Everybody's stock times???
Originally Posted by Warrtalon
Too bad there's no SINGLE power adder class...how dumb. It goes from 2 N/A classes straight to two 2-power-adder classes. I don't see how a single turbo car should have to compete with a turbo+N2O. They should have a street class for us, although I'm glad they're strict on the body parts, gas tank, gas only (no alky), OEM parts, no battery relocation, DOT radials (or small-sized slicks), etc. I just don't get the 2-power-adder thing instead of 1...
Evolved Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,783
Likes: 0
From: Diamond Bar, California
Originally Posted by lookEVO
I ran a 14.9@87 at 5800 ft last night with a 2.0 60' and that is stock. well my car is lowered.
your elevation certainly doesn't help, but neither does a 2.0 60ft
Originally Posted by 3000ways
your elevation certainly doesn't help, but neither does a 2.0 60ftyeah tell me about it. I felt like i launched right each time i went. i think its my clutch.
Newbie
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
From: NW IN
3000 ways,
I didn't have my time slip with me when I wrote that post but I am looking at it now.
Actually my 60 ft time was terrible, 2.0. 1/8 et was 8.921 @ 82 mph. 1/4 was 13.633 @ 102
I also hope to be on your list soon
I didn't have my time slip with me when I wrote that post but I am looking at it now.
Actually my 60 ft time was terrible, 2.0. 1/8 et was 8.921 @ 82 mph. 1/4 was 13.633 @ 102
I also hope to be on your list soon
Yes it does!
Evolving Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
From: Wisconsin
2 runs:
r/t .886
60' 2.086
1/4 13.909
@ 99.96
2nd run (locked out of 4th & went into 2nd + hit the brakes, real fucck up)
r/t .108
60' 2.138
1/4 14.678
@ 66mph (lol)
- i think i would have had a good low 13's if i did'nt mess it up.
r/t .886
60' 2.086
1/4 13.909
@ 99.96
2nd run (locked out of 4th & went into 2nd + hit the brakes, real fucck up)
r/t .108
60' 2.138
1/4 14.678
@ 66mph (lol)
- i think i would have had a good low 13's if i did'nt mess it up.