car has 745 miles on it. bone stock with dsc off . me driving

RT .669
60FT 2.365
330 6.445
1/8 9.833
MPH 73.05
1000 12.752
1/4 15.210
MPH 91.86

i ran twice first ran was 15.49 @ 91mph with a 2.5 60 FT

this car has atleast a 14.8 on street tires in it. i SMOKED the tires when i launched

 

Good times......

It's good to hear there is a faster run possible.....
.
.
.
doc

 

nice
those are better times then I've seen posted here

 

honestly that is horrible. i know i can do much better but i am just not used to the car yet. have to try some different techniques. i didn't hook up at all. 14.5 can be attained on a PERFECT run

 

Not to be an *** but your dreaming if you really think you can improve from a 15.2 to a 14.5 (0.7 diff!!) with a "perfect launch" and get a 14.5... I'd say it would be hard to do much better then a 2.100 60' with an rx8 given the power it has, even given your dyno your car is getting about 10HP to the wheels more then most others I have seen. My best 60' EVER in my 350z in about 20 runs was a 2.047, 2nd best was a 2.12, most are in the 2.18-2.25 range.

With even a 2.10 60' (on your car with above average dynos) your car will most likely not see any better then a 14.900. I been in the drag racing numbers game awhile, and I seen enough slips to know that this is how it works. Another guy on this site posted a time slip of a 15.16@91.95 with a 2.16 60', as you can see with a much better 60' he still only got a 15.16, more comparative to the average RX8 dynos seen, he would need close to a 2.0 60 for a run that would crack into the 14's

Like I said, not trying to be an ***, just pointing out facts from dreams. Nobody thats getting a 2.36 60' is gonna improve .7 by running a 2.05-2.1 60' (perfect launch).

FYI: As a rule of thumb, about a .1 decrease in your 60' will decrease your 1/4 ET by about .11-.12. So giving your times vs 60's, for you to have a legitimate shot at a 14.5 ET, you would need a 1.7 60', and even most high powered AWD cars such as the Subaru STI and Evo are getting 1.8-1.9's on average

So to crack into the 14's (like 14.99) on your peticular car, shoot for a 2.10-2.15, it will be good for a 14.9xx run. Most other RX8's I have seen numbers from with average dynos would need closer to a 2.0-2.05 to crack into the 14's.

 

350 didn't you say goodbye and leave us like five times already

 

WTF? Blue350 are you saying that .1 decrease in 60ft ft time results in a .12 sec gain in the 1/4 mile? Rule of thumb up your ***. So if I go from a 1.9 to a 1.3 I just gained .7 seconds? I think 60ft times have a much greater impact on your times.

****Moderator Edit*****

 

actually on my 1989 RX7 Turbo II with almost the same HP as the RX8 i did a 1.91 60 FT on 205/50/16 kumho 712's......... it can be done. it is all dependent on the driver

 

How did you launch it?

 

And Vosko, If you can get below a 2.0 in your RX8, more power to ya, but I am betting on average maybe 1 out of 20-30 runs will be better then a 2.1. But I hope you hit the track again soon, i'd like to see some more numbers from your rx8 with some better 60's...

I am going to the local import wars in NH this saterday, I will also have some fresh time slips this weekend.

--PS. If you doubt the .1 60' = .11-.12 1/4 ET, check my own timeslips in my sig and do the math yourself.

 

I'm the one who did the 2.15 60', 15.15 w/ term at 91.xx (I keep forgetting the exact #s). Did you have TCS fully off (slippery looking yellow car pic in the tach gauge? Or just DSC off?

I 'think' that we can reduce our 60' times to maybe 2.00 sec with it fully off and a 'perfect' launch. I'm not sure how hard it is to get under 15 seconds though. I think it's possible. But to get to 14.5 or even 14.6 is a huge difference, IMH and not very strip experienced opinion. what were the atmospheric conditions like when you ran - esp temp and humidity?

 

turned it fully off. first launch was 9200rpm and dump. 2nd launch was 8500rpm slip then dump. both resulted in massive wheelspin like i was on 5 inch wide tires. all that massive torque its a killer for launching :D

 

Vosko your times are very interesting. It seems the rx8 you drove was putting down about 175 wheel hp at the track. I have a 97 jetta vr6 w/ mods, i have dynoed 171~173 wheel hp on 2 different dynojets several times. My jetta weights about the same as the rx8 , 3000 lb+-

Its amazing but i have almost identical timeslips you posted, with stock tires 2.3xx 60ft times, 91.xx trap speeds and 15.2xx 1/4 mile times. I dont have a scanner here but i am looking at the slips and cant help notice how similar the numbers are to yours.

 

If I remember correctly the gearing it VERY high on the RX and since its a 6 speed it would be quite a bit difference from your probably 5 speed Jetta and would also require an extra shift on the RX, that where the extra time may have came from.

But then again that is all theory so who knows.

 

[jaw dropping]
You dumped the clutch @ 9.2K ? OMG..OK, gotta go for an aspirin.
Please tell me that's your mechanics car, isn't it?

 

its all physics.....

 

how do you think i launch my rx7's ? i usually 1.70 60 FT's spinning the 305/40/16 M&H race master drag radials :D

 

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

 

these nerd ex-piston drivers buy RX8s now because it looks good.

Learn how to launch properly redline your car and shift quick then post your time. [/B][/QUOTE]

14s4door, it's appreciated that you voice your opinion. bigotry (toward piston engines not so much, but people who drive them) and flaming are completely unecessary.

please calm yourself, and remain constructive.

 

ok my bad

 

Hi Blue350z,

I'll take your word that a 2.100 60' is close to a "perfect launch" because I have absolutely no experience drag racing and you have been in the "drag racing numbers game awhile". In fact, I'd think that most RX-8 owners are not quite as avid about 1/4 mile drag racing as you are so perhaps you could educate some of us a bit here.

Your drag racing numbers experience has led you to believe that "a .1 decrease in your 60' will decrease your 1/4 ET by about .11-.12". Would these numbers not be different for different cars? For example, if a .1 second faster 60' time of a 350z led to a .12 faster 1/4 mile, does the same apply to an RX-8 or S2000?

The timeslips from Rotarynews.com showed had info that production RX-8 "Red 90" posted the following stats on different runs:

.................. Run A ................. Run B
60' ............ 2.519 sec ............ 2.405 sec
1/4 mile ..... 15.209 sec ........... 14.736 sec

One run was about a tenth of a second (.114) faster @ 60' but was almost a half second (.473) faster in the 1/4 mile. Since these numbers are drastically different than your estimates, do you think that they are fabricated? Or is it possible that cars that have their peak torque at higher rpms (and thinner tires) might have their drag times a little more affected by a good launch?

It is a common tendency for many people to believe that their opinions are facts while anybody with a different opinion is dreaming or ignorant. Perhaps we can all put aside this tendency and become more enlightened in the process (without all of the namecalling)?

Brian

 

We should focus on trap speed, not ET.

 

The .1 = .11-.12 it the same on any street car. Think of it this way, if you gain .1 in the first 60' that means your already .1 ahead. The .01-.02 comes from a slightly better trap speed (usually).

And the car slips you just showed could of been a number of things:

1. 2 diffrent cars ran those numbers (1 with the US ECU and 1 with the un-tweaked ECU)
2. On the longer ET its possible a gear was missed if it was the same car
3. Fabricated times or just times from 2 totally diffrent cars (not even RX8)

IMO- Its number 1

The think you need to know is traps vs 1/4 ET. 90-93mph traps are not going to get you much better then low 15's, at least consistantly. Launches really don't effect trap times much unless its a really bad launch, like excessive spinning or bogging.

 

my first run with the dsc totally off. 15.00@92mph 2.3 60 ft. second run 14.87@93mph with a 2.20 60ft. If I could get a solid 2.0 60 ft. ill run 14.6

 

Pretty cool, Judge Ito!

Out of curiosity, what octane gas did the car have? How many miles on it?