ssmoked

12.747@113.43
1.808 60'

stock michelins with 9989 miles, with light burnout
90F outside according to my car's temp

borla cat-back

only thing i did different from the first run (12.8 my normal time like the past) is using sport mode not sport plus.

cosmo1

That's actually not too bad considering that's what car n driver has the time for..

Deanrcf

iTrader: (1)

Great 60 and trap!

RYLITT

Why did you decide to go Sport vs. Sport +? Didn't think there was a difference..

ssmoked

for some reason I felt sport+ was bouncing off the limiter and couldn't time it right.. sounds weird I know

Then I ran twice with sport mode just for a change, both time I got 12.7, where as I did at least 10 total passes prior with sport+ and only achieved 12.8 and trapped lower

also the 1.8 60' was with sport mode. Can't wait to put on 305/30 and see how I do

Jz39

iTrader: (2)

That's surprising that you had a 1.8 60' and still only ran 12.7.

I recently had a 2.08 60' and still ran a 12.69 at 114mph in my ISF. Temps for me were closer to 60 degrees, but I imagine that if I ran a 1.8 I would have been around 12.2 in the 1/4!

How did you launch that hard? That is an awesome 60' time.

Davew77

90 degrees is pretty hot. If you calculate the ET based on the density altitude I'll bet it's a 12.5 or better.

1.8 is a great 60' though. Did you rev-launch it or just gas it from idle?

I'm going back home for 2 weeks beginning this Friday. I may try to hit the local strip. But I'm not bone stock anymore...

ssmoked

im at sea level, pretty sure the engine would breath better when it's cooler. I brake torque until the tires are about to lose traction. Here is my last run. 60' took over 2 but still did a better time

Davew77

Yeah, you're looking at 12.3+ with the right conditions. Rule of thumb is .1 off the 60' is .2 off the ET. So if you had cut another 1.808 60' on that 12.739 run it would have been ~12.339. I noticed the temp was also 67 degrees on that run. Temps make a big difference.

I'm not a fan of bench racing, but it's good for getting ball park numbers.

MisterSkiz

iTrader: (2)

Man the RC-F is so slow compared to the IS-F...I guess that 200lbs of weight does make a difference.

ssmoked

isnt it every 100lb less, decreases the quarter mile time by .1 second?

what you run in the is stock?

Carnevino

smh...I've never been beaten by an ISF, but I've sure as hell beaten every one that's tried me. The isf would never be on my radar as a car to own.

johnnyreb

Lol, you're Soooooo Funny! Go back to the isf forum, Only reason you're in here is to try & get a Rise out of the RCF guys

cosmo1

He just hates it that he bought a isf instead of a rcf... TROLL... lol

MisterSkiz

iTrader: (2)

I had only run my bone stock (including tires and pressures) IS-F once when, the best time was a 12.6 @ 114 if I remember correctly, at the Great Lake Dragaway in WI in late september back in 2010.

I had full traction control off and used manual mode for shifting.

I haven't been back since.