On Saturday, a friend and I took his 5 speed 305 TBI (stock) to do some testing with a Gtech (around 0 elevation).

The car: 1988 RS 90k all stock except for no mufflers

1st run
0-60- 7.4 1/4- 15.7@91mph

2nd run
0=60 - 7.06 1/4-15.56@93mph

Today (tuesday) it was around the same temperature. Installed a 160 degree thermostat

1st run (spinning off line)
0-60 7.04 1/4 15.57@93mph

2nd run
0-60- 6.9 1/4 no run this time

3rd run
0-60 6.88 1/4mile 15.46@92mph


Just with the t-stat alone, it took about a tenth off.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice to meet ya. wanna jack meyhoff

 

I should note, there was the two of us in the car both times and his trunk is filled with baseball bats. I'm sure these 2 factors had a negative impact (slightly) on his times.

And yes, i know gtechs mph is off by a few.

 

Now that's the 160 degree thermostat from who?? And was it causing any computer problems or detonation running that low of a theromstat w/o changing the chip??

 

It was a 160 degree from Advanced Auto parts (parts america). It was like 6 bucks.
No problems with detonation or with the stock chip. Its actually my old t-stat.

The reason we installed it is because my friend ordered a fastchip stage 2 today. We weren't even expecting any gain from the t-stat alone. Just a nice surprise.

 

So it obviously made an improvement on the G-Tech; what about your butt dyno? Any kind of kick in the pants feel??

 

a little. but not much.

His car seems to run a little smoother...
I ordered the chip for him 3 day express from ed wright. So i'm hoping its here by thursday so we can do another gtech run. i'll keep you guys posted.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't see any demonstrable improvements. The MPH are basically the same with the variation easily attributable to launching.

The best run stock was 7.06 at 60, at 15.56 @ 93 mph with the stock t-stat. With the 160, your times are basically with 1/10th of each other and your MPH is no better.

I bet if your buddy practiced his launches enough with the stock t-stat, that he could cut even quicker times. But the MPH would still be 93 mph, which indicates no change in HP.

 

I'm gonna have to agree with Glenn re. the times possibly having more to do with getting better at launching over six tries... definitely with what I'd call the margin of error...

From the times people kick around here on the boards, a 15.5 ET sounds like a second or two lower than what a stock 305 TBI can do -- are you sure that it's stock? Or that the 1/4 mi you were running wasn't downhill or with some serious winds behind you??

 

Look at his first 0-60 run when he was stock. It was 7.4 (with a decent launch)

Today when he went out and he did his first 0-60 run (this time spinning through first gear) he got a 7.04.

The temperature was about the same outside, and the test was done on the same road. If a .36 improvement is not proof..I dont know what is!!!!

The point is, if you look at his two tests......his first run of the day was always the worst. While the last run was always the best. Lets compare

Saturday
1st run (worst) 0-60 7.4 1/4 15.7@91mph
2rd run (best) 0-60 7.06 1/4 15.56@93mph

Today
1st run (worst) 0-60 7.04 1/4 15.57@93mph
3rd run (best) 0-60 6.8 1/4 15.46@92mph

I see an improvement, don't you ladies and gentlemen? His worst run today, was about dead even with his best run on saturday.

By the way, the 3rd run he did today was not the greatest, disengaged clutch too late.

As far as using the mph to judge...in this case it is irrelevant. We are using a GTECH. and everyone knows the GTECH is +- 4mph.
The numbers do not lie my friend the numbers do not lie.


By the way, he is exceptionally well at launching (and speed shifting)

 

Actually, according to testing done on the Camaro's when they came out, they ran 7.9 sec for 0-60 and 15.9 1/4's. I think Car and Driver said this?? I'm going to try to confirm these numbers though. I just remember somebody else quoting these numbers in another thread.

 

yes his car is stock. I can vouch for that. The owners name is Ian something. And no, it was tested on a flat surface retard.

It's going to be a sad day when he pulls a 14.9 pass with this chip and some of you 350 carb guys and 305 TPI (cough cough) are only a few tenths faster.

But don't worry. I'll be sure to tell your mom all about it

 

Grow up, kid. Nothing wrong with asking -- anyway, no surface is perfectly flat. Even some tracks are a bit uphill/downhill so that times are noticeably affected. It's not really pertinent to what he posted about anyway - what he was measuring demanded more precision than accuracy (feel free to look those words up in the dictionary, if you don't know the difference). It wouldn't matter if it was downhill; just so long as he didn't make any runs in the opp. direction (tho this could make wind a factor, I guess). I just asked b/c those #s are lower than any I've ever heard for a L03. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask. If it's really stock and really running 15.5, more power to him.

Speaking of precise... jack, you mentioned that the GTech was +/- 4mph (more often + in my experience ). While it can be off (not as accurate as, say, radar), I think that it's very consistent, ie. it may read "93mph" when it's really 91, but it's not gonna say 93, then 87, then 91, etc. for runs that are all 91, you know what I mean? So I think Glenn has a decent point about the mph staying the same...

 

gotta love immaturity...

as for the tests, just as someone else mentioned, his times come down but the mph stays the same. gtech does screw up on the mph but i would assume its a "constsant" screw up factor. this being said, his mph is pretty much constant at the 92-93 mph. also as someone else mentioned this would mean his horsepower didnt change and therefore the difference in times can be attributed to launching and possible tirespin. running on street tires at the track i really get to see how much of a difference tire spin can make. i can run 2-3 tenths slower but pull the exact same mph time and time again.

TheFormula, we're not saying you have to believe us but we're just offering some advice and insight. if you cant handle that then i believe we'd invite you to leave. i dont think anyone here NEEDS the immaturity. if you have anything else to say that doesnt involve this post (retard, your momma etc) take it to email.

 

theformula has 1399 posts on these forums. I dont think he is going to leave.

 

that was pretty much my point... hes been here so long, which proves he makes use of these boards, so why bash the people on them? or at least, why bash people who are pointing out honest discrepancies. we're not calling anyone a liar, we're just discussing a topic, there is no reason to resort to childish name calling is there?...

 

You know, the point that could be taken from all this is that the lower temp thermo is giving the engine more torque. If we go by the G-Tech, and the MPH are all the same (well, VERY close) in each run, then that would tell you that the engine is not making more HP but with the ET's lower it's showing you more torque.

It's quicker, not faster.

(My two cents!)

Later,
Mike

 

How much you wanna bet? I'll put down $100 he won't be coming back as "theformula" and if need be we can block any members trying to connect to TGO from Dover, DE.
As for the t-stat, it is worth a little but it's hard to believe it made that much of a difference. The fuel consumption is tuned differently for different engine temps so it wouldn't suprise me if a different engine temp could yield a different ET and mph.

 

good point prevost...

but arent our cars tuned to run better a little on the warm side, so running a cooler thermostat might keep in cooler and thus would hinder performance?... i might be wrong, if so, im choosing "lack of sleep" as my excuse for this one...

 

whoa. you seem pretty intelligent with computers jprevost.

just kidding


theformula wanted me to tell you you are an ugly guy with a slow car. Apparently you had some pictures up and one of his female friends commented on how you look like a character from sesame street??? I dont know. I've never seen you
later