18.2 @ 75

[Ric]

I had an 05 Roush stage 1... up until the ex got it in the seperation.

It's a fancy F150 with Roush bolt on goodies. However, mine did have a Roush tuned ECU. It wasnt fast-ish but it definately go out of it's own way. And yes, it was still governed at 92.

 

[95offroadx]

Why did the one they tested run 93.3mph?

OK i only raced the roush up to 60mph since the speedlimit was 55. But beat him there.
Hell his bumper was at my door and i was pullin on him when i let off, New f150's are junk.

 

[Toreadorranger]

What kind of yota is that? i smoked a new roush f150. 4.0sohc 5spd and 4.10s= haul ass to 92mph.

Stock 07 5.7L Tundra, The single cab shortbeds have been known to run under 14.5 stock. Mine is a double cab shortbed though, so Im a little heavyer.

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

I had an 05 Roush stage 1... up until the ex got it in the seperation.

It's a fancy F150 with Roush bolt on goodies.

the stage 1 is nothing but asthetic add-ons and shocks. they dont change anything about the stock 5.4.

the stage 3 is the only ones that gets a power upgrade in the form of a super and custom tune.

Why did the one they tested run 93.3mph?

because speed limiters arent precise. try speeding full throttle to exactly 48MPH without going over.

 

[95offroadx]

Stock 07 5.7L Tundra, The single cab shortbeds have been known to run under 14.5 stock. Mine is a double cab shortbed though, so Im a little heavyer.

The new tundras do haul ass. Is it stick?

 

[Toreadorranger]

The new tundras do haul ass. Is it stick?

6 speed auto, they dont make a standard version.

 

[bottledgt]

why the hell are we drag racing 15 second and slower vehicles?

 

[Will]

A 2003 4.0 4x4...

Won't do 92mph in the quarter mile on a track from a standing start.

The Will no-bullshit formula attached is based off of over 200 published track tests from major magazines. It uses published vehicle curb weight (no people or cargo, full tank) and SAE net horsepower as published by the manufacturer. I plotted these 200 tests onto a graph, drew a line through it (yes, it forms a straight line) and applied the slope equation to it (Y=MX+B). Everything from motorhomes to mopeds fits the equation, as long as the curb weight and factory net horsepower (1972 and on are rated that way) are used. The quarter mile is more accurate than the 0-60 because there is more time to iron out driver error or vehicle traction problems. MPH is generally the most accurate for that reason as well. You spin a bit and you'll still get the same mph at the end even though your time is higher.

Your curb weight is 3707 and net HP is 207. You're going to go 85mph in the quarter mile. You need 260hp to go 92mph.

To give a proof of my program--here is a 2007 Sport Trac with a 292hp and a 5146# curb weight. The actual test has it at 16.2@84.3mph and 0-60 is 7.9. My equation puts it at 16.2@85.7 and 0-60 in 8.1 seconds.

Here is a 2001 4.0 Sport Trac with 205hp and 4183# curb. They tested it at 16.6@83mph and 0-60 of 8.5 seconds. The Will no bullshit formula says 16.9@81.5mph and 9.1 seconds.

Toyota Tundra since we're at it. The have it at 5820# and 381hp (holy crap!) and the test showed 15.6@89.5mph with a 7.52 0-60. The no bs puts it at 15.6@90mph and 7.2 seconds.

Ric, you should be doing 7mph better. Take the plywood out of the bed and try again. Or maybe there's an armadillo in the air intake?

 

[compleckz]

thats awesome will..

so any variation between claimed times, and your formula would be things like.. elevation, temperature, track conditions (assuming weight and hp are accurate).. and aerodynamic drag? but in those cases, only extreme conditions (conditions way above or way below the average conditions of the 200 you used) would cause extreme inaccuracies right?

nice work btw

edit: i also thought of variable such as gear ratio, manu/auto trans, tire size.. but the only extremes in those cases would probably be modified vehicles, which dont seem to be the focus of the formula.. but then again.. comparing motor home gearing to a moped gearing, how does that get factored in? i'm not saying you're wrong or anything, you obviously know more on the subject than me, i'm just curious how exactly it all falls into place accurately..

 

[Will]

It doesn't matter about gearing and such when you look at the mph. You do most of your acceleration early and you gain speed more slowly toward the end of the track. You could probably find an oddball combination that won't work but it would have to be pretty odd. I think I could start my B2 in 4th gear and still be pushing 80 at the end of the track though the ET would be really bad.

It's just power to weight. Altitude corrects etc fall within the margin of error. You don't call BS for one mph. It's not meant to be a micrometer. I made it just to be able to see if something didn't sound right. In this case it's obvious to me that Ric isn't making the power he should be making. He's down by 40hp so something has to be going on there. Plugs or filter or bad gas or something.

 

[Will]

I can't find my original work on this so I took the equations apart for 1/4-ET and MPH. I did not use an RV this big, mine was something like 8,500# and was in a Hotrod test, so my program doesn't go high enough for:

This 33' Georgie Boy has a 230hp L29 7.4l motor: and weighs 13,460#.

The formulas are, with X=wt/hp and Y=MPH or ET:

(MPH) Y= -.4X + 86 (ET) Y= .119X + 15.036

So all you do is put the wt/hp and plug that into one of the equations as X and out comes the answer.

For the Georgie Boy the weight/hp = 13,460/230 =58.522

So that gives you 22.00 seconds and 62.59mph the actual came out to be 23.4 sec and 58.2mph. Not too bad as that is larger than anything else I had in there. Maybe when you are driving a barn the wind comes into effect. But that you could even guess that close what that RV would run is damn good you have to admit.

 

[Toreadorranger]

Toyota Tundra since we're at it. The have it at 5820# and 381hp (holy crap!) and the test showed 15.6@89.5mph with a 7.52 0-60. The no bs puts it at 15.6@90mph and 7.2 seconds.

thats off by over half a second and the 0-60 is about a sec slow also.

 

[Toreadorranger]

thats off by over half a second and the 0-60 is about a sec slow also.

just noticed thats the crewmax which has a bigger cab and is heavyer then my doublecab.

i was number 235

 

[Will]

Yep, you're right. They have yours at 5,520#. That moves the mph to 91.6, the et to 15.4 and the 0-60 ito 6.9.

Like I said, it's most accurate with respect to mph. Damn accurate. Your truck makes great use of it early in the run beating the average by .5 seconds. I would say a loose converter and the 6-speed auto are the reason.

And your time slip shows you how little gears etc mean with respect to mph. You gained 73mph in the first half and only 19mph in the last half. With bad gears you just gain your mph later but it comes out about the same.

 

[Will]

You know, those formulas don't work for the program I made. It must be a curve. I need to find my graphing calculator and see what it really looks like.

Anyway, the program works even if my memory doesn't. My brother made that q-basic thing out of my formulas so he might still have them.