eles1 Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Thank you for correcting me, I was under the impression that one did not have to row through gears in them, thus not being true "manual" as the recent fanatics call it... Please tell me which ones use delayed stall converters then... Your original statement was 99% on the mark, top fuel cars up through alcohol class use mainly auto transmissions, just not the nitromethane burners. and the point was that FWD cars are not the fastest in the planet, which still stands? That seems to be the case on this particular planet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KTM 525 Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Ugh, next time post sooner to the race date.... This thread is seven pages long already! yup...... http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~tthomps6/Offensive%20Pictures/sucks1.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o- c-uTe Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 I have read a report that the Altima ser does a 0-100 in 14 something stock. That Altima is a very fast car when it is fixed up. oops, I was wrong. The road and track mag(July issuse) has the Altima Ser doing a 0-100 in 11.9 seconds. But a 1/4 in 14.4 at 99mph. That is stock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KTM 525 Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 oops, I was wrong. The road and track mag(July issuse) has the Altima Ser doing a 0-100 in 11.9 seconds. But a 1/4 in 14.4 at 99mph. That is stock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beanboy Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Woohoo! I started the 9th page... I started the 9th page... -B -B http://www.standardshift.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobY Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 your not allowed to post anymore till you race.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eles1 Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 oops, I was wrong. The road and track mag(July issuse) has the Altima Ser doing a 0-100 in 11.9 seconds. But a 1/4 in 14.4 at 99mph. That is stock. Is it just me, or is something not adding up here??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melayout Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Oh ooh, it should be: oops, I was wrong. The road and track mag(July issue) has the Altima SE-R doing a 0-100 in 11.9 seconds. But a 1/4 in 14.4 at 99mph. That is stock. I keed I keeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o- c-uTe Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 I think the mag. did a miss print, but thats what it said. It doesn't add up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legacy_y_tu Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 your not allowed to post anymore till you race.... +1 Another week till the race....oh mann. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunderkind Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 moderators should lock this up until post-race. hahahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tripod Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Tripod.....Do you even have a Leggy? Oh yea......all the worlds most powerful vehicles are FWD:lol: You gotta be shittin me:lol: Yes, and where exactly did you see me say what you said?? By the way guys...guys with the Altima SE's and SE-R's are getting 2.0 60' times at the track. A stock LGT manual will only do 1.9's A stock auto LGT is probably high 2.0's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tripod Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 I didnt say an AWD drivetrain didnt loose power I said an AWD drivetrain dosent loose as much power as people think they loose. Dyno pulls for this car are usually done in 4th gear meaning well over 100mph at redline. With all that drivetrain speed it still manages to pull a decent and higher number than they SE-R dyno charts ive seen. People make it seem like it looses somthing drastic. Fair enough, but SE-R's are dynoing around 210-215 to the wheels. What everyone is speculating is downplaying is the mods to the SE-R. NOBODY here knows (including myself) how well the 3.5 responds to the mods he has. Everyone here is just being so biased and assuming the LGT Stage 2 is the faster thing out there and can beat any car. The POSTER has an AUTO too. I'd be more comfortable saying he'll win if he had a manual. But the 3.5 is pulls hard up top, and stock it WILL pull away on a stock LGT MANUAL and easily jog away from a stock LGT auto. The SE-R traps around 100 mph stock It would take a MANUAL LGT to be at stage 1 to run with the SE-R up at speed. I have no doubt the auto LGT at stage 2 will get the SE-R out of the gate, but once rolling, if he can shift, and if his mods add the 40 hp he's claiming, it's VERY possible for that SE-R to be trapping in the 102+ mph range and that's Stage 2 MANUAL LGT territory, not Stage 2 AUTO LGT territory. I guess we'll all see if the poster is honest and posts the results, or better yet video tapes it. But based on how defensive and aggressive he is in responding to anyone who thinks the SE-R might win and how arrogant he is in thinking his Stage 2 AUTO LGT can whip anything...I feel he'll probably lie about it if he really does lose anyway. Have fun, gotta go, off to Willow Springs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AWDxBOOST Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 haha i didnt even really see he had an auto...that makes things a little different but still do it and see what happens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mblock66 Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 MT vs AT here we go again. You guys try to make it sound like once you have an AT it is the slowest thing in the world and it can't even beat anything. Believe me they are faster then you think. All the MT has on the AT is PERFECT shifting. You miss even one SLIGHTLY = you lose the the AT. So don't play the AT is like driving a slug game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mblock66 Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Yes, and where exactly did you see me say what you said?? By the way guys...guys with the Altima SE's and SE-R's are getting 2.0 60' times at the track. A stock LGT manual will only do 1.9's A stock auto LGT is probably high 2.0's. I have already seen an LGT slip with a 1.8 60 foot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AWDxBOOST Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 just face it... the manual is faster...give up you dont have a high stall tc like a top dragster, you dont have a built auto like all those fast at supras have....and you probably never will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AWDxBOOST Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 mblock...did u ever run your 13.8 with your stage 1 and pullies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaptan Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Yes, and where exactly did you see me say what you said?? By the way guys...guys with the Altima SE's and SE-R's are getting 2.0 60' times at the track. A stock LGT manual will only do 1.9's A stock auto LGT is probably high 2.0's. Those 2.0 60 ft times for the Altima SE's and SE-R's are not stock and also with a very good driver. Most are in the 2.2 - 2.4 range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitestar Pilot Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 MT vs AT here we go again. You guys try to make it sound like once you have an AT it is the slowest thing in the world and it can't even beat anything. Believe me they are faster then you think. All the MT has on the AT is PERFECT shifting. You miss even one SLIGHTLY = you lose the the AT. So don't play the AT is like driving a slug game. The Automatic has more drive-train loss. The 5MT will pull harder through every gear. Its been discussed before. Automatic Subaru turbo cars are about half a second slower in the 1/4 mile than their 5MT counterparts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AWDxBOOST Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 The Automatic has more drive-train loss. The 5MT will pull harder through every gear. Its been discussed before. Automatic Subaru turbo cars are about half a second slower in the 1/4 mile than their 5MT counterparts. not to talk bad about mblock, but he just wont accept this for some reason...he argue his ass off in a couple other posts about it its not that they auto is slow or anyhting, its just not as fast as the mt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melayout Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Seriously stop it, keep this thread for the friggin race. Go argue about the MT vs AT like retards here http://www.legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13840 I keed I keeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AWDxBOOST Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 its still relevant i think itll be about even...whats takin them so long to go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melayout Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 We'll get 10 pages of the same ole arguments as before and lose this thread in retard argument obscurity. He's taking a 2 week vacation before the race. I keed I keeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobY Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 just face it... the manual is faster...give up you dont have a high stall tc like a top dragster, you dont have a built auto like all those fast at supras have....and you probably never will A top fuel dragster uses a multiplate clutch and a direct drive from the engine to the the differential . It has one gear. The multiplate clutch welds itself together during launch and must be replaced after every run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.