[JDMpearlwhyteZ]

hatrickstu, on 17 February 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

So 1000 lbs should only net 2mph? Did you also miss my cobalt example. You obviously do not have much drag race experience.

Fwd cars usually trap higher than rwd cars, so I guess you proved a lot..

A 10 second rwd car vs a 10 second fwd car, I'd bet money the fwd car will trap higher..

I'm sure you know this with your almighty knowledge of drag racing and such things..

We can take this to PM's if you'd like to continue without cluttering this thread anymore than we already have..

[JDMpearlwhyteZ]

hatrickstu, on 17 February 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

So 1000 lbs should only net 2mph? Did you also miss my cobalt example. You obviously do not have much drag race experience.

Cobalt SS: 1/4-mile: 14.4 sec @ 100 mph

ENGINE TYPE: supercharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port fuel injection
Displacement: 122 cu in, 1998cc
Power (SAE net): 205 bhp @ 5600 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 200 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm

The s2000 traps that and runs 13.9-14.1.. If the SS ran that it would trap higher than the s2000, so what's your point?? When comparing fwd to rwd, it's probably better to associate the runs with times instead of mph.. Because usually the fwd car has to trap higher to run the same time..

I'm sure the cobalts have gone faster mph, and I know the s2000 has also.. But just by logic from magazine driver times, the cobalt would need to trap higher being fwd to keep up with the s2000.. The disadvantage of being fwd really kills the launch..

This post has been edited by JDMpearlwhyteZ: 17 February 2012 - 08:58 PM

[hatrickstu]

You are magazine racing dude, I'm telling you based on my real world experiences. You posting cobalt magazine tests has nothing to do with this. Go to a drag strip and educate yourself. And just to be an ass, yes I actually do have quite a bit of knowledge considering I drag raced that cobalt nearly every weekend for 3 years, drive a 10 second 140 mph integra, and have raced my dads built ls1 car, just to name a few. Your experience?

Hell you couldn't even realize a Gto that is 1000 lbs lighter trapping 1-2 mph (btw some stock ones have gone 112) on roughly the same whp proved you wrong. Open your eyes dude, 110 is slow as hell for a 350whp s2000.

[JDMpearlwhyteZ]

You're clearly missing my point.. Hp is NOT the only factor.. Neither is weight..

Things that matter are traction/60ft's, gearing/tire sizes, torque, transmission and driver skill..

You can have all the power you want, if it doesn't hook up, it'll trap something retarded and run a poo time.. I've seen cars that run 10.9 @ 133, and I've seen fwd cars that are 1,000lbs lighter and run 10.9 at 145..

I guess you know it all though.. Since I haven't built a race car integra or anything like that..

Also since you are so blatant to point out special cases/exceptions.. I was using magazine times to point out the "average" Joe's capabilities.. And to be more broad about the scenario..

There's a lot more people out there running 14's trapping 100 in their s2000 than people running 13.7 @ 106.. Man comprehension is critical these days..

For all I know, that cobalt trapped 117 and ran a garbage 13.3.. Where as a rwd car with less power could run a 13.0 @ 110.. It's all about how you put the power down, if you can't then it doesn't matter what you trap either way..

This post has been edited by JDMpearlwhyteZ: 17 February 2012 - 09:31 PM

[JDMpearlwhyteZ]

hatrickstu, on 17 February 2012 - 09:10 PM, said:

You are magazine racing dude, I'm telling you based on my real world experiences. You posting cobalt magazine tests has nothing to do with this. Go to a drag strip and educate yourself. And just to be an ass, yes I actually do have quite a bit of knowledge considering I drag raced that cobalt nearly every weekend for 3 years, drive a 10 second 140 mph integra, and have raced my dads built ls1 car, just to name a few. Your experience?

Hell you couldn't even realize a Gto that is 1000 lbs lighter trapping 1-2 mph (btw some stock ones have gone 112) on roughly the same whp proved you wrong. Open your eyes dude, 110 is slow as hell for a 350whp s2000.

You just proved a point with your post about this amazing integra.. 10's @ 140mph.. Rwd cars are trapping 130's and getting into the 10's.. It's all about power delivery, I bet your integra spins it's ass off.. I never said "OMFG 110 is the fastest trap in the world for a 350whp s2000".. I said "its on par", what I meant by that is my mom could get in that s2000 I posted in the video and trap 110mph.. Christ!! What's so hard to understand about the AVERAGE person would probably trap that do you not understand?! I know they're are exceptional drivers out there, I know you're probably Dale Earnhart Jr. and run the 1/4m every day.. I know you probably practice speed shifting from light to light.. But the average person does not, and for them trapping 110 is probably perfectly fine..

Get off your 110 isn't fast because race car high horse and realize that everyone isn't going to have the best set up for running the quarter mile at the best possible time and mph, some people use it as a base line.. And any improvement in speed or time is all they want to see no matter how large or small it may be.. Other people like you use it as a penis to slap the keyboard with.. I get it now..

You built an integra that does one thing well, go in a straight line.. Other people who don't want to have single dimensional cars build their shit to be amazing.. I'd rather trap 110mph in a s2000 that I can have fun with everyday being amazing than to have an all out dragster s2000 that: doesn't idle well, can't turn, has a gutted interior, and can't be driven on the street, and doesn't even spool the turbo until 7k..

This post has been edited by JDMpearlwhyteZ: 17 February 2012 - 09:59 PM

[hatrickstu]

Now you are just getting personal since you are obviously very inexperienced with drag racing. I agree with the single dimensional car comment, which is why I have an str prepped s2000 as well...

Trap speed is a great indication of horsepower. There is no way you can disagree with that. 110 is weak for a 350 whp s2000, deal with it.

[JDMpearlwhyteZ]

hatrickstu, on 17 February 2012 - 10:05 PM, said:

Now you are just getting personal since you are obviously very inexperienced with drag racing. I agree with the single dimensional car comment, which is why I have an str prepped s2000 as well...

Trap speed is a great indication of horsepower. There is no way you can disagree with that. 110 is weak for a  350 whp s2000, deal with it.

Ok, so it should trap 112ish mph.. That can all be lost in the launch as the video provided shows dude..

He takes off garbage, and getting personal?? You did that first when you starting discrediting my post by throwing out your racing pedigree like that matters in the debate..

Point is, yes the GTO and s/c s2000 make similar whp and because of the 1,000lb difference they seem comparable, but the torque is the breaking point for the s2000.. (you think you're only taking away 1,000lbs away from the GTO with the s2000, but you're also taking away 100ft-lbs of torque my man, and this is a LOT) Even though it would really destroy a GTO from a roll.. 

The dig race would be harder and more in the GTO's favor because the s2000 will struggle with having over 100wtq less and having less traction to accelerate with.. Now if the s2000 was on drag radials or would dead hook I'd give it 114mph or better, but let's face it.. It's not a torquey car, and won't be as easy to launch as the GTO with street tires..

The s2000 from a roll is not a 110mph trap car.. But because the way you have to laucnch it will just hinder it (launching it high to make power and spinning vs launching the GTO pretty low and just hooking and going).. The power band for the s2000 is just garbage in comparison to the GTO, yea it makes 350ish hp but it doesn't make that power nearly as long as the GTO.. And we both know the torque isnt there.. You're focusing on peak numbers and not being realistic about the powerbands of both cars my dude.. 

This post has been edited by JDMpearlwhyteZ: 17 February 2012 - 10:49 PM

[hatrickstu]

You are off base in so many areas it's not even worth trying to explain. Do some actual racing instead of e-racing.

[JDMpearlwhyteZ]

I guess, you're the one who chose the bad comparisons..

Let's all compare torqueless cars to cars that make the same hp as they make in torque and get offended by someone who try's to explain their interpretation of how it goes..

I'm really down to learn if you're willing to teach me anymore of these comparisons.. What's next, c5z vs sc s2000?? The c5z should trap 115 and makes about the same whp as the GTO and it even weighs less.. I guess it should trap 120 bone stock since its like 700lbs lighter than a GTO according to your logic.. Since weight is "everything"..

So answer this, do you think a supercharged s2000 @ 350whp can beat a stock c5z from a roll?? Assuming they both trap 115mph (that seems to be what you think the s2000 should be trapping anyways, unless it should trap even higher) o_O

[JDMpearlwhyteZ]

hatrickstu, on 17 February 2012 - 10:50 PM, said:

You are off base in so many areas it's not even worth trying to explain. Do some actual racing instead of e-racing.

Look man, let me make myself clear, I'm not saying that the GTO is faster, I'm saying it has a better power band.. From a roll the GTO will lose, power to weight is a beast.. But from a dead stop I think the s2000 has a disadvantage (not saying it wouldn't win, but just is better suited for a roll).. Check the power bands out, they are completely different and the s2000 is down on power across the whole board..





From a dead stop both cars as not going to be going from their optimum rpm for power because traction is not there if they do.. The GTO has a wider powerband amd literally makes torque everywhere, check the out the power difference at 4k on both cars..

@4k the GTO is making 250~ish whp & 340ish wtq..

@4k the s2000 is making 140 whp.. & 180wtq

Significant difference, from a roll the s2000 is definitely the faster car, but I really think with both cars being on street tires the s2000 trapping 110 is about right.. I do think a 350whp s2000 should trap around 113 with a great driver on street tires, I'm not sure what kind of conditions you ae talking about, and what kind of tires or suspension set ups you are implying will make the car trap so much higher, but the average s/c s2000 with an average driver trapping 110 seems perfectly fine.. (there are different variables for what a car does, elevation, temperature, traction, driver)

I know you'll discredit this example because I haven't built a race car/because the car isnt a GTO, but I have a friend who has a 370whp s2000 (sc) and he trapped around 112/113.. He ran a TT supra and lost by about 2 cars, the supra trapped 116.. So I don't know what you suppose the car should trap, but that's what it did trap.. I'd consider him a pretty good driver, but the car is set up for the road course, he just wanted to see what it ran I'm the 1/4m.. And then he ran the supra shortly after that from 60 and lost.. If it was trapping higher than 112/113 he would have kept up better, either that or the supra was capable of a even higher trap..

Call it what you want.. But once again, I am NOT saying the GTO is faster.. I'm saying that powerband plays a big roll in a race, and the s2000's powerband is peaky in comparison to it..

This post has been edited by JDMpearlwhyteZ: 18 February 2012 - 12:01 AM

[S2SEXY]

a novi 1000 isnt going to produce alot of torque.sorry im not running a turbo......

[Soul Coughing]

When I was supercharged and making about 350whp on a Mustang Dyno, I was trapping 109-113mph. When making the same peak HP, but more torque, when turbocharged, I was hitting 114-116mph. I had a video up here about 4 years ago of me racing a heavily modified auto GTO that trapped 120-124mph and he slowly pulled on me when i was making 380-390whp. More anecdotal data to an already heavily concentrated bench racing thread.

[JDMpearlwhyteZ]

Lol good post..

[drkphnx]

Oooh I wanna add too...

I ran a slightly modded LS2 GTO last year, me at 300rwhp CTSC'ed, he had a hefty passenger lol, from a roll I managed to pull one car length. From a dig I would not stand a chance. I posted the run last year in the street encounters, I also linked it in my most recent encounter with a 5.7, which I raped from a dig.

[JDMpearlwhyteZ]

350whp is very health for a car that makes 200whp from the factory, but make no assumptions based on peak HP numbers..

A 350whp turbo S2000 will more than likely always out trap a 350whp sc s2000 (given that all things are equal.. Weight/tires/gearing/driver ability/etc) just because a 350whp s2000 should trap "whatever" your boy thinks it will trap, due to the power band a 350whp SC s2000 will trap less than a turbo s2000 with the same peak horsepower.. (which is what I was trying to say that night but could never really figure it out at the time) since he was saying a 350whp s2000 should trap more than 110, which I agree to the extent of about 113mph..

It's all about the area under the curve.. Peak numbers don't really mean anything if you are only making them for 3 seconds then you shift and are back down to 70+whp less than your maximum hp that happens at max rpm.. But it is pretty cool to drive a car that always feels like its constantly pulling harder as you go higher in the rpm!!

This post has been edited by JDMpearlwhyteZ: 22 February 2012 - 12:15 PM

[dales2000]

Wow my dyno made it to the show! Lol