Updated Vbox list.....

B8 S4
#881

Doubt it. His pump time right before the C16 time was not that impressive to say the HEADERS OMG OMG. This was supposed to be a revised flash to take account for headers so we would see a difference in all the different flashes (93/104).

But 11.41s 60-130 pump time today right before the C16 switch?? Compare that to his 11.91s summer time with no headers and heavier wheels.

The 0.5s difference could be from the -1800 DA change and the difference in wheel weight. I would say the increased timing and C16 made the real difference.

Not enough evidence for me.

#882

Dare I say our cars our approaching and slightly surpassing, stock 09-11 GTRs without getting flamed? I have a feeling a little longer though and they would surpass.

#883

That GTR time was in the summer on a muggy night on pump gas. -2800 DA difference between then and today.

We aren’t close to those times at all.

#884

I don’t think you will get flamed buy early gtrs were in the mid 11 @ 120 mph range. On stock tune, and 91 octane fuel.

Post up your best time on 91 octane with no meth on a summer night, and I reckon you will see a pretty significant delta. You guys are trapping 110-114 at 0 da on pump gas. Not 120. That’s the equivalent to 10 car lengths in a race. Maybe more 60 - 130

#885

I did trap 115.6 on 93 and I believe Prime trapped pretty well as well. Again great conditions and I agree with Saki the GTR with same fuel and same conditions is a much quicker car.

#886

I am extremely happy with where our cars are at.

Even if the GTR wins 99% of time, I guarantee the driver would be pleasantly surprised at the closer than expected outcome.

Props to Audi and the Tuners.

#887

True but 91 is what the GTR is tuned for (the stock tune for America). Stock tunes for the most part are careful as hell, because not everyone has good fuel. One quarter of the GTRs sold in the USA are in California right now. Their 91 octane is utter dogshit. Can’t forget that.

Also can’t forget all the stock testing done by periodicals is done on 91 and is corrected to 0 DA. So those things are pretty tough to compare to tuned cars, running 93 octane.

Don’t get me wrong…you guys are killing it. But it’s not a bet I would like to make for even 1 Coke (on a B8 S4 vs. GTR).

For a laugh Pete, you should throw some 91 octane in your car and run 60-130. It will be reeeally depressing. JHM does a lot of their testing on California 91 and they bitch about it non-stop. They actually bring in 93 for some stuff, the Cali 91 is so bad.

#888

If a 4 door Audi was within earshot of his GTR, I don’t think he’d find it pleasant lol. He’d be annoyed. But I don’t think you’d be in earshot if you guys used the same fuel. Maybe you could use morse code with your headlights to communicate with him.

#889

Once we see a non-header car run leaded 117 M.Octane race fuel in -1500 DA, and it’s not matching or close, definitely.

Until then…not sure. It is interesting that the two header cars are now the fastest (by a good bit) that we’ve seen. They’re also both GIAC cars.

I bet a Coke though if those two cars and two APR cars with same mods and fuel hit the strip with the same driver, the APR cars would win. Their tune has just been better. The GIAC may be better top end all out power, but APR seems to have other aspects more dialed in. Will be fun to watch in the spring. GIAC seems to be catching up.

I wonder how long till GIAC has an E85 tune out for you guys. Guess it would be expensive with injectors etc. but that would be cool to see.

#890

APR I think is now #2, only April will tell :wink:

Agreed about the GTR, :slight_smile:

#891

0-60 runs that registered were 3.65, 4.01 and 4.09s

60-90 3.12s
60-100 4.74s
60-110 6.21s
60-120 7.83s
60-130 9.68s

Elevation was 5.183 ft incline over 1665.14 ft to do 60-130 or +0.31%

#892

Jeff’s incline run

60-90 3.19s
60-100 4.67s
60-110 6.19s
60-120 7.93s
60-130 10.17s

Elevation was 4.315 ft incline over 1498.81 ft for 60-130 or +0.28% incline.

Seems like Pete made up most time during 120-130 interval. 60-110 was close. DA diff was -1550 (pete) vs -2500 (jeff) iirc.

#893

Yah, because my car shifts at 120 then I had that issue I spoke about.

Cars should be neck and neck otherwise, damn I need to figure the shifting out.

Crud!!!

Thanks for breakdown

#894

Errrr, except for DA, 6mt are clearly not suffering as much drivetrain loss.

#895

that’s pretty neat how close they were up until 120

fucking 7.9 seconds 60-120 is extremely impressive. What’s stock…must be around 12 seconds.

#896

I found an old Pete B8 stock (summer) time of 12.27s 60-120

#897

Tsivas

I don’t want to start anything here, but you said that your “track” had almost .1% variance in elevation, yet the time you posted on the sheet from Pete shows 5%+ elevation variance(even if it a disadvantage), would lead me to believe this is not your normal “track”.

Don’t get me wrong, I LOVE seeing a faster and faster B8 time, I kind of just want to get on sheet, haha.

:wink:

#898

Pete’s Elevation was a 5.183 ft incline change over 1665.14 ft to do 60-130 or a +0.31% incline.

That was on a southbound portion of our strip which is quite long.

The northbound side has less than a 0.1% decline if you want me to graph that for you also.

Your time wouldn’t get on the list anyways, as you aren’t the fastest giac stage 2/104 time. We only post the fastest times, not all the times tested.

If you are referring to the meters heading on the other graph… Pete’s laptop wouldn’t let me change the axis heading to feet but the distance and height measurements I used were in feet off the pbox data on the graph.

I just redid the graph on my laptop with the right axis labels to reinforce this…

Hope this clears it up.

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/12/08/6ybyqete.jpg

#899

Haha, challenge accepted!

#900

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/catfight1062811.jpg