Official 0-60 & 1/4 mile thread

[Vortex951]

I’d say if you guys had the same slope your cars might actually be almost dead even

 

[Slip_Angle]

I’d say if you guys had the same slope your cars might actually be almost dead even

Yeah, although how does the DA impact times? Mine is better, so I have the advantage.

 

[Vortex951]

Yeah, although how does the DA impact times? Mine is better, so I have the advantage.

As far as the car making more power that will happen with the lower da. As far as how much it effects the 0-60 I couldn’t even begin to guess since it is already such a short run

 

[Vortex951]

So from what I read up on line. Someone did some math and I honestly wouldn’t say I’m sold on this but is stated that with a forced induction engine like a bmw m4 it takes 3.8 seconds to run 0-60 at sea level. At 2000’ elevation it take that same car 4.18 seconds to run 0-60 and 4.75 seconds at 5000’. Obviously those aren’t da number for the runs but it was an interesting find.

 

[Slip_Angle]

So from what I read up on line. Someone did some math and I honestly wouldn’t say I’m sold on this but is stated that with a forced induction engine like a bmw m4 it takes 3.8 seconds to run 0-60 at sea level. At 2000’ elevation it take that same car 4.18 seconds to run 0-60 and 4.75 seconds at 5000’. Obviously those aren’t da number for the runs but it was an interesting find.

So are manufacturer times run at Sea level?

 

[joschneider]

So are manufacturer times run at Sea level?

I’ve thought about this. My thinking is that 0-60 runs are done in the most optimistic conditions. Low humidity, low temp, at or below sea level. Horsepower ratings however I think are done either in average or below average conditions since those ratings are used for a lot of legal things and need to be pretty much on point. Underrating horsepower is ok, but god forbid a manufacturer over rates it

 

[Vortex951]

So are manufacturer times run at Sea level?

i would assume so since they probably want the best possible result to promote

 

[Slip_Angle]

Okay, got down to a 1/4 tank and tried again. Got 4.53 again but everything to 50 was faster than my previous 4.53... I think I shifted too early to 3rd...? Interesting that the 0-60 with one for rollout was quicker at 4.27..

Also, while I was out, my AEM dryflow filters arrived. Already installed for my next try!

 

[Toddasaurus]

Okay, got down to a 1/4 tank and tried again. Got 4.53 again but everything to 50 was faster than my previous 4.53... I think I shifted too early to 3rd...? Interesting that the 0-60 with one for rollout was quicker at 4.27..

Also, while I was out, my AEM dryflow filters arrived. Already installed for my next try!

View attachment 27982

Which octane were you using for this run?

 

[Slip_Angle]

Which octane were you using for this run?

87

______________________________

Help support this site so it can continue supporting you!

 

[Toddasaurus]

So, no luck on getting better times with 91-93 octane, then..?

 

[Slip_Angle]

So, no luck on getting better times with 91-93 octane, then..?

I haven't tried. I re-posted the 2 times side by side for comparison above. My launches are really good. Can the car hit 60mph in 2nd?

 

[joschneider]

Can’t wait to see if the filters have any impact. This will be great data to have and share with anyone wondering if they are worth it

 

[Vortex951]

I haven't tried. I re-posted the 2 times side by side for comparison above. My launches are really good. Can the car hit 60mph in 2nd?

I don’t think it can unless we were to get a full transmission tune( which isn’t availible) My car always hits 60 right after the shift to third

 

[Slip_Angle]

Check out the 0-10 on this run! Really strong launch for stock, using the parking brake instead of launch control.

 

[Vortex951]

Check out the 0-10 on this run! Really strong launch for stock, using the parking brake instead of launch control.

thats really good when i ran my 4.02 my 0-10 was .41 so you are for sure on to something in my opinion

 

[Slip_Angle]

Can’t wait to see if the filters have any impact. This will be great data to have and share with anyone wondering if they are worth it

I think the problem with using 0-60 as a measure is that our launches are so soft and inconsistent, which makes it difficult to compare. I went for a drive and the car feels really good with the combination of removing those restrictive elbows and adding the filters. I would say removing the elbows made a more significant different in comparison. My thinking as well is that if someone was running a tune, they would most certainly benefit from the extra flow vs a stock car.

 

[Slip_Angle]

thats really good when i ran my 4.02 my 0-10 was .41 so you are for sure on to something in my opinion

Yeah, you and @Toddasaurus should give it a go. I bet you'll lower your times.

 

[Vortex951]

Yeah, you and @Toddasaurus should give it a go. I bet you'll lower your times.

It might help Todd. I’m already using the brake snip so I am launching at 14 pounds of boost as it is already. I need to get 18” wheels and probably some nitto nt05r tires to hook better

 

[Slip_Angle]

It might help Todd. I’m already using the brake snip so I am launching at 14 pounds of boost as it is already. I need to get 18” wheels and probably some nitto nt05r tires to hook better

Ah, right. Brake snip is violent! (In a good way)