racing a accord

streetpirate said:
The times i gave were from a calculator only based on power to weight ratio.
http://www.mymopar.com/tools.htm

down in the calculators section.

i raced a 2.0 camry and had 4 cars on him by the time i hit 65
You're better off using some of the calculators on dino's site ( http://www.jeep4.0performance.4mg.com/calculators.html ). Ive tried them with the track conditions and such and it was very accurate. Theres quite a difference between a 15.1 and a 16.1 if you ask me. Also, does he have the 5 speed manual or the 4 speed auto because another one of my friends has the 4 speed auto with a flowmaster and it isnt too quick. It really depends on the driver though especially when racing with a stick.
 
streetpirate said:
The times i gave were from a calculator only based on power to weight ratio.
http://www.mymopar.com/tools.htm

down in the calculators section.

i raced a 2.0 camry and had 4 cars on him by the time i hit 65

Calculators are a joke.

That one doesn't take aerodynamics into account, and frankly a cherokee is about as aerodynamic as a barn. if you were in a vehicle with the same power/weight and a slippery body, 15.1 would happen, but not in a cherokee.

the only real way to get a quarter mile time or to compare the performance of two vehicles is to go to the track and race. Of course then you have lots of fun variables like temperature, altitude, humidity, etc.
 
IslanderOffRoad said:
Calculators are a joke.

That one doesn't take aerodynamics into account, and frankly a cherokee is about as aerodynamic as a barn. if you were in a vehicle with the same power/weight and a slippery body, 15.1 would happen, but not in a cherokee.

the only real way to get a quarter mile time or to compare the performance of two vehicles is to go to the track and race. Of course then you have lots of fun variables like temperature, altitude, humidity, etc.
Well if you looked at the calculators in the link i had to dinos site would realize that they do take into account just about every variable including tire width, tire height, rwd/fwd/awd, weight distribution, etc. Its really cool and you can see the effects of giving it more power or changing gearing, tires, etc.
 
BBeach said:
Well if you looked at the calculators in the link i had to dinos site would realize that they do take into account just about every variable including tire width, tire height, rwd/fwd/awd, weight distribution, etc. Its really cool and you can see the effects of giving it more power or changing gearing, tires, etc.

If its that accurate its a good starting point, but I don't like relying on calculators.. I've done them plenty of times and saw very different results on the track.

Calculators are bench racing. Bench racing sucks, real racing is more fun.

Just race the guy, who cares if you lose, its still fun.
 
OT said:
Search for, read, and apply ALL of Dr. Dyno's posts, and you'll likely hand turboed Honda, owners their asses, as well.
dont see that happening either.....

maybe turbo SOHC hondas on only 6-7psi....
 
IslanderOffRoad said:
Calculators are a joke.

That one doesn't take aerodynamics into account, and frankly a cherokee is about as aerodynamic as a barn. if you were in a vehicle with the same power/weight and a slippery body, 15.1 would happen, but not in a cherokee.

the only real way to get a quarter mile time or to compare the performance of two vehicles is to go to the track and race. Of course then you have lots of fun variables like temperature, altitude, humidity, etc.

+1...go to the track...

dyno/track calculators are hardly ever accurate...

they MAY give you a good base to go by....but do not take into account aerodynamics, driver skill, powerband ect
 
N20Jeep said:
+1...go to the track...

dyno/track calculators are hardly ever accurate...

they MAY give you a good base to go by....but do not take into account aerodynamics, driver skill, powerband ect
Ever get your custom turbo setup going?
 
hotrodXJ said:
When my 93 xj was still stock (4.0/ax15/231/8.25), I beat a buddy in a camaro (v8 auto) without trouble at all. Of course my jeep was running as perfect as it could with 100k on the clock.
That must have been a really beat down Camaro.
 
goodburbon said:
speaking of which, did you see the golen stroker dyno results in JP magazine?

Yup.
268hp @ 4900rpm, 324lbft @ 3900rpm at the crank
172hp @ 4200rpm, 224lbft @ 3500rpm at the rear wheels

I find it hard to believe that 96hp/100lbft could be lost through the drivetrain. Something doesn't jive here and I think the engine wasn't optimally tuned when they ran it on the chassis dyno.
 
Beej said:
Ever get your custom turbo setup going?

nope...but a member on Jeepforum is building a set of Turbomanifolds for the 4.0.....and im getting one of the first....:D
 
N20Jeep said:
+1...go to the track...

dyno/track calculators are hardly ever accurate...

they MAY give you a good base to go by....but do not take into account aerodynamics, driver skill, powerband ect
The cartest2000 i think did factor in aerodynamic drag, shift times, tires spinning, etc. As far as powerband, you can put in the horsepower for certain rpms. Trust me, its much more accurate than I would have thought. But in any case, its much more fun just to go out to the dragstrip than to sit on a compuer plugging in numbers. :speepin:
 
i raced a buddy, his accord vtec 5 speed manual vs. my 4.0 liter AW4. i'm all stock and i handed it to him, beat him till around 55-60 mph, then had to lock up the brakes, cuz i spotted a cop! ;)
 
fwiw-running an '87 2dr renix 4.0, tb spacer, 5.0 ford injectors, rusty old flowmaster, 5sp w/ 31's & 4.10's - being in socal means numerous hondas, most with requisite buzzbomb 5" exhaust tip and always wanting to race everyone. have ended up next to these goons at stoplights more times than i can count....by third gear they're just a distant memory.
 
Back
Top