• New overall 60-130 record achieved by Mikewads for the E92/E9X M3 - 6.23

      This M3 of mine continues to impress me. The S65 engine and DCT are just amazing! I think the DCT impresses me the most since it's been able to handle every bit of power that I throw at it without slipping.

      The cold weather in the Southeast has enabled me to achieve some great 60-130 mph times this week. I'll start with the results of the ESS VT2-600 supercharger only run (no nitrous). 27F / full weight / 93 octane.

      6.87 secs in 1011 ft




      After that run I just had to try it with nitrous. So... I went back to the shop, warmed the nitrous bottle to 900psi, and installed the 100 shot nitrous/fuel jets. I was unable to engage the nitrous in 2nd gear because it would just blow the tires, so I waited until I shifted into 3rd gear (you can actually hear the switch in the below video). 33F / full weight / 93 octane.

      6.23 secs in 904 ft



      This article was originally published in forum thread: New 60-130 mph record breaking runs!!! started by Mikewads View original post
      Comments 163 Comments
      1. LostMarine's Avatar
        LostMarine -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        Do you calibrate the gauge every time you go out? Since I have the same gauge, I'll tell you that I found that I needed to calibrate it every time I went out, otherwise I'd be sitting there at idle and it would say as much as 1.2-1.6 PSI boost.
        then you or your kit is messed up. i have that guage and its always correct. over 1yr of running and never had to re-calculate it
      1. ERM324's Avatar
        ERM324 -
        I had that same gauge and had to recalbrate it all the time - I $#@!ing hated it because it ALWAYS read a good psi too high....
      1. DLSJ5's Avatar
        DLSJ5 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        Actually, my analysis was not flawed, not biased, and has held up to the actual data exactly as I predicted it would.
        Actually no, there are no absolutes in this, you can cherry pick results and come to any conclusion, I have always felt same boost, same conditions will produce, very similar results.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        The article you just linked depended on a "new baseline" for Drew's car that was never published anywhere before. It had absolutely no provenance. That dyno was never posted anywhere and there's no proof that it's even Drew's car.
        This dyno that you claim with absolute certainty was never published anywhere, was in your dyno database, lol, and still is. Here -

        Stock -

        342 @ 8200 247 @ 3900 SAE Adapted Encore Innovation STOCK , 91US , DCT View Thread Not Available View Details

        http://bmw.pencilgeek.org/showDyno.php?recID=39

        And with the xpipe, the baseline that you should have applied, not a full bolt on car with 20 more whp than the other cars in your analysis.

        355 @ 8200 256 @ 3700 SAE Adapted Encore Innovation CAT200 , XPPENI , 91US , DCT View Thread Not Available View Details

        http://bmw.pencilgeek.org/showDyno.php?recID=40

        Here's a vid of the dyno runs, that is my car, I was the test vehicle for the x pipe.



        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        Drew posted many dyno charts thoughout the entire development of his car, and I do not believe or find it remotely credible that after I posted my analsys if supercharger efficiency, that Drew pulls out a completely new dyno chart from a dyno shop he had never used during his published development and says "whoops, I just found this -- this is my real baseline, not the ones I posted on all of the car forums for the past 6 months." Joseph if you believe that story, and if you believe that one dyno debunks all of the fair, honest, and hard work I did to make sure everything was apples-to-apples, then that's your choice. But I never believed it, and I still don't.
        In all fairness you did not know it was my dyno, I never posted it, Victor from Encore innovation did, if you click on the "view thread" it appears that thread on the subject has been deleted, I suspect because Encore went out of business shortly after, either way it was the proper baseline to use. Just because you never knew the dyno was mine or spent hours doing this, or that my most current dyno's were done after your analysis, does not mean that they should not apply, and when you apply them, they throw your analysis upside down. You were not just wrong about my car, but also an ESS car, in all fairness you admitted that to me, but never admitted it on the forums.

        Are you that wrapped up in your distaste for Gintani that you think I gave you a dyno from another car? What about everyone else's dyno? Do you simply just believe them? You rejected the new dyno's and the proper baseline from me, for no good reason, my guess is because it was a Gintani car you felt there must be some kind of trickery going on. Click here to enlarge

        Let's move on from this, how about "Great runs Mike, I knew the ESS kit had it in it."Click here to enlarge
      1. LostMarine's Avatar
        LostMarine -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ERM324 Click here to enlarge
        I had that same gauge and had to recalbrate it all the time - I $#@!ing hated it because it ALWAYS read a good psi too high....
        with how often you were playing around under the hood and swapping things, i dont doubt your individual requirements
      1. PencilGeek's Avatar
        PencilGeek -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
        then you or your kit is messed up. i have that guage and its always correct. over 1yr of running and never had to re-calculate it
        I don't even see how that makes sense -- that the FI kit would be changing boost. The gauge installation guide tells you that you must recalibrate the gauge every time you change elevation. I found that you had to reclibrate it virtually every time you wanted to use it. I assume you read the installation guide and nothing I'm saying is new information to you.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ERM324 Click here to enlarge
        I had that same gauge and had to recalbrate it all the time - I $#@!ing hated it because it ALWAYS read a good psi too high....
        There you have it...I'm not the only person who experienced this phenomenon.
      1. PencilGeek's Avatar
        PencilGeek -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        It was incredibly biased as you mixed and matched data to try to strengthen your biased position. Using flawed data and then claiming it is accurate is misleading and not respectable. Drew tore it all to pieces, read his article.
        Joseph, I don't think you should get away with making such an accusation if you don't even have the courtesy to back it up with quotes or references.

        The article was accurate, all but one minor detail within it was accurate, and I still stand behind it 100%. If it weren't accurate, then all of the data generated since then wouldn't have bolstered what I said. But I'm certainly interested if you can provide any examples of the article's bias, or even more importantly, any of this data you claim I mixed and matched to strengthen my argument. Since I never did that and never would, I doubt you can provide any examples. But give it a try.

        Joseph, my 60-130 list dwarfs yours in size and data collected. I've got more 60-130 results than you and 6speed combined. My 1/4 mile list is probably 30x the size of yours, and probably 10x the size of the 6speed database. All total, I have over 1350 timeslips from every type of performance category (1/4 mile, standing mile, 0-60, 0-100, 0-300k, and 60-130) in my database. Oh, and did I mention that I can search and sort all of mine on any number of methods?

        So believe me, if you had ESS VT2-600 results, I'd know it.

        7.05 - Mikewads / E92 M3 ESS VT-1 SC / DCT/ Nitrous 75-100 shot / 3 shifts
        7.06 - DLSJ5 / E92 M3 Gintani Stage 2 SC / DCT / 91 octane and meth / 9 psi / 3 shifts - GRAPH
        7.37 - DLSJ5 / E92 M3 Gintani Stage 2 SC / DCT / 91 octane and meth / 8 psi / 3 shifts /
        7.85 - IMG / E92 M3 ESS VT2-600 / Manual / 1 shift / GRAPH
        7.86 - Maros / E46 M3 ESS SC 16 psi Built Motor/ 1 shift
        8.31 - Biglare/ E90 M3 DCT ESS VT-600 SC / Bolt ons/ 3.62 Gears/ ESS DCT Software / 91 Pump/ 20" wheels (Not Verified Yet)
        8.34 - Pencilgeek /E92 M3 6MT/ RS-46 RDsport stroker w/ESS VT600 SC / Bolt ons/ 91 octane/ 1 shift (Not Verified Yet)
        8.59 – Dr Jitsu / E46 M3 BHS SC Built Motor 16 psi / SMG / MS109/ 1 shift
        8.67 - DLSJ5 / E46 M3 VFE Supercharged Stage 2 8.5psi / SMG / 3.91 gears/ MS109 / 2 shifts
        8.82 - sammyrusso / E92 M3 DCT Gintani Stage 1 SC / Bolt Ons/ HFC's / 91 octane / 2 shifts
        8.84 - RomanESS / E92 M3 VT-575 /DCT / Stock cats/ ESS DCT Software / 3 shifts/ ? (Needs to be verified)
        9.01- Eugene Tawain E92 M3 6MT Gpower SC @ 6psi / Bolt ons / pump / 2 shifts
        Where's the ESS VT2-600 DCT entry in any of those listed above? You and Jon say there's plenty, but I don't see a single one.

        Now you claim you predicted this? Huh, what? Because last I saw it took nitrous on top of the kit to equal the performance of just a Gintani Stage 2+ with meth on boost alone.

        So this is a fairly large shift wouldn't you say? Yet nothing has changed? Well, something did to go from 7.05 to 6.2x now. Is it weather and drag radials alone? Perhaps, but don't act like you called this when all data up to this point directly conflicted everything you had said and now you are using one number as an absolute that somehow supports you.
        No, this was a fairly predictable outcome, and I'm pretty sure I mentioned this to you in private emails on more than one occasion. The Dyno Database is full of dozens of forced induction results. When you look at the power generated, the supporting mods, and the boost used, it was going to be fairly obvious that once you got a vBox in the hands of an ESS customer with DCT and anything above 6.5 PSI boost, this was the outcome that would have been expected. Notice that it didn't take 10PSI +race gas +meth +weight reduction to get these results. It was a daily driver, pump gas, full weight, and nothing but 93 octane. And yes, I did tell you this would happen -- on more than one occasion.

        I am so sick of this always becoming Gintani vs. ESS but the easiest way to settle anything is just to run the kits head to head or get them in the same place. Oh, here we go again, Roman won't let people race and they won't show up to a dyno day because they know they can't win. I'm tired of it and I'm tired of you claiming efficiency bull$#@!.
        Joseph, the results have backed me up all the way thus far, and they will continue to do so. Mock it all you want.

        You still do not understand the difference between ET and trap and that the DA has different effects on NA and forced induction motors. 0.052, realy? Here is a DA example:

        At 2500 feet DA 12.5@110 would change to this:

        Stock and Mildly Modified Naturally Aspirated Engines
        12.119 @ 113.538 MPH

        Extensively Modified Naturally Aspirated Engines
        12.243 @ 112.413 MPH

        Extensively Modified Supercharged and Turbocharged Engines
        12.356 @ 111.282 MPH

        So maybe try using that calculator again since you did not use it correctly when over 4/10's and 3 mph can be seen just by a drop a temp?
        Nice try. Next time, try using the actual weather conditions from the actual day, and the actual ET's from each car -- just like I did. Do I really need to go through this even though this is pretty simple addition and subtraction?

        Mike: -2058 DA. 6.79 adjusts to 6.853. That's a 0.063 second delta.
        Drew: +390 DA. 7.06 adjusts to 7.071. That's a 0.011 second delta.

        The difference between 0.063 and 0.011 is: 0.052 seconds.
      1. M33's Avatar
        M33 -
        If all things are equal ( gear ratio's and final drive ratio ),the DCT would have aprxmtly 0.62 - 0.70 sec advantage for every shift. According to Vbox results, the average 6MT owner shifts in 0.65 -0.70 seconds, whereas the DCT shifts in 30ms(milliseconds 0.03).
        This would mean the DCT has a 0.62-0.67 second advantage for each shift against the 6MT on 60-130 tests/runs.

        Mike got a 6.79 sec in 3 shifts , we can subtract 0.09 sec to get the base time of 6.70sec ( drag radials used ).

        IMG got a 7.8 sec in 1 shift. if we subtract 0.7 sec shift time , we get down to 7.10sec ( with stock cats )

        I got 8.3 sec in 2 shifts. if we subtract 0.7 per shift we get down to 6.90 sec ( i am and was catless at the time of my run)

        Now since Mike was using drag radials , that counts for something. Take the drags out of the equation , and we're roughly the same ...

        oh yeah as for biglare's 60-130 times and the run with the z06 i personally think his gearing hurt him ( his second gear is like our 1st gear .... dead useless ) ...

        I will soon do a run using 1 shift as IMG ( Sam ) did.. will also have drag radial's on this time .... as soon as this 18'' of snow clears out
      1. LostMarine's Avatar
        LostMarine -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        I don't even see how that makes sense -- that the FI kit would be changing boost. The gauge installation guide tells you that you must recalibrate the gauge every time you change elevation. I found that you had to reclibrate it virtually every time you wanted to use it. I assume you read the installation guide and nothing I'm saying is new information to you.



        There you have it...I'm not the only person who experienced this phenomenon.

        Erm was always playing with his boost and meth lines ect, hence he is always changinging things, needing a recalibration. I would think a s/c kit, w/o meth, your not in there playing with the lines needing recalibration

        are you referring to this:
        Attachment 4255

        Unless your traveling some MAJOR elevation changes, i dont see how that is feasible to need to recalculate it every time you drive


        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        No, this was a fairly predictable outcome, and I'm pretty sure I mentioned this to you in private emails on more than one occasion. The Dyno Database is full of dozens of forced induction results. When you look at the power generated, the supporting mods, and the boost used, it was going to be fairly obvious that once you got a vBox in the hands of an ESS customer with DCT and anything above 6.5 PSI boost, this was the outcome that would have been expected. Notice that it didn't take 10PSI +race gas +meth +weight reduction to get these results. It was a daily driver, pump gas, full weight, and nothing but 93 octane. And yes, I did tell you this would happen -- on more than one occasion.
        so how do you account for the 1/4 trap speed differences for that boost?



        your argument against weather conditions not being a factor is really just moronic. any 16-65yr old thats been into racing/performance can tell you its all about the conditions. Hell, even the fuel suppliers are cogniscent of this fact:

        as copied from VP's tech bulletins "
        NEW! Q16TMQ16 can be used with naturally aspirated, nitrous or blower applications with CRs up to 17:1. Makes 3-5% more power than competitors’ 116 octane fuels and provides better protection against detonation.Oxygenation expands the range of air/fuel ratio acceptability, offering more consistent performance from run to run and it won’t vary as much with altitude or density changes.
        "

        again, im not knocking the acheievements made here, it is outstanding, but the factors contributing to it are/should be common sense, and should not be argued over
      1. PencilGeek's Avatar
        PencilGeek -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DLSJ5 Click here to enlarge
        Actually no, there are no absolutes in this, you can cherry pick results and come to any conclusion, I have always felt same boost, same conditions will produce, very similar results.

        This dyno that you claim with absolute certainty was never published anywhere, was in your dyno database, lol, and still is. Here -

        Stock -

        342 @ 8200 247 @ 3900 SAE Adapted Encore Innovation STOCK , 91US , DCT View Thread Not Available View Details

        http://bmw.pencilgeek.org/showDyno.php?recID=39

        And with the xpipe, the baseline that you should have applied, not a full bolt on car with 20 more whp than the other cars in your analysis.

        355 @ 8200 256 @ 3700 SAE Adapted Encore Innovation CAT200 , XPPENI , 91US , DCT View Thread Not Available View Details

        http://bmw.pencilgeek.org/showDyno.php?recID=40

        Here's a vid of the dyno runs, that is my car, I was the test vehicle for the x pipe.



        In all fairness you did not know it was my dyno, I never posted it, Victor from Encore innovation did, if you click on the "view thread" it appears that thread on the subject has been deleted, I suspect because Encore went out of business shortly after, either way it was the proper baseline to use. Just because you never knew the dyno was mine or spent hours doing this, or that my most current dyno's were done after your analysis, does not mean that they should not apply, and when you apply them, they throw your analysis upside down.
        Drew, I said the dyno had no provenance.

        You were not just wrong about my car, but also an ESS car, in all fairness you admitted that to me, but never admitted it on the forums.
        Whenever I find a material error, I always correct it. And as I've demonstrated in the past, I'm not afraid to admit it and correct it in public. Don't you wish all people were that committed to accuracy?

        Are you that wrapped up in your distaste for Gintani that you think I gave you a dyno from another car? What about everyone else's dyno? Do you simply just believe them? You rejected the new dyno's and the proper baseline from me, for no good reason, my guess is because it was a Gintani car you felt there must be some kind of trickery going on. Click here to enlarge
        Stick to the facts Drew without trying to inject drama. The dyno had no provenance, and without provenance there's no proof it's even your car. I'm not saying it's not your car, and wouldn't say that without proof. Maybe the provenance was in the deleted thread. Quit being so sensitive -- the statement by itself is accurate and has no vendor bias built in.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by img Click here to enlarge
        I thought that Drews times/runs were on DR and race gas ??
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DLSJ5 Click here to enlarge
        You thought wrong. Click here to enlarge But that is okay!! It's hard to keep track of everything. Will you please go and run that GTR, I really want to see this run go down, based on your 60-130 it should be close. Click here to enlarge
        Drew, I've got an idea that might help out here. I just sent you a link to screen shots of our text message conversation on this subject -- specifically the use of race gas during your 60-130 runs. I thought a little reminder of what you said might be necessary to jog your memory. With your permission, I'll post it up here and let others see what you said, and let them make up their own minds what you said and what it means. Are you OK with that?
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        Joseph, my 60-130 list dwarfs yours in size and data collected. I've got more 60-130 results than you and 6speed combined. My 1/4 mile list is probably 30x the size of yours, and probably 10x the size of the 6speed database. All total, I have over 1350 timeslips from every type of performance category (1/4 mile, standing mile, 0-60, 0-100, 0-300k, and 60-130) in my database. Oh, and did I mention that I can search and sort all of mine on any number of methods?
        We aren't comparing penis size here plus you have taken my own lists and used them as your own. I don't even care. The fact is you basically just dismissed all the other 60-130 results for ESS cars. Who has more is irrelevant, I don't care about your list, I care about putting the results in context. Take a look at the other ESS 60-130's you somehow were oblivious to, including your own.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        Joseph, I don't think you should get away with making such an accusation if you don't even have the courtesy to back it up with quotes or references.

        The article was accurate, all but one minor detail within it was accurate, and I still stand behind it 100%. If it weren't accurate, then all of the data generated since then wouldn't have bolstered what I said. But I'm certainly interested if you can provide any examples of the article's bias, or even more importantly, any of this data you claim I mixed and matched to strengthen my argument. Since I never did that and never would, I doubt you can provide any examples. But give it a try.
        The article is not accurate as you made up a standard to favor yourself, fuzzy math. The ESS setup is not more efficient, seriously, it's insane what you are propagating. The Vortech T-trim flows more CFM, it does not matter what you think it is always capable of more power.

        When you used the wrong baseline for Drew you bolstered ESS results, ridiculous.

        They are both going to do the same at the same boost. There is no major difference, same basic hardware, they will put up the same basic results. What separates them is the amount of boost and the tuning. Please understand this and stop using a bunch of collected dyno results to try to determine efficiency.

        If the kit was more efficient why couldn't you match what the Gintani cars including my own were doing at less WHP than yourself? Well? Sounds like that would contradict your hand picked results.

        Line up the cars and see what happens, you can play on paper forever if you like, no one else cares. I have never seen someone so fixated on worthless data in my life playing in car test instead of on a strip where it matters. LINE UP THE CARS.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        Where's the ESS VT2-600 DCT entry in any of those listed above? You and Jon say there's plenty, but I don't see a single one.
        There are plenty of results but we can't force everyone to run their cars, we have what we have. We do have trap speeds from the VT2-600 on a DCT car don't we? How do those look? Let me save you the time, still only 1 kit having multiple cars trapping 130+ on boost. That is thanks to meth by the way...

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        No, this was a fairly predictable outcome, and I'm pretty sure I mentioned this to you in private emails on more than one occasion. The Dyno Database is full of dozens of forced induction results. When you look at the power generated, the supporting mods, and the boost used, it was going to be fairly obvious that once you got a vBox in the hands of an ESS customer with DCT and anything above 6.5 PSI boost, this was the outcome that would have been expected. Notice that it didn't take 10PSI +race gas +meth +weight reduction to get these results. It was a daily driver, pump gas, full weight, and nothing but 93 octane. And yes, I did tell you this would happen -- on more than one occasion.
        Please stop talking about your collection of other people's dyno results, please. Notice you had nothing to say about all the other results and it suddenly takes an ESS car with a DCT in the winter to coincide with what you say? Yet everything else disagrees with it? What is predictable is you using one result to try to justify the position it has taken until now for you have anything to support and even so it flies in the face of the majority. Robert, you have been incorrect on basically everything thus far.

        Could we please just run the two cars already? If you want to act like this setup is faster please just run a Gintani Stage 2+. Take a DCT vs. a DCT and do it if Roman won't prevent the owner from doing it like he has with everyone else thus far. Enough, I'm sick of it, if you think a car with less boost can run with a car with higher boost + meth you are out of your mind.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        Nice try. Next time, try using the actual weather conditions from the actual day, and the actual ET's from each car -- just like I did. Do I really need to go through this even though this is pretty simple addition and subtraction?

        Mike: -2058 DA. 6.79 adjusts to 6.853. That's a 0.063 second delta.
        Drew: +390 DA. 7.06 adjusts to 7.071. That's a 0.011 second delta.

        The difference between 0.063 and 0.011 is: 0.052 seconds.
        Huh? That was an example of a run converted from 2500 DA. I have no idea what you did but it did not jive with the calculator. Regardless, as it shows, DA makes a big difference. Look it up on the NHRA website if you need to.

        You can't apply DA correction the way you are to 60-130 times, what are you doing? There is an established formula by the NHRA for the corrections, did you just make one up for 60-130?

        Are you seriously trying to argue against the weather?
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        Whenever I find a material error, I always correct it. And as I've demonstrated in the past, I'm not afraid to admit it and correct it in public. Don't you wish all people were that committed to accuracy?
        You can start with everything you said about DCT's having less drivetrain loss than manuals. Still have not seen you correct that... or what you said about the weight of the SC upsetting handling balance significantly. Then there is basically everything you said about boost.

        If you want to claim you are honest and accurate start by telling everyone what you did to your motor and why it necessitated a rebuild.
      1. PencilGeek's Avatar
        PencilGeek -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
        Erm was always playing with his boost and meth lines ect, hence he is always changinging things, needing a recalibration. I would think a s/c kit, w/o meth, your not in there playing with the lines needing recalibration

        are you referring to this:
        Attachment 4255
        Possibly referring to that. I don't have my instructions handy. I did find that mine was terribly inaccurate. I could turn off the car one night at 0.0 PSI at idle, start it up the next morning and it would read 1.2-1.6 PSI. I have a hard time seeing how that's much of anything but changes in atmospheric pressure (same thing as elevation change) causing the inaccuracy. Since I'm an accuracy freak, any time I wanted to depend on the gauge, I would recalibrate it.

        so how do you account for the 1/4 trap speed differences for that boost?
        I'm not sure what you're asking me, but I'll be happy to answer it if I know what the question is, and if I have something to say about it. Are you asking me why Mike's 5.5 PSI trap speed is only 127 MPH instead of 130+? You are aware he added an intercooler and more boost since then...correct?

        your argument against weather conditions not being a factor is really just moronic. any 16-65yr old thats been into racing/performance can tell you its all about the conditions. Hell, even the fuel suppliers are cogniscent of this fact:
        OK, fine. So instead of quoting an accepted drag racing calculator, using as close to the actual conditions at each location, on each day -- a calculator that is accepted throughout the drag industry -- your rebuttal consists of quoting the VP fuel web site? And strangely, the section you quoted isn't even relevant to the rebuttal you say you're making. It only says that Q16 is less reduces the variance caused by altitude and density changes. It doesn't say how much change is caused by altitude and density differences.
      1. DLSJ5's Avatar
        DLSJ5 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        Joseph, I don't think you should get away with making such an accusation if you don't even have the courtesy to back it up with quotes or references.
        Touche.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        The article was accurate, all but one minor detail within it was accurate, and I still stand behind it 100%. If it weren't accurate, then all of the data generated since then wouldn't have bolstered what I said. But I'm certainly interested if you can provide any examples of the article's bias, or even more importantly, any of this data you claim I mixed and matched to strengthen my argument. Since I never did that and never would, I doubt you can provide any examples. But give it a try.
        It was accurate if the #'s you input were real, up to date and accurate. The fact is they were not, and even after I gave you updated results and the real baseline dyno, you rejected it, lol, for no solid reason.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        Joseph, my 60-130 list dwarfs yours in size and data collected. I've got more 60-130 results than you and 6speed combined. My 1/4 mile list is probably 30x the size of yours, and probably 10x the size of the 6speed database. All total, I have over 1350 timeslips from every type of performance category (1/4 mile, standing mile, 0-60, 0-100, 0-300k, and 60-130) in my database. Oh, and did I mention that I can search and sort all of mine on any number of methods?
        Your 60-130 list is a copy of data from other sources, I like what you did, but Robert you are ignoring what the rest of us know to be the case, temps play a huge role! You ignore your own 6MT results, with one shift vs. IMG's 6MT results with 1 shift. It gives us another example of how temps can affect 60-130's, when one car has more power than the other.

        You with gobs more WHP/TQ area under the curve, gutted car, and race gas went - 7.58s

        IMG with a VT600 and stock cats went 7.8s

        Why so close, even with that much of a power difference? Well what most experienced enthusiasts would ask is, what were the conditions? You ran in hot weather, IMG ran in 40 degree weather. To correct you I ran 7.5-9psi, 91+Meth, and full weight when I did my best runs, yes I have tried race gas, it did nothing. I suspect people thinking I ran DR's all the the time came from you as well? Because that is not true either.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        Joseph, the results have backed me up all the way thus far, and they will continue to do so. Mock it all you want.
        He's not mocking you, he is right in this case.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        Nice try. Next time, try using the actual weather conditions from the actual day, and the actual ET's from each car -- just like I did. Do I really need to go through this even though this is pretty simple addition and subtraction?

        Mike: -2058 DA. 6.79 adjusts to 6.853. That's a 0.063 second delta.
        Drew: +390 DA. 7.06 adjusts to 7.071. That's a 0.011 second delta.

        The difference between 0.063 and 0.011 is: 0.052 seconds.
        What is this, it's so completely misleading, so you are saying a difference of 2400', and a negative DA of 2000 does so little? Also with positive DA how did my car adjust up? It appears, you have NO IDEA about what negative DA can do, even though your own results vs another 6MT gives you a good does of reality, I think the rest of us here do understand it.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DLSJ5 Click here to enlarge
        What is this, it's so completely misleading, so you are saying a difference of 2400', and a negative DA of 2000 does so little? Also with positive DA how did my car adjust up? It appears, you have NO IDEA about what negative DA can do, even though your own results vs another 6MT gives you a good does of reality, I think the rest of us here do understand it.
        His DA example makes no sense as the way the DA calculator is set up is using the NHRA formula for 1/4 mile times. It makes no sense.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        I'm not sure what you're asking me, but I'll be happy to answer it if I know what the question is, and if I have something to say about it. Are you asking me why Mike's 5.5 PSI trap speed is only 127 MPH instead of 130+? You are aware he added an intercooler and more boost since then...correct?
        127 mph was on the VT2-600 once he upgraded, then he hit 131 with the 100 shot on top of it.
      1. LostMarine's Avatar
        LostMarine -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        Possibly referring to that. I don't have my instructions handy. I did find that mine was terribly inaccurate. I could turn off the car one night at 0.0 PSI at idle, start it up the next morning and it would read 1.2-1.6 PSI. I have a hard time seeing how that's much of anything but changes in atmospheric pressure (same thing as elevation change) causing the inaccuracy. Since I'm an accuracy freak, any time I wanted to depend on the gauge, I would recalibrate it.
        well, yes, if your seeing that much difference, then it would need to be recalc'd. but im sure if he saw that he would.


        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        I'm not sure what you're asking me, but I'll be happy to answer it if I know what the question is, and if I have something to say about it. Are you asking me why Mike's 5.5 PSI trap speed is only 127 MPH instead of 130+? You are aware he added an intercooler and more boost since then...correct?
        are you sure he was on 5.5 psi for 127mph? i thought i read differently Click here to enlarge


        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        OK, fine. So instead of quoting an accepted drag racing calculator, using as close to the actual conditions at each location, on each day -- a calculator that is accepted throughout the drag industry -- your rebuttal consists of quoting the VP fuel web site? And strangely, the section you quoted isn't even relevant to the rebuttal you say you're making. It only says that Q16 is less reduces the variance caused by altitude and density changes. It doesn't say how much change is caused by altitude and density differences.
        i believe it is relevent. if conditions dont matter, and there is no variance, why would they make a fuel to limit it? of course its not the most "scientific" data around, but the point is made that conditions will dictate results
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Ok, so on the previous runs it was the 5.5 psi pulley and now this is a 7.5 psi pulley?

        What mm are these pulleys as I keep losing track. The 7.5 psi pulley is the default for the VT2-600 right? It has to be run on 93 octane though?
        If possible I would like clarification on this as so many different pulleys have been run.

        The 4.5, 5.5, 6.5, and now 7.5.

        You mentioned you were running 6 psi with the VT1 at one point? You also mentioned running 6.5 and 7.5 with the VT2? There just have been so many changes it is difficult to keep track which kit used which pulleys at which time.
      1. PencilGeek's Avatar
        PencilGeek -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        You can start with everything you said about DCT's having less drivetrain loss than manuals. Still have not seen you correct that...
        Nice topic shift Joseph. I don't mind. I'll be happy to let you avoid what I said and just make a note that you didn't provide any examples. And I'll be happy to talk about your intentionally misleading analysis of the DCT vs. 6MT DT losses.

        Granted, wet clutches will cause more loss than dry clutches. We can agree on that. But drive train loss isn't just a single wet clutch vs. dry clutch metric. Each gear has a mechanical efficiency (ME) loss as well. You didn't address that at all. The final drive has it's own ME loss. You didn't address that either. Nor did you explain why you compared two supercharged cars instead of bone stock cars. Supercharged cars magnify the differences. My comparison took 14 cars, all in California, all on the same California 91 octane gas, and four cars on the same exact dyno to demonstrate that DCT was consistently more powerful at the wheels than 6MT. Your results were -- how do you say it delicately -- quite manipulative. Not only did you take supercharged cars instead of bone stock cars; but you chose Drew's DCT worst results and compared them against Ricky's best 6MT results. Then you changed the filenames of the runs to kind of cover it up. You may have forgotten that I have both sets of dyno results in the Dyno Database and know where each dyno chart came from. Ricky's run was RunFile_008.drf (his best) vs. Drew's RunFile_006.drf (his worst). But the problems don't stop there. Both cars had different sets of mods, different exhausts, different catalyitic converters (or lack thereof). Just last week, you stressed the importance of statistical correlation -- how one dyno chart comparison about a 2011 running stronger than previous years was meaningless. I was impressed that you're finally starting to understand the importance of statistical correlation. But then you did the opposite with your DCT vs. 6MT comparison. You compared a single dyno chart, flawed in every way possible, manipulated in every way possible, and want to present it to the public like it is the gospel truth that can be trusted?

        Still have not seen you correct that... or what you said about the weight of the SC upsetting handling balance significantly.
        Again, at least have the courtesy to quote what I said. I said I personally preferred not to have the extra nope weight, and I doubt I ever used the word "significantly" -- because I don't consider 45 pounds over an 1800 pound end of a car to be significant. But go ahead, quote it if you can. Or like before, you can just change subjects again.

        Then there is basically everything you said about boost.
        Which part is that? Again, you want to make statements in a vacuum and expect people to know what you're talking about.

        If you want to claim you are honest and accurate start by telling everyone what you did to your motor and why it necessitated a rebuild.
        Um, I'm highly offended that you apparently never even read what I wrote about my motor. I layed it all out in the article, including the actual dates every decision transpired. You could have at least had the decency to read it before trying to manipulate this into something else. If you think something was wrong with my motor, then you might try to explain why my motor somehow, and miraculously got stronger and stronger -- even posting the best 60-130 MPH and 1/4 mile results on the day before I drove it to Auto Talent and removed the motor. That's a good mystery wouldn't you say -- how to explain the faster, faster, quicker, and quicker results up until the day we pulled it apart?
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        Nice topic shift Joseph. I don't mind. I'll be happy to let you avoid what I said and just make a note that you didn't provide any examples. And I'll be happy to talk about your intentionally misleading analysis of the DCT vs. 6MT DT losses.
        You said you wanted to be accurate, be accurate then.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        Granted, wet clutches will cause more loss than dry clutches. We can agree on that. But drive train loss isn't just a single wet clutch vs. dry clutch metric. Each gear has a mechanical efficiency (ME) loss as well. You didn't address that at all. The final drive has it's own ME loss. You didn't address that either. Nor did you explain why you compared two supercharged cars instead of bone stock cars. Supercharged cars magnify the differences. My comparison took 14 cars, all in California, all on the same California 91 octane gas, and four cars on the same exact dyno to demonstrate that DCT was consistently more powerful at the wheels than 6MT. Your results were -- how do you say it delicately -- quite manipulative. Not only did you take supercharged cars instead of bone stock cars; but you chose Drew's DCT worst results and compared them against Ricky's best 6MT results. Then you changed the filenames of the runs to kind of cover it up. You may have forgotten that I have both sets of dyno results in the Dyno Database and know where each dyno chart came from. Ricky's run was RunFile_008.drf (his best) vs. Drew's RunFile_006.drf (his worst). But the problems don't stop there. Both cars had different sets of mods, different exhausts, different catalyitic converters (or lack thereof). Just last week, you stressed the importance of statistical correlation -- how one dyno chart comparison about a 2011 running stronger than previous years was meaningless. I was impressed that you're finally starting to understand the importance of statistical correlation. But then you did the opposite with your DCT vs. 6MT comparison. You compared a single dyno chart, flawed in every way possible, manipulated in every way possible, and want to present it to the public like it is the gospel truth that can be trusted?
        Robert, you are talking about each individual gear? Reaching a bit? Let's not even go down this route. It is as simple as manual's has less drivetrain loss than DCT's. It is that simple, it really is.

        I took Drew's best results not worst. Secondly, the dyno results were not even the main point just an illustration. The gearbox manufacturers themselves and their view was the point. Robert, give it up, you don't know better than Getrag or Borg Warner. End of story, apologize, and let everyone know instead of fighting a battle you can not win.

        Now get back on topic, okie dokie?

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        Again, at least have the courtesy to quote what I said. I said I personally preferred not to have the extra nope weight, and I doubt I ever used the word "significantly" -- because I don't consider 45 pounds over an 1800 pound end of a car to be significant. But go ahead, quote it if you can. Or like before, you can just change subjects again.
        You want me to go on m3post and search through all your posts? My memory serves me well, did you ever comment about the balance being upset with an SC? You sure did, I don't need to go search you know this yourself.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        Which part is that? Again, you want to make statements in a vacuum and expect people to know what you're talking about.
        You know what I'm talking about. You said you did not believe in boosting a high compression motor, then you did exactly that. A bit amusing, but no big deal, you had to learn.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        Um, I'm highly offended that you apparently never even read what I wrote about my motor. I layed it all out in the article, including the actual dates every decision transpired. You could have at least had the decency to read it before trying to manipulate this into something else. If you think something was wrong with my motor, then you might try to explain why my motor somehow, and miraculously got stronger and stronger -- even posting the best 60-130 MPH and 1/4 mile results on the day before I drove it to Auto Talent and removed the motor. That's a good mystery wouldn't you say -- how to explain the faster, faster, quicker, and quicker results up until the day we pulled it apart?
        Robert, you blew your motor. I don't care, $#@! happens. You will rebuild it and hopefully it will run correctly. It is nothing to be embarrassed about. This thread isn't the time or the place for it, we are destroying Mike's achievement. Make a new thread about it and we can discuss it there, this little grudge is disrespecting the topic at hand and I think we should take it somewhere else.
      1. DLSJ5's Avatar
        DLSJ5 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        Drew, I said the dyno had no provenance.

        Whenever I find a material error, I always correct it. And as I've demonstrated in the past, I'm not afraid to admit it and correct it in public. Don't you wish all people were that committed to accuracy?
        Enough, the dyno I gave you was real, and you have the $#@!ing balls to make a completely baseless assertion that it may not be my car, Robert, with all do respect go $#@! yourself on that count.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        Stick to the facts Drew without trying to inject drama. The dyno had no provenance, and without provenance there's no proof it's even your car. I'm not saying it's not your car, and wouldn't say that without proof. Maybe the provenance was in the deleted thread. Quit being so sensitive -- the statement by itself is accurate and has no vendor bias built in.
        Inject drama, I believe that is your scene. You are right initially it did not have $#@!ing " provenance" but after I explained it and showed you the correct dyno's it did, and then again here, never did you claim it might not be mine until now, seriously it's a joke that you are saying it might not be from my car, and it was a joke when you tried to reject my new dyno's.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        Drew, I've got an idea that might help out here. I just sent you a link to screen shots of our text message conversation on this subject -- specifically the use of race gas during your 60-130 runs. I thought a little reminder of what you said might be necessary to jog your memory. With your permission, I'll post it up here and let others see what you said, and let them make up their own minds what you said and what it means. Are you OK with that?
        Post 'em up I have no problem with that, if that's your thing, lol, I never said I don't run race gas, like you I've played with it and found it did little with 60-130 runs, to be honest in some cases it ran a tad slower, I believe I just posted that was the case in this thread and others and again I clarified it to you in our text messages, you just don't want to believe it. Of course I have ran race gas before, just about every single one of my comparo video's says in the text what fuel I'm on, lol, and I believe in most of them I am running race gas, or a mix. However I have said before, that it did not improve my 60-130 times, and that's true, did you not say that race gas did nothing for you as well, yes you did. Mike ran race gas too at the track, it did not seem to improve his times there. Yes I've ran DR's before, I've tried a couple used sets and they did not improve traction. My best runs, were done on 91+Meth, and RE11's, full weight at 7.5 -9.5psi. If race gas made the car faster, I would have posted it, just like I do in the vids, so before you go there, the reason I run them during the comparo runs is for safety, I'm sure that is why you ran race gas in all of your mile events, I think it's a smart move.

        I am done with you.