17's ET on G Tech
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Car: sc
Engine: 383carbed
Transmission: th400
Axle/Gears: 4.11 12 bolt
17's ET on G Tech
I know there not all that accurate but I did 2 runs with a gtech, 1st run was 17.3 with peak hp at 88hp, and the 3rd was a 16.9 launching really hard at 90 peak hp. death to the LO3!
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 849
Likes: 2
From: MA
Car: 93 GM300 platforms
Engine: LO3, LO5
Transmission: MD8 x2
LO3 was 170 fwhp from the factory and they measure approx 140-145 rwhp on a chassis dyno if the engine is in good condition and is well tuned. You should run an ET in the mid 16s bone stock and in the low 80s for mph trap speed. 16.9 is probably a few tenths off of where it could be, in good condition, with a good launch, in cool weather.
Other, perhaps smarter, owners here have gone into the 15 and some into the 14s with little modification with the same engine. YMMV.
Supreme Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,663
Likes: 9
From: Buckhannon, WV
Car: 84' Monte
Engine: 350
Transmission: 700-r4
Axle/Gears: ferd 9" posi 3.50 gears
The HP calculator for the G-tech and the G-tech pro are both off by a pretty large margin, more so with the original G-tech. Don't take the G-tech numbers as the gossible, use it as a tuning tool. It doesn't matter if it says your doing 30 second 1/4 miles, as long as it's repeatable. This will give you a yard stick to measure your driving technique and modifications by.... you just won't know exactly how long the yard stick is.
I ran consistant 14.5's with the g-tech and my buddies mustang ran consistant 14.1's. We went to the track and I ran 13.8's and he ran 14.5's.....figure that one out. It had a LOT to do with how the cars launched.
I ran consistant 14.5's with the g-tech and my buddies mustang ran consistant 14.1's. We went to the track and I ran 13.8's and he ran 14.5's.....figure that one out. It had a LOT to do with how the cars launched.
Supreme Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 6,577
Likes: 0
From: Portland, OR www.cascadecrew.org
Car: 1990 Camaro RS
Engine: Juiced 5.0 TBI - 300rwhp
Transmission: T5
Axle/Gears: 3.42 Eaton Posi, 10 Bolt
Yes, there is a video of my car with a G-Tech, it went 14.1 on the g-tech, i went 13.3 at the track.
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
From: Good 'ol Wisconsin
Car: I've had 4 thrid gens!!
Engine: Someday again I will have another!!
I had a '88 Trans Am 305TBI, 160K on it with bad lifter noise. It ran a 17.3 at the track with like a 2.4 or so 60'. Your car should do better then mine did. -Nick.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 849
Likes: 2
From: MA
Car: 93 GM300 platforms
Engine: LO3, LO5
Transmission: MD8 x2
FWIW, if you run the GTech on the street, and then later run at the track, you have two different runs, with two different launches, in possibly two different weather conditions, on two different surfaces. IF you are skilled at launching, and the surfaces/weather are cooperative, then the GTech ET will usually be close to the track time. OTOH if any of the above is different, then you can see different results. In some sense you need to make (say) 5 runs on the GTech and compare it to the best run at the track.
The very best way to sanity check whether the GTech is at all accurate is to run the GTech in the car during the same track runs. There are web sites that have documented track vs GTech (or equivalent), and Car & Driver did a full story on personal accelerometers (incl GTech) sometime last year. IIRC both the web sites and the C&D article showed the same things:
* the personal accelerometers (like GTech) are absolutely useful as a tuning tool, to see relative changes after a modification has been done.
* the GTech ET is generally within 0.2 sec of the track data (for the same run) for cars that run in the 13 to 17 sec bracket at the track.
* the trap speed on the GTech tends to overestimate what the track trap speed is, because the GTech isn't averaging over the last 50 feet, whereas at the track you trip not only the finish line sensor, but one or more sensors set to measure the avg speed through the finish line. The amount of mph error depends on whether the car runs in the 17s, or in the 13s.
The very best way to sanity check whether the GTech is at all accurate is to run the GTech in the car during the same track runs. There are web sites that have documented track vs GTech (or equivalent), and Car & Driver did a full story on personal accelerometers (incl GTech) sometime last year. IIRC both the web sites and the C&D article showed the same things:
* the personal accelerometers (like GTech) are absolutely useful as a tuning tool, to see relative changes after a modification has been done.
* the GTech ET is generally within 0.2 sec of the track data (for the same run) for cars that run in the 13 to 17 sec bracket at the track.
* the trap speed on the GTech tends to overestimate what the track trap speed is, because the GTech isn't averaging over the last 50 feet, whereas at the track you trip not only the finish line sensor, but one or more sensors set to measure the avg speed through the finish line. The amount of mph error depends on whether the car runs in the 17s, or in the 13s.
Trending Topics
Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
From: Hammond IN
Car: 1989 RS convertible
Engine: 305 TBI LO3
Transmission: TH-700-R4
Axle/Gears: stock axles 3.73 LSD
lol thats funny. 90 hp!!! i didn't read all the other posts but that thing has to be way off.
Supreme Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,663
Likes: 9
From: Buckhannon, WV
Car: 84' Monte
Engine: 350
Transmission: 700-r4
Axle/Gears: ferd 9" posi 3.50 gears
If it was a 3.5SE model then you have nothing to worry about, those run mid 14's strait from the factory. A 350 Iroc would have a hard time keeping up with one of those.
My 88 305 TBI ran 17s. I like to refer to my engine as a Low Output 305.
I think I ran one 16.9.
The rest were between 17.2 and 17.6.
I had no mods.
I had about 10 runs over 3 days. I never won and I never saw anyone run a slower time.
I think I ran one 16.9.
The rest were between 17.2 and 17.6.
I had no mods.
I had about 10 runs over 3 days. I never won and I never saw anyone run a slower time.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 561
Likes: 1
From: Buffalo Grove IL
Car: 89 Firebird 89 Formula one red one black
Engine: 350, 355
Transmission: 700r4
Supreme Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,663
Likes: 9
From: Buckhannon, WV
Car: 84' Monte
Engine: 350
Transmission: 700-r4
Axle/Gears: ferd 9" posi 3.50 gears
My bad they actually run mid 15's with a 0-60 in 7 seconds. Check it out here MaxFAQ: Maxima History
Either way thats a good second faster than your car is right now, which equates to almost 10 car lengths over a 1/4 mile.
Either way thats a good second faster than your car is right now, which equates to almost 10 car lengths over a 1/4 mile.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Pac J
Tech / General Engine
3
May 17, 2020 10:44 AM





