0-60 time

[NOTMYBOAT]

can anyone give me an estimate for the 0-60 time of a stock marauder?

[2003 MIB]

Car and Driver says 7.5 0-60mph.

[wendellfennell]

Mercury say 6.5. Truth, it depends on driver, technique, etc.

[Macon Marauder]

And Car and Driver writers are hacks!

Probably more like 6.5 - 6.9 in the right hands...

[2003 MIB]

Sometimes, it's just fun to start the C&D bashing... Anyway, I personally think it has a lot to do with the miles on the test car. These cars get faster with more miles.

[rurumon]

technique???

it is an auto, and stockers dont break traction...so I imagine its little more than mashing the gas pedal.


If anything i would say it depends on the weather and the miles. Some days it feels like I am driving a taurus, other days i can verify that 6.5 sec.

cursed humidity

[BillyGman]

claim that there car launches better when they brake torque it a little first at about 1500-2000 RPM. I dunno, but if that's true then perhaps technique is a factor...........I recorded 7.0 seconds w/my "G-Tech" device when my car was stock, but ofcourse now I'm getting 4.9 seconds......(that's w/no brake torquing method being used)....

[jgc61sr2002]

IMO power braking is the way to go. Billy nice time.:up:

[rurumon]

good old g-tech, with its error of +/- 2.0 seconds. Nice and reliable.

[BillyGman]

Originally posted by rurumon
good old g-tech, with its error of +/- 2.0 seconds. Nice and reliable.

Have you ever owned one? I've used mine on two different cars, and the ET's that I've recorded w/it for my Marauder were right in line w/what I've done on the track. So my experience of using mine doesn't reflect your statement at all.

[Bigdogjim]

Originally posted by NOTMYBOAT
can anyone give me an estimate for the 0-60 time of a stock marauder?

Car and Driver was "high" with their times. If you look through the time slips your'll get a feel for it, cars at the end are petty much stock.

[rurumon]

Originally posted by BillyGman
Have you ever owned one? I've used mine on two different cars, and the ET's that I've recorded w/it for my Marauder were right in line w/what I've done on the track. So my experience of using mine doesn't reflect your statement at all.

relax man, im not calling you out or anything. But yeah, i did own one, granted it was an older version but the numbers it gave me were rediculously in err. I just cant give in to trusting the numbers generated by a small moving ball, rather than a laser.

[BillyGman]

swear by them, and some guys knock them. I dunno, maybe it depends how old the one you had was. I bought mine two years ago. Maybe they've come a long way since awhile back.

For me, the only thing that I definately wouldn't use on them is the HP feature. I don't see how that can be accurate since there are so many variables that can determine that. Anyway, I depend on them for 0-60 MPH times especially since you don't get that figure on your timeslip at the track.

[rurumon]

Yeah, when I had my 01 GT it recorded my horsepower to be 190. I also had full exhaust, intake, and a chip. Maybe thats why I am so pessimistic. those three digits ruined me forever.:D

[BillyGman]

I understand the reason for your viewpoint now. To tell ya the truth, in the two years I've had this device I've never even tried the Horsepower mode w/either one of my vehicles since I'd always be skeptical of it for that. I think that the HP mode is just something that the manufacture throws in there in an effort to boost sales.

[Smokie]

Well, Iwill just throw this out there just for fun I found a 0-60 calculator; it uses your 1/8 mile E/T and 1/8 mile MPH and a mathematical formula, my results were 5.69 seconds, here is the link:http://www.teamnabr.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=8 Just for fun, ok?

[ron460]

http://www.tciauto.com/tech_info/calculators.htm

No 0-60 but entertaining.

[BillyGman]

I just used that link that Smokie provided, and punched in the 1/8th mile numbers from one of my time slips from the track form last Saturday in Atco, NJ, and it calculated my 0-60 MPH time to be 4.85 seconds, which is very close to what my "G-Tech" device calculated it to be on the street (4.9 seconds:) )......and after all, I expect the 0-60 MPH to be atleast a slight bit better on the track than on the street since you can hook up better on the track w/all that VHT traction compound they spray on the track.

Thanks for that link Smokie......

[Mark McQuaide]

You're saying that a NA Marauder can do 0-60 in under 5 seconds??? Has Car&Driver been informed of this??

[Smokie]

You are welcome Billy, I believe that the results you have been posting are not only good but solid, the best way to arrive at accuracy is to to use different methods of testing and to cross-reference the results; if your overall results are consistent you have good numbers:)

Mark, the results on my car based on track numbers plugged into calculator are 5.69, I am not going to go crazy about the number but I think we can all agree that 7.5 is on the wrong side of reality, my car is stock, except for the PCM reflash.:)

[BillyGman]

Originally posted by Mark McQuaide
You're saying that a NA Marauder can do 0-60 in under 5 seconds??? Has Car&Driver been informed of this??

....Mark, perhaps you haven't read the list of Modifications at the bottom of my post that I've done to my Marauder. I expected those Mods to increase the acceleration of the car. So if my 0-60 MPH time wasn't improved after performing the mods that I have, then I wouldn't have been very pleased.

[Mark McQuaide]

By NA I mean Normally Aspirated. I didn't see a blower on the list. Hey, if it does it it does it - it's just surprising.

[BillyGman]

yes, I'm well aware of what you meant by "N/A". However a supercharger isn't the only thing that will get your car to move better. Just because my car isn't as quick as a MM that's supercharged doesn't mean that it isn't capable of a 0-60MPH time of under 5 seconds. If anyone is skeptical of that, then I'd be happy to race them.;) And believe me, a proffessional racer I'm NOT (far from it)...........

I've spent half the amount of money on my MM that it would take to get it supercharged. I'm sure that if you do that, then you'll also find that your MM, would get from 0-60 in under five seconds also(providing that you make some good mod choices like I have:) ).......

[sailsmen]

My 0 to 60 time is from a GTech. % that it is the same 0 to 60 time that another member got with a GTech.

His GTech 1/4 ET is also the same as the 1/4 ET I got at the race track.

Using several 1/8 miles ET/Speed converting to 0 to 60 calculaters are all less than the GTech 0 to 60. I think this is because the MM is stronger past the 60', meaning the 0-60 is less but she comes in stronger in the 1/8 resulting in a lower 0-60 conversion from the 1/8 miles.


My 261 RWHP is also from a GTech, but it was only from one run do to traffic and also an 80* day, so I will take several more RWHP readings when it's cooler and there is less trafic.

What I am saying is I think the GTech is accurate.

[BillyGman]

the "G-Tech" device for two years and on two different cars(one of which I took to the race track to confirm the ET numbers) I have to say that I agree completely w/everything that Sailsman has stated in his last post except for the HP measuring mode of the "G-Tech" device. I'm not saying that he is wrong since I've never even bothered to use this device in that mode. I've always been a bit skeptical about this device's ability to give an accurate HP figure due to the fact that there are just soooooo many variables. I'd much rather go to the Dyno for that.But that's simply my opinion.

But as for the 0-60 MPH times, I don't really know of any other way that I would have access to that would be better than the "G-tech" for measuring that since they do NOT provide that information on your timeslips at the track. So how else would I be able to accurately measure my car's 0-60MPH time other than perhaps using a stop watch while watching the speedometer. But I'm not so sure that would be very accurate since your reaction time w/the stop watch would factor in also. Am I missing something?

[Marauderer]

I have the latest version of the g-tech and loan it out on a regular basis to people with all types of cars. It has proven itself time and time again when these same people had either just previously went to the track or had gone shortly afterwards. The only thing none of us has done, is it take it to the track and run it during an actual run. :) However, I'll take care of that one this spring when the weather breaks and I get my widened tires. Then I'll post side by side numbers!

[BillyGman]

Now that's something that I never thought of doing. That's an interesting idea. The only thing is that it might be difficult to time it right. I dunno about the new ones, but w/mine you have to first click the switch over, and then wait for the term "Accel" to blink, and then push the button when it does, and then after that wait for the word "GO" to start flashing before you can accelerate. And I dunno how I would do all that, while at the same time wait for the tree, and go on the green light.:confused:

Does the new "G-tech" device work the same way upon start up????? maybe I could do all of that while in the staging lane, and get it to the point when you have to push the button in order to se the word "GO", and then I just won't oush the button until I've staged. And then once the word "GO" begins to flash indicating that it's ready to record your ET, I can simply wait for the green light on the tree, because this device just like the equipment at the dragstrip will NOT begin recording your ET until the car begins to move.

[sailsmen]

On the GTech I have you set it to acceleration mode and then push the button to reset the numbers which is indicated by the word GO.

Movement after the numbers are reset, i.e. indicated by GO, is what activates it to begin the accel run.

After you stage push the button to reset the numbers, GO should appear before the second yellow on a sportsman tree.

Depending on how shallow you stage will determine how much sooner the GTech will start the accel run when you first move vs the ET which is when the entire front wheel has crossed the optical sensor.

The GTech time in theory will always be longer then the ET because the GTech is measuring your acceleration, i.e. movement, and ET is your Elapsed Time from when an optical sensor is cleared to another one being blocked.

[Marauderer]

THe new one sounds like it lets you do a few more things. 1st you can set you staging distance, which I have set to zero. Then you can turn the tree on or off (for tracking reaction times), which I have done. Basically, you press the button once you have come to a complete stop, once it is ready, you can launch at anytime and it tracks automatically (it will include variable stagin distances as well in this mode).

Also, I spoke to a tech and he said they are about to release a firmware update that will allow you to record peak lateral g's so you can go out and test your traction!

[sailsmen]

Cool, please report to us how well it works, maybe at some point I will have to get the new version.

[John F. Russo]

BillyGman

Trap speed: 101.35 MPH
60' time: 1.948
0-60MPH: 4.9 sec
(all on the stock tires)
306.9 RWHP
322.9 RWTQ

Do you think your ET would have been lower if you had brake torqued? Did you brake torque when you raced Martyo?

If you had my car what do you think you could do? (Car and Driver got 13.1 sec @ 108 mph with SergntMac's car. For some reason, he has 22 ft-lbs more RWT than my car.)

I'm a novice, what is this G-Tech device?

[John F. Russo]

Sorry BillyGman I forgot to give you my car details.


______________________________ ______________________
2003 Blue 300B (Canadian) (reversed traction control, mini spare,
trunked 6 disc CD changer,clock-in-the-radio, heated front
seats, hood light)
-Born 12/10/02
-12,000 miles
-18.5 mpg at a steady speed of 80 mph
-Stock transmission (upgraded with Performance Automatic
clutches and band after stock tranny failed in 8,800 miles)
-Wheel locks (Ford)
-Badgeless front grille by “Zack”
-Zaino waxing
Kenny Brown: 6th “Signature Series” conversion (450 hp) Born
3/28/03
-Dead pedal
-Baer front brakes 14 in. two piston, vented rotors
-MMX Driveshaft
-377 RWTQ
-4.10 gears
-Precision, triple disc, P/N469018-3 Precision, triple disc, P/N469018-3
-Vortech supercharger (5 and 9 psig boost)
-Pirelli P-Zero Asymmetric (front 255/45ZR18 99Y;rear
255/50ZR18 102Y)
-FordChip
-One coil of each front stock spring removed to produce
the “same” effect as an Eibach spring
-Ground clearance: 5 in.
______________________________ ____________________
1961 Ford Galaxie, 2 dr. Club Victoria, 390CID, 375hp, 4 barrel

[SergntMac]

4.26 is my average of all my time slips from the '03 season. I expect to lower this in '04, once I get some decent traction.

Smokey...Thanks for the calculators! Very handy and helpful in focusing on what's not happening right with my launch.

John F..."306.9 RWHP, 322.9 RWTQ"? Don't you mean 4?

[martyo]

Originally posted by SergntMac
John F..."306.9 RWHP, 322.9 RWTQ"? Don't you mean 4?

Mac: I think he is referring to BillyG's numbers.

[SergntMac]

Oops...Nevermind.

[BillyGman]

I think w/any Supercharged Marauder, it is imperative that you use either slicks or a good set of Drag radials when you go to the track. When Marty, Fat bastid, and myself were at the Atco track in NJ(which BTW stays open all winter long), we were racing the impala SS guys, and I noticed how most of those guys came to the track w/slicks mounted on a second set of rims in their trunks, and they mounted them in the parking lot when they got to the track. So if I had a supercharged Marauder, I'd either do that, or get drag radials such as the 18" 555 P305 Nitto tires that are talked about in that Rim widening thread in the Trilogy forum. That way, you can drive the car to the track, on the tires you'll be racing on w/out having to change the tires there. Ofcourse in order to do that you'll have to get the back wheels widened.

Now I don't know if that 13.1 sec ET w/the Kenny Brown car was recorded w/the stock tires or not. my guess is that it was, but that might not be the case. But if it was, then your car can definately turn a better ET than that. There's no way a Supercharged Marauder is going to hook up coming off the line w/stock tires. And that goes for no matter who's S/Cer you have.

As for the brake torque question, No, I did NOT brake torque my car at all when I went racing in Atco w/Marty. And yes, I think there's a good possibility that if I did, then my ET's would be better. I believe that Marty usually does that(although he wasn't going to volunteer that info to me unless I asked him that day:P ).

The "G-Tech" device looks kinda like a small radar detector, and it has a cord that plugs into your car's lighter socket. You use the suction cup that's on it to stick it to the inside of the windshield temporarily while the trst is being performed. You simply pick a nice straight and flat piece of road that there isn't any traffic on, and blast through the quartermile. (I alwys do this on the highway in the wee hours of the morning about 3:00 am is perfect). And you don't have to measure out the quartermile. The G-tech device does it for you. When you've passed through a complete quartermile, the display begins to flash yout ET # and then you know that you can let off the gas pedal. It also gives you your 0-60MPH times which aren't stated on the timeslips when you go to the track.

[John F. Russo]

BillyGman/SergntMac
The (SergntMac) test car used by Car and Driver and mine both use Pirelli's P Zero. (Right SergntMac?).

Thanks for the education on the GTech device.

BillyGman
"And yes, I think there's a good possibility that if I did[brake torqued], then my ET's would be better."
It not a "possibility", but a certainty that your ET under the same condition would have had to be lower. Because if your engine is already at, say 2000 rpm, it would take some time for you to get from 0 to that rpm. I would guess that it would take more than a 1/2 sec for you to depress the gas pedal and reach 2000 rpm. What do you think?




Your pioneering has set a new standard of performance for all of us to admire. (But I'm a novice commenting.)

It raises the hopes for the rest of us to improve our own numbers. Of course, seeing you do it is one thing, but for the rest of us, doing it may be another thing. Is there hope at any age?
Yes, especially if you haven't done much of this drag racing.

[FriendlySS]

Originally posted by rurumon
good old g-tech, with its error of +/- 2.0 seconds. Nice and reliable.

Ever try it out at the strip where the variables are the same and the surface is level. Mine is acurate down to .01 of second but the MPH is less than to be desired.

It's always the "loose" nut behind the wheel when something doesn't work right.:)

[sailsmen]

As respects power braking lower ET's are determined by faster acceleration and not engine RPM's.

For my vehicle power braking has resulted in higher ET's due to the tires spinning. I tried various RPM's up to 2,000.

Although my engine RPM's come up very quickly as a result of power braking due to the tires spinning the accleration rate is slower.;)

[martyo]

Originally posted by sailsmen
Although my engine RPM's come up very quickly as a result of power braking due to the tires spinning the accleration rate is slower.;)

Exactly!

However, some slight brake torque can pre-load the suspension and give a better launch then a dead punch (to use BillyG's words).

[Smokie]

Martyo I agree, my best results to date are by pre-loading the power train at about 1000 rpm's, I like to think of it as pulling an object with a rope that has slack, compared to a taut rope.
The response is faster, with the higher power car on stock tires anything more than 1000 rpm's will create too much wheel spin. I know this is not rocket science but I believe a small amount of wheel spin will produce better results than feathering the accelerator to avoid wheel spin completely.

[SergntMac]

Whoa, I'm getting lost here, let's back up?

John F...Yes, the KB cars come with Pirelli P=Zeros in 255/45 on the front and 255/50 on the back. I'm down to 3/32 on my third set of rear tires now. Just about cheater slick tread now. They stick like glue, but that sticky means early wear. My best time of this season, 12.81/106 MPH came from the Pirellis with 25 PSI. Slicks did not help, but I admit I did not explore all the possibilities before going back to the street tires.

Bias ply slicks with radials in the front is another issue altogether. You'll have some driving to deal with at the 1/8th mile, and it can get hairy once this beast starts acting like a pendulum. A better launch yes, but I need to work the PSI angle more.

I know everyone has their own style here, but let's remember that tire spin is only cool when showing off or cleaning/heating the tires. Sfift into manual first gear, torque it until you break loose, and hold your RPM steady, maybe 3500 RPM for 20 seconds or so should get them really hot and ready. Then stage. Your goal now, is as little tire spin as possible.

I've driven two Marauders at the track, my N/A and my KB #1, and both cars acted the same way at the launch. Brake torque over 1200 RPM will cost you. Once you break loose, you won't hook until you pull out of the throttle. Trust me, DRIVE it out, or you'll burn up, maybe even shift into 2nd before you make a 60' time. Remember, the lower the time, the better the traction.

Like Marty says, use enough torque to load the power train, and drive it out. Don't mash it, this car is just too heavy to launch like a Corvette or a Mustang. You'll get your best launch by doing it calmly. I would expect a 1.7 to be about the best you'll see in 60' times, but that can make a big difference in ET.

BTW, my worst time of the season was 15.10/111 MPH. Now, if I can hit 111 MPH in the quarter...

Anyone want some burn-out tires? Really livens up a block party!