Wanna be quicker/faster on the street?

[cudabob496]

Hey guys,
I took off the front 28 pound BFG tires (215/70-15) (27 inch dia) on my Cuda, and put on some Bridgestone Ecopias ( 195/65-15) (25 inch dia) which weigh 19 pounds each. You can find out your tire weight at TireRack.com. The Ecopia are a special low rolling resistance tire that go on cars like the Prius. YOu can pump them up to 44 psi! My car seems noticably quicker off the line! With the BFG Drag radials in the back, the car has a nice overall dragster/pro street look too!

From an article in R&T, total resistance to moving your car forward is rolling resistance from tires - 16%, air resistance - 36%, internal drive train friction 32%, and inertia (car weight) - 16%.

So, without even increasing engine horsepower, you can be much faster by using synthetic oils, lightweight components, lightweight low rolling resistance front tires, and a nice front spoiler to keep air from traveling under your car (I have a 6 inch front spoiler on the Cuda).

I was in my 140 hp Civic yesterday, and a guy pulls up in a large new jacked up chromed out 4X4, with monster tires, and a pumped up diesel! I put the Civic into first, and take off to 6000 rpm, and smoke the guy, even though his truck sounded like a locomotive. I bet his tires weighed at least 80 pounds each!

Another example: 10 hp is supposed to get you .1 sec quicker in the quarter mile. Guys at the strip have seen . 3 sec improvements by jacking up the back of their hood, to let the air out of the engine compartment. Otherwise, the sealed engine compartment acts like a big air brake with all the air coming in throught the front of their car. Jacking up the hood is like gaining 30hp. (Or, you can have a vented hood also)

So, with a lot of changes, without even touching the engine components, you can have a car thats quicker, as if you added 100 hp to the engine alone!

If your front tires are big, like the rears, that could be really hurting your quickness.

[dgc333]

Well if you are willing to give up braking and handling performance for a .1 in the quarter go for the front skinnies. For me I would rather have improved handling and braking and will stay with the widest tires I can fit on the front.

[ehostler]

Last time I saw a jacked up 4X4 diesel with large tires, it wasn't setup for racing. It was setup for off roading. So, let's see you race that truck in the environment that it was built for. Oh ya, the civic would get stuck in about 3 inches.

I also wonder what would have happened if he actually wanted to race you? I've beat a few Vipers and Corvettes, with my '06 Cummins Ram. Of course, they were just driving at a relaxed pace and I was in a rush. So, beating them off the line was rather easy. Beating them to the next signal was also easy, as agian, they were just driving and not racing. Go figure.

[426 Hemi]

How often do you actually use that 4x4 in an off road situation, tho? Most of the ones on the street never even get dirty..lol they just make lot of noise...and deserve to be beat ny Civics..lol

[cudabob496]

Originally Posted by dgc333

Well if you are willing to give up braking and handling performance for a .1 in the quarter go for the front skinnies. For me I would rather have improved handling and braking and will stay with the widest tires I can fit on the front.

Don't think 60's and 70's muscle cars were ever designed for braking and handling. They were just designed to go fast in a straight line. I'd give up the braking and handling to keep from getting beat by a bowtie or blue oval! The tires on the front of my car are still radials, so they are better than any 70's bias ply tires. And I did put Wilwood front discs on the front.

[cudabob496]

Originally Posted by ehostler

Last time I saw a jacked up 4X4 diesel with large tires, it wasn't setup for racing. It was setup for off roading. So, let's see you race that truck in the environment that it was built for. Oh ya, the civic would get stuck in about 3 inches.

I also wonder what would have happened if he actually wanted to race you? I've beat a few Vipers and Corvettes, with my '06 Cummins Ram. Of course, they were just driving at a relaxed pace and I was in a rush. So, beating them off the line was rather easy. Beating them to the next signal was also easy, as agian, they were just driving and not racing. Go figure.

He was pushing the pedal down. He still got wupped!
Also, I guarantee he was twice the weight of my 2700 pound Civic!

[MrChemist]

Any diesel (Ford, Dodge, Chevy) 2003 and newer would eat that little civic...and the truck probably weighed closer to 3 times more.

[passing you]

Ohh.... come on...now.....lets not rain on his parade.

[cudabob496]

Sorry men, but you've been wupped!

From 2006 Road and Track:

"Dodge doesn't distinguish between its regular-duty Rams and its bigger, tougher, industrial-strength models as Ford does. The Ram 2500s and 3500s might look just like Ram 1500s, but they're different trucks under the skin. So perhaps more impressive than the Mega Cab's prom potential is the ability of the biggest Ram to quickly and adeptly gobble asphalt. With 325 horses on tap, not to mention a staggering 610 pound-feet of torque, from its 5.9-liter Cummins turbodiesel, the Mega Cab 2500 hit 60 in 9.7 seconds on the way to a quarter-mile time of 17.3 at 79.3 mph."

Base Model 2006 Civic: 0 to 60 - 8 secs
2006 Civic Si: 0 to 60 - 6.7 secs

Truck weight: 5500 lbs
Civic weight: 2600 lbs

[wilks3]

Give Pinks a call and set up your Civic to take on all diesel trucks.
Loser gets his "car" run over to the delight of 100,000 laid off auto workers.

[Ray Bell]

You have a nasty streak!

[MOPEkid]

Originally Posted by cudabob496

Don't think 60's and 70's muscle cars were ever designed for braking and handling. They were just designed to go fast in a straight line. I'd give up the braking and handling to keep from getting beat by a bowtie or blue oval! The tires on the front of my car are still radials, so they are better than any 70's bias ply tires. And I did put Wilwood front discs on the front.

Then why did all of the American auto makers in the 60's and 70's enter their cars in SCCA and sometimes FIA road racing? What about cars like the AAR 'Cuda and Challenger T/A? What about the ability of an old Plymouth or Dodge A-body to pull over 1.0G on a skidpad with stock suspension geometry (torsion bars, leaf springs, live rear axle, etc.)? What about the heavy-duty suspension packages that came in cars like the GTX and Coronet R/T that actually gave them decent handling?

[cudabob496]

Originally Posted by MOPEkid

Then why did all of the American auto makers in the 60's and 70's enter their cars in SCCA and sometimes FIA road racing? What about cars like the AAR 'Cuda and Challenger T/A? What about the ability of an old Plymouth or Dodge A-body to pull over 1.0G on a skidpad with stock suspension geometry (torsion bars, leaf springs, live rear axle, etc.)? What about the heavy-duty suspension packages that came in cars like the GTX and Coronet R/T that actually gave them decent handling?

An old A body with stock suspension geometry pull over 1.0G!!!??? I find that very hard to believe, at leaset on this planet!!!!!

[cudabob496]

You know guys, just to keep it fare, we should probably let the Civic have a turbo also, like the Dodge?

[sbknut]

Originally Posted by MrChemist

Any diesel (Ford, Dodge, Chevy) 2003 and newer would eat that little civic...and the truck probably weighed closer to 3 times more.

Ran against a dodge smoky truck sunday, his ET. 12.56. It took 3 min for the smoke to clear.

[cudabob496]

Well, since the Dodge has a turbo, I decided to put one on my Civic!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eLbvIcIqYk&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ct36I...9AECF&index=10

[dgc333]

Originally Posted by cudabob496

Don't think 60's and 70's muscle cars were ever designed for braking and handling. They were just designed to go fast in a straight line. I'd give up the braking and handling to keep from getting beat by a bowtie or blue oval! The tires on the front of my car are still radials, so they are better than any 70's bias ply tires. And I did put Wilwood front discs on the front.

You aught to go for a ride in my 68 Barracuda. Certainly won't run with a new Corvette in the twisties but it's no slouch. Mopar did a much better job designing the suspension on its cars back then than the other manufacturers. With a few simply up grades in the way of shocks, torsion bars, sway bars and tires they become very very good handlers even by today's standards. Brakes are another area where you can be every bit as good as new cars if you want to but you need tires that can grip the road to take advantage of them.

There is always going to be some one with a car that is faster than yours so to give up braking and handling that can real world save your skin (and/or sheet metal) for a .1 of a second improvement in the 1/4 on a street car is short sited. IMHO, when talking about street cars this discussion should be about how much straight line performance are you willing to give up for improved handling and braking.

[cudabob496]

Originally Posted by dgc333

You aught to go for a ride in my 68 Barracuda. Certainly won't run with a new Corvette in the twisties but it's no slouch. Mopar did a much better job designing the suspension on its cars back then than the other manufacturers. With a few simply up grades in the way of shocks, torsion bars, sway bars and tires they become very very good handlers even by today's standards. Brakes are another area where you can be every bit as good as new cars if you want to but you need tires that can grip the road to take advantage of them.

There is always going to be some one with a car that is faster than yours so to give up braking and handling that can real world save your skin (and/or sheet metal) for a .1 of a second improvement in the 1/4 on a street car is short sited. IMHO, when talking about street cars this discussion should be about how much straight line performance are you willing to give up for improved handling and braking.

I respect your opinio. IMO, lighter and low rolling resistence front tires may be worth .2 to .3 secs in the quarter. In fact, since I got my Cuda, I have shed 40 lbs per front wheel by going to light weight Wilwood discs, light tires, and lightweight Weld wheels. IMO, thats easily .5 secs in the quarter.

As far as handling, I've been driving the car for almost 20 years, and I just plain don't put the pedal down in a turn. I wait for the road to be pretty much straight before I go to afterburner! Its almost as much common sense as not flooring it in the rain. I'm lucky, as we have lots of straight and wide open nice roads around here. When I lived in Portland Or, it was bumper to bumper where ever you went.

However, with large torsion bars front and back, and radials, I still can hit a corner fairly hard without loosing it.

[MrChemist]

Originally Posted by cudabob496

Sorry men, but you've been wupped!

From 2006 Road and Track:

"Dodge doesn't distinguish between its regular-duty Rams and its bigger, tougher, industrial-strength models as Ford does. The Ram 2500s and 3500s might look just like Ram 1500s, but they're different trucks under the skin. So perhaps more impressive than the Mega Cab's prom potential is the ability of the biggest Ram to quickly and adeptly gobble asphalt. With 325 horses on tap, not to mention a staggering 610 pound-feet of torque, from its 5.9-liter Cummins turbodiesel, the Mega Cab 2500 hit 60 in 9.7 seconds on the way to a quarter-mile time of 17.3 at 79.3 mph."

Base Model 2006 Civic: 0 to 60 - 8 secs
2006 Civic Si: 0 to 60 - 6.7 secs

Truck weight: 5500 lbs
Civic weight: 2600 lbs

wow...I guess I thought that with more power the Dodge would have gone faster...because my stock 2003 6.0 liter F350 King Ranch, crew cab, long bed (close to 7000 lbs) ran 15.9 at Bandimere Speeway in Denver. Rated at 325 hp and 570 ft lbs of torque.

One of my fellow racers had a similar truck with a tuner...13.8 in the quarter...

[cudabob496]

[/QUOTE] There is always going to be some one with a car that is faster than yours so to give up braking and handling that can real world save your skin (and/or sheet metal) for a .1 of a second improvement in the 1/4 on a street car is short sited. IMHO, when talking about street cars this discussion should be about how much straight line performance are you willing to give up for improved handling and braking.[/QUOTE]


I'm willing to give up all handling and braking, in order to be the fastest guy in a straight line on the planet!!! (hope my parachute works!!)

[cageman]

I used to have a civic si, it did 16 seconds in the 1/4. What a turd.

[TrashedCharger]

16 seconds in a 1/4 isn't bad for a stock car.

While I can't exactly agree with the formula that +10hp= -.10sec. in 1/4 mile, I do understand the other aspects. I do believe it has less to do with rolling resistance than weight (more to do with weight transferring to the back of the vehicle, as the percentage of the vehicle's mass in weight goes further back with less up front) and most importantly, inertia. If you want to free up even more rolling resistance, you could go with a set of drum brakes. That would do more for you than a narrower tire, but I don't know that you'd like the results in staging or at the end of the track!

If for every ten horsepower you gained, you lost one tenth of a second, the teams of every top fuel drag car would be all over this formula. It may be close in a certain e.t. range, but this formula is certainly on a lot of bell-curves when considering the application and most definitely has a cap.

I think my scooter has about 30 horsepower. I have no idea what it would run in a 1/4 mile, but seeing as how it's limited speed with me on it is about 50 mph, I would guess about 25-30 seconds.

However, if I put a decent exhaust chamber on the two cycle and changed the cylinder out to a 70cc or even 83cc from 50cc, or somehow squeezed an additional 10hp out of the engine, my overall horsepower would have increased by 1/3 of the total amount from 30 to 40 (not to mention the arbitrary number of torque increase). At that point, I'm willing to bet that the bike would pass in the quarter mile, some few seconds faster.

Even on a larger vehicle, like a motorcycle, 10 horsepower makes an immense difference. Then you look at the other end of the scale. In something like a NASA schuttle and rocket, each shockwave emitted from it's boosters probably fluctuates more than 10 times that amount and a measurable 10hp increase would be so inferior that it would most likely even fall into a margin of error.

There are a lot of other things to consider, rather than horsepower when it comes to shaving elapsed time that I don't know that calling 10hp equal to -.10sec. in a range of vehicles that weigh 2000lb-4000lb could even be relative.

[aarracer]

I think this thread has turned into blah , blah ,blah. Go work on your car!

[sbknut]

There is always going to be some one with a car that is faster than yours so to give up braking and handling that can real world save your skin (and/or sheet metal) for a .1 of a second improvement in the 1/4 on a street car is short sited. IMHO, when talking about street cars this discussion should be about how much straight line performance are you willing to give up for improved handling and braking.[/QUOTE]


I'm willing to give up all handling and braking, in order to be the fastest guy in a straight line on the planet!!! (hope my parachute works!!)[/QUOTE]Bring it to the track. Show us a time slip.

[Cudafever]

Originally Posted by TrashedCharger

16 seconds in a 1/4 isn't bad for a stock car.

While I can't exactly agree with the formula that +10hp= -.10sec. in 1/4 mile, I do understand the other aspects. I do believe it has less to do with rolling resistance than weight (more to do with weight transferring to the back of the vehicle, as the percentage of the vehicle's mass in weight goes further back with less up front) and most importantly, inertia. If you want to free up even more rolling resistance, you could go with a set of drum brakes. That would do more for you than a narrower tire, but I don't know that you'd like the results in staging or at the end of the track!

If for every ten horsepower you gained, you lost one tenth of a second, the teams of every top fuel drag car would be all over this formula. It may be close in a certain e.t. range, but this formula is certainly on a lot of bell-curves when considering the application and most definitely has a cap.

I think my scooter has about 30 horsepower. I have no idea what it would run in a 1/4 mile, but seeing as how it's limited speed with me on it is about 50 mph, I would guess about 25-30 seconds.

However, if I put a decent exhaust chamber on the two cycle and changed the cylinder out to a 70cc or even 83cc from 50cc, or somehow squeezed an additional 10hp out of the engine, my overall horsepower would have increased by 1/3 of the total amount from 30 to 40 (not to mention the arbitrary number of torque increase). At that point, I'm willing to bet that the bike would pass in the quarter mile, some few seconds faster.

Even on a larger vehicle, like a motorcycle, 10 horsepower makes an immense difference. Then you look at the other end of the scale. In something like a NASA schuttle and rocket, each shockwave emitted from it's boosters probably fluctuates more than 10 times that amount and a measurable 10hp increase would be so inferior that it would most likely even fall into a margin of error.

There are a lot of other things to consider, rather than horsepower when it comes to shaving elapsed time that I don't know that calling 10hp equal to -.10sec. in a range of vehicles that weigh 2000lb-4000lb could even be relative.

That reminds me of a video that was sent to me in a e-mail some time a go.................don't know if i can make it work here but i will try.

It's a race with a moped and a camaro and ..........Yes a moped!!!!

Nitrous_Moped.wmv (2147KB)

Nope guess i don't know how to do this.

It from a site called "fuelsluts.com".........Did a search to see if i could find it that way....................aparantly its not the same sight any more

I could e-mail it to some one, if they know how to link it here.......ah well, i guess it no big deal.......was kind of a cool video........... Hmmm, Wonder if it on U-tube.............

Yup!!! here it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzt-inz_EKk

[BigBlockDude]

Originally Posted by MOPEkid

Then why did all of the American auto makers in the 60's and 70's enter their cars in SCCA and sometimes FIA road racing? What about cars like the AAR 'Cuda and Challenger T/A? What about the ability of an old Plymouth or Dodge A-body to pull over 1.0G on a skidpad with stock suspension geometry (torsion bars, leaf springs, live rear axle, etc.)? What about the heavy-duty suspension packages that came in cars like the GTX and Coronet R/T that actually gave them decent handling?

Do you think those cars had stock suspension?
How many b-bodies have you actually driven. I love my Mopars and have a few, but they don't handle very well stock. Now my 70 Coronet with bigger torsion bars, new leafs and after market sways bars handled ok. Just ok, not even a fraction of my 88 Gran Fury squad. That sucker will take some corners!

[TrashedCharger]

I've driven a few and they handle decent, but nothing great without some modifications, just like 90% of all mass produced vehicles on the road back then.