[96MrBass]

I don't think ANYONE was talking up the 11.4 at all. Lol

[96MrBass]

Originally Posted by Sven59

You might want to ask Big Dave, he ran 4 tenths faster than the factory claim with his 5th gen. Also with the 5th gen they did many passes and I believe that was a prepped surface. They just barely broke 12 and Big Dave managed to get that down to 11.591.

Weeeelll now that's a hero run you know that doesn't count . You can only count the average GM passes :

[Sven59]

Originally Posted by 96MrBass

Weeeelll now that's a hero run you know that doesn't count . You can only count the average GM passes :

Speedracer ran 11.558, you can average the two if you want. Now you have twice the data.

[96MrBass]

Not to mention the one's not listed anywhere.

[big dave]

Originally Posted by 96MrBass

Weeeelll now that's a hero run you know that doesn't count . You can only count the average GM passes :

Well it may have been a "hero" run but I have other low 11.6 passes at another track. Speed racer 69 has run several 11.5 - 11.6 passes at a track other than where he ran his best.

Me being on the "heavy side doesn't help the performance. I think it's entirely possible for a 5th gen to run in the 11.4s stock with a lighter driver. When you consider that besides the convertible, mine is probably one of the more heavy "loaded" models. ie.. sunroof, upgraded wheels etc...

To put it into perspective, the difference in the times my car ran (11.59) when compared to the times speedracer69 ran (11.55), was basically the difference in our weight (40lbs). Using the general rule of thumb, these 2 cars would run identical times with the same driver.

That being said, there is no difference between our cars and any other Z. We just have a lot of passes under our belts to get these times to where they are. In fact, speedracer69 took my car down the track to prove to me that there was nothing wrong with it, when I questioned why his car was so much faster than mine. He pulled a 1.65 60' on his first pass. The car ran an 11.61, beating my previous best of 11.74, but for some reason seemed to lay down on the top end. It may have been pulling timing for some reason. Probably that cheap gas I sometimes use.

I thought I knew my car but found out there's always somebody better. He showed me what he was doing, and like they say...the rest is history.

[Sven59]

Originally Posted by big dave

Well it may have been a "hero" run but I have other low 11.6 passes at another track. Speed racer 69 has run several 11.5 - 11.6 passes at a track other than where he ran his best.

Me being on the "heavy side doesn't help the performance. I think it's entirely possible for a 5th gen to run in the 11.4s stock with a lighter driver.

That's what I thought, it wasn't a "hero" run, you built up to it. That legitimizes it even more.

[96MrBass]

Oh I know I've used your time's in many of heated debate lol. Those times are proof of what a 5gen Z is capable of.

[wnta1ss]

Originally Posted by 17CamaroZL1

Also, if you notice his best runs on the track have the PDR and time slip pretty much identical. That proves our (Cal and I) theory that less tire spin equals more accuracy. More testing under different conditions will need to be made to draw a better conclusion, but being within a tenth or less most every time is pretty impressive to me.

No, not really identical.

Best run had PDR pessimistic by .01
2nd best run had PDR optimistic by .09
3rd best run had PDR optimistic by .20
4th best run had PDR optimistic by .22
5th best run had PDR optimistic by .13
6th best run had PDR optimistic by .04
7th best run had PDR optimistic by .19
8th best run had PDR optimistic by .02
worst run had PDR pessimistic by .01

Best run equals quickest real dragstrip time.

Seeing that the 2 closest PDR times were the best and the worst runs, the 3rd closest was the next-to-worst run, and the biggest errors were on the 3rd and 4th best runs, there is no clear correlation there between how good the run is and how close the PDR reads.

[big dave]

If the new Z doesn't run at least an 11.2 stock with an auto, there's something wrong. I made the bold prediction that one will run a 10.99 stock, if this car will indeed run the 127 mph GM predicted, it will be very close. I would love to give it a try myself, but I think a 6 speed may be in my future.

[17CamaroZL1]

Originally Posted by wnta1ss

No, not really identical.

Best run had PDR pessimistic by .01
2nd best run had PDR optimistic by .09
3rd best run had PDR optimistic by .20
4th best run had PDR optimistic by .22
5th best run had PDR optimistic by .13
6th best run had PDR optimistic by .04
7th best run had PDR optimistic by .19
8th best run had PDR optimistic by .02
worst run had PDR pessimistic by .01

Best run equals quickest real dragstrip time.

Seeing that the 2 closest PDR times were the best and the worst runs, the 3rd closest was the next-to-worst run, and the biggest errors were on the 3rd and 4th best runs, there is no clear correlation there between how good the run is and how close the PDR reads.

Thanks for analyzing it more closely. You are right. I was going off of memory and just remembered that it seemed like all the runs he managed to get off of the line the best, had the more accurate PDR times. Better 60' usually equals better 1/4 mile as long as the rest of the run goes good. I went back and looked again after your findings and the correlation is in the better 60' times and the last 2 runs where he bogged at launch. Of course bogging means no wheel spin until you get back in the power band and those 2 runs were 2nd and 3rd best PDR accuracy behind his best overall run of the day. I was also rounding off the track times because even though PDR shows 2 decimal places, it only reads to 1, as the hundredth place always has a 0. If you do that, you end up with 4 or 5 runs that are right on between PDR and time slip, with 1 or 2 that are .1 off and a couple that are .2 off. The ones that are off the most are the ones with the worst 60' and notes of lots of wheel spin. The second best 1/4 et which had one of his best 60' times was really the only exception to this as PDR was off by .1 on that run. This is why I said we need more testing in different conditions to prove our theory that less wheel spin will equal more accurate PDR times. If this holds true, a set of drag radials will make everything right in the world for both low ets and accurate PDR times.

[17CamaroZL1]

Originally Posted by big dave

If the new Z doesn't run at least an 11.2 stock with an auto, there's something wrong. I made the bold prediction that one will run a 10.99 stock, if this car will indeed run the 127 mph GM predicted, it will be very close. I would love to give it a try myself, but I think a 6 speed may be in my future.

I agree Dave. Hopefully I can prove you right this spring or summer, whenever I finish the break in period. I can totally see the auto getting into the 10s. Pretty sure it'll happen with drag radials, but hopefully it can be done on the stock tires even. I think it can with a good prepped track, a good burnout, good launch, and good air. The challenge will be putting all of that together at the same time.

Awesome times on your 5th gen by the way!! I'm impressed!

[URBAN LEGEND]

I received this issue today. Info was good. Pictures were not. Horrible, in a hurry cut and paste job there. A10 looks good though.