18.2 @ 75

[Ric]

Hey Will. The best mph was a 75.78 and was proportional to the 60'. I think a curve would be more appropriate. I couldnt get my truck off the line to save my soul. I use 245/45/17 soft compounds too. Perhaps the sidewalls are too short, shocking the tires into a spin and I was also at 2500' above sea level.

If you watch the video, you'll see the front lift and drop suddenly when the traction falls off.


Bottledgt,
I'd rather race than watch. For some of us, spectating isnt enough. I'm in between cars and even autocross this truck...

Whooooooops, missed the braking point.

 

[Will]

It is a curve, it looks like Y=M(1/X)+B but I haven't found numbers that make it work. I'll attach the curve I plotted from the numbers. Maybe MAKG will look in and tell me where I'm screwing up.

I have a lot of faith in the program and I think your truck will go faster. Either you have something going on or Ford lied about that 154hp. That's how confident I am in my program. I've never seen a documented case of it being that far off. I try it on everything. You aren't making the power Ford says your truck makes.

I noticed your truck is an extended cab which adds 200# and lowers my expectation to 80.9 mph--I still think you have a 30hp problem.

You would lose about 1mph at 2500ft.

 

[ZMan]

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

1.gotta have a baseline
2.participating is 10000x more fun than spectating
3.we all gotta learn somehow

Will thats a cool formula you got going on! Can you get me some expectations for a '92 Longbed 2wd? 3.0l, with about 80lbs removed.

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

with 80lbs removed your at about 2900lbs even. early 3.0's made 145HP. no BS puts you at 8.9s 0-60, and 16.8@82MPH.

according to no BS, the same setup with a 4.0 is only 3 tenths and 2MPH faster.

 

[Ric]

hehe, it could be that I just suck at drag racing I launch as hard as I have traction and shift where I drop the rpms where it'll build torque. I'm damn sure there is more to get out of this truck at the strip, and a better drag racer no doubt could, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. This was bought to be my daily driver.

I'm an autocrosser/road course/drifter kind of driver.

 

[ZMan]

with 80lbs removed your at about 2900lbs even. early 3.0's made 145HP. no BS puts you at 8.9s 0-60, and 16.8@82MPH.

according to no BS, the same setup with a 4.0 is only 3 tenths and 2MPH faster.

right on with the weight according to the scales at the scrap yard. Man I gotta go to the track sometime, if this thing really puts down the same numbers as my 4.0 I'll shit.

 

[Will]

Alright, I gave up and sent it to my brother and he calculated it in less than 3 minutes and sent it back, all three equations in an organized mulitlayered spreadsheet with calculations and proofs on the last page.

Some got it and some ain't, in the wise words of Andy Griffith.

The formula for mph is Y=229.4X^.3433 where X=hp/lbs and Y=mph
For ET it is: Y=7.1385X^-2861
For 0-60 it is: Y=.8558X^-.7816

Plug that into one of the equations as X and out comes the answer.

Here are two tested vehicles out of the range of the program:

The 33' Georgie Boy with the 230hp L29 7.4l motor and 13,460# weight.

And a ZX-14. For most cars etc. the driver is maybe 5% of the weight so, though that is taken account of because there was a driver in each vehicle, the driver is 40-50% the weight of a bike. That's going to make the bike seem way, way quicker than it is if you just use curb weight--the formula would expect only a 25# driver. The thing to do is adjust it to make the driver 5% of the motorcycle before you use the equations. That bike is 474 dry so we'll add 26# to make it 500# curb. Then I'll add 180# for the driver and take off the 5%--so we'll say the bike is 680 with driver and the driver is 34# so we'll call the curb 646#. I saw the power listed at 175.7 for an '06. Kawasaki only lists torque for the '07-'08.

For the Georgie Boy the weight/hp = 230/13460=.017 and get 56.7mph and the time works out to be 22.87 seconds.

Motorhome>
So my program: 22.87s @ 56.7mph
Actual track test: 23.4s @58.2mph

For the ZX-14>
My program: 10.4 @ 146.7mph and 2.4sec 0-60
Actual track test: 9.76 @ 144.8 and 3.0 0-60

 

[fastpakr]

Will, where'd you get the 3.0 0-60 run on the ZX-14? I only see a 60-80 roll on time. I'd definitely expect it to be quicker than that to 60.

 

[Will]

Ah. Misread. Thanks for catching that.

 

[bullitt]

Last time i ran my 92 at the strip, was like a year ago, and thats what i was running 18 flat to like 18.2's at around 75 or so (i have my time slips somewhere still). The track was pretty tacky when i ran, so it hooked up sort of in first, it would spin a little then once it hooked it was time to hit second. I could get through the 60 ft trap around 45 or so i think, 3rd gear will only take me to 60 really (i dont want to go any further that that in it) Then once i hit 4th thats pretty much all she has for a quarter mile. But you'd think a newer 3.0 would be runnin a little quicker, quicker than a worn 92'. But i remember a kid down there with another 92' that was 4x4, and a topper on the back to boot, and was running like 17.8, 17.9's, with a crappy auto too.