|
Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
I have a new motor that was just built and installed and I want to know if it can make 350 RWHP. I don't have the money to get the car dyno tuned yet so for now I want an estimate on what it will make.
Stock Block Bored 0.030 Scat 4340 Forged Crank And Rods Speed-Pro Forged 11.5.1 Compression Pistons Harland Sharp 1.6 Roller Rockers AFR 205cc Heads (2.08/ 1.60 Valves) (Flow 308 CFM @.600 lift) Lunati Hydralic Roller Cam (242/252 Duration @0.050) (560/576 Lift) Lunati 1.450" Valve Springs Good up to 680 lift and 7000 RPMs Edelbrock Victor 5.0 Intake Manifold FRPP 75mm Throttle Body C&L 76mm MAF 24lb Injectors 1 5/8" Longtube Headers 2 1/2" O/R H-Pipe Flowmaster 2 Chamber Exhaust Running on 93/110 Mix Gas I plan on shifting this car at 6800+ RPMs I also have a Nitrous Express SHO Wet Nitrous System. I plan on spraying a 250 shot so I will just add that onto what i'm making on motor. HELP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
i myself think the heads are overkill and you would make more power withe 185 heads.aslo your injectors ,air meter, and headers seem to small for those heads.if you havent purchased the heads yet i would consider going with the 185.
lastly i have a friend w/ a edelbrock rpm set up.heads rpm 2 intake and a 70mm tb. he has had his car computer tuned and makes just over 400 hp at the wheels. this is on a .030 302 block w/ no aditional porting on the heads or intake etc. so 350 is very real if you match your parts up a little better. |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
he also made around 340 hp w/o any tuning on the first pull just bolting everything together.
|
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
So which would be a better set-up, and make more horsepower?
AFR 185 heads Trickflow R Intake or RPM ll Lunati Cam That I Have or AFR 205 Heads Edelbrock Victor 5.0 Intake Lunati Cam I Have The Parts I chose are matched pretty well. AFR 205 Heads (3500-8000 RPM Range) Edelbrock Victor 5.0 Intake (3500-7500 RPM Range) Lunati Cam (3000-7200) RPM Range I dont see how the first combonation listed could make more power than the second. The ports are smaller and have a lower RPM range. Anybody knows that the higher you rev a 302 the more power it will make. |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
Anybody knows that the higher you rev a 302 the more power it will make.[/QUOTE]
Not always true Ryan |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
So a 306 with AFR 185 heads a performer RPM ll Intake and the lunati cam I have reving it to around 6500, would make more power than a 306 with AFR 205 heads, an Edelbrock Victor 5.0 intake and the lunati cam reving a 6800+ RPMs
????????????????????????????? |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
every engine combo i see in the magazines for a 302 , they never use 205 or 210cc heads. always 170-185 so i would say afr185 heads and if you waqnt to twist your 5.0 up that high then go w/ the vic jr intake and cm set up. keep in mind that you still only have a 302 and the cinders can only pull so much, now if it were a stroker 347 or larger keep going with the 205 heads.also just becasue they are 205 cc heads does not designate them 3500-8000 rpm opperating range. in a recent magazine smeading performance built a 351w w/ 205 heads and it peaked below 6000 rpms , i think closer to 5500 .chose your cam and intake to work where you want to opperate your rpm range but go w/ 170cc-185cc heads.
dan |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
i would like the headdoctors opinion on your question but i would say yes to a 306 w/ afr185 heads.
|
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
So there is no horsepower gain going with the 205s over the 185s ?
Your saying the cam and intake control the RPM range, not the heads? |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
yes thats why you dont see heads advertised w/ peak rpm ranges like cams. you only have 306 inches of displacement sucking and would not be as effective as a 358 w/ 205cc heads.if you have time and a collection of magazines throught the year it wouldnt be a bad idea to look at the heads they used on various 5.0 build ups to see what cc heads seem to be the most useful.
|
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
So the 185s whould be the best choice for my combo.
Would the engine pull hard to 7000 RPMs with the 185s ? |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
absolutly as long as thats the range of your cam intake set up.
|
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
What gear and trans do you plan on running? You'll need at least a 4.56 for that kind of RPM. And a T-5 isnt going to last on slicks.
With the 205's, you MIGHT make more MAX HP, but it's going to be so sluggish at lower engine rpm that it isnt worth the trade off. Torque is what moves the car, not HP. Oh yeah, if you get 300+HP out of it and spray it with a 250 shot, can we see the pieces? :D It will look something like this http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f7...itBlock007.jpg |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
WOW...... its all about velocity not flow numbers.
dark knight what did that sound like when it happend? |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
Lots of BS in here. My heads are 192cc and on top of that they are ported. My car made awesome torque all the way through the RPM range. You dont pull the wheels with no low end now do ya. ;)
|
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
Quote:
|
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
call it what you want im just trying to be helpful and passing along the info that has been passed along to me .and being that the motor belongs to him paid for with his money and not mine. than i cant say for sure what is in it. and you can surly pull the front wheels off the ground w/ no torque 5 speed lots of r's and drop the clutch....what ever. and the short bock is a dss that he says he paid 7500.
by the way do you have your mustang computer tuned by a profesional??? if you dont you may find more hp there than you think. |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
The tranny is a G-Force T5 with a Mcleod 500 Clutch that will handle 650+ RWHP
It has 4.30 gears on a 28" Tire. I will tell you one thing. It may be sluggish at low RPMs but rev it up to 5000 and dump the clutch and your making power then. I have 3 freind who make at least 500 RWHP with there stock blocks and have been runing them for year now. 1: 306 H/C/I with a Paxton Novi 2000 @12psi (Stock 170K Bottom End) 2: 347 H/C/I + 150 shot (Stock Block w/Forged Crank & Rods) 3: 306 H/C/I with a Single Garret GT42 Turbo @10psi (Stock 150K Bottom End) I dont think I have anything to worry about for a while. |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
either way you decide to go let us know it turns out and what you decide to run.good luck
|
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
I'm just going to go with the high RPM set-up.
This car is going to be used mostly for drag racing with some occasional street driving. I know the AFR 205/Victor set-up will take out most of the fun on the street, but I really don't care. This car is going to leave at 5000+ RPMs and never drop below that the whole way down the 1/4. Its like my dad once said, The 69 Boss 302 Mustang had a single plane intake, HUGE heads w/2.25" intake valves and was only rated at 290 BHP. The thing was a real turd if you would mash it in 2rd gear at 2000 RPMs. But if you would rev it up to 5000 and dump the clutch it would light the tires up all the way into 3rd gear. |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
If you go that route, you'll need more gear. With 4.30's and a 28in tire you'll be lucky to turn 6k rpm in the traps. I was hitting 6k with 4.30's and 26in tires
|
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
Wow, everybody goes to their local "I cook the numbers" dyno guy and suddenly 400rwhp dyno slips from a N/A 302 are being given out like candy. If you have 400rwhp on a N/A 302, you had better be able to show some 120mph+ trap speeds on a time slip. If you can't, you don't have that much power. My guess is that you don't so I guess that's news for the purely dyno faithful. As helpful as dynos are when it comes to tuning, they are only as accurate as the operator makes them or wants them to be. It takes a LOT of rpm to get 400rwhp or 482hp at the crank from a N/A 302. The Edelbrock package is not going to cut it without SERIOUS additional investment.
The Borg Warner (now Tremec) T-5 is a lightweight transmission designed primarily with moderate hp/torque loads and high efficiency in mind. If you put 650rwhp to the ground hard on any T-5, you can kiss it goodbye after a few passes. If the T-5 were capable of handling that kind of horsepower, reliably, you'd see a lot more of them in racing. G-Force, as a company, does not like to give out actual horsepower or torque ratings for their products, but they indicate with upgraded components, they are good for about 600hp on DRAG RADIALS. That's 600hp not 600rwhp, and on drag radials. Those two numbers are vastly different. The average T-5 driveline uses up about 17% of the horsepower being produced by the engine. I'll do the math for you. 17 out of every 100hp is eaten by the driveline. So 600rwhp/.83 = about 725hp. If you take a 600rwhp car to the track on slicks and you hook up, you're likely to blow that G Force T-5 to pieces in short order, even with the race only dog ring setup. My uncle owned, until recently, a 1969 Boss 302 that he fully restored. Gorgeous car, but spinning the tires in 3rd isn't all that impressive back in the day with low ratio gearing and the crappy tires available. He was disappointed with the very poor low end power production from the engine and sold it because he was tempted to modify the car. I think he liked his original owner 70k 1969 Mach 1 fastback with the 428CJ/toploader combination better, anyway. In fact, Ford racing decreased the size of the Boss 302's intake valves in 1970 to increase velocity because the 302 simply couldn't use all the air and the oversized valves/ports were slowing them down a little. I guess it worked since they captured the Trans Am championship in 1970 where they failed in 1969. More is not always better, and those AFR 205s are overkill for a N/A EFI 302. It's not all about peak power. It never has been and never will be. You need a usable powerband you can stay in, and your average horsepower you put down at the wheels to the tarmac will determine the numbers on your timeslip. That's the reason the SVO Mustang failed against the 5.0s back in the mid 80s. Sure, the SVO made more peak power, but it lost ground coming out of the corners. It's no different in drag racing when you're shifting gears. Anyway, I'm done explaining this. Every once in a while, a new group of kids show up with 25hp K&N filters and 100hp exhaust systems from a magazine lighting up their eyes. It's not that easy. It never has been, and likely never will be with N/A engines. For the record, Dark 5.0 has spent time in the dyno shop. So have I. 8 $%#%$@ hours straight before. You like the smell of burnt race fuel? I don't think I can stand it anymore. |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
Quote:
I suggest 28"s when using 4.30 grs every time, main reason?? Cuz I see them at the track all the time, one guy still ran out of gear, spraying a 100 shot and 28"s, 4.30's..... also the 60's can improve with taller tire, depending on the overall setup. |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
I just finally read this whole thread, omg, some intresting info along with some bs, I agree the 185's are the hot route, I can see making 350rwhp 302 with those heads, being I know of a 347 with 185's and a comp cams xtreme cam making 400 n/a, and just touching 120 mph in the 1/4...later
|
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
400rwhp for a 347 N/A is at the upper range of the spectrum, but certainly possible. A 347 has 45 more cubic inches working for it than the 302 or an increase in displacement of roughly 15%. In terms of horsepower, the same hp to displacement efficiency would grant a 302 about 340rwhp. Having a N/A 302 making 400rwhp would be like a N/A 347 making 460rwhp. Not impossible, but very unlikely for a streetable car, unless you think there is an easy 75hp more in your friends 347 :)
|
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
here is something to think about regarding your cam - the more you increase the ability of the heads and intake to fill the cylinders, the less duration you need on your cam for your 302-306-308 based engines.
AFR 185 heads will make your target if you get the combo right........ |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
Quote:
|
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
I hate to get off the subject, But unit5302, have you seen some #'s the c6 zo6 is putting out? A well known mustang builder around here owns one, and that thing ran 10's 130? with no problem, is that just shear hp/torque or what?
I witnessed this at the track, also some guys in town running against him from ls1tech.com, Alot of those guys were 10 sec cars! Sometimes I just wanna give up, bye the time i mod my car to make that much power, my car will be un-streetable:( |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
Quote:
Most mustangs with that much cubic inch run 10's also. |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
Dude,
you already know your car can hit 350 RWHP; you're just looking to have someone say "ooh and ahh"; how can you not afford $75 or $80 to get the car on a dyno? |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
Quote:
Dude, I TRUELY respect EVERYTHING you've ever posted on this board, so don't take this the wrong way. PLEASE!!!! I'm NOT a "dyno" type guy, I tend to let my timeslips do my talking. I know this is exactly what you were talking about (he said, she said type BS) but I really had a stock 302 with those darn Windsor Sr heads putting 285 on a dyno. Now given our friend's combo here, I REALLY don't see where 350 on the dig is a problem. Maybe it is though!!!!! Engine's are a "system", and each and every component has to work in conjunction with the next. Does this combo have it? Who knows. I personnaly think the heads are a bit much, but then again I've seen "smaller" engines make more horsepower than "rippers" for that very same reason. Bottom line, I don't want you mad at me for disagreeing, but I think that this is VERY "doable". It's all about the recipe, smaller heads and I'm guessing 350+. On a side note, I DO AGREE with the 400+ HP dyno sheets being handed out like candy. But, you have to realize alot of those guys really don't know how to interpret the information, and to boot they're trying to "sell" you on THEIR dyno! Not necessarily the car's optimum performance. |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
Quote:
IMHO, you're on the right track, stick with it!!!! :D |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
~The Jester~I appreciate the confidence, but I have been wrong before, and I will be wrong again, haha. I just happen to rely on history to show what the 5.0 can normally do.
Well, 285rwhp with the stock intake is a bit to believe, but I suppose it's possible. If you had an aftermarket intake, no problem. That being said, the Windsor Sr. heads are good, not fantastic, but they'll probably take you to at least 85% of what the 302 can do with better heads. The camshaft is the strongest part of the 5.0HO engine, and while you can add significant horsepower by going to a more aggressive camshaft, you're not picking up 100hp in the swap if you're still naturally aspirated. The intake, followed by the heads, followed by the camshaft are the weakest major power production components in the 5.0. With a good combination, how much do you suppose the Windsor Sr.'s were holding you back? 10hp? 20hp? 30hp? That's a lot to pickup when you're already running good heads. You'll need that cam to get you another 60, and you'll need it to make that power below 6500rpm if you want a chance to run a hydraulic cam (which the vast majority of street driven 5.0 EFI cars have). Keep in mind, 285rwhp is about 340hp at the crank, whereas 350rwhp will require about 430hp at the crank. You need to add 25% more power beyond your modifications to hit 350rwhp, and that's a HUGE target for a N/A EFI 5.0, espeically with a hydraulic camshaft. I'm not saying it can't be done. It can, but very few streetable 302s are N/A and making that kind of power (which was a comment more directed at 1979bruiser's comments about the Edelbrock package than the topic starter. wlingle92lx has a combination plan that is borderline (read barely, lol) streetable so he may very well pull it off. I still think his tranny is going to grenade in short order if he's able to put the power down :) , but I'd be the first to cheer him on since I'm a big fan of the Borg Warner designed transmissions (especially the underdog T-5) or rather I dislike the garbage transmissions Tremec has designed. Anyway, I kinda feel like this whole thread is bouncing around a little. Coupe50h, I haven't seen the dyno figures on the new Z06, but I was aware of the times people are quoting on them. As much as I'd like to say the little 302 could lay the smack down on the LS7, it's kinda like wheeling Brad Johnson out onto the field and asking him to outthrow Michael Vick downfield. Sure, Johnson could lob the ball up at a 45* angle and scream out "500!" but lets be honest, it's not a real fair comparison, hahaha. Side note, even with a small blower the 1996-2001 4.6L DOHC engine has no problems putting out that kind of power with a couple little mods. Forced induction is absolutely the cheapest, most reliable, and easiest way to make power. It's also the future of automotive performance. I fully expect to start seeing a lot of turbocharged 4 cylinder and 6 cylinder E85 vehicles putting out a lot of power while increasing their fuel economy by engineering higher compression ratios and boost levels. The days of the V8 rumble and torquemonstering are fading fast. Kudos to Ford, and GM for keeping the big cube American V8 legends alive for at least a while longer. wlingle92lx, on a side note, are you using racing lifters? If not, you're seem to be planning on getting into the eschelon of rpms that the stock type lifters are unable to cope with, regardless of your valvesprings. If you haven't gone to a high rpm lifter (I'm assuming you have) you will probably have to get some or you can expect to still see valve float since you can't compress liquid, even if your valvesprings are strong :) I think I'll end my babbling on this topic at this point as it's pretty much derailed like Amtrak, sorry for the thread hijack, wlingle92lx |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
This isnt the first 302 I have seen put down 350 RWHP so I never doubted he could do it with his mod list.
I only added my 2 cents because the 400 RWHP claim with the parts listed was rediculous. The fact that "wlingle92lx's" motor only put out 353 RWHP really proves my point. |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
Quote:
280RWHP/330RWTQ with a 60mm TB and 292RWHP/325RWTQ with a 65mm TB. tried to post up the dyno graph and post but the attachment function on the site errored out. |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
With timeslips to prove the "rwhp" indicated on the dyno? There have been otherwise stock 302s with a 347 stroker kit that can't put down more than 260rwhp. 285rwhp on junk ported E7s and a stock intake is bullshit, regardless of what the dyno slip says. Never going to happen without mega compression and race fuel.
You're talking about picking up 100rwhp or 120 crank hp by porting E7s and putting in a cam? Lets get real. What, exhaust give you 50? LOL. Seriously, unless you have some 110+mph timeslips with a junk ported E7 setup, a stock intake, and a "custom" cam, I'm not about to listen. For most people, that will get them maybe a 102mph pass. I remember back when Skyman's dyno guy was showing 340rwhp, but he was still trapping 110mph. He knows the 340rwhp was a load of crap as much then as he does now, and he'll be the first to admit it. He used the dyno for tuning, not to know what his car was actually putting out. |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
JMO-
With my Experience with 302's and what your wanting too do and your combo is actually Nice! The 205's are great and give you room too grow and flow awesome but too get efficiency out of your set up the 185's will be best due too Velocity reasons and c.c.'s... Yes,Its possible...Dyno #'s will show up top...The 185's will do what you want also..But ,Will it kill you performance down low with less velocity...hhmmm I've put together 4-5 Stock 302's together in the past w/E7's that were hand ported..They flow about 190 on the I... Junky ass E- Cam with a Zero balance on the motor..This was in a light 90 model coupe w/C-4 with a mighty demon 650 Race and weiand Excellerator Intake and Elec water pump with aftermarket Hydraulic roller link bar lifters...Spun it too 7500 w/4.56's inthe 1/8 and 150 shot dope...6.30's all day... Street car here bye the house I tuned for my budddy derrick.. Stock 302 Hand pored E'7's 100k miles used lifters 1.6 rockers Holley 650 h.p. c-4/w trans break 373's Excellerator Intake Shifts at 6500 wth a Trickflow junk stage 2 cam.. 175 shot gas 6.70 1/8 tagged/Inspected DD @ 2980 race weight also... iI just built a friends 302 for him Custom cam from cammotion too my specs..Shifts at 68-7000 Set of Tri-State Aluminum cyl heads 202/160 RPM II Intake Craane 1.7's 24# injectors Cobra computer 5 speed 355's 1.6 60's on a soft launch 12.20 1/4 at 3470lbs.. These are just some examples too look at and from my experience... We do have a 302'd coupe/solid roller/c-4 w/high ports that is very light w/4.56's shift'n at 800-8500..Stock Block running some 5.80's 1/8 with a little sauce at the hit and 100 ft out a little more...Ticking time bomb and the only reason we are getting away with it i believe is the weight...Less mass too move... |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
Quote:
http://www.corral.net/forums/showthread.php?t=860698 |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
I thought I'd post up another case - of course we know that these dynos were way out of cal and that this is really all BS.
unit5302 - Saying it can't be done and it's BS is an incredibly arrogant statement to make - just because you don't THINK it can be done does not mean it is not being done. http://www.corral.net/forums/showthread.php?t=815064 |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
Quote:
I've never dynoed anything of mine while doing the 302/E7 Head thing...I was told back in the late 90's that you couldn't put a junk E7Headed 302 w/power adder in the 9's 1/4 without mods too the longblock/heads/cam etc......Quess what, It can be done but will not last long! |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
since you want some track numbers, how about 12.28@108 with ported stock E7s and ported stock "junk" intake. What does that put the HP at?
http://www.corral.net/forums/showthread.php?t=843938 need we go on? |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
Quote:
I seen a car with a pretty much stock motor run a 13.10 @102mph @3000ft here were I am at. He had a little port work done to the exhaust side of his heads, ported lower intake, exhaust and 3.73 gears. He hurt alot of LS1 owners feelings that night. :cool: On my car my heads are really too big for a 302 thats why I can do 109mph but at only a 12.50. But thats not bad considering cars run a half second better and 3 or 4 mph more in Dallas or Houston compared to west Texas were I am at. I am hoping my heads will be a better match with the 331 I have on order. ;) |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
Sounds like it's around the right area, depending on the weight of the vehicle... might have helped to note the intake was professionally ported :rolleyes:
I don't give a flying **** what you think. I've seen far more bullshit on this board than I care to acknowledge; from people claiming to be somebody they're not to cars putting down 350rwhp and trapping 105. I find it interesting that your combo is listed as GT-40P's with a 4* retarded stock cam, a ported Explorer intake, 1.7 roller rockers, and you managed about 15 crank hp less than the "stock" combo at 277rwhp on the dyno. |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
unit, The zo6 i was talking about was an 02, not a 7.0 litre like the c6, i saw it run 9.9 @ 143, yea it's modded h/c/100 shot, but on a stock bottom end!..... no nos, low 10's
believe it or not, 'mike murrillo' owns it, In that case im sure the car's ecu is tuned to the max, since he is a well known stang tuner as well. With that said, A 351/stroker windsor could probaly turn out the same #'s with some high dollar parts? |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
Quote:
interesting that you pull a my **** is bigger than yours type comment on my car. It's a daily driver that I don't race - and the cam is 4 degrees advanced, not retarded. Peak numbers don't mean squat to me - average torque does. |
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
Tmoss, The port work you do has got to be good, I actually heard your name mentioned at our local track this past wed from some guy :) I know you post in the corral as well, but im glad to kinda know ya, you celebrity you:D
|
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
My work has worked out well for many and I've got a little national ink, but that is a far cry from celebrity. Thanks though. I just couldn't stand by and not respond to a flat out statement that something couldn't happen - that I have seen happen numerous times.
|
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
Just a little more for all to see. 89grocerygetter has got to be my hero. We built his combo on what we could get at the time. 165 AFRs, holly intake, 318 dodge dakota injectors, A mass air meter???, a HR266XE cam (?) (Memory sucks) a stock TB, and a STOCK 100k bottom end, tremac 3550, and 4.10 gears. 11.97 @116mph in a LX with JUST the back seat removed. What does his HP #s come out to be?
|
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
you need to know what his car weighed.............but it will be close to 375-390HP for the speed and ET. That is smokin for that combo...........
|
Re: Is 350 RWHP Possible ?
Quote:
The LS1's respond exceptionally to modification from all I've ever seen. The 302 has been out of production for over a decade, and the R&D aftermarket for it is not as aggressive as it once was. The 351W's market was largely based off the 302 since high performance 351Ws hadn't been produced by Ford in well, about 35 years. At 240hp, the Lightning doesn't qualify, and the torquey Cobra R used hipo SVT 302 parts to do the job. If you need any more proof of what a little factory engineering can do, look no further than the GT-40P heads, and how they were superior to the GT-40 Irons despite not being designed for performance applications. The GT-40P heads were designed to produce good torque and pass emissions in a truck, lol. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:11 AM. |