What in the hell are you talking about? It would help if you could type in a manner that somewhat resembles English. My entire pre-secondary education was in the Alabama public school system, so you can't use that as your excuse...

There is nothing you can attest to other than what the timeslips say, but that doesn't mean they are accurate. To run a 12.6+ @ 110 on a 1.62 60' would require shifting every gear slower than molasses or actually missing a gear. There's obviously something wrong with the timing system. Hell, I ran a 12.6 @ 106 with only a 1.73 60'. See how it doesn't add up? Good.

 

Either what War said or your tune is not going so well in the first 1/8...

 

let's get testy...so can YOU attest that Your time slips are accurate either? Maybe you should be re-thinking some issues that you have.
I researched and can't come up with any significant cam data on thru the search functions. other than half like the gsc's and the others like the Cosi's..but what bout the Hks's?

dont come back to alabama and we won't ask you to. We have nice people here. And we have fun, but not live at a computer desk all day long......

 

Yes, i can, because I've been on 7 different drag strips with my Evo, and my results are consistent with the rest of the Evo community. I find it laughable that someone with no experience would question someone who has a ton of experience and analyzes just about every result in the Drag forum, which by the way, is where this thread should be.

I have no issues, so there is nothing to re-think. Why would you think I have issues when I ran 12.2 @ 110, and you ran 12.5 @ 111? It's obvious who has the issues...

Why would I care if you ask me to come back? My whole family is there, and I come back to visit all the time. I couldn't care less what you say. I also have no idea what you're talking about with the constant computer desk reference? Are you slightly braindamaged?

 

Warr, according to my logs for the 12.6 @ 110 run, all of my shifts were in under .2". I had an 8.0" 1/8 @ 85.8.

As for the 60', I launched using the stationary limiter @ 5600 RPM and 10 psi. I had 28psi in the rear tires and 35psi in the front.

Obviously, I was expecting enough traction to grip mainly with the rear tires on launch. On my first run I got the 1.6" 60'. On my other runs I spun pretty badly in 1st and ended up with 1.8" 60' times. As an example, I ran against the OP and ended up with a 13.0 @ 109 due to a high 1.8" 60'. That was the same run where he let off due to traction issues.

 

to answer the OP's question, I think with your driving abilities it's probably going to require race gas and higher boost levels.

 

Another waatalon pissing contest.. btw its totally possible to run a high MPH (with a crappy ET) on a slippery track.

 

I'm sure my tune helped me with my 60's. I def need 2 get better @ drivin the car. Before my average 60's were in the mid 2 high 1.8's.
I think maybe a better driver could possibly get my MR into the 12.4 range but I doubt the 12.2's. I could be wrong, I WISH I were and I will conceed to others with more experince.
The original intent of this thread was to serve 2 purposes, maybe 3.
1.....to show how the K @ N intake is Not as bad and infact a good intake.
2.....to get some advice on what mods to do next to get me closer to the 11's.
3.......to brag, cause I usually have so little to brag about....hehehe....
as far as the OTHER it's his MO. Everyone knows it.
Mellon I know you know your stuff. What do you suggest next.
O2 housing. Cams. Fuel pump. wide band ?
Thnx for the comments.

 

I have typhoon on my 06 and havent had any problems?????
Why does everyone bash on this intake?
I think the intake to avoid would be injens and their crappy excuse for an upper uicp

 

Yes, the tune did help your 60' times. Your stationary limiter was raised to 5600 and timing advance was lowered to build more boost on the line. Assuming adequate grip is available, both of those things will give you a better 60'. The tune helped your trap speeds by increasing boost levels and getting rid of the rich condition at WOT.

In all honesty, the car has more potential than we are seeing. With more experience, I expect you could trap 113 and possible reach 12.3" (based on our personal experiences at the track in question).

For example, when we went to Steele before, I trapped 107. I improved on that by ~3 mph simply by tweaking my tune (O2 calibration was off). It was also assisted by the cooler temps, though the humidity didn't help.

Here is a breakdown on my times:

Day 1:
12.9 @ 106
Best trap of 107
Best 60' of 1.74
10.9 AFR
22 psi
5000 RPM limiter
6 psi at launch
~92* ambient
Low humidity

Day 2:
12.6 @ 110
Best trap of 110
Best 60' of 1.62
11.4 AFR
23 psi
5600 RPM limiter
10 psi at launch
~ 76* ambient
High humidity

So, with just this slight tweak of my tune and cooler weather I gained .3". Given the fact that your times are based on these same days and you had much more drastic changes made to your tune, I feel the car has more potential.

 

wow u guys are a little wierd...

 

I know that last .589 seconds will be tough. For sire my driving skills can be improved upon. Maybe next time I'll take all the stuff outta my trunk and fiddle with the tire pressure a bit also having the better tires will give me some better times. I think I can honestly get it down to a 12.4 flat maybe a bit better.
Thinking maybe this porter O2 housing since it is a cheap mod. And maybe a Fuel pump and also a Wide Band which would help in the tuning process to be more accurate with more data to go on. When it get cooler I'm sure the times will improve upon. However when I look around in other posts I see people with similar mods into the 11's, just wondering if our high humdity and very high temps hold us back that much. Is there a correction factor for temps?

 

STILL^^^^

 

 

Yes, there are correction factors for temps. However, they only modify the MAF readings in attempt to keep the mix from changing in different seasons. However, you will still gain power in the cooler months.