First drag pass in Protomotive GT2
Jaime, what boost level and fuel were you running? The reason I ask is that we know Norwalk is a fast track, but compared to some other Proto cars I would have thought your trap would be higher. For example, you put 715rwhp down on TK's dyno and trapped 135mph, yet Scott in his old setup put down 565 on a DD and trapped 136 with a heavier car. Even given the differences in day,driver and track I dont understand why he would still be faster with more weight and 150 RWHP less...Even considering your launch, most trap speeds arent that affected by poor launch. Just curious since it is generally agreed that trap speed is king around here...Take care, Kevin
Originally Posted by KPG
Jaime, what boost level and fuel were you running? The reason I ask is that we know Norwalk is a fast track, but compared to some other Proto cars I would have thought your trap would be higher. For example, you put 715rwhp down on TK's dyno and trapped 135mph, yet Scott in his old setup put down 565 on a DD and trapped 136 with a heavier car. Even given the differences in day,driver and track I dont understand why he would still be faster with more weight and 150 RWHP less...Even considering your launch, most trap speeds arent that affected by poor launch. Just curious since it is generally agreed that trap speed is king around here...Take care, Kevin
Originally Posted by KPG
Jaime, what boost level and fuel were you running? The reason I ask is that we know Norwalk is a fast track, but compared to some other Proto cars I would have thought your trap would be higher. For example, you put 715rwhp down on TK's dyno and trapped 135mph, yet Scott in his old setup put down 565 on a DD and trapped 136 with a heavier car. Even given the differences in day,driver and track I dont understand why he would still be faster with more weight and 150 RWHP less...Even considering your launch, most trap speeds arent that affected by poor launch. Just curious since it is generally agreed that trap speed is king around here...Take care, Kevin
Originally Posted by KPG
Jaime, what boost level and fuel were you running? The reason I ask is that we know Norwalk is a fast track, but compared to some other Proto cars I would have thought your trap would be higher. For example, you put 715rwhp down on TK's dyno and trapped 135mph, yet Scott in his old setup put down 565 on a DD and trapped 136 with a heavier car. Even given the differences in day,driver and track I dont understand why he would still be faster with more weight and 150 RWHP less...Even considering your launch, most trap speeds arent that affected by poor launch. Just curious since it is generally agreed that trap speed is king around here...Take care, Kevin
it's impossible to compare times/traps. I granny shifted the whole way down, shifting right at 7k through all gears. Picking up some mph shouldn't be hard with some seat time. I was more curious as to what my trap would be driving it like I do on the street everyday
, so I wouldn't use this slip as representative of what it could do if someone was trying to get a time out of it....FYI, I've dyno'd approx 670 to the tire on two completely different dynojets at 1.4 bar with less than optimal fan set-ups, both in 4th gear. Todd dyno'd my car in 5th gear at 1.5 bar, in 40 degree temps, with the air filters off, and with a good fan set-up. So factoring in those variables, his numbers seem to be fairly accurate with what I'm seeing independently.
I really do not think it is a fair comparisson.
First of all, Scott was on DR tires and he went for it. Jamie was on street tires. A simple tire spin will loose u anywhere from 3 to 7 MPH... Jamie was probably on 19"s- if so it even makes things worse.
just my opinion.
mark
First of all, Scott was on DR tires and he went for it. Jamie was on street tires. A simple tire spin will loose u anywhere from 3 to 7 MPH... Jamie was probably on 19"s- if so it even makes things worse.
just my opinion.
mark
__________________

2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL

2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
Originally Posted by OhioGT2
Actually I was running my 18" C21's with BFG DR's. I wheel hop too much in 1st on my 19's 

mark
__________________

2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL

2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
I agree. The only way to compare cars is to have the same driver run them on the same day at the same track. But if that ever happened, what the hell would we have to talk about all day?
Originally Posted by OhioGT2
I agree. The only way to compare cars is to have the same driver run them on the same day at the same track. But if that ever happened, what the hell would we have to talk about all day? 

__________________

2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL

2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
Originally Posted by OhioGT2
I granny shifted the whole way down, shifting right at 7k through all gears.
Regardless, my car certainly could not have ran 5.93 60-130 at that time like you did...so I know for fact that your car is much faster than what I had back then.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
LTCJMRamos
Merchandise For Sale / Wanted
1
Sep 22, 2015 11:16 AM







