My 01 is perfectly streetable. Nothing has been done to it that hinders driving it on the street. the roll cage does not get in the way, the rear slider still works, the factory seat belts still work, and I can drive around on pump gas with the radio blasting and the A/C on.

From reading that posting board, it just seems like the typical egotistical niche car owners who are extemely defensive at any other vehcile being anyway better than thier, especially a pickup. I'm not saying anything negative towards them, as you see this behaivour on all the boards. A little reading and howework would do wonders for those guys. BTW, you can send any of those Audi guys my way if they think they can beat my "brick hauler" LOL.

 

Heres a link of Dynos and ET's the next day....
These were NOT done the same time frame but it should give a good idea of the mods and HP required to run a certain ET...
Of course they will likely claim I made it all up...

http://www.svtlightnings.com/talon/2...ynofastech.htm

http://www.svtlightnings.com/talon/2...lsville325.htm

Keep in mind these are RWHP.... At 390 RWHP The Crank HP would be near 440-450 easy. Also Torque is what gets you moving....

Oh and its tough to convince bench racers... They have no clue

Ask them if thier Sports cars can do this ???
http://talon.svtlightnings.com/movie...lerburnout.mpg

Doug

 

Beefcake, shoot me an e-mail. Your address was not available in your profile.

Chris

 

Bobby Boucher...Lightnings are the DEVIL !!!

 

I have noticed one thing since I got my "L" ... I
am much more defensive when I am driving because
the world is FULL of 55 MPH cars and when we haul azz
by them they do strange things !!!!

The American drivers would NEVER survive on the Autobahn

I was cruising in a mercedes in Germany at about 150 or so
and was "startled" by a Porsche that closed on me like I was
standing still ... Over there, it is the slow driver that will get the
ticket for obstructing traffic !!!

Cliff

 

Well 390 rwhp is 500 crank hp.

 

459hp * 0.85 = 390hp (15% drivetrain loss)
488hp * 0.80 = 390hp (20% drivetrain loss)
500hp * 0.78 = 390hp (22% drivetrain loss)

The L doesn't need as much peak hp because it's powerband is so broad. We're pushing more torque at 2000 rpm than most sports cars make at their peak. If you use the typical hp calculators, Sal was making 780 hp/775 torque for his 10.78 run. That's a little optimistic I think.

 

LOCOSVT, are you saying that a 1999 Lightning has a magical 11% lose in the transmission? Which I might add that no other car has every acheaved since 1999?

if 99% of the forum members want to believe this fine but it doesn't make it a fact.

BTW, I suspect that sal has about 475 rwhp in motor and a 150 hp spray so that 625 plus lose of transmission.

 

Bob

99-2000 Lightnings are rated at 360 from the factory. Most dynoed about 325 or so. Which leaves about a 11% or so loss

We have a trans expert who has done testing and concurs with same number.

Figuring 20% loss which is standard ( I agree ) then mine put out 415 or so crank HP and Ford underrated all 99-2000's by 55 hp ?? Not likely.
You are right it is an ongoing argument but NO WAY did the bean counters at ford over shoot by 15%

Doug
Doug

 

Again, "Which I might add that no other car has every acheaved since 1999? "

Everyone that has ever worked on a good setup know that there's no way for a 5000lb truck to run a 13.6 with 360-380hp.

The only excuse is the transmission, or lack there of , maybe in mosts theories.

Also how can so many 400trq trans f-350 break when most of the f-350 make 500trq and dont.

please can someone figure this paradox out?

 

You raise a good question BUT - My truck ran a 12.5 with less than 400 rwhp.. It weighed 4700 lbs ....
The "Calculators" are BS in my opinion. This one says I am making 623 hp at the crank and over 470 at the rear wheels to run a 12.52.
http://www.geocities.com/realstreetpower/

Bone stock with no traction on stock tires my truck ran a 13.9. It dynoed a few weeks later at ~325 rwhp. The "Calculator" above claims I need 360 RWHP ( and 470 at the crank ) to go that quick..
There is no question that the math makes no sense but I can show you the dyno charts and the time slips... Many are posted on my website...
Doug

 

Audi-boy,

Let your friends check this one out...

 

Doug,

I wasn't trying to start anything, I was only trying to state that if we need 400rwhp to make say a 12.5 1/4 mile and everyone here makes right at 400 rwhp then I suspect that the calcuaters are correct and our asumption out the transmissions (-11%) are incorrect.

We are making a heck of alot more than Ford states, simple anough!

 

In dealing with even the best "calculators", my experiance is that they work close to perfect for normal 3200lb cars, but are never anywhere near close for heavy trucks, even if wieght is factored in.

There are MANY other things that attribute to ET besides engine output. In 1999 when the first Gen 2s came out, we were able to reduce ETs by .3 alone just by changing the transmission calibrations. These trucks do not require the hp that calculators says we do to turn the ETs we do.

A perfect example is a Gen 1 Lightning. They are rated at 240 hp, and make about 195 at the wheels through the E4OD. A Mustang of the same vintage makes 225hp, and also puts about 195 at the wheels through the 5 speed. Both vehicles turn about 15.0 (average) in the 1/4 mile, yet the Lightning weighs well over 1000 more pounds .

In the real world, text book data is not always correct .