happening with a stripped LT4 SS race car (which I know of at least one of).25thhawk wrote:I can't really see a bone stock 97 SS even getting into the 12's, let alone a 12.27. Pro driver or not, I hope that was a typo.
I've seen literaly thousands of 1/4 mile passes on 4th gen f-bodies, many under very good conditions, and I've NEVER seen a "stock" (meaning stock tires too) f-body run anywhere close to a 12.2. I hate to doubt those 12.2 numbers Dave, but without further info I just can't see them happening on a "stock" car no matter who's driving. Was it with full slicks?
-
- Posts: 398
- Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 3:12 pm
- Location: Frisco, TX
- Contact:
I'd love to see that vid. I still find it hard to believe even with a "pro" driver powershifting the car. Also, you still haven't answered if that was on full slicks or stock tires and the specifics of the car. I just can not see an LT1 car doing that, unless it's a factory "ringer".Dave Hamburger wrote:No typo whatsoever - I have a beta video somewhere of the runs. He powershifted the entire way and really hurt the tranny on the 3rd pass, but at that point we were done for the day. I believe the run also aired on Motorweek TV. Also keep in mind that this was a cloth seat, crank window car.
-Dave
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:37 pm
- Location: Toms River, NJ
- Contact:
No, BFG R1's and a very sticky track. I've got a few thousand videos in the cabinets, but I'll have one of my warehouse gophers look for it on Monday. I should also have shots on one of my old servers.LT4Firehawk wrote:Was it with full slicks?
The car was a factory freak - a GM NAO car that was one of our first cars given to us by GM on the Chevy side. I know it weighed damn near close to 3K with me (back in '97 I weighed only 165 - Kallita weighed in I believe at 147 (although he was able to practically drink me under the table that year at Sturgis!) and we always ran with about an eighth of a tank of fuel. I won't go in to too many details about GM's media cars and what GM did to them, for that you'll have to read my book next spring.
Edit: also, no need to preach to me about the old moroso calculators and so on, I'm not here to prove anything and I think I've been around a few drag cars in my time:
circa '70
And try putting this one in the calculator. My old '82 Camaro. 297hp at the rear wheels with a 90shot of the juice and DFI. Car weighed 3250 wet, with me. Full cage, Dana 44 with a 3:42.1 and full street legal MT's. (same rear end as the '91/'92 Hawks!) a few weeks after this pass we managed an 11.18 after Julio tweaked the DFI:
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:37 pm
- Location: Toms River, NJ
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 398
- Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 3:12 pm
- Location: Frisco, TX
- Contact:
Cool pics. Does sound like a ringer from GM, even a stock "stripper" car should have weighed a lot more than that. Souonds like GM really tweaked that car. It does show that there are "stock" cars out there that could run some crazy numbers, but the vast majority of people will never see one of those "stock" f-bodies.
I want to see the video too.
That would be the fastest street tire "stock" pass I have heard of from an M6 car. To run a 12.2 it had to trap around 110 in a M6 and my stock 94 only runs right around 100. So that car must have been substantially up in power.
However, back to the question, can a stock hawk pull a 13.5. On the right day at the right track. I would say yes. Are all of us going to be able to run that number, definitely not. I would guess that most of us will be in the 13.6-13.8 range. Unless you have the "freak" car.
Ryan
That would be the fastest street tire "stock" pass I have heard of from an M6 car. To run a 12.2 it had to trap around 110 in a M6 and my stock 94 only runs right around 100. So that car must have been substantially up in power.
However, back to the question, can a stock hawk pull a 13.5. On the right day at the right track. I would say yes. Are all of us going to be able to run that number, definitely not. I would guess that most of us will be in the 13.6-13.8 range. Unless you have the "freak" car.
Ryan
-
- Posts: 1690
- Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 pm
- Location: Delmar, DE
- Contact:
Scott Kallitta.....I can dust him
WOW, interesting reading! U learn something new everday
WOW, interesting reading! U learn something new everday
http://www.cardomain.com/memberpage/532717
http://www.fquick.com/Firehawk526
2002 T/A Pewter Firehawk #526
EFA 2005 Bracket Racing Points Champion
EFA 2005 October COTM
FSFB 2005 October ROTM
http://www.fquick.com/Firehawk526
2002 T/A Pewter Firehawk #526
EFA 2005 Bracket Racing Points Champion
EFA 2005 October COTM
FSFB 2005 October ROTM
- Rhode Island Red
- Posts: 179
- Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 2:50 pm
Great pics Dave
I can back up what 25th said,
Most of my runs were 13.6-13.8 all @102-104 mph with 2.1-2.2+ 60's
My best was a 13.60 @104.7 with a 2.110, at Lebanon Valley on DR's (2-3 's slower than sea level) at 80 something degrees.
I must admit I did not go in optimal conditions, I found those to be the biggest time deciding factors... my bad days with 90's and high humidity I would run 13.9-14.2's are common. Listen to Dave Folks
I can back up what 25th said,
Most of my runs were 13.6-13.8 all @102-104 mph with 2.1-2.2+ 60's
My best was a 13.60 @104.7 with a 2.110, at Lebanon Valley on DR's (2-3 's slower than sea level) at 80 something degrees.
I must admit I did not go in optimal conditions, I found those to be the biggest time deciding factors... my bad days with 90's and high humidity I would run 13.9-14.2's are common. Listen to Dave Folks
-
- Posts: 1690
- Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 pm
- Location: Delmar, DE
- Contact:
An old 70's Duster....talk about a stroll down memory lane!Dave Hamburger wrote:While I'm at it, one more cool shot I just found:
http://www.cardomain.com/memberpage/532717
http://www.fquick.com/Firehawk526
2002 T/A Pewter Firehawk #526
EFA 2005 Bracket Racing Points Champion
EFA 2005 October COTM
FSFB 2005 October ROTM
http://www.fquick.com/Firehawk526
2002 T/A Pewter Firehawk #526
EFA 2005 Bracket Racing Points Champion
EFA 2005 October COTM
FSFB 2005 October ROTM