MAD

You've been given several examples of how your calculator is flawed when it comes to Lightnings. I have another to add!

You have seen dyno runs on Lightnings and if you notice they all plateau at or near their top horsepower level. What I'm trying to point out is that they reach that level and then stay there throughout the run. Most manual transmission vehicles with naturally aspirated motors don't show these same characteristics.

I hope you are finally aware that the software you use is not applicable to all vehicles.

As for the differing times on the Lightnings there are also alot of factors that come into play on this
.
-Drivers experience
-Not all factory trucks perform the same
-Not everybody is racing in the same enviroment (Elevation and weather differences)
-Some people are not using slicks and it makes a big difference (You knew that)

I think its great that you are interested in the Lightnings, but I think you are being quite ignorant if you still can't see how the times posted are possible. As for people getting defensive, well thats what happens when you call someone a liar and that is what you are doing here so far.



BTW read my earlier post again since I don't think you have yet.

 

As a Non Lightning owner I do not know too much about them. However I have ridden in one and they are Damn fast. That being said Mad I have a question for you. Many members running low 13's have also dynoed their truck and much to their dismay they don't produce 500HP ( YET ) so which one is EVERYONE lying about?? I don't get it Mad why would you come to an F150 site and start questioning these #'s ? I don't know about that caculator you keep talking about but apparently they aren't acurate or something. SO AGAIN, WHICH NUMBER IS EVERYONE LYING ABOUT? THEY"RE ET'S OR ARE THEY KEEPING THE 500HP #'s TO THEMSELVES ????

 

MAD,
Being the track veteran that you are, how many times have you made a good run, and said "somethings wrong", no way should i have been so fast! i'm going to find out why.
wouldn't you spend your time and effort on going even faster or fixing the problems when something goes wrong.
we are argueing over a few tenths in the 13's!!!!! . usually these debates happen in your times(11's) where "a" tenth is ten times harder to come by.

 

MRBBQMAN--your right, but the reason for the origional post was to confront all those 13.20 and below times with a chip and K&N only, I see in sigs here on F-150.com. So far besides you (my N2O friend), I have only seen one timeslip (unverified) from one person. I am skeptical because I never see the Lightnings running that fast at the local track where I live. This weekend, we are having a large SVT vs. F-body get together with alot of Lightnings coming including several folks on this board. If they can run a 13.20 or better with a
K&N-chip, or less, on our NHRA sanctioned track, then I will gladly eat crow. I have indulged in crow before and its really not that bad. I am extremely interested in some of the F-bodys who are coming who claim 12.90's, stock. (I've never seen an LS1 faster than 13.5) This is gonna be interesting!
I will make a new thread this weekend with the claims and results. I have already made it clear to all the participants that there will be no bitching about blowers, N2O, or any modifications at all. It's "Run what ya brung" and if you lose, you didn't bring enough car (or truck)--Mad`
Just a little gathering we had a couple of weeks ago but I was not able to attend-->



[This message has been edited by Mad (edited 05-11-2000).]

 

Let us know how it goes, and give us a weather report , i hope someone gets close to the claims, or this thread is going to overtake "Christy will you marry me?"

 

Since he has already stated that Lightnings aren't running those kind of times at his local track with a filter and chip, its probably not possible there. I run in Denver, Colorado, and my times correct via the NHRA correction calculator to 13.6 bone stock. I just dyno'd last weekend at 338RWHP bone stock. I dont see any problem with me correcting to a 13.2 in short order, with a chip and filter...BUT...I certainly wont ever be able to RUN a 13.2 here. Elevation, and weather aren't the only reasons either. Each track has its own nuances...but how this truck runs RELATIVE to other vehicles makes me VERY VERY happy. And I really cant WAIT to move, or take a trip to a sea level location, and feel what these trucks are REALLY capable of!

------------------
AtomHeart
2000 Silver Lightnin'
1969 Ford Fairlane Cobra R code w/ 3.91 dragpack
atomhart@cyberhighway.net

 

It seems like this guy is in denial.. Probaly went to the dealer 10 times to look at a Lightning.

 

Mad,

Returning to your original post ..... it's a valid question. My inference to you about your calculator is that everything is not always just "black and white" as a calculator attempts to make it.

I am well aware that low rear gears have nothing to do with horsepower but it sure as hell has something to do with reducing your 1/4 E.Ts. I am sure that as an owner of 2 11 second machines (yeeeowwwww) you are well aware of this.

If you switched to a 3:08 rear your E.Ts would certainly rise but your horsepower doesn't change. In short, I don't know why many of these guys run low 13s with their Lightnings when by the calculator they shouldn't. I would be prone to throw my calculator in the trash regarding this and give these guys credit for valid time slips.

------------------
Dunbarton "The Middle Aged Kid" '99 XLT SC SB 4x2 4.6 auto 3.55 ls The occasional Z-71 Eater! Wedgewood & Denim, SuperChipped, Airaid FIPK, HD electrical and cooling, power seat, Rhino Liner, Extang Classic tonneau cover, Mobil 1. Man, I got it all! (New Jersey)


[This message has been edited by Dunbarton (edited 05-11-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Dunbarton (edited 05-11-2000).]

 

Hey guys, don't get worked up. Mad really just wanted to see some proof. Some sites have people that make all kinds of BS claims. I don't see that here though. Most of what I see can be explained by weather and altitude. I just looked up the track where LQ ran, it has an elevation of 90', I think Mad said his track was at 1200'. If you go gy the barometric pressures given by the TV chanels and such they correct for altitude. I have seen 31.0" Hg reported several times, and if that was the case with LQ the equivelant altitude corrected pressure would have to be 32.3" at Mad's track. Like wise a typical day at Mad's track say 30" reported, would only be 28.83" at LQ's track. If anyone wantes to find their elevation or baro pressure look at my new post.

 

I think the main problem with Mad's calculator is it is programmed to assume a real high rpm, drag race style powerband. In contrast, a Lightning pulls well right from idle. Even at the drags, you are only making peak power for a small portion of the time. If you didn't have great mid-range power, it probably would take 500 hp to get an L throught the 1/4 in the low 13s.

According to Mad's calculator, a vehicle that made no usable power below 4,000 rpm but made peak power of 400 hp at 5,500 rpm would have the same exact 1/4 and trap as the same vehicle, except with a different engine that made the same 400 hp peak power but had a torque curve as flat as Kansas. The calculator says dead heat, but my money is on the 2nd truck to win big.

Truck's usually have good mid range power and will post better acceleration times than cars that have the same pounds/peak horsepower ratio. Look at the Gen 1.


[This message has been edited by dirt bike dave (edited 05-11-2000).]

 

Another thing that is odd about those calculators is if you punch in the data from a "no boost" run(the ones where the 'charger is held out by the computer) of around 16.2 secs the numbers are close for a non-supercharged lower compression 5.4 of around 230HP. In THOSE cases they are accurate...somewhat.

------------------
Red '00 Lightning,
Adopted 4/19/00,
PSP Filter,
Sound effects provided by Flowmaster,
Track time pending...




[This message has been edited by 4D THNDR (edited 05-11-2000).]

 

A couple of things: MAD, I would be the last guy to poke fun at your ride, I can honestly say that my 97 cobra w/vortech help was the quickest winding, shove your butt into the seat, fun to drive to the redline car I have ever owned, including my new ride. They are just unreal little motors when you hook them up to either a bottle or a blower. As the Wyldman said, and I agree they are the best of the cobra's. And that brings me to my Lightning, which did run mid-to upper thirteens, but certainly not low-thirteens. However, I don't doubt the times quoted by the others here. I can't explain it, but I sure as hell enjoyed it while I had it.
Ray, peace is okay with me. I think we can get along, or at the very least agree to disagree without the sabre rattling. Consider it buried if you so desire, I know I do. And yes, my new (used but still pretty darn quick) car is soooo much fun, but I must admit my Lightning was a kick in the butt I now miss, and I know why you had to have another.

------------------
Mark Swaim
1999 Lightning (sold)
1997 Cobra (deceased)
1998 Dodge Viper(yea, it's used, but it's still fast)
1993 Cadillac Allante (Sold, Finally..)

 

man look at all the fun I missed out on!

OK try this one on MAD, you said that gear ratios wont effect trap speed??? Lets say I get on a bike in the lowest gear possible (15 spd bike) you time me on how long it takes to pedal 25 yrds, you also check my speed at the end of it. Now I try the same thing in the highest gear on the bike. According to you, I would (should) be at the same speed as I was in the low gear - WRONG. My higher geared run would be much faster. Explain that one, same disatnce, same bike, same hp (me)

I know this analogy may sound stupid, but those little things affect trap speeds & ET's. I have also heard that warm conditions affect our hp levels by about 15-20hp

 

I have a scanner, did scan them in and can e-mail them to anyone that wants them:

4846 lbs with me, directly after the run.
mods: Superchip
Stock tires, stock airfilter.

13.429 @ 101.14 mph
13.432 @ 101.86
13.459 @ 102.37

Another interesting thing is that on a day when I was testing my new M/T E/T Street tires, a headwind was blowing @ 5-10 mph, and my times went down to 13.6xx and never over 99.8xx mph.

 

this is so old, and i know MAD is banned now, but I'm not sure how he can talk anymore with that foot so far up in his mouth. I like how times have changed.