I couldn't help but notice that the Shootout revealed pretty significant diminishing returns to increased HP at the drag strip. There were cars that were putting out about the same amount of HP as a stock X50 turning 11.7, while figures approaching 700 HP barely got you to a low 11 (with the exception of Hammann's awesome times).

Here's another example from the Corvette Forum that demonstrates this diminishing return phenomenon.

Electron Blue 02 Zoooooooooo6
TPIS long tubes headers
Magnaflow X pipe
Star/spec stage 5 clutch
Forged bottom end
Aluminum flywheel
Borla stinger mufflers
D1 Procharger 664RWHP 589RWT

11.1 at 135mph "NO NITROUS"
pass made on Stock F1's
10.77@ 137mph BFG drag radials "NITROUS PASS" on 18inch drag radials

On a road course, the added HP would definitely be noticed over the duration of a long race. But, heck, in a stop light drag race, the difference between a stock X50 and a near 700 HP 996TT is close enough that a better driver in the stock car just might win. Food for thought about where the money might be best spent - seat time at the strip if you're really into 1/4 mile times.

P.S. I've only been to the drag strip once in my life. It was too boring to go back. So, I guess I've got to be seriously worried about the stock X-50 with an experienced drag racer... should I ever run up against one.

 

Another, perhaps better way to look at this is that as HP increases, 1/4 mile times decrease at a decreasing rate.

But, as HP and, especially boost, increase, reliability decreases at an increasing rate.

So, you the rate of increase in risk is increasing, while the rate of increase in performance is decreasing. Not a good combination...

A safer route to go for lower ETs would be improved grip (better tires, better setup) and improved drag racing abilities.

Similarly, improved gearing would yield better ETs, with no additional risk to the motor.

Imagine what kind of times a stock X50 would do with a good driver on a stickier tire with just optimized tire pressures. I bet he'd be in the mid to low 11s... with no increase in risk to the motor. Optimize the gearing, and he'd be right there with the best of the ETs in the shoot out. With a bone stock motor.

 

It's has become very obvious to me that if anyone is at all serious about 1/4 mile times, a 996TT is not the correct perscription to fill that need. One of these would do the trick though!

Dyno Vid

Poor Launch

Different Car - 1/4 mile

 

I dunno. For a street car it holds its own pretty well. Just looking at bone stock cars, I can't think of anything faster than an X-50 that you would consider a true production car. Sure an Enzo or a Maclaern is quicker. But, those are/were produced in such low volumes that I'm not sure they really count. Most of them just end up sitting in someone's garage under a warm blanket.

But, I suppose you are right that if you are really, really serious about 1/4 times, there are better, more cost effective ways to go.

 

I think you should look at trap speeds and not et's. Traps near or above 130's are very impressive. Power isn't going to get you a great e.t., traction and launch are going to do it.

That z06 turning the 137 mph trap is very impressive. We have yet to see a 911 get a trap speed near that. I believe the fastest we have seen is buddy @ 132 correct? I don't think a 911 turbo that will be able to do 137-140 in the 1/4 is going to be very streetable anymore. The only person who might be able to pull this off is cjv but only while using nitrous probably, not just on turbos.

Supras, vipers, 03 cobras, and z06's have had traps above 140 for a while now. Why can't we?

 

I got 129 in my level 4 my first tim at the strip even though my launch and hence time both sucked (it was very slippery!!! new england cold night!)

 

Was that on 100 octane? Cold nights are good, dense air = more power

 

I understand that the traps tell you more about the car's power band. But, I guess my point was, why would you care about a higher trap speed if you can't get to the end of the strip (or from stop light to stop light) significantly quicker. If much of the HP gain goes up in smoke/tire slippage, or is winnowed away by aerodymanic friction, I don't see the benefit in continuing to increase HP beyond a certain reasonable point. I don't know exactly what that point is and it will be different for each person. But, for me personally, I think I'm about there. I don't see why I'd pay up to get me to 700+ HP if I'm only going to gain a couple 10ths...

I guess there would be some benefit on a road course if I'm running in some sort of unlimited class and I can get the power reliably. But, then again, reliability becomes a major factor in longer races. I finished ahead of all but three of 30 cars cars (a Viper competition coupe, a former ALMS M3 GTR, and a NASCAR Winston West car) in an enduro two weeks ago - in a car with a bone stock M3 engine wtih 98K miles on the odo. After two hours of running, most of the higher HP cars broke, ran out of tires, or their drivers ran out of skill.

So, that was the kind of diminishing returns issue I was getting at. Not that we can't go faster. But, for each tenth you have to pay larger and larger amounts. And your engine is placed at higher and higher risk.

 

Well you are paying more for topend power. The 1/4 mile e.t. doesnt tell the whole story. If you go head to head with buddy's car, for example, in a race from 100-170 he will be ahead by a healthy margin. It is only a couple tenths in the 1/4, but many car lengths in a longer race.

 

You guys are leaving out one key ingredient! Weight!
Lose it. That is more effective than gaining power for the dollar.

 

Sticky,

I agree totally on that point. I'm just not sure where I'd do that... without getting thrown in jail or running over some little old lady that happens to get in the way of our high speed shoot out.

I'm not too worried about 10 seconds of acceleration. But, the time it takes to get to 170... a lot of bad stuff can happen. So, honestly, I was discounting that type of showdown.

 

Definitely true too. Kinda goes to my point of diminishing returns to HP. Perhaps a better approach is to delete weight.

Hey, if Budman and I get into a shootout to 170, and my car has lost some weight, I can afford to take my lawyer with me!

 

Well, the 996tt is not a good drag car. It can put down impressive numbers for a road car but it is meant to be out on a road course, not a drag strip. You will not improve your time at the strip once you are past a certain amount of hp (700 for 996tt it appears) without upgrading your tires to slicks. If you want to go drag racing, you go after an old American muscle car IMHO. Just as the stock 996tt is a good setup for road racing, the '69 Chevelle was a good setup for drags. Just my .02.

 

Actually, I don't think the 996TT is really designed for the road course either. It's a bit heavy for that, without going on a major diet. Its really designed to be more of a GT car. Just so happens that it does pretty well in most performance categories. Kind of like a triathelete... with a slight weight problem.

 

How come everyone says get something else to drag race? If everyone just ends up with an american muscle car it isn't any fun. The fun part lies in tuning a platform that isn't necessarily associated with drag racing to do something different than everyone with a viper, z06, supra, 03 cobra, or 68 camaro