First, let me say this was my first time to a drag strip and my first time to do attempted top acceleration runs. I was very disappointed on my last run when I saw 16.11 sec and 89.11 MPH end speed ("trap speed"?) until later when I was fueling after I left and realized it was the Matrix running next to me - mine was on the other side of the paper.

run# -------1------2-------3--------4

DSC --------on-----off-----on------off
1/4 mile 15.636-15.1579-15.936-15.2565
60'------ 2.3915 2.1549 2.5123 2.2573
330'------6.729 6.3669 6.9488 6.4466
1/8 mile 10.2182 9.8005 10.4779 9.8926
trap spd 90.633 91.9566 89.5009 91.5212
reaction
time......1.4506 1.2927- 1.2614 1.0511

time of
run ----- 5:38PM--6:05-----7:01----9:12

some of my own observations. 1) turn DSC OFF! (forgot on 3rd run, didn't think of it before 1st run
2) my reaction time isn't very good - but that was not what was important to me - but evident would need work to be 'good' at this
3) at least I beat the 'other car' -1st 3 runs a Subaru AWD wagon - early 90s vintage, 4th run a black Toyota Matrix- I never saw it again after green 4) I saw a 350Z there, it did 14.45 and 97 I think. Not sure what model or skill level of driver or anything else subjective or objective 5) 2 3rd gen RX-7s were there, running about 12.8 6) a 2nd gen RX-7 was there and I think did about the same

weather: about low 70s at start, about 62 at last run; first 2 runs done while car was very warm and close together. I tried to warm it up some before the 4th run was started. Running 93 octane. First run had 32lbs pressure all tires, for 2nd run let out to 24PSI, for 3rd run 20.5PSI, last run could have been lower since it had been sitting for 2 hours in cooler air.

any comments are welcome, I'm not a professional driver and don't claim to be.
after edit:
added trap speeds; 2nd gen was a Turbo II model; interesting comments from the original,in-his-50s 93 touring model RX-7: it rides like a ____ truck [hard] even with Eibachs and Bilsteins - of course those lowered it so I'd think so, he just had the clutch replaced last week and when starting at 6500 it immed dropped to 4500,didn't know why, he was still peeved that he had to replace the engine at 60,000 and Mazda did nothing out of the warranty, he had a PC tracking all sorts of things and I guess could modify things as did the turbo II owner and I think the younger 3rd gen owner. And they both often ran 103 - 110 octane, the younger running 93 last night and the older I think running 103.
Seems like a N/A (Rensisis) rotary is just so, well, simple - regular pump gas, no adjusting much of anything, etc.

Hello rx8daniel

What were your trap speeds for the respective 1/4 miles runs?

Good runs ... and those prove that the production RX-8 are no way capable of consisten 14.5s runs at 96 MMPH. You need those mising 20WHP!!

Originally posted by NashuaCLS
Good runs ... and those prove that the production RX-8 are no way capable of consisten 14.5s runs at 96 MMPH. You need those mising 20WHP!!

actually, if a newb can get it close to 15 flat his first time out on the track in this car, I can definitely believe that a pro/semi-pro driver can knock down that half second EASILY.

good runs rx8daniel! which track did you run at?

Originally posted by NashuaCLS
Good runs ... and those prove that the production RX-8 are no way capable of consisten 14.5s runs at 96 MMPH. You need those mising 20WHP!!
How does a total novice running 0.6 sec behind the published 1/4 mile time prove that that time is unobtainable?

it was at 75/80 raceway.

I too think that if I'm capable of low 15s my first time on a strip that the car is capable of mid 14 second runs in more capable hands.

I did not / will not do a 8000 clutch drop to accomplish it - but - I think trying different launch RPM levels and shift points may make the times come down. FWIW, my shifts were almost all at about 9200 - before the rev limiter could shut off the fuel.

The 2nd run with a 2.15 60 ft time is nearly as good as can be had on street rubber. With practice you might cut it to 2.0 which would still only put you in the high 14s, not the mid 14s.

I still don't see how anyone expects a car that is posting 91 mph trap speeds in the hands of real owners to miraculously run 96 in the hands of another driver. That shows there is some power missing. 5 mph in the 1/4 is huge.

I'll recant everything I've said about the missing power when we start seeing owner cars running 96 in the 1/4. Seriously if your car had pulled 96 mph on the run with the 2.15 60 ft, you would've run mid 14s. Go look at the timeslips Mazda sent to rotarynews.com and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Honestly an amateur driver in a relatively slow car will be almost as fast as a pro driver. It's when you start racing 500 hp or 1000 hp cars that the driver starts to make a huge difference. In a street car, you can usually get the best out of the car with 20 runs under your belt.

Good runs ... and those prove that the production RX-8 are no way capable of consisten 14.5s runs at 96 MMPH. You need those mising 20WHP!!

Argh... just another example that the damage is already done and there no way to repair it fully.

Before you make blatantly dumb remarks such as that, look around namely:
http://rotarynews.com/view.php?id=208

Originally posted by rx8daniel
I think trying different launch RPM levels and shift points may make the times come down. FWIW, my shifts were almost all at about 9200 - before the rev limiter could shut off the fuel. Different launch techniques may help, but different shift points definitely will not. We had previously seen sets of "cascades" which show the available torque in each gear with varying road speeds, and they clearly show that the curves do not intersect between gears. What this means is that there is no point where the available torque in a given gear tails off to the point that more torque is available in the next higher gear. In that situation, maximum acceleration is obtained by shifting as close as possible to the redline, as you have been doing.

Originally posted by m477

How does a total novice running 0.6 sec behind the published 1/4 mile time prove that that time is unobtainable? Ignorance is sadly a disease that cannot be cured.

Really the only way you'll reduce your ET without changing the car is working on the launch and learning to power shift which is really hard on parts. That's about it as far as wringing what else the car has to offer from it. Gear spacing on the current crop of production cars is usually such that you have to shift at redline to get maximum performance. This is done mostly for fuel mileage.

Seriously you will never beat your current mph in the 1/4 by much. You may beat your best ET dipping into the 14s by driving the car harder and launching more aggressively. The only two real driver ETs I've seen for these cars were both low 15s at 89-91 mph. That is a far cry from the road test and Mazda claims of 96 mph.

I believe I may be able to drop the time and increase the terminal speed a bit by totally turning off DSC/TC - I for one had forgotten the posts about holding the button down for 5 seconds - I probably held it down about 4 seconds. Before Saturday I had never gotten the sliding car light in the tach set to illuminate.

I can attest to how much that having it off allows the car to behave like a 1st gen RX-7 in regards to power oversteer. I had it turned off for the 2nd time Sunday afternoon and made a near 90 degree left to enter an interstate entrance ramp and hit it hard before starting the turn and very nearly did a 180.

If I can I'll hit another strip this weekend and try some runs with all traction systems disabled.

I just cleaned all this up, don't drag on treads into flame wars, we all know that some people just don't know what the RX-8 is and just try to make it out to be something its not.

Originally posted by PoLaK
I just cleaned all this up, don't drag on treads into flame wars, we all know that some people just don't know what the RX-8 is and just try to make it out to be something its not.

Those time slips you posted a link to are baffling to me, those are some of the worst 60' times I've ever seen, and the ETs that match up to them just don't seem to mix. With the information you provided people should be able to turn low 14s and even high 13s with the car, it just doesn't make sense... Any other drag racing knowledgeable people out there find those slips odd?


Ike

I don't know much about timeslips etc..... could it just be the nature of a n/a rotary engine?

Originally posted by PoLaK
I don't know much about timeslips etc..... could it just be the nature of a n/a rotary engine?


Not really, unless for some reason wheelspin is a good thing with them... But that's prettymuch goes against every drag racing principle there is. I'm going to see if I can dig up some timeslips from the S2K which is another low torque car high rev car and see if higher 60' convert to lower ETs... which again goes against just about every drag racing principle.

Ike

Car and Drivers Review said that "even with and extreme amount of wheelspin it helps the Rx-8 get 60 in 5.9secs." Could it be something like launching it at such a high rpm keeps the engine near the peek part of its output rather than waiting for the power to build up from down low.

A 2.1549 is an awesome 60' time, good job, getting any better would be very hard and rare as far as 60's go. I usually average 2.15-2.23 in my Z. You ran a 15.15@91.95 with that awesome 60' so thats a good, very pure run to go by and is about exactly what I would expect given the dyno numbers seen on this site.

Getting under a 2.2 60' time with stock rubber takes loads of skill with a high RPM launch car, expecially if you can do it consistantly, so I don't know how people are still saying the rx8 will still run mid 14's and mid 90 1/4s if he pulls an awesome 2.15 60's and runs a 15.15@92.

My buddy's heavily modded 2002 Celica GTS which has a curb weight of 2500lbs was putting down 170fwhp and 135fwtq and he was around a best of 15.1@94.5mph with a 2.23 60'. Which makes sense comparing the rx-8 since the rx8's HP-weight ratio would be just a lower under his Celica.

Once again nice runs!

To get better at reaction time, the usual hint is to leave on the last yellow light. It won't make any diff on your 1/4 mile time, but could make the difference between winning and losing.

I don't have an RX-8 but have drag raced my 2K2 automatic Maxima many times. I sometimes go in between the 2nd and 3rd yellow to get slightly better r/ts.

what rpm did u launch at?

I'm starting to lose track of which comments may be for me or someone else - but - my reaction times got better, I think, and I did hear about starting to release at the 3rd yellow light. My launch RPMs were near 6000 but if not exactly probably more in the 5500-6000 range as opposed to the 6000-6500 range. I understand that the reaction time will make a difference in a close race. I was only testing the car the best I could, not me and certainly wasn't out to race anyone else present. We've had rain all this past weekend and appear to have more next weekend thanks to a small hurricane. Rats.

my mechanic could only get a 15.2 @ 90MPH i believe at the track with his car bone stock. he got six runs is no newb to driving n/a rotaries! something is def wrong..........

Slips? or could u ask him to email me them etc...

i will ask him to get me copies of the slips and i will post them for him. he is internetlesat the moment

vosko
I'm glad you are still posting after some of the crap you got for enjoying your car and putting some rubber down

Originally posted by Blue 350z
A 2.1549 is an awesome 60' time, good job, getting any better would be very hard and rare as far as 60's go. I usually average 2.15-2.23 in my Z. You ran a 15.15@91.95 with that awesome 60' so thats a good, very pure run to go by and is about exactly what I would expect given the dyno numbers seen on this site.

Getting under a 2.2 60' time with stock rubber takes loads of skill with a high RPM launch car, expecially if you can do it consistantly, so I don't know how people are still saying the rx8 will still run mid 14's and mid 90 1/4s if he pulls an awesome 2.15 60's and runs a 15.15@92.

My buddy's heavily modded 2002 Celica GTS which has a curb weight of 2500lbs was putting down 170fwhp and 135fwtq and he was around a best of 15.1@94.5mph with a 2.23 60'. Which makes sense comparing the rx-8 since the rx8's HP-weight ratio would be just a lower under his Celica.

Once again nice runs!

2.1 60' is good but not quite awesome, shaving 1/10th off of that would certainly be possible.

Ike

These times also dont account for his shifting style, what was taken out of the car, tire pressure, and all the other crap that people do before a typical quarter mile run.

For a first time to the track, 15.1 isnt bad, especially with a bit more aggressive launches the car is capable of.

Stop biting his ass off and drag your own cars, then post your timeslips so people can make fun of you too.

all decent questions.
I have posted my tire pressures during each run.
FWIW:
I'm nearly 43, have had a manual car almost exclusively going back to my first 73 Subaru DL in 1979(my parents have always had autos); as you can see in the sig I've had 5 previous RX-7s and consider myself a fairly effecient / effective shifter / driver.
I took nothing out of the car not even the non-existent spare - had a gym bag in the back seat with normal workout clothes; I weigh about 180. IMHO, I shifted fairly quickly and around 9200 on each shift of each run. But, maybe the largest factor - I did not totally have the Traction Control system disabled. I hope I can get a run in soon so I can try it without - but with the hurrican due to hit us Friday it may not happen.

Originally posted by mikeb
vosko
I'm glad you are still posting after some of the crap you got for enjoying your car and putting some rubber down

it wasn't even my car its my mechanic's judge ito. i still did the first monster burnout in it though :D

60 FTs for RWD cars on true street tires no drag radials

1.9x = EXCELLENT
2.0x = Great
2.1x = Good
2.2x = Avg

anything higher is just pathetic!

15.1 is not bad like i said before. it seems to accurately reflect the actual RWHP these cars are making unfortunately. before anyone can see he did a bad job they should definetely try it out themselves. i have been drag racing for a while..... picked up quite a few tricks. anyway judge ito is going to try and see what he can do to get his car to the 14.5 range before he builds the header and midpipe and intake and try to get the car to run 13's n/a . anyway i hope to see more people DRIVING THESE CARS!

Originally posted by Blue 350z
My buddy's heavily modded 2002 Celica GTS which has a curb weight of 2500lbs was putting down 170fwhp and 135fwtq and he was around a best of 15.1@94.5mph with a 2.23 60'.
No offense but thats not too good, I did 14.90 @93mph with a 2.21 60ft in my 97 VW Jetta Vr6 5 speed. (weather, 82 deg., humidity 90%, about a 15mph cross wind). Nitto drag radials. Consistently it did 15.3 @ 91mph with stock tires in any track. Even though I have about 8 tiemslips with times of 14.9 I wouldnt say my jetta is a 14 sec car, no way, its a low 15 sec car.



It put 172 hp on a dynojet several times though.

Scan the slips

Originally posted by Sneakyracer

No offense but thats not too good, I did 14.90 @93mph with a 2.21 60ft in my 97 VW Jetta Vr6 5 speed. (weather, 82 deg., humidity 90%, about a 15mph cross wind). Nitto drag radials. Consistently it did 15.3 @ 91mph with stock tires in any track. Even though I have about 8 tiemslips with times of 14.9 I wouldnt say my jetta is a 14 sec car, no way, its a low 15 sec car.



It put 172 hp on a dynojet several times though.

Ya he knows it not too good, his new clutch was installed 150 miles before this run at the same time as a pulley set, headers, short throw shifter. The racing clutch had like 1/4th of an inch of clutch peddle from all the way out to fully engaged. He was running his 15.1@94+ mph with a REALLY REALLY bad 2.36 60' (last post was a typo with the 60'), if he would of been able to hit a 2.1xx 60' he would be in the 14.8-14.9 range, expecially with some traps hitting 95mph.

It was impossible to launch with the new racing clutch, expecially when it wasn't broken in. He got rid of the car because the clutch never felt like it broke in and hated the feel of it, he now has an 04 GTP Comp Edition

Edit: Did VW even make a vr6 jetta in 1997? If im wrong please show me, but even a 14.9 sec jetta no mods sounds a lil strange.

http://www.epinions.com/compare.html?submitted_form=side_by_side&Compare=Compare&prod343468774273=on&prod343468839809=on&prod343468905345=on&prod343468970881=on&prod343469036417=on&previous_page=%2Fauto_Make-1997_Volkswagen_Jetta%2Fdisplay_~full_specs

Originally posted by PoLaK
Edit: Did VW even make a vr6 jetta in 1997? If im wrong please show me, but even a 14.9 sec jetta no mods sounds a lil strange.

http://www.epinions.com/compare.html?submitted_form=side_by_side&Compare=Compare&prod343468774273=on&prod343468839809=on&prod343468905345=on&prod343468970881=on&prod343469036417=on&previous_page=%2Fauto_Make-1997_Volkswagen_Jetta%2Fdisplay_~full_specs

I think you already answered this with your link, the 3rd to the right is the VR6.

" 6 Cylinder, 2.8 Liter, 172 Horsepower Engine "

Also I don't think it was stock, I think he said he was running 171whp (stock only has 172 at the crank) and drag radials. A bone stock VR6 Golf GTI's weight like 2800 and run mid 15's stock, the Jetta VR6 weights like 1000lbs more and would need every single HP and drag radials w/ a good launch to get under 15 in the 1/4.

Ok just to clarify a stock 97 jetta can't run a 14.9 i think thats what the author was trying to infer.

Originally posted by PoLaK
Ok just to clarify a stock 97 jetta can't run a 14.9 i think thats what the author was trying to infer.

I never claimed it was stock, I am just corelating Wheel HP, weight and 1/4 mile performance. The similarities between my times and the times of the rx8 posted here are whats important really. Whatever the car if you have a certain 60ft time, 1/4mile time/mph and weight, the car is producing the same or close to (gearing affects a little) wheel hp as another that does the same time.

So those RX8 that do 15.15 @ 92mph are producing about 175 max wheel hp at the track maybe 180. Its al physics like someone else said.

as another example my Friend's porsche boxster dynoed about 182 wheel hp and did a 14.7 1/mile at 95mph w/ 2.1 60ft. Since its a tad lighter (1997 boxster weights about 2800 lb) than the rx8, the rx8 would require about 192+ wheel hp at least to do consistent mid 14 sec 1/4 mile times. It should have that.

Keep the RX8 tiemslips coming, the more there are the better we all can make conclusions about power.

You can have all the rwhp u want and be as light as you can it doesn't mean anything if your car isn't geared aggressively because of MPG.

Originally posted by PoLaK
You can have all the rwhp u want and be as light as you can it doesn't mean anything if your car isn't geared aggressively because of MPG.

But we all know that this is not the case with the RX-8...

Actually it is..... there has been a few treads on how the rx-8 should be geared, I mean 238 hp and 2,900 lbs geared for performance can do at lot better then a 14.5 1/4.

Edit: http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=931&highlight=gearing

Originally posted by PoLaK
Actually it is..... there has been a few treads on how the rx-8 should be geared, I mean 238 hp and 2,900 lbs geared for performance can do at lot better then a 14.5 1/4.

Edit: http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=931&highlight=gearing


Its not 238 HP and its more than 2,900 lbs.

Forgive me 2940 pounds according to C&D April issue.

As for the 238 issue the slips released by rotarynews.com could not have come from a car putting down 174-187 rwhp nor the times tested by C&D and R&T. Until the independent tests being done by rotary magazine are reported upon I'll reserve my thoughts and think optimistically and rationalize with arguments such as the issue about the car not being able to be dynoed.

Here Paul Yaw explaining the Dyno issue"

http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10823

Originally posted by PoLaK
Forgive me 2940 pounds according to C&D April issue.

As for the 238 issue the slips released by rotarynews.com could not have come from a car putting down 174-187 rwhp nor the times tested by C&D and R&T. Until the independent tests being done by rotary magazine are reported upon I'll reserve my thoughts and think optimistically and rationalize with arguments such as the issue about the car not being able to be dynoed.

Well, that C&D car was a pre-production model. Someone weighed a Sport Package Model (the lightest widely available high-powered variant) without a full tank of gas. With the full tank of gas the weight was estimated at 2,983 lbs.

As for rotarynews.com's mada timeslips, they don't mean much to me due to Mazda'scredibility issue. I haven't seen any time slips in the 14s and certainly none have come close to the S2k (high 13s to low 14s).

Originally posted by IkeWRX



Not really, unless for some reason wheelspin is a good thing with them... But that's prettymuch goes against every drag racing principle there is. I'm going to see if I can dig up some timeslips from the S2K which is another low torque car high rev car and see if higher 60' convert to lower ETs... which again goes against just about every drag racing principle.

Ike

For your information on NA rotaries on sreet tires wheelspin is the only way to get good times. My buddy ran a better ET and mph on his worst 60' time(88 GXL). It didn't make any sense to us that 60' times improved with less tire pressure but ETs got worse.

We asked a VERY reputable local RX7 guru who was at the track and he said that it is no suprise to him because sometimes those very low power rotaries have to spin the wheels out of the hole to get a decent time.

********Moderator Edit***********

By the way to all the 350Z and WRX and other piston failures of technology although it has been posted a million times. Many RX8s are getting 9.4 sec in the 1/8 mile @ 76 mph and 14.4 in the quarter @ 95.

Originally posted by 14s4doorNA


By the way to all the 350Z and WRX and other piston failures of technology although it has been posted a million times. Many RX8s are getting 9.4 sec in the 1/8 mile @ 76 mph and 14.4 in the quarter @ 95.

Says who? Mazda? :p

Originally posted by Blue 350z


Says who? Mazda? :p

yea , exactly.

Even mazdas "official" 1/4 mile tests are inconsistent. Some of their cars were fast others were slow. Its quite evident in the 1/4 mile mph. I dont doubt some RX8's are putting consistent mid 14 sec 1/4 mile and mid 90's mph BUT clearly some are not. And its not necesarily driver dependent I think some cars might be putting down good power others arent. for whatever reason. The more people test their cars the better.

Could the variance be due to the configured weight of the vehicles?
Sport vs GT, etc?

Maybe those pre-production cars were significantly lighter than the average production model.

I don't think that the difference in weight between the bare bones car and the fully loaded car would amount to more than a tenth or so.

certainly none have come close to the S2k (high 13s to low 14s).


...I'm fairly sure the S2k can't run in the 13s...

sure it could with some mods like the sc they make for it

Originally posted by evoandy
...I'm fairly sure the S2k can't run in the 13s...

im fairly sure they can bone stock.

s2k cant run 13's. s2k 0-60 is around 6.7 seconds (auto.consumerguide.com.)

S2Ks usually run very low 14s and trap around 99 or 100. On a very rare ocassion I'm sure an S2k could run a 13.9 with ideal conditions. Usually 0-60 is mid 5s, Russell you really need better souces for your info.

Ike

On average most S2000s I have seen, most had just an intake up at the track were running about 14.3@99. The thing about the S2000's is similar to the RX8 is the torque curve, if you don't execute the 8000RPM launch perfectly, the 1/4 times get really ugly. I seen a guy in an S2000 launch at 4000RPMs and ran a 14.9@97. You don't have much room for mistakes when you have under 140ft-lb of torque.

Its very hard to get consistant good times with a high reving, low tq car without LOTS of practice.

On average most S2000s I have seen, most had just an intake up at the track were running about 14.3@99.

Blu350z, quote stock times versus stock times or hold your bull till there are modified RX-8 to compare. Whats your point, that with intake mods s2k's can pull magazine times, or most s2k's that you have seen don't dare run stock, or the poor s2k times you have seen are stock. You and Ike spouting modded s2k times (no slips) on this forum in comparison to 3 unmodded RX-8 runs is rediculous. More proof that your argument is weak and slanted.

Not sure if you havn't noticed but I was not comparing anything. Just giving a reference. And its absolutly no secrect that S2k's are running what I said and nobody doubts it but you.

And as far as 350z's go, CAI's have been known to reduce HP. A guy I seen at the track many times with his stock Z were running 14.1-14.17 bets all day. Then he installed an intake and couldn't get better then a 14.25 in nearly exact conditions.

Blu350z, Not sure if you noticed, this whole thread has been about stock RX-8 1/4 mile times. Until you and your trolling buddies started quoting modded 1/4 mile times of other cars that are faster.

I am reading the posts, and trying to weed through your off topic BS is getting old.

Moderator Edit

Originally posted by Blue 350z
I really hate dealing with people that know nothing about cars, it boring and bogs down the brain. Then bugger off back to the Z forums and raise the average IQ level in both places. :p

I call anything thats been modified, especially to the engine, no longer stock. I also consider that an autox is run on a track. Sorry if my perceptions on these issues do not match yours and Ikes precise model. Which we have all found out makes anyone, or anything outside your model, wrong. Your shallow and tunneled vision is what makes you unable to understand why we all like the RX-8 for what it is. Your right, its not an S2000, a WRX, or a 350Z, which we all had a chance to try before choosing the RX-8.

Know nothing about cars, your the one drag racing and doesn't know how to speed shift, afraid he might blow-up his car. Speed shifting bogs down your brain too, I guess. Anything outside your realm of understanding shouldn't bog down your brain, get a check-up.

Moderator Edit

Again, who is the slow one. Because it didn't take me nearly that long to come to the same conclusion about you.

Exactly how many Z's did you blu? 350?

DON'T WANT TO ARGUE WITH ANYONE by posting my result...
I did a street accurate quarter mile.
Had a cop friend with radar gun.
Launched close to 8000rpm
At the line I hit 1st run 96mph, 2nd=99mph, 3rd=98mph.
All I can give are how fast I'm going no time though

good speeds. colder temps? no mods? what octane? if you could replicate on a track with times it'd be really impressive! I had thought about marking off some pavement near a small airport where I live and do the same - but it seems that even being off 100' would make a big difference. So would a deer with bad timing.

Did your friend let you off with a warning? Was he hiding at the finish line to be in his element? Great speeds.

ya it was a cool weather like mid 50s. I don't have any mods on it yet. I use 92 octane.
Hehehe a warning! no he just wanted to see what this RX8 can do, so I proved it to him.
I really don't know what these speeds would be clocking. Hopefully lows.

Originally posted by KTM-316
ya it was a cool weather like mid 50s. I don't have any mods on it yet. I use 92 octane.
Hehehe a warning! no he just wanted to see what this RX8 can do, so I proved it to him.
I really don't know what these speeds would be clocking. Hopefully lows.

With a 98 or 99 trap very low 14s and possibly high 13s, but you will not be trapping 98 or 99 at the strip. Those times are also with a good driver, traps speed are more consitent than times so your times could be all over the place with the same trap speeds.