Today I busted out my G-Tech

Today, on a ince flat road, relatively clear of traffiic, I ran a 14.032 1/4 mile @ 100.10 mph.

Now, this is according to a G-Tech dyno run, All stock. 6-MT, GT package car with ~30psi tires, 37 degrees F.

I also ran a 14.592 @ 86.16 mph later on the same day. same tire PSI, exterior temp of 32 degrees F, with a 160 lb passenger.

Here's my 14.592s run, with the 160lb passenger

Here's the more complete info for the power curve, upper portion

and the lower portion:

and the .gtp file from my gtech for the raw data..

And for reference, I had a friend with a '90 Mustang which I also tested. I can provide that Info to0o if anyone is interested..

;)

OverLOAD

You beat me by 0.005 seconds! ;)

Any chance either of you can take ur cars to a strip to test out how accurate G-Tech really is?

Originally posted by PoLaK
Any chance either of you can take ur cars to a strip to test out how accurate G-Tech really is?

The 14.5 @ 86mph should answer that question (it's nearly impossible). Gtechs are fun to mess around with but they mean little when it comes to real world results.

I didn't say anything about this being accurate. All I said is what I got out of the G-Tech.

As for actually going to a drag strip, this late in the year in Michigan, it's probably not going to happen, as the car is getting tucked in for the winter soon, and the strips are probably all closed anyways.

I would be more willing to believe that the times were a bit innaccurate, but I have no frame of reference here. I would invite the comments of some one who actually has used both a G-Tech, a fixed Dyno, and run thier RX-8 on the drag strip to make the most reasonable comments which would compare the results of the various testing methods to help me put my results into perspective.

Respectfully,

OverLOAD

Originally posted by Speed Racer
You beat me by 0.005 seconds! ;)

Thanks for the info. Speed, you've taken your car to a couple of autoX's how about any drag strip runs for a comparison?

OverLOAD

OverLOAD,
I've only done a couple of Open Tracking events and the car's performance was very similar to the S2000 on the track. With driver's being equal the S2000 would have pulled away from me slowly.

Like yourself, I live in an area where the tracks are already closed for the season. So maybe in the Spring I'll do a couple of runs at the drag strip and see how the Gtech compares.

Great runs!

I can only add that my brother bought a G Tech pro ( version 3.0) this past summer. He took it along to the track when he ran his 68 Firebird several times at test and tune events (Byron IL). He did run the G Tech while running his 'races to compare with his track slips. His car, running low 14. s was about .49 off. So really running high 14 s. Very consistently .49 off.
He has been nice enough to lend me his G Tech to test the Rotary Extreme intake and the Canzoomer mod once released, though my interests are verifying the HP and Torque curve improvements???, not doing hard launches and 1/4 mile times.
Tom

Originally posted by islandsoon
Great runs!

I can only add that my brother bought a G Tech pro ( version 3.0) this past summer. He took it along to the track when he ran his 68 Firebird several times at test and tune events (Byron IL). He did run the G Tech while running his 'races to compare with his track slips. His car, running low 14. s was about .49 off. So really running high 14 s. Very consistently .49 off.
He has been nice enough to lend me his G Tech to test the Rotary Extreme intake and the Canzoomer mod once released, though my interests are verifying the HP and Torque curve improvements???, not doing hard launches and 1/4 mile times.
Tom

That's interesting, I bought mine to validate Mazda's claims and any mods I may happen to install. I guess good minds think alike. ;)

It's the same philosophy for me also. I'll probably spend well over the $250 for the pro model on future mods. I think that I'd rather know exactly what performance improvements I get out of my purchases.

The whole HP issue still does seem skeptical, but I am very pleased with the performance of my car. I am very interested in tuning more than just my RX-8, and the Gtech will help me do that, Accurate or not, relatively speaking it's a very good comparative analysis

OverLOAD

Originally posted by OverLOAD
It's the same philosophy for me also. I'll probably spend well over the $250 for the pro model on future mods. I think that I'd rather know exactly what performance improvements I get out of my purchases.

The whole HP issue still does seem skeptical, but I am very pleased with the performance of my car. I am very interested in tuning more than just my RX-8, and the Gtech will help me do that, Accurate or not, relatively speaking it's a very good comparative analysis

OverLOAD

If you want to know exactly what you get out of performance mods then your money would have been better spent on dyno runs. However I see where you're coming from, it will at least give you a guesstimate of what each mod is giving you in gains and you can move it from car to car.

Ike,

You know, you sure make a lot of comments all over the place without substantiating your claims.

1) Do you even own a GTech? Have you even used one before?

2) Why the negative attitude all the time? And why do you have to skulk our forum? This would be a much nicer place if we could get some construvtive criticism here.

3) Show me. You spout out all over the place that this doesn't make sence, or that's not right, or BS this or pissing on just about anyone eles comments that you can. Please justify your claims with something other than conjecture. You say the GTech is innaccurate? Care to elaborate, or spout out anything other than regurgitated comments? How about some real productive searches on your part that do more digging.

I don't mean to get defensive, and fine by me if the RX-8 only puts down 160 rwhp, and can only doa 1/4 mile in 15.5 seconds, but if you want to nag on me about it, you're not going to get just another peron who'll ignore you. You may be just trying to provoke me and others here with your negativity here, and that's what it seems. The real question here, if You have to ask yourself why you are here.

So far, I have yet to see even one single productive comment out of your 800+ posts.

OverLOAD

1.) I do not own one but have had friends that do. If there wasn't such hostility in your post I would look up and link to you countless posts of how often the Gtech can be inaccurate. I'm not knocking it, like I said it's a fun little gadget. If calibrated properly with accurate info added they can give you useful results. But it's not nearly as useful as a dyno or an actual run.

2.) I'm just calling it as I see it, I don't think I was negative in the post.

3.) If you think a 14.6 @ 86mph is possible then more power to you, if you knew anything about drag racing that alone would clue you in as to how inaccurate the device can be. (this claim is assuming it's an RX-8)

4.) I'm really not nagging on you about it, I was dead serious when I said your money would have been better spent on dyno runs if you really want to know how mods are affecting your car. But if you're having fun with the Gtech then it was money well spent.

Lastly, since you're getting defensive so will I. You posted in the competition racing section of the forums. Last time I checked there was no such thing as a Gtech competition (other than the actual product), and there's a reason for that. There's no racing involved in what you did and there is a pretty large margin of error (in drag racing terms) as well. If you want a productive post look at the one above your last, you could have had 3-5 dyno runs instead of the Gtech and it seems like you wanted to know exactly how your mods were helping your car, a Gtech will NOT do that. Perhaps I'm a little bothered that in past discussions the Gtech runs have been pointed out as actual runs in order to discredit others and their claims about the car not having 250, 247, 238, whatever horsepower. Fun gadget, will give you a ballpark figure of what mods are doing, but not nearly as good as a dyno run, nor is it the same as running an actual 14.0 or 14.6 at the track.

Just to stir the pot...

Someone in a yellow RX-8 ran a 14.8 at Maryland International Raceway this weekend.
The other two RX-8s that were running got to just about a flat 15.

Originally posted by OverLOAD
The real question here, if You have to ask yourself why you are here.

Ike,
Would you mind answering his last question? I'd like to hear your answer.

C'mon Ike, go buy yourself an RX-8 already. I know you want one. That's got to be the only reason you've hung out here so long.

Dyno runs are great, I wouldn't disagree with anyone about that fact, but still, it remains that even between different dyno's of the same model, there is often a significant margin of error.

My target is to get information on Power levels, and how it is being affected by my mods. For this purpose, I am already very staisfied with the repeatability of my HP runs. I am able to get numbers within 2-3% of previous runs pretty easily. do 2 or 3 runs, and you can get a good average. If you're going to use a stationary dyno, you had better do the same thing or you're almost guaranteed to be off. The 1/4 mile time reported by the GTech is interesting to me, but I have already stated beforehand that in no way do I even consider it to be an actual representation of what I would see on the strip.

I (edit: am) not hostile by nature. I just don't appreciate you coming in here to a friendly discussion, and presenting your unfounded optionions as fact.

OverLOAD

Exactly who is that aimed at?

Originally posted by Speed Racer
Ike,
Would you mind answering his last question? I'd like to hear your answer.

I'm tired of answering that question, if you really want to know do a search, I've answered it many times.

what???
ike is to tired to battle and defend himself?
I thought I'd never see the day

I did what he said and searched for the answer and all I found is him saying "im sick of answering that question, do a search."

"I came to the site because I like the car and originally came here because I've been following the RX-7 for years and was interested in learning more about the RX-8. I even considered it as what would have basicly been a second car for me and a daily driver for my fiance.

I've stayed and continued to post because the RX-8 has turned into such a drama filled debut. The site is downright entertaining and that's why I'm still here, I'm also curious to find out the outcome of many of the contraversial topics surrounding the 8."


Russell, this is from the post where you were going on about what a piece of crap the STi is and how it's ugly, and doesn't handle well and is only good in a straight line and in snow... Remember that one or shall I rehash some of your brilliant statements from that post?

Ike hijacking another thread

Ikes new avatar = http://images.ar15.com/forums/smiles/smiley_troll.gif

i brought a tear to your eye

Ok, back to the runs.

I'm curious as to why you could run a faster 1/4 mile than the trade mags (who got, at best, 14.5) and yet get 0-60 in more than it took them (they did 5.9 versus your 6.2). Not being critical at all, just wondering what would cause the disparity. Perhaps the inaccuracy in the 8's speedometer that's been discussed? Or does the GTech measure the speed? If so, how? An accelerometer is a device for measuring movement, not relative velocity...

Omicron:

Exactly. The Gtech is an accellerometer. If it could measure distance, it would be almost 100% accurate, but since the car has body squat/lift due to (de)acceleration, as well as roads are not all perfectly flat, it can not be 100% accurate.

From what I gather, it tries to use RPM vs Time as well as the accellerometer to gauge distance, which is where it starts to fail. In using only one, it would be much less accurate, but by using both, it has to make a comprimise.

I got my best launch at around 5500 rpm, and I don't care to launch any higher than that. If I can actually get a 6.2 0-60 with that kind of launch, that's great, but the GTech can't always record it perfectly.

In the springtime, when the tracks re-open I will make a real-world drag strip comparison.

As well, the temperature of my run was about the coldest I've recorded so far. The improved air density could provide an advantage for running 1/4 mile times, but my time seems to be some strange innaccuracy. I doubt that I could get that time on a real strip, even with these cold temps, compared to the numbers that other people are pulling in.

OverLOAD

Back on topic.

Yes I own a Gtech.

Yes I have tested it many times using several cars. Just recently I tested it using my daily driver, a 2003 Honda Pilot. at a local track. Being an automatic it is very consistent in its times.

Gtech ET/MPH: 16.1 @ 88.5 mph (best)
Real 1/ mile track data: 16.49 @ 83.8 mph (best run, most at 16.5X ) (60 ft times were all 2.5X sec)

Is the Gtech optimistic ABSOLUTELY. Is it consistent? Yes it is as long as you are on a flat road and launch consistently.

Also, the Gtech is EXTREMELY sensitive to uneveness in the road. If a portion of the test surface is slightly downhill even if its almost imperceptible you will get faster times / higher mph.

Originally posted by OverLOAD
Omicron:

Exactly. The Gtech is an accellerometer. If it could measure distance, it would be almost 100% accurate, but since the car has body squat/lift due to (de)acceleration, as well as roads are not all perfectly flat, it can not be 100% accurate.

From what I gather, it tries to use RPM vs Time as well as the accellerometer to gauge distance, which is where it starts to fail. In using only one, it would be much less accurate, but by using both, it has to make a comprimise.

I got my best launch at around 5500 rpm, and I don't care to launch any higher than that. If I can actually get a 6.2 0-60 with that kind of launch, that's great, but the GTech can't always record it perfectly.

In the springtime, when the tracks re-open I will make a real-world drag strip comparison.

As well, the temperature of my run was about the coldest I've recorded so far. The improved air density could provide an advantage for running 1/4 mile times, but my time seems to be some strange innaccuracy. I doubt that I could get that time on a real strip, even with these cold temps, compared to the numbers that other people are pulling in.

Thanks for the reply.

I guess my point is that if the trade mags were getting 1/4 times of 14.5 with a 0-60 of 5.9, then with you running a 14.032 1/4 mile I would expect the 0-60 would be somewhat better than 5.9 seconds. Using a ratio for comparison, that would work out to a 0-60 time of about 5.7 seconds. Of course, the mags have all said they got their best times with the TCS off and a hard clutch drop at 7K-8K RPM. If you're launching at a lower RPM than that, your 0-60 times may well be lower.

It'll be interesting to see what you get when you run the car on a "proper" dragstrip with truly accurate timing equipment.

Originally posted by Omicron
Thanks for the reply.

I guess my point is that if the trade mags were getting 1/4 times of 14.5 with a 0-60 of 5.9, then with you running a 14.032 1/4 mile I would expect the 0-60 would be somewhat better than 5.9 seconds. Using a ratio for comparison, that would work out to a 0-60 time of about 5.7 seconds. Of course, the mags have all said they got their best times with the TCS off and a hard clutch drop at 7K-8K RPM. If you're launching at a lower RPM than that, your 0-60 times may well be lower.

It'll be interesting to see what you get when you run the car on a "proper" dragstrip with truly accurate timing equipment.

Ditto, but, the cold weather may be the most significant contributing factor right now. When I get to the drag strip, I'll have to redo my Gtech for a more accurate comparison, or even simultaneously with the drag strip, for the best comparison.

OverLOAD

I think you will find the track to have a MUCH stickier surface. You might end up needing more than 5500 rpm to launch. I believe you will also get better times and more speed at the track due to the sticky 1st 60 feet. That said, the Gtech should remain consistent per our experience at .50 off.

I don't agree with Ike on 'money is better spent buying dyno time. Finding a car dyno, taking the time to get there, make changes while there to have similar conditions to be consistent etc makes the Gtech a pretty darn good option to me. Motorcycle dynos are another story, very available and cheap to rent.
Tom

Originally posted by islandsoon
I think you will find the track to have a MUCH stickier surface. You might end up needing more than 5500 rpm to launch. I believe you will also get better times and more speed at the track due to the sticky 1st 60 feet. That said, the Gtech should remain consistent per our experience at .50 off.

I don't agree with Ike on 'money is better spent buying dyno time. Finding a car dyno, taking the time to get there, make changes while there to have similar conditions to be consistent etc makes the Gtech a pretty darn good option to me. Motorcycle dynos are another story, very available and cheap to rent.
Tom

Sure, if you don't have a dyno that's nearby the Gtech is prettymuch your only option other than the butt dyno. But if there is a Dyno nearby that doesn't charge too much, or if you don't mind taking a little drive for those dyno runs you have to admit it's a better option.

Don't forget to avoid wheel hop at the track if you do it for the first time!

Wheel hop kills diffs, both FWD, RWD, and even with Ike's AWD!!!

g-tech or g-unit or whatever its called is not accurate for testing 1/4 miles. the track is better.

I've found the G-Tech to be close. 2-3 mph high on speed. .100 or two on the e.t..

But I do have a question. 14.003 is 1/2 second quicker than any magazine I've read. That 14.5 was achieved at a 7500 hammer drop. Are you guys really doing that just to get 14's? Have any of you ever seen a drive shaft come charging up into where you are?

I obviously missed the part about your 5,500 hammer drop, sorry I don't own an 8 but we have 14 setting on the lot where I sell the car. I've driven the car. I like it. I don't want to insult anyone by making this statement but I've got to say it. Based on the fact I've sold, owned, and raced Chevrolets. Have driven the C-5, Z06's and SS's. If one magazine achieved a 14.5 launching at 7,500. And another one received 15.1 with less rpm. I just don't understand how a 5,500 launch yields 14.003. The car is a blast to drive. Reminds me of sport bike where you need RPM's to experience the real car. H.P. gets you mph in the 1/4. Torque gets you off the line. I've learned that in 40 years of racing.

Originally posted by Rick King
I obviously missed the part about your 5,500 hammer drop, sorry I don't own an 8 but we have 14 setting on the lot where I sell the car. I've driven the car. I like it. I don't want to insult anyone by making this statement but I've got to say it. Based on the fact I've sold, owned, and raced Chevrolets. Have driven the C-5, Z06's and SS's. If one magazine achieved a 14.5 launching at 7,500. And another one received 15.1 with less rpm. I just don't understand how a 5,500 launch yields 14.003. The car is a blast to drive. Reminds me of sport bike where you need RPM's to experience the real car. H.P. gets you mph in the 1/4. Torque gets you off the line. I've learned that in 40 years of racing.

What kind of racing? Please be specific.

Wow, I've driven corvettes, too! Does that make me an expert? Oh, and I own a sport bike, and In fact, I'm an officer of a sport bike club.

Does that make me special?

[really, I'm going somewhere with this ;)]

Then obviously you're Gods Gift to the RX-8 community. Since everyone, except you , that tested the RX-8 achieved a best of 14.5.......................... And that was only after dropping the clutch at 7,500 rpm. Everyone except you found when lowering the rpm the car took longer to move 1320'.

I said I wasn't flaming you. You've posted your remarkable e.t.. I indeed hope it's true. Not because I want to become your friend. Because I sell the cars.

Time and time again I have found magazine articles to achieve better performance than the performance Joe 6 pac achieves. And how do you think the drivers of other RX-8 think about tieir car? If their car has been to the track, and they ran mid 15's and you ran 14.000 flat ?

You're not hurting me. I've downloaded your e.t. and made every Mazda salesperson a copy. So keep posting, please.

Syntrix

I drift on and off the internet during the day. I thought the original post was responding to my two posts. But I see now it was you.

I am not coming here to flame anyone. My racing experience, the fact I sell Mazdas now is meaningless. Normally when I post I've had some experience with the trend. My opinion might often come from left field. I am happy to see other owners coming to the rescue of other 8 owners though.

Again,

let me elaborate,

For the record, I did not say that this time is conclusive. I simply provided the numbers the Gtech told me. If it is accurate, to me is irrelevant, as long as it is repeatable and consistent.

If it is off by a second, or half, that's fine with me, I just figured I'd share my experience, and try to get a comparison from other people who may have actually had more experience than me with the G-Tech.

and for reference, my G-Tech is the 3-Axis Gtech Pro Competition.

OverLOAD

Originally posted by Rick King
Syntrix

I drift on and off the internet during the day. I thought the original post was responding to my two posts. But I see now it was you.

I am not coming here to flame anyone. My racing experience, the fact I sell Mazdas now is meaningless. Normally when I post I've had some experience with the trend. My opinion might often come from left field. I am happy to see other owners coming to the rescue of other 8 owners though.

"Normally", "some experience", "left field".

Yeah, I'm beginning to see your experience coming out
:eek:

This is getting fun. My car must be special :D

I would look at the number and think as it nothing more that just for your own comaparision between run, but not to be compared with others as there are so many factors that can be throw the number off especially due environment differences.

Let take a look at the data I got, they are nothing more than a flaw in the run. 13.35s for 1/4? and the max HP 342 @ 6k & 299 ft-lbs @5.9k? Give me a break, I know the car did not put out that much horsie :P But I do agree that for GTPro comparison with multiple runs with consistant data, it can give you an overall idea where your car stack up.

I have not have much luck in getting consistant data between different days run. The number range from 14.8 to 17.5s. For those runs on the same day, time, and location, there was about .2-1s variations. Either the car is really varying its power or the condition just throws off the GTech reading.

I've been waiting for OverLoad to jump back into his trend and post. Since he lives up the road from me I was hoping he might be willing to get together next racing season? Here is the way it could go down. He would dial the 14.03 against my little 4 banger automatic, full interior, Z24 on street tires. We would run heads up. Hopefully someone would record the race.

I've done a little racing in my day. I've been around performance cars for a few years. BUT I DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING. I think the RX-8 is a fun car to own and drive. But I don't think it can run 14.03...on street tires.

When someone posts something that is so different from the norm I become a magnet towards the trend and need to get involved. When the original poster lives so close to where I live. I need to be part of knowing if OverLoad is the next John Force? Or if his G-Tech is really that far off?

No one needs to tell me I have a larger than average mouth. In this case I'll let the little Z24 cover it. Norwalk, In Norwalk Ohio would be a nice place for this RACE to take place. Everyone is welcome to shut this troll down. So, post away. I have many rules I live by. Never ask for more than you can handle. Read between the lines. I know my Cavalier is all I need to prove an Rx-8 can't run 14.03. I know that is a real bold statement to make. Someone said they thought this trend was fun. Lets have some fun. Read between the lines again. I don't hide behind a web name when I post. It's just Rick King.

Overload was simply posting his G-tech results, he wasn't making a personal challenge to the great Rick King in his bad ass Z-24.

Why don't you pick on the numerous 350Z trolls who constantly profess their Z's straight line speed. Almost every post on this Forum is about how the RX-8 is much more than this one aspect. You don't have to take one off your lot and dump the clutch from 8000 to see what it will do. IMO, the RX-8 is quite an impressive road machine without your Z-24 validation. GO RACE A 350Z, THEN POST YOUR RESULTS ON THEIR FORUM. The majority of people here could care less which one of you hits the tree first.

Indeed, I am raising the BS Flag. Why beat around the bush?

Not sure how we digressed to 350Z's. I've lost hundreds of races. Thanks for bring them up though. I've raced two. The quickest ran 14.2. In 1320' I beat both. So, if you want to go post that, second hand, on a 350 web page.Please include my e-mail address. RKing@langs.com.

I really though I was posting on an RX-8 web site? Chuck, I am not flaming the car, just the poster. I don't bend over to too often. Chuck. Sorry that's just the way it is.

I don't normally go trolling on web pages. I came here to try and understand why we have 14 RX-8's on the lot. I came here because I've heard there are problems with the car. I've driven the car. No one drops the clutch at 7,500 on my test rides. The car is so fresh and different. Why the hell aren't they selling? I like the car but the GREAT ONE - RICK KING thinks they are a 15 second car. A 15 second car that rides and drives like the RX-8 isn't a bad combination for the price. But none of that, INFORMATION, has anything to do with this trend. Someone said they ran 14.03 on a G-Tech. For what it's worth - THE GREAT ONE thinks thats BS.

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

You're a SENIOR MEMBER of this group? And that's the best you can add to the trend?

I don't expect many here to like me. That's because you don't know me. Forget who I am? Lets argue how one guy ran 14.03 when the rest of the world runs slower. That's what this is all about. It's not the fact that I am really KING KONG. Or that my Z24 would win a race.

Rick, this is not a question of how bad your Z24 is, or which car would win at a drag strip. Most of us could care less, and did not buy the RX-8 to go hunting Corvettes, 350Zs, and Z24s. Nor was OverLOAD attempting to challenge you. He was simply posting the results of his GTech, and we were discussing that. So it sounds like his GTech is off. Ok. Big deal. Are done with that now?

It sounds like you work at a Mazda dealership, and the RX-8s are not selling where you are. Any ideas as to why? They sure seem to be going like hotcakes nationwide (Mazda is way ahead of it's sales targets for the 8s), as well as selling pretty well in my area. But they are not moving on your lot? Is it just the '8, or are all the cars not selling very well right now? Seems to me this IS supposed to be the beginning of the poor-sales season, isn't it?

seikx8,

Very interesting graph? Surely you followed the calibration settings of doing a very quick 20 foot launch on the surface your 1/4 mile was right?

By the looks of the shift points, where you are accellerating constantly even between shifts, I would say you were driving up a hill, fooling the G-Tech into thinking you were acellerating (the acceleration pointing further back).

I did speed shift pretty hard, but didn't give it a whole lot of gas on the shifts, just enough to give me a boost, which you can see on my data. My surface was pretty level, but not flawless.

I'm most interested in trying to get accurate data that will give me an accurate depiction of what the RX-8 will do on the track, and suggestions are welcome.

Oh, and Rick King, I saw your posts, and you pose an interesting challege. Perhaps one of my friends with a modified Chevette with a 454 v8 would like to take you on? Seriously though, if you are questioning my data, download the .gtp file. I posted it so that people can examine my run, and point out possible errors in what I may have done. Sure, you may have a fast Cavalier, but if I was interested in seriously drag racing, I would be at the track, not driving to Ohio to show somebody I don't even know how I drive the car.

If you would have read my 4-5 follow up posts, you would have seen that I am not defending my time. It doesn't matter, I am posting the results for comparison by other sensible people.

Best wishes.

OverLOAD

Originally posted by OverLOAD
seikx8,

Very interesting graph? Surely you followed the calibration settings of doing a very quick 20 foot launch on the surface your 1/4 mile was right?

By the looks of the shift points, where you are accellerating constantly even between shifts, I would say you were driving up a hill, fooling the G-Tech into thinking you were acellerating (the acceleration pointing further back).



That is correct, that run was out of wack because it wasn't calibrated and the road wasn't level either; And my GTech Pro mounting bracket broke off during that run :eek: Just want to make a point that there are other conditions may throw of the reading and it's not a good way to compare reading from different environments since I have not have much luck getting consistant data.

Hey rick, I got mine there at Lang's, and I must say I was extremely disappointed in the quality of prep for delivery. Sticky was all over the paint and glass still, dirt was between door/hood/and trunk cracks.. if this is a trend in customer service, perhaps that is why few are selling? I thought the sales people were very uneducated about the car (although very good to work with). Maybe Castrucci is taking sales away.

I do think you have an excellent test drive road though. :)

Sales have been off for several months. Might have something to do with poor salespersons.

The comments about the delivery, from Langs, have been forwarded to the GM. Scot. Lets see how this is handled. We have excuses. with the new building and all. But customers should NEVER drive off THIS lot with a car that way.

Mr. original poster. Thanks for your reply. Truthfully, I am not the least bit interested in racing your friends. I posted to you. First, I don't think G-Techs are that far off. Second, I don't think RX-8's run 14.03 - stock. Third - I think by posting your time you've done nothing more than point out to others less fortunate than you. They are poor drivers and their cars are slow If they race and find their car a second or more slower than your 14.03.

But, I've had my say. By posting what I posted I've put myself in a box so to say. I still like the car. I'll defend the car when I see it slammed.

It's funny that you would mention friends of yours, I needed to race. When all I wanted to do was prove your car is no faster than the norm. If your friends race in Division 3 of NHRA or IHRA I might know who they are. They might have raced against my friends. But why is it people bring up how fast their friends are when someone has asked to race THEM? I think I posted somewhere in this page I don't think a car is quick until it runs 11:99. Another way I measure a car is when it runs 2 seconds quicker than the norm. That shows me the owner has spent time and money on the car making it different. Making your car different shouldn't move you up much in the real world of who you are though. Often, I go off when I read posts on web pages that I don't think are possible. I think people often post to elevate themselves above others. Mr. poster, I am not sorry I questioned you.

Fact of the matter is. You don't live too far from me. I thought it would be fun to race.

Rick,

I'm glad that it appears that you have taken no offence. I had intended none. Street racing is not for me. I literally meant that there might be other people I know who would be up for a "Challenge".

Now, perhaps I am a good driver, but no, I'm not a pro driver, nor have I even made a run in a real drag strip. So I don't consider myself any more capable of getting a good time than any of the other member here. I simply presented my data, as seikx8 did, and invited the community to pick it apart.

I am not interested in running an Illegal street race. That draws faaaar too much negative attention from the cops for my liking. I might make a run when no one is looking, but I like to keep under the radar blip.

I am curious as to what your motivation for wanting to racing my RX-8 is. Others have posted that their G-Tech's were consistently off by .5 seconds, etc, so this would explain that my run is not out of the ordinary, nor is my driving skill. Why would I drive 100 feet down the road to proove that, when it's pretty obvious? I can wait for the spring, and do a side by side at a real strip vs. a Gtech.

Good luck.

OverLOAD

I think the point was "it would be fun to...", but that's left to interpretation.

Cool for now, just keep outside of street racing ;)

I don't go out looking for street races. But, when you drive a Cavalier or a car with a dealer tag on it EVERYONE wants to make an example out of beating you. I normally save my racing for the track. One is located less than three miles from the dealership and only charges $10.00 for test and tune and street legal drags.

I would liek to help the guy who wasn't happy with the delivery of his RX-8. He first needs to e-mail me.

Overload...

Couple of things:
Using the Pass software version 1.1.1 and your Gtech data, have you looked under the "Gs" tab to see if your clip is moving on launch?
Have you downloaded their big new owners manual from their website? It is much better than the old black and white thing that came with the Gtech.

Peter at Tesla Electronics is a good source of info on getting good consistent results from you Gtech. 310-452-0030 ext 3

Regards,
Tom