[hotrod182]

It has been a day since I had the JB2R on my car.
I figured my car was fully adapted now and I would make some more Gtech tests on it. Here are 3 runs at over 113mph. You can see how consistant they are. Again, compared to my Gtech readings, my actual track slips are usually slightly faster and quicker. So you can do some actual timing yourself, I will post the video also. I am sure you will see that the 1/4 mile light flashes when the speedometer is reading around 119mph!

So compared to yesterday, I picked up a solid MPH, due to the following:

Colder temps: 49F vs 55F yesterday
lighter fuel load: 1/4 tank compared to 1/2 tank yesterday.
ECU fully adapted to JB2R and 95 Oct fuel.

The disadvantages:
high humidity: 89%
Street Radials: 2.10 sec 60' time.

Again, I would imagine that DRs could be worth .20 in the 1/4 mile. It sure did on Shivs testing. And as far as Shivs statement about testing on a "real track". I think my methodical test procedures qualify as being useful and informative. There is a lot more useful information with careful attention to the factors than someone simply posting a time slip at a strip that varies (more in conditions) from other peoples' tracks more than my "similar condition" testing ever will. I suppose with exhaust, and intake system, and DRs, my times theoretically could also be down to 12.3x. Just more food for thought

Video record of run: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciMXjzYcco8

[musc]

Great runs hotrod. Believable numbers given that you have countless comparisons with your Gtech and actual tracks validating its accuracy.

I was noticing on your recent video that your car appeared to spin at the top of first and short shift at around 6K. Was that the case?

[hotrod182]

Originally Posted by catm3

Great runs hotrod. Believable numbers given that you have countless comparisons with your Gtech and actual tracks validating its accuracy.

I was noticing on your recent video that your car appeared to spin at the top of first and short shift at around 6K. Was that the case?

Yup, and I am having to use a very soft launch. I think with drag radials, my time would be pretty high up there on the drag times listing. If only we had a track like Sacramento down here.

[MacDutchski]

Cool results. So outside of DRs, what's next for your car? Downpipes?

[Terry335]

Very nice Warren! How does the "R" feel driving around in part throttle?

[Noize]

Take it to the strip and post some results! If it could really trap that high at the quarter mile, that would be very nice.

[silvrevo]

Yea , let us know how it is driving around town.

Nice runs.

[DrDomer]

Cool.. I think I can make out the trap on there. Looks like 113. Time to hit a strip!

[Terry335]

Originally Posted by Noize

Take it to the strip and post some results! If it could really trap that high at the quarter mile, that would be very nice.

No decent 1/4 mile tracks down here... California Speedway (a 1 hr drive) will be open Nov 30th, but it generally has a 2500' DA and runs up hill. Fomoso (a 2 hr drive) is closed until late Jan. Sac would be a 5+ hr drive.

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by Terry335

No decent 1/4 mile tracks down here... California Speedway (a 1 hr drive) will be open Nov 30th, but it generally has a 2500' DA and runs up hill. Fomoso (a 2 hr drive) is closed until late Jan. Sac would be a 5+ hr drive.

But California speedway only runs uphill by about 4 feet. And that's cancelled out by the fact it runs directly east, so 98% of the time (unless there are Santa Ana winds) you will have a tailwind at that track (that is of course if there are any winds that day...but that's better than a head or even side wind).

LACR by comparison ran uphill by about 10 feet AND 90% of the time had a HEAD wind to boot.

The weather on the 30th should be pretty decent.
As of right now on the 29th it's forecast to be cloudy with a high of
69 and a low 45, and if it's partly cloudy on the 30th too, the temps might even be colder.

So the runs in the morning would be in the high 40's to low 50's.

That could mean (if humidity isn't outrageous) a DA of under 1000'

Last time Warren ran there and got his 13.0 the temps were in the mid 70's (at the time he ran according to a guy on DragTimes), so with temps in the 50's for most of the morning on the 30th, you should see some improved times by a decent amount.
Even in the afternoon if the high is only upper 60's that isn't too bad at all, especially if you get a little tailwind.

[Terry335]

Originally Posted by Driver72

That could mean (if humidity isn't outrageous) a DA of under 1000'

Last time they started racing at 10am, so hopefully they start earlier this time! I would love to do some 1000' DA runs there. I never heard that LACR run uphill 10'? Are you sure about that? 4' seems like a lot to me. I mean if the track ran downhill 4' wouldn't people scream bloody murder?

PS. Are you going to be able to make the event? So far we have around 3-4 JB cars coming, but not a single procede car.

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by Terry335

Last time they started racing at 10am, so hopefully they start earlier this time! I would love to do some 1000' DA runs there. I never heard that LACR run uphill 10'? Are you sure about that? 4' seems like a lot to me. I mean if the track ran downhill 4' wouldn't people scream bloody murder?

PS. Are you going to be able to make the event? So far we have around 3-4 JB cars coming, but not a single procede car.

Well, actually according to Google Earth, at the starting line it was 2785 feet in elevation. At the finish line it was 2802 feet in elevation.
That's 17 feet in elevation increase.

Don't you remember being there, talk about being able to SEE elevation change. The far side clearly was higher than the near side.
It actually looked like it raised in elevation for the first 900 or so feet, then dipped a bit for a 100 feet or so, then went back up.
Google doesn't show that, at least not in the left lane.

But it's clearly one of the biggest reasons why LACR was such a slow track most of the time (unless it was a cold day and had a rare day where there was no head wind, or the extremely rare tailwind).


As a comparison, ATCO runs perfectly level for almost the whole length of the track, but actually drops a measly 3 feet in elevation over the last couple hundred feet. Another reason, along with it's excellent prep and traction (and often near or below sea level DA's) that ATCO is a fast track.

[Terry335]

Originally Posted by Driver72

Well, actually according to Google Earth, at the starting line it was 2785 feet in elevation. At the finish line it was 2802 feet in elevation.
That's 17 feet in elevation increase.

Don't you remember being there, talk about being able to SEE elevation change. The far side clearly was higher than the near side.
It actually looked like it raised in elevation for the first 900 or so feet, then dipped a bit for a 100 feet or so, then went back up.
Google doesn't show that, at least not in the left lane.

But it's clearly one of the biggest reasons why LACR was such a slow track most of the time (unless it was a cold day and had a rare day where there was no head wind, or the extremely rare tailwind).


As a comparison, ATCO runs perfectly level for almost the whole length of the track, but actually drops a measly 3 feet in elevation over the last couple hundred feet. Another reason, along with it's excellent prep and traction (and often near or below sea level DA's) that ATCO is a fast track.

I'm not sure how precise google earth really is... but I guess 10' over the 1/4 would only be a .75% grade. Still seems like a lot.

So you coming out to Fontana for a few runs? Adam said you hung pretty close with him, your coupe might be above average too.

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by Terry335

PS. Are you going to be able to make the event? So far we have around 3-4 JB cars coming, but not a single procede car.

I was going to if I got my v2 by then, but doesn't look like that is going to be the case with Thanksgiving this week.

I ordered mine at 1:20 pm on the day the online ordering opened.
Sadly I couldn't get to a computer sooner than that, that day.

If they send out any in the next week or two, I'll probably be in that batch based on what # I've been told I was.

Are you sure there won't be any PROcede cars there?
I just don't see much of a reason to run v1.47.

I ran, like Warren did on his JB2, a 13.0 @ over 107 mph on the older PROcede v1.2 with the same General tires with a DA of over 3000'

So, with a slightly more powerful v1.47 a more broken in car, and with a DA of what might be 1000-1500' I would suspect to get 12.8's with a trap speed of probably 109 ish.
And since the JB2 cars and v1.47 cars are basically running the exact same times, without v2 I don't really have much of a reason to go.

What I want to do is a test of the PROcede's low end torque vs. the JB2's.
Rolling runs starting in 3rd at 1500 rpms would showcase that and see if the extra 30 or so lbs-ft makes the PROcede v1.4x car jump ahead a bit.

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by Terry335

I'm not sure how precise google earth really is... but I guess 10' over the 1/4 would only be a .75% grade. Still seems like a lot.

So you coming out to Fontana for a few runs? Adam said you hung pretty close with him, your coupe might be above average too.

Yeah, from multiple 40-120 mph rolls I was maybe 2-2.25 CL's back (about 20-25 feet between his rear bumper and mine).
There was one run where he pulled more, but he jumped on the gas a split second before me.
And a run or two where he was only about 1.5 CL in front (about 10-12 feet of air between bumpers).

So I'd say on average he pulled 2 CL's from 40-120 mph

I think that's the advantage of the auto tranny though, if it was manual to manual he might of pulled a bit further away.
As I've said before, and have tested, the autos seem to run a bit quicker (probably equivalent to 1 CL in a run with most manual drivers).

I had a slight weight advantage (probably about 40-45 lbs) but he had a Borla exhaust, 2nd Cat delete and v2.01

[Terry335]

Originally Posted by Driver72

What I want to do is a test of the PROcede's low end torque vs. the JB2's.
Rolling runs starting in 3rd at 1500 rpms would showcase that and see if the extra 30 or so lbs-ft makes the PROcede v1.4x car jump ahead a bit.

I checked the list and only saw 3 335is on there, all JB2 owners. Even if its just 1.47 it would be interesting to see if that low end torque bump, etc, helps in the 1/4. Most everyone will be on normal tires. Plus we'd know if the track was faster or slower than Fomoso.

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by Terry335

I checked the list and only saw 3 335is on there, all JB2 owners. Even if its just 1.47 it would be interesting to see if that low end torque bump, etc, helps in the 1/4. Most everyone will be on normal tires. Plus we'd know if the track was faster or slower than Fomoso.

Wow, I'd of thought somebody with v1.47 would go, and possibly even someone with v2.

It wouldn't show if Fontana or Famoso were any better.
The best test was Warren and mine basically EXACT same time at the two different tracks with very similiar DA's.
We both ran 13.0 @ 107+ with DA's of around 3000 or so feet.

We both had the same tires, both in sedans.
And the week or so prior when we ran at the Camarillo "track" we ran side by side in the rolling runs (the only disadvantage then was my car was boiling hot from 8 straight 1/4 runs and only had 1500 miles on the odo, while his car was pretty cool from sitting for 1/2 hour or more and only doing 3 runs prior to that and he had 5500 miles on his car.
I had a slight advantage in rotational mass (having the Morr Alloy wheels on which are about 5 lbs each lighter than the CSL reps) but I also put a 20 lbs sandbag weight in my trunk to offset as much of that as possible.

So really the only difference was my engine was MUCH hotter.

But the point is, we ran equal in rolling runs and ran equal at two different drag strips with similiar DA's.
I'd say Famoso and Fontana are about equal tracks if both have similiar conditions and therefore DA's.

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by Terry335

I checked the list and only saw 3 335is on there, all JB2 owners. Even if its just 1.47 it would be interesting to see if that low end torque bump, etc, helps in the 1/4. Most everyone will be on normal tires. Plus we'd know if the track was faster or slower than Fomoso.

the low end torque advantage of the PROcede v1.47 over the JB2 would only show if you had DR's or great traction. Otherwise it actually hurts you, because you spin much easier and therefore get worse times. Warren and I experienced that with trying to launch my car at Camarillo.
He finally got it to launch equally as well as his JB2 (with the lower torque output) after the 8th straight 1/4 mile run within a 10-15 minute period.
I'm guessing at that point the heat soak sapped some of the power of the v1.47 and allowed for a decent launch at that point.

[Terry335]

Originally Posted by Driver72

the low end torque advantage of the PROcede v1.47 over the JB2 would only show if you had DR's or great traction. Otherwise it actually hurts you, because you spin much easier and therefore get worse times. Warren and I experienced that with trying to launch my car at Camarillo.
He finally got it to launch equally as well as his JB2 (with the lower torque output) after the 8th straight 1/4 mile run within a 10-15 minute period.
I'm guessing at that point the heat soak sapped some of the power and allowed for a decent launch at that point.

Yeah, it was no accident I limited low end torque, for a lot of reasons. Traction, drivetrain durability, less engine stress, etc. For those that want to run better tires at the track the "R" is pretty aggressive on the low end (~385 #/ft), more than enough for a low 1.7 60'. When you go back to stock tires you can just turn it off and enjoy better traction on the street.

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by Terry335

Yeah, it was no accident I limited low end torque, for a lot of reasons. Traction, drivetrain durability, less engine stress, etc. For those that want to run better tires at the track the "R" is pretty aggressive on the low end (~385 #/ft), more than enough for a low 1.7 60'. When you go back to stock tires you can just turn it off and enjoy better traction on the street.

Yeah, I've been planning to lower my settings on v2 PROcede below 4000 rpms to actually be a bit less than v1.47.

Ideally I'd have about 15-20 lbs feet torque less below 3000 rpms, about 5-10 less from 3000-4000 rpms, equal from 4000-4500 rpms and then basically default setting from 4500-7000 rpms.
But I will probably still play it a bit safe and take away 2-3% from the default settings too.
I don't need to have the fastest car, I don't care about that really.
I just want a good fast car that's enjoyable to drive with a bit more piece of mind knowing I'll be running a bit less power than what others with v2 are running, and if they don't have powertrain issues, I surely should not. This will also protect me a bit if I get a bad batch of 91 Octane as well.

Did you get my PM?

[shiv@vishnu]

Originally Posted by Terry335

Yeah, it was no accident I limited low end torque, for a lot of reasons. Traction, drivetrain durability, less engine stress, etc. For those that want to run better tires at the track the "R" is pretty aggressive on the low end (~385 #/ft), more than enough for a low 1.7 60'. When you go back to stock tires you can just turn it off and enjoy better traction on the street.

Without an input for engine speed, or a microprocessor for that matter, how would you go about tuning different RPM bands? In other words, could you really add any torque to say 2500-3500rpm without effecting power everywhere else? Not trying to create an e-war here. Just a technical question.

Shiv

[m3rxn]

impressive times hotrod!