Updated Vbox list.....

B8 S4
#921

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.

#922

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.

#923

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.

#924

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

Agreed about the GTR, :slight_smile:

#925

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%

#926

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.

#927

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

#928

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

#929

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.

#930

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

#931

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:

#932

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

#933

Haha, challenge accepted!

#934

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

#935

LOL ^^ Awesome

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/12/08/ruzyvu6a.jpg

#936

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/12/08/e5yjadu9.jpg

Example northbound run with ~0.07% decline ~1.5 ft drop over 0.36 miles.

#937

Haha Tsivas no worries, I know the track is solid, I was just surprised by the variance that’s all.

:slight_smile: can’t wait to see morning numbers!

#938

-0.07% to +0.31% between Pete’s two graphs/sides?

I don’t really see that as a lot.

Less variance than your two sides which were + 0.28% and -0.34% for each direction.

#939

X2. Care the elaborate more on the ‘variance’?

Maybe me and Tsivas are misinterpreting you?

Don’t see much of variance, in fact your two stretches of road have a bigger variance than ours.

We also had a 1000DA variance in your favor and I’m still on stock rotors :wink:

Should be good once I get LW Wheels, a legit clutch and LW rotors. New goal is 8.9.

#940

Bad choice of word.

I simply ment that a .34% change was a higher change in elevation than mine, which is actually in my favor, and I still was slower.

I was simply making a joke about how I couldn’t get on list lol.

Relax guys, I’m here for fun.

:wink: