12.9 @ 108 dead stock - impossible?
Originally Posted by boomtown
Help settle an argument here guys.
Someone is claiming they ran 12.9@ 108 with a 1.9 60 foot in a dead stock E8 MR (JDM spec) on 98 RON fuel. I think they are talking total crap.
So - what is it - bull**** or is it actually reasonably possible?
Someone is claiming they ran 12.9@ 108 with a 1.9 60 foot in a dead stock E8 MR (JDM spec) on 98 RON fuel. I think they are talking total crap.
So - what is it - bull**** or is it actually reasonably possible?
Its certainly possible.. Some cars run stronger than others.. I ran a 12.93 at a slower trap, but a better 60'.. My car at the time was a bone stock, 2003 Evo, 3 months old at the time on a cold day.. I got ALOT of crap for this back in 2003 because it was "Common knowledge" that it was not possible.. I think there have now been over 10 reported high 12 second runs on bone stock Evos..
ive seen japanese videos evos cross the 400m mark at 12.7sec but they were at 3 degrees celsius! but they dont say nothing about trap speed but i think his trap speed its not that! iwould have to see it to believe it!
Thread Starter
Evolving Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 147
Likes: 2
From: Australia
Im actually ok with the time being possible. Its the trap speed thats bull****.
If he ran 12.9 @ 108 and a 1.9 60 foot it means the car can easily go 12.5 @ 108 with a 1.7 60 foot.
And I think we can all agree that the trap speed would have required divine intervention with 20 degree celsius weather (which would have been the minimum ambient temp).
As for 109 with exhaust and intake - IXs go really wonky when you free up the breathing - they boost spike like a *****. They can end up either faster or slower than stock. So I wouldnt read too much into that =)
If he ran 12.9 @ 108 and a 1.9 60 foot it means the car can easily go 12.5 @ 108 with a 1.7 60 foot.
And I think we can all agree that the trap speed would have required divine intervention with 20 degree celsius weather (which would have been the minimum ambient temp).
As for 109 with exhaust and intake - IXs go really wonky when you free up the breathing - they boost spike like a *****. They can end up either faster or slower than stock. So I wouldnt read too much into that =)
Last edited by boomtown; Apr 27, 2006 at 04:41 PM.
Originally Posted by boomtown
As for 109 with exhaust and intake - IXs go really wonky when you free up the breathing - they boost spike like a *****. They can end up either faster or slower than stock. So I wouldnt read too much into that =)
Evolving Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
From: Knoxville TN
Originally Posted by boomtown
Im actually ok with the time being possible. Its the trap speed thats bull****.
If he ran 12.9 @ 108 and a 1.9 60 foot it means the car can easily go 12.5 @ 108 with a 1.7 60 foot.
And I think we can all agree that the trap speed would have required divine intervention with 20 degree celsius weather (which would have been the minimum ambient temp).
As for 109 with exhaust and intake - IXs go really wonky when you free up the breathing - they boost spike like a *****. They can end up either faster or slower than stock. So I wouldnt read too much into that =)
If he ran 12.9 @ 108 and a 1.9 60 foot it means the car can easily go 12.5 @ 108 with a 1.7 60 foot.
And I think we can all agree that the trap speed would have required divine intervention with 20 degree celsius weather (which would have been the minimum ambient temp).
As for 109 with exhaust and intake - IXs go really wonky when you free up the breathing - they boost spike like a *****. They can end up either faster or slower than stock. So I wouldnt read too much into that =)
According to your sig. your only .7 MPH off of having the exact same time and trap speed... so why is it so hard for you to believe?
The guy with the intake and exhaust doesnt drives a IX, he drive an 04 VIII.
Last edited by Tpayne84; Apr 28, 2006 at 04:00 PM.
Originally Posted by boomtown
Not to rant and rave but:
1: I would be hesitant to draw comparisons against a IX with a cut out. Ive seen some massive boost spikes on a IX that had an exhaust and no tune and no boost control.
2: The original claim was 12.9 @109mph with a 2.0 60' which seemed really out there.
1: I would be hesitant to draw comparisons against a IX with a cut out. Ive seen some massive boost spikes on a IX that had an exhaust and no tune and no boost control.
2: The original claim was 12.9 @109mph with a 2.0 60' which seemed really out there.
I did a 12.9 @ 105.8 in my stock IX. Granted this was in November on a cooler day 50-60 degrees 93 octane
End point, I could have driven her faster but it was like just at the 1000 mark so I was going easier, and the 12.9 was done two runs back to back. you can find my posts somewhere on here. 109 is way to fast. May be there was a tail wind
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post