What trap speeds would these cars average at Calgary's elevation?

[shadezofgrey]

*edit: added a few more cars in the hopes people might know a thing or two about them (i.e., anything with an ls1 + the genesis coupe)



Hey everyone,

After having read varying magazine tests, online comparo's, slogged through all sorts of info via enthusiast forums, etc I've often found myself wondering to what extent does our altitude affect a cars power output, especially with regards to trap speeds when performing a 1/4 mile run (I like to consider trap speeds a more generalizable, "real world" measure of power). To that end I'd like to ask people what the following cars, either stock or "lightly" modified/bpu-ish (i.e., no cracking open the engine and playing with internals, no slapping on a larger turbo) might average in terms of trap speeds when running a 1/4 mile pass (i.e., race city) in Calgary:

-cobalt ss (s/c and/or turbo)
-mazdaspeed3
-neon srt-4
-genesis coupe (2.0T or v6)
-mk iv supra tt
-fd rx-7
-dodge stealth tt/mitsu 3000gt
-evo viii, ix, or x
-wrx sti
-nissan 300zx tt
-nissan 350z
-nissan 370z
-acura nsx
-e46 m3
-135i/335i
-'05-'10 mustang gt (4.6L v8)
-'11+ mustang gt (5.0L v8)
-c5 vette/trans am/gto/cars that have an ls1 in them lol
-c6 vette (z06, zr1, etc)
-nissan gt-r

fyi, I'm tried to limit the range of cars to those which are more relatively "affordable" and at least semi-accessible (and by extension more people would be likely to comment on these cars) vs say a mclaren f1..

anyways, if people can comment on even a fraction of my list it'd be really appreciated. haha, sorry guys, I know I've posted a big list, but part of the reason is that I realize some of the above cars have similar performance numbers, so in knowing how one performs it'll help me get a sense of another.

thanks in advance!

[georgemagana]

I remember a neon srt4 at race city running 14.5 but i dont know if it was stock.

[94boosted]

I can tell you that my lightly modified Cobalt SS-Turbo trapped 104MPH at Race City (it could of gone a bit faster with a few more passes I think), similarly modified cars closer to sea level run ~110 so take from that what you will.

[Tik-Tok]

A) Anything with a turbo will have less loss than naturally aspirated.

B)) Our D.A. in the summer seems to be between 4000' to 4500' (at least everytime I've gone to the track at Secret Street), so at 3% loss per 1000' (for a naturally aspirated engine), you're looking at 12%-13.5% hp loss

C) My '05 Mustang GT (4.6L), had CAI, headers, X-pipe, underdrive pulleys, and a tune, which made 267WHP at our altitude, and my best 1/4 mile was 14.002 sec. (don't recall the MPH), which converted to standard day at sea level was about 13.2 sec.

[shadezofgrey]

Originally posted by 94boosted
I can tell you that my lightly modified Cobalt SS-Turbo trapped 104MPH at Race City (it could of gone a bit faster with a few more passes I think), similarly modified cars closer to sea level run ~110 so take from that what you will.


104?? Haha wow, that's pretty good. Thanks for the info, the ss seems like it offers real good bang for the buck performance.

[shadezofgrey]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok
A) Anything with a turbo will have less loss than naturally aspirated.

B)) Our D.A. in the summer seems to be between 4000' to 4500' (at least everytime I've gone to the track at Secret Street), so at 3% loss per 1000' (for a naturally aspirated engine), you're looking at 12%-13.5% hp loss

C) My '05 Mustang GT (4.6L), had CAI, headers, X-pipe, underdrive pulleys, and a tune, which made 267WHP at our altitude, and my best 1/4 mile was 14.002 sec. (don't recall the MPH), which converted to standard day at sea level was about 13.2 sec.


Just wondering, in comparing a supercharged set-up with a turbo set-up the s/c set-up would also see more less correct? If so, this is because the turbo is still making the same level of "boost", just that it's spitting out air that's quite a bit hotter compared to sea level right?

As for the mustang, I'm guessing that with those times it'd probably be hitting high 90's-100 mph? In any case thanks for the reply man, I've been wondering for some time now how those cars would run in Cowtown.

[georgemagana]

Originally posted by shadezofgrey



104?? Haha wow, that's pretty good. Thanks for the info, the ss seems like it offers real good bang for the buck performance.

104 seems a bit high for the SS. Evos barely do 99-100 MPH stock

[triplep]

linky linky http://www.iroc-zpostforum.com/NHRACF.htm

Gives you all the factors for trap speed

My first time ever launching and driving down the track with TC, I got my trap to just under 97mph in my accord.

Also, turbo/sc cars will see way less of an effect. From what I read it will only take them longer to spool? So the power will come on at a higher RPM then at sea level? But don't quote me on that.

[CSMRX7]

Originally posted by triplep
linky linky http://www.iroc-zpostforum.com/NHRACF.htm

Gives you all the factors for trap speed

My first time ever launching and driving down the track with TC, I got my trap to just under 97mph in my accord.

Also, turbo/sc cars will see way less of an effect. From what I read it will only take them longer to spool? So the power will come on at a higher RPM then at sea level? But don't quote me on that.

Somewhat true about Turbo cars. They are wastegate controlled so if you are boosting 10psi at sea level (14.7psi) then at our altitude you will be boosting 12-13psi to compensate for lower atmospheric pressure for a total intake pressure of 24.7psi, just like sea level, just takes longer to get there (As long as the compressor is capable).

A supercharger on the other hand is pulley controlled, so if the pulley boosts 10psi at sea level for a total intake pressure of 24.7psi it will boost around 10psi here but with the lower atmospheric presure you are only going to see around 22psi. Obviously high pressure turbo applications will have total intake pressures on a relative scale that are very close to sea level so these cars shouldn't see much difference, but low pressure SC applications will see differences much closer to NA cars.

[94boosted]

Originally posted by shadezofgrey



104?? Haha wow, that's pretty good. Thanks for the info, the ss seems like it offers real good bang for the buck performance.

Meh like I said there was more left in the car, that was my first time at the strip in that car (I auto-x and track it but not drag race), the tires sucked and it was cold outside ~+12-15°C. As for bang for the buck you bet it's a good value, you should see what it does around a track.....

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/the-lightning-lap-2008-1.pdf



Originally posted by georgemagana


104 seems a bit high for the SS. Evos barely do 99-100 MPH stock

Umm similar power and ~300lbs less weight... shouldn't be a suprise that the trap speed is good, the ET might not be as short but the trap should be good. Besides this the car was lightly modified at the time. I might be able to dig out a slip for the pass.


Originally posted by CSMRX7


Somewhat true about Turbo cars. They are wastegate controlled so if you are boosting 10psi at sea level (14.7psi) then at our altitude you will be boosting 12-13psi to compensate for lower atmospheric pressure for a total intake pressure of 24.7psi, just like sea level, just takes longer to get there (As long as the compressor is capable).



:werd: Correct me if I'm worng but most modern turbo cars have a built in turbine overspeed protection feature to prevent exactly this.

[Shlade]

I hit 105mph with a shitty 2.2 60ft on my exhaust and intake 08 gt bullitt mustang

[CSMRX7]

Originally posted by 94boosted


Meh like I said there was more left in the car, that was my first time at the strip in that car (I auto-x and track it but not drag race), the tires sucked and it was cold outside ~+12-15°C. As for bang for the buck you bet it's a good value, you should see what it does around a track.....

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/the-lightning-lap-2008-1.pdf




Umm similar power and ~300lbs less weight... shouldn't be a suprise that the trap speed is good, the ET might not be as short but the trap should be good. Besides this the car was lightly modified at the time. I might be able to dig out a slip for the pass.



:werd: Correct me if I'm worng but most modern turbo cars have a built in turbine overspeed protection feature to prevent exactly this.

I know that overspeed protection is really common in non-automotive applications so I wouldn't be supprised if it is in cars too. One thing is that most automakers are so obsessed with reducing lag that they undersize turbos, so at our altitude obtaining the extra few PSI may not be possible, or may cause so much heat that it doesn't net much HP.

[georgemagana]

Originally posted by 94boosted


Meh like I said there was more left in the car, that was my first time at the strip in that car (I auto-x and track it but not drag race), the tires sucked and it was cold outside ~+12-15°C. As for bang for the buck you bet it's a good value, you should see what it does around a track.....

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/the-lightning-lap-2008-1.pdf




Umm similar power and ~300lbs less weight... shouldn't be a suprise that the trap speed is good, the ET might not be as short but the trap should be good. Besides this the car was lightly modified at the time. I might be able to dig out a slip for the pass.



:werd: Correct me if I'm worng but most modern turbo cars have a built in turbine overspeed protection feature to prevent exactly this.

Wow thats really good man! I always loved Cobalts, they are great cars with tons of potential and light weight and their only drawback is FWD. Did you have the car tuned at the time?

[shadezofgrey]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 94boosted
[B]

Meh like I said there was more left in the car, that was my first time at the strip in that car (I auto-x and track it but not drag race), the tires sucked and it was cold outside ~+12-15°C. As for bang for the buck you bet it's a good value, you should see what it does around a track.....

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/the-lightning-lap-2008-1.pdf


haha yeah, I kinda remember reading that article years ago.. it still amazes me that it posted a higher lap time than a lot of nice, way the hell more expensive cars (e.g., evo, is f). do you dd yours? how are you finding it in terms of general reliability, maintenance, etc in terms of dd driving + at the track?

also, how's the thing feel driving around the track? much in the way of torque steer? how usable is the power on the track? haha, as you can tell those cars do interest me.. I kinda see it as being the closest car we get to the euro focus rs

[shadezofgrey]

Originally posted by Shlade
I hit 105mph with a shitty 2.2 60ft on my exhaust and intake 08 gt bullitt mustang

wow, not too shabby.

the bullitt has around +15 hp and +5 ft/lb torque over a regular gt right (320 hp/325 ft/lb vs 305 hp/320 ft/lb)?

if so, would they be trapping around 2ish mph higher than a regular gt? by extension, does that mean regular gt's are hitting like low 100's in calgary? haha, I'm also very curious about these cars

[se7en]

I hit 13.3@99 in a stage 2 wrx(2002) with a shitty 1.6 60' time.

[Ekliptix]

Originally posted by se7en
with a shitty 1.6 60' time.
Say what now? Shitty? You are funny.


My experience in Calgary:
93 Fox body 340whp dynojet: 12.62 at 108mph.
2002 Z06, headers, filter, 366whp: 13.0 at 112mph.. I believe stock C5Z's trap 116mph at sea level.
Add cam + tune + slicks to the Z06, 403whp: 12.10 at 116mph

I'm living at sea level now (Houston) and have been suprized by how fast the (stock) cars are at the track here.

[Shlade]

Originally posted by shadezofgrey


wow, not too shabby.

the bullitt has around +15 hp and +5 ft/lb torque over a regular gt right (320 hp/325 ft/lb vs 305 hp/320 ft/lb)?

if so, would they be trapping around 2ish mph higher than a regular gt? by extension, does that mean regular gt's are hitting like low 100's in calgary? haha, I'm also very curious about these cars

yeah they said it had a bit more power over a regular gt but that was because of some high flow cats and a open air intake system..

I left the stock intake on there and put a K&N Filter on it and ran longtubes with offroad xpipe so it opened it up a little more.

Pretty sure the car has low 13s in it with a good launch but I never went enough to be able to launch that car from a stop. Hard getting it to hook up and didnt feel like burning up the stock clutch to get it to hook. Theres a guy that I raced with a 2011 automatic GT 5.0 mustang and all he had was Roush axelbacks (no power increase just for noise really) and he was hitting like 101-105mph in the thing stock.

[Tik-Tok]

A stock 2005-2010 GT definitely gets in the 100mph's. The first time on the track with mine was stock, and I hit over 100 on my 2nd run... I remember thinking "Huh, that was easy. Why do give stickers out for 100+ club?" :rofl:

[texasnick]

I trapped 95 IIRC at Race City on snow tires in the GT4.

105 is impressive for a cobalt SS. When I've seen (stock-ish) ones at race city, they seem to trap around 97-98 mph.

[Twin_Cam_Turbo]

Stock 2010 135i I trapped 105MPH and 13.5 seconds at Race City.

[94boosted]

Originally posted by shadezofgrey

haha yeah, I kinda remember reading that article years ago.. it still amazes me that it posted a higher lap time than a lot of nice, way the hell more expensive cars (e.g., evo, is f). do you dd yours? how are you finding it in terms of general reliability, maintenance, etc in terms of dd driving + at the track?

also, how's the thing feel driving around the track? much in the way of torque steer? how usable is the power on the track? haha, as you can tell those cars do interest me.. I kinda see it as being the closest car we get to the euro focus rs

I was literally about to buy an 05 STi until I read that C&D article about the Cobalt SS/TC and that got me thinking, I can have a car that's just as fast if not faster around a track and have full warranty for the same price....sold.

Yah I DD mine all year round and it's actually quite good, it's on the stiffer and louder side but that's to be expected with a sporty car. I've only tracked the car once or twice and it was impressive but where it really shines is autocross the car is massively capable, it's very agile and with the LSD and the relatively small turbo that spools up quick it's perfect. There is some torque steer but it's really not bad, much much better than cars like the mazdaspeed 3.

I will be selling the car in a couple months if your interested ;)

[shadezofgrey]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok
A stock 2005-2010 GT definitely gets in the 100mph's. The first time on the track with mine was stock, and I hit over 100 on my 2nd run... I remember thinking "Huh, that was easy. Why do give stickers out for 100+ club?" :rofl:

hahahaha, well done.

[shadezofgrey]

Originally posted by 94boosted


I was literally about to buy an 05 STi until I read that C&D article about the Cobalt SS/TC and that got me thinking, I can have a car that's just as fast if not faster around a track and have full warranty for the same price....sold.

Yah I DD mine all year round and it's actually quite good, it's on the stiffer and louder side but that's to be expected with a sporty car. I've only tracked the car once or twice and it was impressive but where it really shines is autocross the car is massively capable, it's very agile and with the LSD and the relatively small turbo that spools up quick it's perfect. There is some torque steer but it's really not bad, much much better than cars like the mazdaspeed 3.

I will be selling the car in a couple months if your interested ;)


lol, thanks for the offer, but I doubt I'll be switching up money pits anytime soon. ..if anything I hope to grab a 2nd car much, much, much later down the road whose only purposes will be to produce soul crushing power and be a hella fun weekend toy (i.e., prolly semi reliable at best).

gl with the sale though, imo they're an awesome car!

[vadeit]

Bone stock 2008 Sti and I would trap in the 97 to 99 range, usually closer to 97 if I remember correctly (can't find the slips). Best time was 14.0.