Gtech Results In

Unit 5302 · 04-12-2001, 11:20 PM

Well, my sorry slow *** 1987 GT turned in a 14.19@103.8mph. Shitty launches really hurt, stupid county roads have NO traction.

Here is my total combo. 1987 GT 5spd Hatch. 145k miles, clogged K&N, 10* timing, 87pump gas. T-5z (2.95:1 1st), 2.73's. BBK 2.5" hiflow cat H pipe, dynomax 2.5" super turbo cat back.

I had 100lbs of crap in the back, and haven't tuned it for the last 32k miles.

Looks to me like $100 of tune up 93oct and air filter cleaning would put me in the 13's easy.

That's with 145k, 2.73's and a shitty 2.95 1st gear. Basically stock.

Course, since all us old fox 5.0's get beat by stock Integra's my numbers must be off?

Special K · 04-12-2001, 11:46 PM

Like usual with the Gtech trap speed is WAY off!!

My best time on gtech is 15.47 @ 94mph but I did not try it since I had 3000 km on the car!

------------------
2000 Honda Civic SiR
15.368 @ 89.220 mph (stock)
1989 Ford Mustang LX Coupe 5.0L (RIP)
14.120 @ 98.126 mph

exgmguy · 04-13-2001, 05:11 AM

Actually it's the dragstrip that is way off.

Tracks average your last 60 ft. rather than measure your exact mph as you cross the finish line. So at the track your trap speed is actually lower than your finish line mph.

If you don't believe me, take a look at your speedo the next time you are crossing the finish line.

Unit5302, I have tested my GTECH at the track and found that the GTECH will show almost a tenth of a secong slower than the track. This is because at the track the timer starts when you break the staging beams, not when the car starts to move.

At the track you can pick up a tick if you stage very shallow. Just so the 2nd pre-stage light comes on.

At the track you could very well see a 13.9 @ 100-101.

LS1JAY · 04-13-2001, 07:43 AM

G-TECH usualy is about 4-5mph off from the track because it measures the whole 1/4 mile where as the track does not just as xgmguy said, my car may pull 112+mph with the G-TECH but only 107+mph at the track but the ET is fairly close.

------------------
98'Trans Am LS1 A4 273 gears Whisper lid,K&N,Flowmaster,Best ET on street tires 13.17 @ 106.49mph
NEW MODS:3" Flowtech cutout,Magnecor wires,NGK TR55's

exgmguy · 04-13-2001, 08:21 AM

Also the mph difference is greater the faster your car is.

302 LX Eric · 04-13-2001, 08:34 AM

This is interesting info. I have heard some of this before, but I have one question: At the track, why do they AVERAGE your MPH for the last 60'?

I guess if all tracks do this then all of us comparing our track mph's are comparing apples to apples.

E

------------------
1991 5.0 LX Coupe - 38,000 miles

13.17 @ 106.14 mph w/ 2.138 60'

97snakedriver · 04-13-2001, 12:10 PM

The average at the strip because its a lot easier to have 2 beams a set distance apart, measure the time it takes you to get between them and divide then it would be to have a RADAR gun or similiar device to measure the actual speed.

302 LX Eric · 04-13-2001, 12:22 PM

Cool, that seems logical. Thanks, 97snakedriver

E

Unit 5302 · 04-14-2001, 12:17 AM

Upon consideration of the argument that the track is off by 3-4mph, I'd have to say that is totally false.

Both the Gtech and the track are off.

Take a 100mph finish speed. We'll say it took 14sec to do the 1380. So 14.00@100.0. At 100mph = about 147ft/sec you'd be travelling the 60ft in about .4sec. Meaning at about 100mph you'd need to accelerate 3-4mph in .4 sec. Now the cars average acceleration from 0-60 could do that. We'll give the hypothetical car a 5.5 0-60. That's 10.9mph/s. Or about 4.4mph in the .4sec timeframe. That would be accurate, but the car doesn't accelerate anywhere near the same at 100 as it would during the 0-60. Since it took a full 14.00 to hit 100mph, that means it took the hypothetical car took 8.5sec to go from 60-100 or an average of about 5mph/s. That would be about 2mph over a given 60ft area at the end of the course. Now here is the fun part. We can acknowledge that the acceleration will be for all reality the same over that 60ft period, which means the average speed difference would then be half of the 2mph (actually, a little under 2) and that gives us a 1mph differential between what the Gtech should read, and the trap speed at the track.

Math used behind this.
0-60 5.5sec
1/4 mile 14.00@100mph
0-60 average acceleration 10.91mph/s (60/5.5)
60-100 average acceleration 4.71mph/s (40/8.5) 40 comes from 100-60, 8.5 comes from 14.00-5.5.
3-4mph inconsistancy in Gtech vs track estimated.
60ft the last section of track where speed is averaged.
ET for last 60ft .41 (60ft/147ft/s <100mph=147ft/s>
ET for last 30ft .205 <since the acceleration can be rounded to even over the last 60ft, the speed given by the traps should be at 30ft before the end, cause that is exactly 1/2 way throught the 60ft>

Now total acceleration over the last 30ft should be slightly under 4.71 x .205 = .96mph. That tell's me that the Gtech should be less than .96mph off what the track reading is.

Since .96< 3 to 4, that means either the track is more inaccurate than we think, or the Gtech is also off slightly higher than real life.

inferno · 04-14-2001, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Unit 5302:
Upon consideration of the argument that the track is off by 3-4mph, I'd have to say that is totally false.

Both the Gtech and the track are off.

Take a 100mph finish speed. We'll say it took 14sec to do the 1380. So 14.00@100.0. At 100mph = about 147ft/sec you'd be travelling the 60ft in about .4sec. Meaning at about 100mph you'd need to accelerate 3-4mph in .4 sec. Now the cars average acceleration from 0-60 could do that. We'll give the hypothetical car a 5.5 0-60. That's 10.9mph/s. Or about 4.4mph in the .4sec timeframe. That would be accurate, but the car doesn't accelerate anywhere near the same at 100 as it would during the 0-60. Since it took a full 14.00 to hit 100mph, that means it took the hypothetical car took 8.5sec to go from 60-100 or an average of about 5mph/s. That would be about 2mph over a given 60ft area at the end of the course. Now here is the fun part. We can acknowledge that the acceleration will be for all reality the same over that 60ft period, which means the average speed difference would then be half of the 2mph (actually, a little under 2) and that gives us a 1mph differential between what the Gtech should read, and the trap speed at the track.

Math used behind this.
0-60 5.5sec
1/4 mile 14.00@100mph
0-60 average acceleration 10.91mph/s (60/5.5)
60-100 average acceleration 4.71mph/s (40/8.5) 40 comes from 100-60, 8.5 comes from 14.00-5.5.
3-4mph inconsistancy in Gtech vs track estimated.
60ft the last section of track where speed is averaged.
ET for last 60ft .41 (60ft/147ft/s <100mph=147ft/s>
ET for last 30ft .205 <since the acceleration can be rounded to even over the last 60ft, the speed given by the traps should be at 30ft before the end, cause that is exactly 1/2 way throught the 60ft>

Now total acceleration over the last 30ft should be slightly under 4.71 x .205 = .96mph. That tell's me that the Gtech should be less than .96mph off what the track reading is.

Since .96< 3 to 4, that means either the track is more inaccurate than we think, or the Gtech is also off slightly higher than real life.

That is all fine and dandy, but you forgot about one little thing.....the acceleration isn't seamless.

------------------
90 Honda CRX aka Project Mongoose
Estimated Completion: 7/1/01

84 Toyota Supra
High flow cat, two chamber flowmaster, custom 2.5" piping, msd 8.5mm wires. Will have boost before 2002.

Unit 5302 · 04-14-2001, 03:41 PM

No I didn't.

There was just no way I could accurately gauge that inconsistancy into the equation without getting very technical and doing some seriously ridiculous amounts of math.

The acceleration for the said 14.00@100 car I'll submit is a 1987 GT with 2.73's. For your non-seemless acceleration I'd submit this car shifted 1-2 at 35mph, and 2-3 at 65mph and finished the 1/4 in 3rd. For all practical purposes the negligable amount of time lost in shifting would basically balance out. Obviously the Gforces in 3rd would be smaller than in 2nd, but since the car only spends 5mph in second gear I can pretty much rule your idea that I need to examine that factor out the window, inferno, and instead say with a high degree of certainty that a 5.0 Mustang will not accelerate faster at 100mph in 3rd than it would over the average of a 60-100mph run. Would you argue with that? You don't own the hypothetical car, or any Mustang 5.0 for that matter, so in this case, I think you should hold that information correct.

Now if you look at my post, you'll see that I said the average acceleration over the last 60ft would be less than .96mph different than the terminal speed at the end of the 1/4 mile. The reason I said "less than" was because I took into consideration the fact the acceleration curve of the Mustang 5.0 would be weaker in 3rd at 100mph than it would be over the entire 60-100mph range. Now if you'd like I can give you the G-force of my particular car at 100mph vs the average based on say a number averaged from a sample every .5 sec from 60-100mph, but I'm extremely confident it will back up my original assumption based on the kind of rpm the 5.0 would be turning at 100mph in 3rd.

Skyman · 04-14-2001, 04:23 PM

Blah blah blah blah blah.

The G-tech runs 3-4mph fast.

Everyone knows that no need to agrue.

ET's are almost dead on.

Skyler

------------------
-1989 Saleen Mustang #406- TFS Heads, E-303, edelbrock intake,70MM TB, 73mm MAF, off road H, headers and 3chamber flows.
12.55@107mph
Runs on 87 Octane and gets 24mpg!

inferno · 04-15-2001, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Unit 5302:
No I didn't.

There was just no way I could accurately gauge that inconsistancy into the equation without getting very technical and doing some seriously ridiculous amounts of math.

Well, because of that fact, you can't give a blanket statement about the inaccuracy of the g-tech.

------------------
90 Honda CRX aka Project Mongoose
Estimated Completion: 7/1/01

84 Toyota Supra
High flow cat, two chamber flowmaster, custom 2.5" piping, msd 8.5mm wires. Will have boost before 2002.

Rev · 04-15-2001, 05:31 PM

I have a program , Drag Analyzer by Performance Trends, That gives a pretty good mathmatical model of a track run. With my car that runs very high 13's at about 100, The purported difference between the last 60' average times of the time slip and actual trap speed is about 1.5 seconds. We all know that the G-Tech is about 5-6 MPH fast for this speed. Unit is right about this. They are both off to some degree.

There was a time in the distant past, not sure how long, that they had the speed measured as an average between the traps and 60' AFTER the finish line. That encouraged all drag racers to stay in the throttle way after the finish line to inflate their time slip trap speeds. It didn't change E.T. or the winner of the race, but it did raise time slip speeds. It was for that reason that they changed the average to 60' before and finish line.

Rev

------------------
'66 Coupe, 306, 300 HP, C-4, 13.97 e.t., 100.3 mph
1/4 mi.

Rev · 04-15-2001, 05:34 PM

Oops, I meant to say 1.5 MPH, not 1.5 seconds as the speed differnce between time slip and actual.

Rev

Unit 5302 · 04-15-2001, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by inferno:
Well, because of that fact, you can't give a blanket statement about the inaccuracy of the g-tech.

Honestly, I really can't figure out what you are trying to argue about here, inferno. All I'm saying is that based on the numbers, the Gtech should be within approximately 1mph (.96mph or less) of the actual average trap speed recorded at the track. There is more than enough evidence to support that theory in my post. Since the Gtech is off from track speed by 3-4mph vs the track, the Gtech or the track is off by more than the statement made regarding the discrepency being related only to the track averaging the last 60ft.

I didn't make a blanket statement about the accuracy of the Gtech, all I said was it reads 3-4mph higher than the track, and all of that difference cannot be made up for by the track averaging the speed. Since there is still a 2-3mph+ discrepancy in the mph, even after taking into account the averaging by the track, either the track is even more inaccurate than the averaging or the Gtech is inaccurate.

inferno · 04-15-2001, 11:10 PM

Unit, I am not trying to argue about this. I was just saying that your initial estimate isn't exactly true. It could be true, but not neccesarily. Sorry if you took offense.

------------------
90 Honda CRX aka Project Mongoose
Estimated Completion: 7/1/01

84 Toyota Supra
High flow cat, two chamber flowmaster, custom 2.5" piping, msd 8.5mm wires. Will have boost before 2002.

Lizard King · 04-16-2001, 12:11 AM

Dudes,

I don't like the GTec. It said I pulled a 14.65@97MPH to beat a 2001 911 Carrera 4 this weekend???? Mind you I don't think the weight of my car was entered.... WHAT THE HELL?

------------------
Lizard King, Bone Stock; 13.69 at 101MPH
• Extreme Burnout
•2000GT VS LS1
• Quartermile run
•2000GT vs LX Stang

302 LX Eric · 04-16-2001, 08:42 AM

Instead of using G-techs for ET's and MPH's, use the track! Nearly everyone on this site and countless others use the track to compare a car's status/potential. Barring any runs in Denver, most track times are comparable.

The "track" is definately an apples to apples comparison that I think we can all live with given its consistency among measurements.

Unit - You should get track times for your Stang to put all this to bed once and for all - sounds like your ET may actually improve given the rough roads you were on.

E

------------------
1991 5.0 LX Coupe - 38,000 miles

13.17 @ 106.14 mph w/ 2.138 60'

Rev · 04-16-2001, 06:39 PM

Eric, the track is not always quite as available as the G-Tech. Mine stays in the glove compartment. My G-Tech is .3 seconds and 5-6 mph optimistic for the 1/4 mile. It is dead consistent though. All I ever really use mine for is to see if my car is running up to snuff. Good for seeing if mods (timing, jets, etc) have hurt or helped. or how bad my fried Traction-Lock was hurting me. Stuff like that. Gives you a chance to take it out and toast the tires occasionally as well.

Rev

------------------
'66 Coupe, 306, 300 HP, C-4, 13.97 e.t., 100.3 mph
1/4 mi.

04-12-2001, 11:20 PM	#1
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	Gtech Results In Well, my sorry slow *** 1987 GT turned in a 14.19@103.8mph. Shitty launches really hurt, stupid county roads have NO traction. Here is my total combo. 1987 GT 5spd Hatch. 145k miles, clogged K&N, 10* timing, 87pump gas. T-5z (2.95:1 1st), 2.73's. BBK 2.5" hiflow cat H pipe, dynomax 2.5" super turbo cat back. I had 100lbs of crap in the back, and haven't tuned it for the last 32k miles. Looks to me like $100 of tune up 93oct and air filter cleaning would put me in the 13's easy. That's with 145k, 2.73's and a shitty 2.95 1st gear. Basically stock. Course, since all us old fox 5.0's get beat by stock Integra's my numbers must be off?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
GTech vs Track?????	Stang Runner	Windsor Power	2	06-20-2001 05:37 PM
Results with Box Upper on my 347 verses Cobra	8850	Windsor Power	9	01-22-2001 12:39 AM
Top Truck results	hotrodford_87	Racer's Club House	2	06-07-1999 07:51 PM
Results & Points Updated	StangFlyer	Racer's Club House	0	05-21-1999 06:11 PM
FFW RESULTS	WILK7	Racer's Club House	39	05-03-1999 07:41 AM

04-12-2001, 11:46 PM	#2
Special K Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Montreal, Quebec (Canada) Posts: 246	Like usual with the Gtech trap speed is WAY off!! My best time on gtech is 15.47 @ 94mph but I did not try it since I had 3000 km on the car! ------------------ 2000 Honda Civic SiR 15.368 @ 89.220 mph (stock) 1989 Ford Mustang LX Coupe 5.0L (RIP) 14.120 @ 98.126 mph

04-13-2001, 05:11 AM	#3
exgmguy Registered Member Join Date: Feb 1999 Location: Utica, Michigan Posts: 2,631	Actually it's the dragstrip that is way off. Tracks average your last 60 ft. rather than measure your exact mph as you cross the finish line. So at the track your trap speed is actually lower than your finish line mph. If you don't believe me, take a look at your speedo the next time you are crossing the finish line. Unit5302, I have tested my GTECH at the track and found that the GTECH will show almost a tenth of a secong slower than the track. This is because at the track the timer starts when you break the staging beams, not when the car starts to move. At the track you can pick up a tick if you stage very shallow. Just so the 2nd pre-stage light comes on. At the track you could very well see a 13.9 @ 100-101.

04-13-2001, 07:43 AM	#4
LS1JAY Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Central Florida Posts: 102	G-TECH usualy is about 4-5mph off from the track because it measures the whole 1/4 mile where as the track does not just as xgmguy said, my car may pull 112+mph with the G-TECH but only 107+mph at the track but the ET is fairly close. ------------------ 98'Trans Am LS1 A4 273 gears Whisper lid,K&N,Flowmaster,Best ET on street tires 13.17 @ 106.49mph NEW MODS:3" Flowtech cutout,Magnecor wires,NGK TR55's

04-13-2001, 08:21 AM	#5
exgmguy Registered Member Join Date: Feb 1999 Location: Utica, Michigan Posts: 2,631	Also the mph difference is greater the faster your car is.

04-13-2001, 08:34 AM	#6
302 LX Eric or '331 LX Eric' Join Date: Jan 1999 Location: Columbus, Ohio Posts: 2,142	This is interesting info. I have heard some of this before, but I have one question: At the track, why do they AVERAGE your MPH for the last 60'? I guess if all tracks do this then all of us comparing our track mph's are comparing apples to apples. E ------------------ 1991 5.0 LX Coupe - 38,000 miles 13.17 @ 106.14 mph w/ 2.138 60'

04-13-2001, 12:10 PM	#7
97snakedriver Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Blacksburg, VA Posts: 1,526	The average at the strip because its a lot easier to have 2 beams a set distance apart, measure the time it takes you to get between them and divide then it would be to have a RADAR gun or similiar device to measure the actual speed.

04-13-2001, 12:22 PM	#8
302 LX Eric or '331 LX Eric' Join Date: Jan 1999 Location: Columbus, Ohio Posts: 2,142	Cool, that seems logical. Thanks, 97snakedriver E

04-14-2001, 12:17 AM	#9
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	Upon consideration of the argument that the track is off by 3-4mph, I'd have to say that is totally false. Both the Gtech and the track are off. Take a 100mph finish speed. We'll say it took 14sec to do the 1380. So 14.00@100.0. At 100mph = about 147ft/sec you'd be travelling the 60ft in about .4sec. Meaning at about 100mph you'd need to accelerate 3-4mph in .4 sec. Now the cars average acceleration from 0-60 could do that. We'll give the hypothetical car a 5.5 0-60. That's 10.9mph/s. Or about 4.4mph in the .4sec timeframe. That would be accurate, but the car doesn't accelerate anywhere near the same at 100 as it would during the 0-60. Since it took a full 14.00 to hit 100mph, that means it took the hypothetical car took 8.5sec to go from 60-100 or an average of about 5mph/s. That would be about 2mph over a given 60ft area at the end of the course. Now here is the fun part. We can acknowledge that the acceleration will be for all reality the same over that 60ft period, which means the average speed difference would then be half of the 2mph (actually, a little under 2) and that gives us a 1mph differential between what the Gtech should read, and the trap speed at the track. Math used behind this. 0-60 5.5sec 1/4 mile 14.00@100mph 0-60 average acceleration 10.91mph/s (60/5.5) 60-100 average acceleration 4.71mph/s (40/8.5) 40 comes from 100-60, 8.5 comes from 14.00-5.5. 3-4mph inconsistancy in Gtech vs track estimated. 60ft the last section of track where speed is averaged. ET for last 60ft .41 (60ft/147ft/s <100mph=147ft/s> ET for last 30ft .205 <since the acceleration can be rounded to even over the last 60ft, the speed given by the traps should be at 30ft before the end, cause that is exactly 1/2 way throught the 60ft> Now total acceleration over the last 30ft should be slightly under 4.71 x .205 = .96mph. That tell's me that the Gtech should be less than .96mph off what the track reading is. Since .96< 3 to 4, that means either the track is more inaccurate than we think, or the Gtech is also off slightly higher than real life.

04-14-2001, 03:41 PM	#11
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	No I didn't. There was just no way I could accurately gauge that inconsistancy into the equation without getting very technical and doing some seriously ridiculous amounts of math. The acceleration for the said 14.00@100 car I'll submit is a 1987 GT with 2.73's. For your non-seemless acceleration I'd submit this car shifted 1-2 at 35mph, and 2-3 at 65mph and finished the 1/4 in 3rd. For all practical purposes the negligable amount of time lost in shifting would basically balance out. Obviously the Gforces in 3rd would be smaller than in 2nd, but since the car only spends 5mph in second gear I can pretty much rule your idea that I need to examine that factor out the window, inferno, and instead say with a high degree of certainty that a 5.0 Mustang will not accelerate faster at 100mph in 3rd than it would over the average of a 60-100mph run. Would you argue with that? You don't own the hypothetical car, or any Mustang 5.0 for that matter, so in this case, I think you should hold that information correct. Now if you look at my post, you'll see that I said the average acceleration over the last 60ft would be less than .96mph different than the terminal speed at the end of the 1/4 mile. The reason I said "less than" was because I took into consideration the fact the acceleration curve of the Mustang 5.0 would be weaker in 3rd at 100mph than it would be over the entire 60-100mph range. Now if you'd like I can give you the G-force of my particular car at 100mph vs the average based on say a number averaged from a sample every .5 sec from 60-100mph, but I'm extremely confident it will back up my original assumption based on the kind of rpm the 5.0 would be turning at 100mph in 3rd.

04-14-2001, 04:23 PM	#12
Skyman I need 110mph Trap Speed! Join Date: Feb 1999 Location: So, CA Posts: 4,315	Blah blah blah blah blah. The G-tech runs 3-4mph fast. Everyone knows that no need to agrue. ET's are almost dead on. Skyler ------------------ -1989 Saleen Mustang #406- TFS Heads, E-303, edelbrock intake,70MM TB, 73mm MAF, off road H, headers and 3chamber flows. 12.55@107mph Runs on 87 Octane and gets 24mpg!

04-15-2001, 05:31 PM	#14
Rev Registered Member Join Date: Nov 1998 Location: Houston, Tx. Posts: 3,887	I have a program , Drag Analyzer by Performance Trends, That gives a pretty good mathmatical model of a track run. With my car that runs very high 13's at about 100, The purported difference between the last 60' average times of the time slip and actual trap speed is about 1.5 seconds. We all know that the G-Tech is about 5-6 MPH fast for this speed. Unit is right about this. They are both off to some degree. There was a time in the distant past, not sure how long, that they had the speed measured as an average between the traps and 60' AFTER the finish line. That encouraged all drag racers to stay in the throttle way after the finish line to inflate their time slip trap speeds. It didn't change E.T. or the winner of the race, but it did raise time slip speeds. It was for that reason that they changed the average to 60' before and finish line. Rev ------------------ '66 Coupe, 306, 300 HP, C-4, 13.97 e.t., 100.3 mph 1/4 mi.

04-15-2001, 05:34 PM	#15
Rev Registered Member Join Date: Nov 1998 Location: Houston, Tx. Posts: 3,887	Oops, I meant to say 1.5 MPH, not 1.5 seconds as the speed differnce between time slip and actual. Rev

04-15-2001, 11:10 PM	#17
inferno The Instigator Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: So Cal and Houston Posts: 764	Unit, I am not trying to argue about this. I was just saying that your initial estimate isn't exactly true. It could be true, but not neccesarily. Sorry if you took offense. ------------------ 90 Honda CRX aka Project Mongoose Estimated Completion: 7/1/01 84 Toyota Supra High flow cat, two chamber flowmaster, custom 2.5" piping, msd 8.5mm wires. Will have boost before 2002.

04-16-2001, 12:11 AM	#18
Lizard King midnightruns.com Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Posts: 584	Dudes, I don't like the GTec. It said I pulled a 14.65@97MPH to beat a 2001 911 Carrera 4 this weekend???? Mind you I don't think the weight of my car was entered.... WHAT THE HELL? ------------------ Lizard King, Bone Stock; 13.69 at 101MPH • Extreme Burnout •2000GT VS LS1 • Quartermile run •2000GT vs LX Stang

04-16-2001, 08:42 AM	#19
302 LX Eric or '331 LX Eric' Join Date: Jan 1999 Location: Columbus, Ohio Posts: 2,142	Instead of using G-techs for ET's and MPH's, use the track! Nearly everyone on this site and countless others use the track to compare a car's status/potential. Barring any runs in Denver, most track times are comparable. The "track" is definately an apples to apples comparison that I think we can all live with given its consistency among measurements. Unit - You should get track times for your Stang to put all this to bed once and for all - sounds like your ET may actually improve given the rough roads you were on. E ------------------ 1991 5.0 LX Coupe - 38,000 miles 13.17 @ 106.14 mph w/ 2.138 60'

04-16-2001, 06:39 PM	#20
Rev Registered Member Join Date: Nov 1998 Location: Houston, Tx. Posts: 3,887	Eric, the track is not always quite as available as the G-Tech. Mine stays in the glove compartment. My G-Tech is .3 seconds and 5-6 mph optimistic for the 1/4 mile. It is dead consistent though. All I ever really use mine for is to see if my car is running up to snuff. Good for seeing if mods (timing, jets, etc) have hurt or helped. or how bad my fried Traction-Lock was hurting me. Stuff like that. Gives you a chance to take it out and toast the tires occasionally as well. Rev ------------------ '66 Coupe, 306, 300 HP, C-4, 13.97 e.t., 100.3 mph 1/4 mi.