somebody please / G-tech vs Dragstrip
01-26-2004, 05:21 AM
#1
- Senior Menber -
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Melbourne,AU
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
somebody please / G-tech vs Dragstrip
Please somebody. Go racing and use the g-tech and see how acurite it really is. Its not always easy to get to a test and tune day and for alot of these mods/changes people are doing, its important to know if the g-tech can stand up for itself.
01-26-2004, 10:14 AM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A GTech's accuracy relies heavily upon how well and consistently the owner calibrates it. I've had my GTech get me within a .1 second of my time at a track. I've also had it give me a 11.7 quarter mile when my car (not a RX-8) typically runs a 14.3, because I hadn't re-calibrated it in a long time. Temperature, elevation, and slight inclines or declines in the road all make a difference. I suspect that vibrations due to less-than-ideal road conditions also throw it off.
The best way to use a GTech is to do a stock run, quickly do the mod you want, and then do another run on exactly the same stretch of road. It may not give you accurate base times, but the difference in the times will be accurate. Even if you get it calibrated at a track to give you accurate times, it may not still be accurate on a different day under different conditions.
The best way to use a GTech is to do a stock run, quickly do the mod you want, and then do another run on exactly the same stretch of road. It may not give you accurate base times, but the difference in the times will be accurate. Even if you get it calibrated at a track to give you accurate times, it may not still be accurate on a different day under different conditions.
01-26-2004, 04:27 PM
#6
Registered
When we used my g-tech in my friend's Camaro at the track there was a difference but the difference was very consistent. Typically the track would say about a quater second slower and about 6 or 7 mph less. He did 3 or 4 runs and each time the numbers were about this far off. We also tried using 2 g-techs in the car at the same time to see how accurate they were compared to each other. The differences were about .1-.2 mph and .1-.2 seconds variation between the 2 in the same car. That is still pretty close.
If you run up even the slightest incline, your total times will be much less. I got an 11.XX in my stock Honda Civic going up a hill. Going down the hill gave me a 20.XX second run. It was a steep hill but the proof was there. Level ground is absolutely important for the entire run. Not hard to do here in Houston since the coastal plane is flatter than plywood.
It isn't that bad of a device especially for the price. It does show improvements and that is really all that matters. We used this knowledge in my friend's Camaro as he modded it. Each time something would change we would do about 5 or 6 runs and then average them together. You can really see what works and what doesn't. After he finished the car we recorded the g-tech times and he then went to the track. Still about a quarter second off from the track timer.
The new g-tech pro meters do not need any calibrating since they have dual vs single accelerometers. They are also a little more accurate. I have the older one. OIt has to be releveled every single time you do a run to stay accurate. Too many people set itup once and then leave it. Of course the runs will be off. It is a very good tool to show gains. The people that criticize it the most are the ones who have never used it or who don't know how to use it properly but it won't give you the same numbers as the track. You also have to consider that the track surface is so much different from the street that you'll probably run a faster time at the track than you ever could on the street anyways assuming you can drive really well. Others can't do that good due to amount of traction available.
I don't care about actual numbers because what are the conditions that they are based off of? Different tracks are faster/slower than others. All I care about is how much improvement there is.
If you run up even the slightest incline, your total times will be much less. I got an 11.XX in my stock Honda Civic going up a hill. Going down the hill gave me a 20.XX second run. It was a steep hill but the proof was there. Level ground is absolutely important for the entire run. Not hard to do here in Houston since the coastal plane is flatter than plywood.
It isn't that bad of a device especially for the price. It does show improvements and that is really all that matters. We used this knowledge in my friend's Camaro as he modded it. Each time something would change we would do about 5 or 6 runs and then average them together. You can really see what works and what doesn't. After he finished the car we recorded the g-tech times and he then went to the track. Still about a quarter second off from the track timer.
The new g-tech pro meters do not need any calibrating since they have dual vs single accelerometers. They are also a little more accurate. I have the older one. OIt has to be releveled every single time you do a run to stay accurate. Too many people set itup once and then leave it. Of course the runs will be off. It is a very good tool to show gains. The people that criticize it the most are the ones who have never used it or who don't know how to use it properly but it won't give you the same numbers as the track. You also have to consider that the track surface is so much different from the street that you'll probably run a faster time at the track than you ever could on the street anyways assuming you can drive really well. Others can't do that good due to amount of traction available.
I don't care about actual numbers because what are the conditions that they are based off of? Different tracks are faster/slower than others. All I care about is how much improvement there is.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Genom
Series I Aftermarket Performance Modifications
38
03-19-2004 10:27 AM
