Team3S: 3000GT & Stealth   Saturday, August 18 2001   Volume 01 : Number 582




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:24:37 -0400
From: "Jason Barnhart" <phnxgld@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Back from a drag strip

Reaction time does not factor into ET at all.  You can sit at the line
(without tripping the laser ) for 20 seconds and still run 13s.

Philip - These times suggest that you drove well but the car was down on
power.  Sub 13.5s are not uncommon for stock VR4s but you should be able to
turn traps above 100 mph.  Were you at a high elevation or was it very hot?

Rich - An easy way to tell what turbos you have is how much boost you can
hold to redline.  You'd be lucky to hold 12 psi to redline even on a very
cold day and low altitudes with stock turbos.  If you can hold 15 psi, then
you've got at least 13Gs.

Jason
13.36 at 102.54 (88k miles, Weapon-R open element filter and bad plugs and
wires)
12.802 at 107.87 (K&N, boost control, unbolted downpipe)
12.82 at 109.40 (K&N, boost, downpipe, cat back and clutch)  Actually made 3
back to back passes with no more than 15 minutes between them running
12.82 - 12.89, all over 109 mph.
12.67 at 106 (same mods, better driving and heat)  Drove 7 hours to the DSM
shootout in 2000, hit 117k miles, ran the times and drove home.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Gonsowski" <twinturbo@mediaone.net>
To: "Philip V. Glazatov" <gphilip@umich.edu>
Cc: <team3S@stealth-3000gt.st>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: Team3S: Back from a drag strip


> Excellent times Philip, but I'd like to know what you mean by "Here are my
> results net my reaction times:"  Just curious if you took some time off
your
> ET because of a less than perfect reaction time (I've seen some do this).
If
> you didn't, those are very impressive times given the trap speeds.
>
> Please post your whole time slip including the 60 ft times.
>
> BTW - FWDs are not running 13s with simple mods unless "simple" includes
> nitrous.
>
> Joe G.
> '92 R/T TT
>
> "Philip V. Glazatov" wrote:
>
> > Here are my results net my reaction times:
> >
> >                 Run 1   Run 2   Run 3   (Run 3 G-Tech reading)
> > Time, sec       13.927  13.514  13.685  (14.05)
> > Speed, mph      95.24   99.31   98.47   (103.6)
> >
> > Philip
> > '95 R/T TT

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 14:31:40 -0500
From: "Jannusch, Matt" <mjannusch@marketwatch.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Back from a drag strip

> Gtech times are only ET times, but the Gtech starts as soon
> as the car starts, rather than waiting for a break light
> condition, so time may be a tenth or two longer than track
> ET times.

My Gtech is usually optimistic by a bit, caused by the car squatting the
back end and lifting the front under hard acceleration.  It tilts the Gtech
a bit more down, adding a bit to the acceleration readings resulting in the
optimistic reading.

Your mileage may vary....

- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:28:44 -0400
From: Joe Gonsowski <twinturbo@mediaone.net>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Back from a drag strip

Just so everyone is clear, I didn't recommend subtracting RT from ET.  I simply asked if this is what he was doing because of the following:

1)  He stated "Here are my results net my reaction times:"  why did he say "net my reaction times", what does this mean?
2)  13.5 timeslip is impressive in a stock TT, usually better than a 98 trap is reported with mid 13 timeslips.
3)  he said his car was feeling slow
4)  It was his first time out, perhaps he doesn't know that RT is completely independant of ET.

I've seen plenty of first timers run in the 14s at ~98 mph.  Just want to make sure he is interpreting his timeslip correctly.  Say he ran a 14.3 ET with a .8 RT @ 98, that means he ran a
14.3 1/4 mile but he may have interpretted it as the 13.5 he reported.

I just asked for some clarification.

Joe G.
12.236 @ 113
http://people.mw.mediaone.net/twinturbo/homepage.htm

"Zobel, Kurt" wrote:

> Yes, just to clarify, your reaction time is time from light goes green til your wheels/car break the timing light, and ET is break timing light til break finnish line timing light.
>
> The winner is the first to cross finnish line from green light, so includes both of above, but is seldom/if ever included as a total time on time slips. Just 'first' or 'winner' is noted.
>
> Gtech times are only ET times, but the Gtech starts as soon as the car starts, rather than waiting for a break light condition, so time may be a tenth or two longer than track ET times.
> Also, it measures instantaneous final speed vs trap speed, so will usually report speed higher than track speeds.  Slower time, higher speed with Gtech just as Phillip indicated.
>
> Kurt
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cody [mailto:overclck@starband.net]
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 11:38 AM
> To: 'Joe Gonsowski'; team3s@stealth-3000gt.st
> Subject: RE: Team3S: Back from a drag strip
>
> Reaction times have nothing to do with ET.  No one should do that
> whatsoever... You could literally have a 30 second reaction time, and a
> ET of 9.5 seconds...
>
> -Cody

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 13:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jeff Lucius <stealthman92@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Back from a drag strip

The G-tech measures acceleration in one direction. Point it up (or
down) and it measures the force of gravity at your location. Move it
horizontal when it is pointed up and the reading will not change
because there is no vertical component of the horizontal movement.
Turn it to face to the sideways (lateral G measurement) and move the
car forward and the reading will not change (or change very little).

To measure car acceleration it is best to have the G-tech horizontal.
If you have it tilted, the horizontal component will be reduced and
the measured acceleration will be reduced. Distance traveled and
speed is based on cummulative time at the acceleration rate. With a
tilted meter, the G-Tech will think it takes you longer to get to 60
mph or 1/4 mile. The G-Tech will never be optimistic, always
pessimistic.

Jeff Lucius, www.stealth316.com

- --- "Jannusch, Matt" <mjannusch@marketwatch.com> wrote:
<snip>
> My Gtech is usually optimistic by a bit, caused by the car
> squatting the
> back end and lifting the front under hard acceleration.  It tilts
> the Gtech
> a bit more down, adding a bit to the acceleration readings
> resulting in the
> optimistic reading.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:17:26 -0500
From: "Jannusch, Matt" <mjannusch@marketwatch.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Back from a drag strip

> To measure car acceleration it is best to have the G-tech
> horizontal. If you have it tilted, the horizontal component
> will be reduced and the measured acceleration will be
> reduced. Distance traveled and speed is based on cummulative
> time at the acceleration rate. With a tilted meter, the
> G-Tech will think it takes you longer to get to 60 mph or 1/4
> mile. The G-Tech will never be optimistic, always pessimistic.

The G-Tech starts level, but the car induces a tilt to the G-Tech when
accelerating.  As it does this, a gravity component is introduced into the
acceleration reading causing it to think my car is quicker than it is...

Front of car                 Back of Car
                 ________
      ----------| G-Tech |----------
                ----------

Car at rest = zero gravitationally-induced acceleration

Car accelerating, with front rising and tail dropping:

Front of car                 Back of Car
               ^
     -----\     ________
           ----| G-Tech |----\ 
               ----------     -----
                        V

Car's acceleration force vector is  ----->
Gravitational force vector is |
                              |
                              V

If G-Tech's measurement vector is:  \   (exaggerated)
                                     \
                                      V

Then the two force vectors will read on the measurement vector as a single
higher acceleration vector.

G-Tech gets tilted along with the car so "front" is higher than rear.
Gravity causes an increased acceleration reading on its single-axis
accelerometer causing it to believe the car is accelerating quicker than
actual.

...so on my car it is typically optimistic on hard enough launches.  It
launches hard enough where the rear sometimes hits the bumpstops and the
front pulls the struts to full extension, so the angle of tilt is
significant enough to throw off the reading.

So, yes, it can read optimistically.

If your car doesn't sqat as much as mine does (fairly likely due to the
seemingly softer suspension setup on the Spyder) then maybe this effect
isn't enough to throw the reading optimistic enough to compensate for the
"roll-out" distance before you leave the staging beams at the track (which
reduces ET's at the track since you get a small rolling start before the ET
clock starts ticking).

????

Probably not very important in the grand scheme of things though.  ;-)

- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:32:17 -0500
From: "Christopher Deutsch" <crdeutsch@mn.mediaone.net>
Subject: Alternative Performance Meter (Was: Team3S: Back from a drag strip)

Or you can get one of these, which you can program to compensate for
different degrees of squat:
http://www.race-technology.com/WebPage/FlashHome.html

This performance meter should be more accurate than a G-tech, plus you can
hook it up to your PC to analyze your data. Don't know if it's worth the
price though.  If your interested in getting one, I bought mine from
Christopher Brown at:
http://www.cb-racing.com/

Great customer service!  No were not related or in business together, just a
great shopping experience!

You can email me privately if you have any questions about it.
Christopher

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jannusch, Matt" <mjannusch@marketwatch.com>
To: "'Jeff Lucius'" <stealthman92@yahoo.com>; <team3s@stealth-3000gt.st>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 4:17 PM
Subject: RE: Team3S: Back from a drag strip


> > To measure car acceleration it is best to have the G-tech
> > horizontal. If you have it tilted, the horizontal component
> > will be reduced and the measured acceleration will be
> > reduced. Distance traveled and speed is based on cummulative
> > time at the acceleration rate. With a tilted meter, the
> > G-Tech will think it takes you longer to get to 60 mph or 1/4
> > mile. The G-Tech will never be optimistic, always pessimistic.
>
> The G-Tech starts level, but the car induces a tilt to the G-Tech when
> accelerating.  As it does this, a gravity component is introduced into the
> acceleration reading causing it to think my car is quicker than it is...
>
>
> Front of car                 Back of Car
>
>                  ________
>       ----------| G-Tech |----------
>                 ----------
>
> Car at rest = zero gravitationally-induced acceleration
>
> Car accelerating, with front rising and tail dropping:
>
> Front of car                 Back of Car
>                ^
>      -----\     ________
>            ----| G-Tech |----\
>                ----------     -----
>                         V
>
> Car's acceleration force vector is  ----->
> Gravitational force vector is |
>                               |
>                               V
>
> If G-Tech's measurement vector is:  \   (exaggerated)
>                                      \
>                                       V
>
> Then the two force vectors will read on the measurement vector as a single
> higher acceleration vector.
>
> G-Tech gets tilted along with the car so "front" is higher than rear.
> Gravity causes an increased acceleration reading on its single-axis
> accelerometer causing it to believe the car is accelerating quicker than
> actual.
>
> ...so on my car it is typically optimistic on hard enough launches.  It
> launches hard enough where the rear sometimes hits the bumpstops and the
> front pulls the struts to full extension, so the angle of tilt is
> significant enough to throw off the reading.
>
> So, yes, it can read optimistically.
>
> If your car doesn't sqat as much as mine does (fairly likely due to the
> seemingly softer suspension setup on the Spyder) then maybe this effect
> isn't enough to throw the reading optimistic enough to compensate for the
> "roll-out" distance before you leave the staging beams at the track (which
> reduces ET's at the track since you get a small rolling start before the
ET
> clock starts ticking).
>
> ????
>
> Probably not very important in the grand scheme of things though.  ;-)
>
> -Matt
> '95 3000GT Spyder VR4

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 21:58:55 -0000
From: "Sam Shelat" <sshelat@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Rod bearing preventitive maintenance?

It must just be 1st gens then cause my 95 VR-4 has 96,000 miles hits 15psi
every day, goes to 100mph and beyond for minutes each day and still does 12
second 1/4 mile times all on stock motor and turbos (three leaky
transmissions though).  I thought our motors were well built except when you
start upgrading turbos and such.

Sam
- -----Original Message-----
From: Willis, Charles E. <cewillis@TexasChildrensHospital.org>
To: Team3S@stealth-3000gt.st <Team3S@stealth-3000gt.st>
Date: Thursday, August 16, 2001 2:07 PM
Subject: RE: Team3S: Rod bearing preventitive maintenance?


>Jeff,
>
>What sort of TLC do you think the previous owner gave your car for 53K
>miles?  We've had four of these monsters with various levels of restoration
>required. Mike's current car has 120K miles - he bought it at about 60K
from
>a meticulous fellow who always drove it fast, but not hard.   Our other
cars
>have 90K miles and 63K miles currently with (knock on wood) no bearing
>problems.  The first car Mike had was totalled at about 75K miles if my
>memory serves me.
>
>I just can't see changing the bearings that frequently as a PM.  If you go
>to that much trouble, wouldn't you pop the heads and change out the rods,
>pistons and rings?
>
>Chuck
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jeff Lucius [SMTP:stealthman92@yahoo.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 8:20 AM
>> To: Team3S@stealth-3000gt.st
>> Subject: Re: Team3S: Rod bearing preventitive maintenance?
>>
>> >> Geoff Mohler said:
>> >> Honestly..this is the first ive heard of this "common problem".
>>
>> Who said common problem? I didn't. Read carefully. I said "weakest
>> link".
>>
>> And Roger, I rarely have heard of our cars breaking rings or gouging
>> pistons (at least here stateside). The most often *major* engine
>> complaint I have heard of is rod bearings.
>>
>> While some here would laughingly accuse our engine builders of being
>> morons (Hi Wayne), I believe the problem is inherent in the design.
>> Don't blame our engine builders or people like me who bought a TT
>> used (5 yrs old and 53K miles, and had the rod bearings spin after
>> only owning it for 2 months and 1000 miles), and say we either can't
>> build an engine or don't perform proper maintenance.
>>
>> I do agree (emphatically) that changing the oil often with a good
>> quality oil, and preventing detonation, should go a long way to
>> prolong the life of the bearings. I happen to change my oil (Mobil 1)
>> every 1000 miles or so. I felt bad when I changed it twice after 2000
>> miles (after driving to Ohio and Norwalk, the DSM shootout, and again
>> after driving back to Colorado).
>>
>> Jeff Lucius, www.stealth316.com

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 22:51:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matthew Hull <mh800597@oak.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Team3S: Stealth info

Hello all,

I had recently put my car up for sale and I found a buyer for
13,000.  I Thought it was worth more but I was desperate at the time.  Two
days before it was suppose to be sold the ac belt broke off and got caught
in the drive belt and messed up the timing belt.  The final result was
that the engine was totally messed up.  I have the car at a dealership
right now and they are putting in a used engine for 6K installed.  The car
is a 94 Dodge Stealth R/T TT, everything inside and out is in great
condition despite this belt thing.  I was wondering what you guys thought
it was worth now that it has a new engine. (more-less)??  The car has 80K
miles on it and the engine has 30K. I did all the matainance that was
needed the belt that broke was only 11 months old, if anyone knows
anything about sueing or talking with the belt company about the damage
that it caused engine.  Thanks for all your help!!

- -Matt

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 22:20:14 -0500
From: "Mark Wendlandt" <stealth_tt@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Back from a drag strip

I have to agree with Matt on this one...both theoretically and empirically. 
Because the car squats there is an addition gravity component added in. To
get an accurate measurement, you would need 2 accels orthogonal to each
other(vertical and parallel to the direction of movement).  We can then find
each component of acceleration...integrate it and find our velocity and if
you know time, you can find distance...etc, etc.  I thought that the better
ones (vericom) had two accels, but I could be wrong.

I'm disappointed with my g-tech.  It is fairly consistent but inaccurate. 
I've run it several times at the track and it is ~.3-.5 sec fast in the 1/4
and about 7mph off(expected because of instantanious instead of the average
of the last 60').

I put a lot more weight on the times posted from track events than the times
posted with (g-tech) after them.

Anyone want to buy my g-tech?

Mark Wendlandt
'91RT/TT  12.61@111 (Rockfalls Dragways)

>From: "Jannusch, Matt" <mjannusch@marketwatch.com>
>The G-Tech starts level, but the car induces a tilt to the G-Tech when
>accelerating.  As it does this, a gravity component is introduced into the
>acceleration reading causing it to think my car is quicker than it is...

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 20:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Christian <jczoom_619@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Rod bearing preventative maintenance?

Hi Andy,

Yep, on the engine stand.  Just pulled #4&3 pistons.
#4 is only slightly cracked near the top land, but is
missing the two lower skirts--found those in the pan.
Will be pulling the other 4 pistons on Sat.

Can see the copper thru what is left of the babbitt on
the upper rod bearing insert.  Crank journals still
look good with bright mirror like finish.

Guess its 'good' I blew a head gasket cause there
wasn't but a few more miles to go before serious
damage occurred.  Currently 93k.

Be of good cheer,
John

- --- "Andrew D. Woll" <awoll1@pacbell.net> wrote:
> John:  How did you check the bearings with
> Plastigage - Is you engine torn
> apart right now?
>
> Andy
>

=====
Please respond to jczoom@iname.com
'93 TT with Porsche brakes and Supra TT rotors
12.4@109MPH  5/97 almost stock
http://www.geocities.com/motorcity/flats/4538

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 20:28:06 -0700
From: "Jim Berry" <fastmax@home.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Back from a drag strip

The G-tech is great for testing mods ---- do a roll on before and after a mod
and check max acceleration, you can even watch the readout and get a
feel for overall performance. If you wish do  a ¼ mile run to get the change
in performance, they are great for relative performance. To think that it would
have an absolute accuracy better than a track timing light is a bit foolish, on
the other hand it's a major pain to run to the track every time you want to
check your performance level. With the G-tech you can also wait to have the
same run conditions --- Temperature etc.

If you want absolute accuracy go to the track ---- if you want relative accuracy
and convenience use the G-tech.

        Jim Berry
====================================================
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Wendlandt <stealth_tt@hotmail.com>

> I have to agree with Matt on this one...both theoretically and empirically.
> Because the car squats there is an addition gravity component added in.
>
> I'm disappointed with my g-tech.  It is fairly consistent but inaccurate.

> I put a lot more weight on the times posted from track events than the times
> posted with (g-tech) after them.
>
> Anyone want to buy my g-tech?

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 23:50:45 -0500
From: "Jannusch, Matt" <mjannusch@marketwatch.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Stealth info

> ...the ac belt broke off and got caught in the drive belt
> and messed up the timing belt.  The final result was
> that the engine was totally messed up.

That's strange.  A broken A/C belt shouldn't be able to hose up the timing
belt since the timing belt is tucked safely away under a full set of covers.
Seems a little suspicious to me...

- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 00:06:05 -0500
From: "Jannusch, Matt" <mjannusch@marketwatch.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Back from a drag strip

> I'm disappointed with my g-tech.  It is fairly consistent
> but inaccurate.  I've run it several times at the track
> and it is ~.3-.5 sec fast in the 1/4 and about 7mph
> off(expected because of instantanious instead of the average
> of the last 60').

Yeah, I see similar results.  My car posted a 12.2 on the G-Tech, but that's
about the best I think my car could've hoped for in its then-current set of
mods at the track with race fuel and more boost.  With 17 psi of boost and
pump gas with water injection that seemed optimistic.  But gee, that would
be great if that was reality.  ;-)

The +7 MPH is actually pretty poor accuracy-wise and can't really be
explained by the 60' averaging.  At 110 MPH that last 60' goes by a lot
quicker than you can accelerate the 7 MPH of error.  The MPH number just
plain isn't accurate.

> I put a lot more weight on the times posted from track events
> than the times posted with (g-tech) after them.

Yeah, for sure.  The G-Tech is okay for estimates, and only if you do
several runs and average the runs throwing out the best and worst.  Then of
course you have to find a nearly perfectly flat road to make the runs on or
the numbers can really get out of whack.  Its better than nothing, but the
numbers aren't necessarily "real".  Hopefully nobody ever really thought
they were.  :-)

- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 08:50:21 -0500
From: "Mark Wendlandt" <stealth_tt@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Back from a drag strip

Thanks for the comments Jim.  The problem is with the claims that G-tech
makes about the accuracy.  I never expected it to be as accurate as timing. 
I just expected it to live up to their claims(does this still make me
"foolish"?)

http://www.gtechpro.com/accu.html

+-0.1 sec and +-1 mph

In practice, these just are not true...in my car or Matt's(this leaves me to
believe others as well).  People spend thousands of dollars to get a half of
second increase in the 1/4...

Now if is was always exactly .4 sec(hypothetical) off then it would be more
useful.  If you put a K&N in or new downpipe that will probably only give
you a tenth or two...it is in the noise level and you will not see it in the
gtech(1/4mi run).  Nitrous, BC or turbos and I think that you will notice
this as they give a much larger performance gain.

I do agree with you that it is more accurate doing roll-ons than launches
and that you could do testing that way...When I bought it, I had 0-60s and
1/4s on my mind(these are the numbers that many post).  Not accurate enough
for these.

The device just does not live up to its claims.

Now if you know this when you buy it(I didn't), you won't be
disappointed/surprised when you go to the track and numbers are way off(I
was).

"You get what you pay for"

Mark Wendlandt
'91RT/TT

>
>The G-tech is great for testing mods ---- do a roll on before and after a
>mod
>and check max acceleration, you can even watch the readout and get a
>feel for overall performance. If you wish do  a ¼ mile run to get the
>change
>in performance, they are great for relative performance. To think that it
>would
>have an absolute accuracy better than a track timing light is a bit
>foolish, on

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 07:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jeff Lucius <stealthman92@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Back from a drag strip

Yes, I agree Matt. I didn't think it through - the reduced horizontal
component will be less than the increased vertical component
(assuming none of our cars accelerate faster than 1 g :) ) so the
total vector will be larger. I should have drawn some little pictures
or at least had a cup of coffee. :)

Jeff Lucius, www.stealth316.com

- --- "Jannusch, Matt" <mjannusch@marketwatch.com> wrote:
> > To measure car acceleration it is best to have the G-tech
> > horizontal. If you have it tilted, the horizontal component
> > will be reduced and the measured acceleration will be
> > reduced. Distance traveled and speed is based on cummulative
> > time at the acceleration rate. With a tilted meter, the
> > G-Tech will think it takes you longer to get to 60 mph or 1/4
> > mile. The G-Tech will never be optimistic, always pessimistic.
>
> The G-Tech starts level, but the car induces a tilt to the G-Tech
> when
> accelerating.  As it does this, a gravity component is introduced
> into the
> acceleration reading causing it to think my car is quicker than it
> is...
>
>
> Front of car                 Back of Car
>
-----------------ASCII art snipped--------------

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 08:08:19 -0700
From: "Jim Berry" <fastmax@home.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Back from a drag strip

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Wendlandt <stealth_tt@hotmail.com>

> Thanks for the comments Jim.  The problem is with the claims that G-tech
> makes about the accuracy.  I never expected it to be as accurate as timing.
> I just expected it to live up to their claims(does this still make me
> "foolish"?)

Foolish was an bad choice of words --- overly optimistic would be a better
choice. I went to their web site and looked at their advertising hype and would
have to agree that they are misleading, dive, squat and roll are not mentioned
at all and can have a significant affect on operation especially if you have a
softly sprung car. I guess as a result of my engineering background and
cynical  view of advertising I didn't expect too much.


> Now if is was always exactly .4 sec(hypothetical) off then it would be more
> useful.

If dive and squat were repeatable I would assume the results would be
repeatable also --- has anyone kept track of similar ¼ mile runs and the
G-tech equivalent.


If you put a K&N in or new downpipe that will probably only give
> you a tenth or two...it is in the noise level and you will not see it in the
> gtech(1/4mi run).

I think the same applies to ¼ mi runs also unless you're a serious racer, in
my case if I could get within .3 on consecutive runs I'd be amazed, that's
why I'd use a roll-on to check mods.


> The device just does not live up to its claims.

Probably true --- I see they're in LA, not far from me ---- I might give them
a call and ask about dive and squat and see what they have to say for
themselves.

        Jim Berry

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 11:01:59 -0500
From: Gabriel Estrada <typhoonzz@earthlink.net>
Subject: Team3S: Stock brake replacement

Ok,
I have never changed the pads before on my GT, but I can't imagine that is
going to be that hard.  But I'd like some advice on simple stock replacement
pads and what is the best fluid to use that can be store bought for a car
that is never raced, just daily driven.
Thanks in advance!
Gabriel Estrada

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 12:54:33 -0500
From: "Philip V. Glazatov" <gphilip@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Back from a drag strip

May I ask what a "roll-on" is? I could not find it in the archives. Maybe
then I won't have to burn my clutch or speed past 100 MPH. Thanks.

Philip

At 10:08 AM 8/18/2001, Jim Berry wrote:
>I'd use a roll-on to check mods.


***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 13:08:07 -0500
From: "Jannusch, Matt" <mjannusch@marketwatch.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Back from a drag strip

> If dive and squat were repeatable I would assume the
> results would be repeatable also --- has anyone kept
> track of similar ¼ mile runs and the G-tech equivalent.

I think overall the results are reasonably repeatable, but if I make a run
in Tour suspension mode versus Sport mode the results on the Tour run are
even more optimistic.  :-)  I like those results the best.  Heh....

> I think the same applies to ¼ mi runs also unless
> you're a serious racer, in my case if I could get
> within .3 on consecutive runs I'd be amazed, that's
> why I'd use a roll-on to check mods.

Its probably even tougher to get consistent roll-on acceleration than a
dragstrip launch though (at least for me - you might be better at it than I
am!).  I'm thinking I might try out something like this instead:

http://www.charm.net/~mchaney/roaddyno/index.html

Essentially what I'm really looking for when I'm not at the dragstrip is
engine output power and not so much 1/4 mile time or acceleration data.  The
horsepower number on the GTech can be pretty iffy and since there's no
datalogging you can't draw a plot of wheel horsepower later to use as a
tuning aid.

Since I haven't found an AWD dyno anywhere remotely near where I live
(Minnesota) maybe this will do something for me to at least get some better
performance data than "Well, it seems really quick!".  :-)

Anyone played with that hardware/software?  Opinions?

30 day money back guarantee, which is nice...

- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 14:29:37 EDT
From: Sportsmobile101@aol.com
Subject: Team3S: Car wont start, please help.

  Hi team, i drove home last night in my 92 SL and it was working ok, but
this morning when i tried to start it, it started but the rpm did not get
over 500 and then it just died.  So i fugured maybe my fuel pump had died,
but i checked that and it is working fine, i replaced the fuel filter just in
case, but that didn't do anything.   Where should i start checking?? Any
advice is greatly appreciated.  Thanx in advace.

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 15:01:51 -0500
From: "Philip V. Glazatov" <gphilip@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Back from a drag strip

Sorry, I did read my slips incorrectly. Here are the original slips:

                 Run 1   Run 2   Run 3   (Run 3 G-Tech reading)
Reaction        1.037   0.720   0.480
60 ft           2.536   2.246   2.031
330 ft          6.596   6.060   5.860
1/8 ET          9.869   9.229   9.106
1/8 MPH         75.63   76.90   75.79
1000' ET        12.623  11.947  11.855
1/4 ET          14.964  14.234  14.165  (14.05)
1/4 MPH         95.24   99.31   98.47   (103.6)

I raced at the Milan Dragway in Michigan, the Great Lakes altitude??? The
weather was about 75 deg F and I'd say 70% humidity. It got a little cooler
by the my last run. During the second run I panicked and clutched it when I
started pulling away from that 500HP+ Camaro. ;-) I lost some time but
gained some speed I think. He still got me in the end. My G-Tech was
surprisingly accurate during the one time I used it.

Philip
'95 R/T TT

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 15:13:18 -0400
From: Joe Gonsowski <twinturbo@mediaone.net>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Back from a drag strip

Hey Philip, many of us Michigan folks have run at Milan and Lapeer dragway.
Next time you go, let the MI crew know (we have an email list, contact "Alan C.
Sheffield" <alan92rttt@mi3si.org> if you aren't on the list yet).  Even if my
car isn't running, I'll gladly go to watch, help, take pictures, etc.  Your ETs
can use some improvement, and you'll get it with a better launch / 60 foot.  A
1.8 60' will get you to ~ 13.8 which is typical although others in better
states of tune and aggressive shifting have gotten to mid 13s stock.

Joe Gonsowski
Westland, MI
'92 R/T TT
12.236 @ 113

"Philip V. Glazatov" wrote:

> Sorry, I did read my slips incorrectly. Here are the original slips:
>
>                  Run 1   Run 2   Run 3   (Run 3 G-Tech reading)
> Reaction        1.037   0.720   0.480
> 60 ft           2.536   2.246   2.031
> 330 ft          6.596   6.060   5.860
> 1/8 ET          9.869   9.229   9.106
> 1/8 MPH         75.63   76.90   75.79
> 1000' ET        12.623  11.947  11.855
> 1/4 ET          14.964  14.234  14.165  (14.05)
> 1/4 MPH         95.24   99.31   98.47   (103.6)
>
> I raced at the Milan Dragway in Michigan, the Great Lakes altitude??? The
> weather was about 75 deg F and I'd say 70% humidity. It got a little cooler
> by the my last run. During the second run I panicked and clutched it when I
> started pulling away from that 500HP+ Camaro. ;-) I lost some time but
> gained some speed I think. He still got me in the end. My G-Tech was
> surprisingly accurate during the one time I used it.
>
> Philip
> '95 R/T TT

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

------------------------------

End of Team3S: 3000GT & Stealth V1 #582
***************************************