View Full Version : WTF 6.11sec 0-60
LeonPhelps
10-19-2006, 01:47 AM
Just got back from doing a couple of runs with my new DashHawk, the best time I could turn on a 0-60 was 6.11. I have a 2006 AWD TBSS with Vector tune, HSRK, and cat back exhaust.
Does this sound like something is wrong to you guys ???? :undecided
PEDRO
10-19-2006, 02:09 AM
?????:)
vetruck
10-19-2006, 02:25 AM
Just got back from doing a couple of runs with my new DashHawk, the best time I could turn on a 0-60 was 6.11. I have a 2006 AWD TBSS with Vector tune, HSRK, and cat back exhaust.
Does this sound like something is wrong to you guys ???? :undecided
Wow, thats not very impressive. Maybe the dashhawk is a little off? Did you adjust anything in the tune with it (ie. timing)? Have you run it at the track yet for a before and after comparison?
LeonPhelps
10-19-2006, 02:30 AM
Havent adjusted anything. Im wondering if the cat back exhuast I had made could be the culprit :undecided I still want to try a 1/4 mile run, but there were to many cops out tonight.
vetruck
10-19-2006, 02:36 AM
Havent adjusted anything. Im wondering if the cat back exhuast I had made could be the culprit :undecided I still want to try a 1/4 mile run, but there were to many cops out tonight.
Did you used to own a Mustang, your screen name looks familiar but I don't think from here. Anyway, why would a catback drop your 0-60? Loss of backpressure leading to loss of lowend torque or something?
LeonPhelps
10-19-2006, 02:50 AM
Did you used to own a Mustang, your screen name looks familiar but I don't think from here. Anyway, why would a catback drop your 0-60? Loss of backpressure leading to loss of lowend torque or something?
I used to have a 93 Lx but that was like 10 years ago.
I was thinking that the lack of backpressure could be killing me.
vetruck
10-19-2006, 03:02 AM
I don't know, the factory exhaust is pretty much straight through anyway so I don't see you losing enough, if anything, to to be that noticeable.
02redhawk
10-19-2006, 05:25 AM
Are you punching the gas from idle, or are you brake-torquing?
VTODD
10-19-2006, 07:35 AM
the catback woud not make you run that much slower.
mcss383
10-19-2006, 08:37 AM
Are you punching the gas from idle, or are you brake-torquing?
Ditto. If you are launching from idle those numbers sound right. This truck absolutely cannot launch from idle.
kenmosher
10-19-2006, 10:12 AM
I did some runs last night myself ... we're at 6000 ft altitude and I got 6.05 and a 5.78 before I saw some traffic and had to stop goofing around.
The 6.05 was trying to launch at the max stall speed of the converter (about 2200 RPM). The truck seemed to be a bit "snappier" when I "flashed" the converter by stalling to 1800 and leaving there instead ... the 5.78 shows it definitely was faster by a couple tenths.
Interesting ... I would have though launching at max stall would be better.
Of course, this is not entirely scientific ... only two runs in nice COLD weather.
I have a Vector tune and a Magnaflow muffler.
rrmccabe
10-19-2006, 10:48 AM
Read this....
http://forums.trailvoy.com/showthread.php?t=15227
I dont think its the truck.
Rich
clutchNthrottle
10-20-2006, 12:02 AM
I got a 4.87 on mine...:confused:
vetruck
10-20-2006, 02:26 AM
What do you guys mean by "flashing the converter?"
LeonPhelps
10-20-2006, 02:52 AM
Just came back from doing another 0-60 run. Turned a 5.70 this time.
Also did a 1/4 run. (road wasnt the greatest to run this test on)
60ft = 2.17 @ 31.05
660ft = 9.11 @ 80.73
1/4 = 14.01 @ 98.74
Are those numbers respectable ?
treyster
10-20-2006, 02:06 PM
Here's what I put in an earlier thread-
I found, when I used to race every weekend, that bringing up the rpm to just high enough to get the carb off its idle circuits and onto the main fuel metering system would get a little better 60' than trying to foot brake as high as possible. The converter would actually 'flash' a little higher and weight transfer would hit a little harder. Then I went to a trans brake. Granted we're not carbed, but the torque converter may react in a similar fashion.
kenmosher
10-20-2006, 03:23 PM
Just came back from doing another 0-60 run. Turned a 5.70 this time.
Also did a 1/4 run. (road wasnt the greatest to run this test on)
60ft = 2.17 @ 31.05
660ft = 9.11 @ 80.73
1/4 = 14.01 @ 98.74
Are those numbers respectable ?
MPH shows you are making decent power, but the 60 foot would ideally be in the 2.0 range.
A rule of thumb is every tenth you shave off the 60 ft results in about 1.5 tenths off the 1/4 mile.
Looks like a pretty healthy truck to me ... if you sneeze, it'll be in the 13s! :D
rrmccabe
10-20-2006, 04:20 PM
I really think 60' times is a tough thing to measure with devices like this.
This is where I see the biggest difference between the G-tech and the DashHawk.
All my 60' times with the G-tech are in the 2.1 range running a truck that had no torque management in the tune. 2.1 seems about right for those mods. DashHawk on the same run shows over 2.3.
As I said above I am not sure which one is accurate. I do know the DashHawk has been consistant and thats what counts for tuning.
LeonPhelps
11-22-2006, 01:35 AM
Installed my VMS CAI a few days ago, and I had a chance to let her rip tonight.
Pulled a 0-60 of 5.30 sec. Pretty good improvment i'd say.
Still have to get out there and get a 1/4 in before the snow comes.
The weather maybe or altitute?
evil stang
11-22-2006, 09:07 AM
Wouldnt' put too much faith in a launch monitor, they are pretty innacurate.
kenmosher
11-22-2006, 03:53 PM
What's a "launch monitor"? :undecided He's using a DashHawk (I thought?), and it's actually fairly close ... and very repeatable.