per Dynosteve today, the car did run a 2.7 60ft (on street tires with NO traction) and SMOKED the tires 1/4 of the way down the track and trapped 129 MPH. thats pretty sweet!
Ok guys I havean update on this car. Are you sitting down. First of all RDP told the guy to take it nice and easy off the line due to stock half shafts. He did just that. He also left it in DRIVE. 60' was 2.70 This run saw him net a 11.78 @ 125mph (no typo and trying to get the slip) The run and times can be backed up by many 3CF members who saw this run at Mopar Sunday in QLD. All who saw it run were amazed especially after beating a Dodge Viper. Car is bone stock right down to wheels/tyres and suspension. All it has is an RDP-Bullet blower kit, VERY safe and conservative tune, RDP Cat Back, 8 pound boost and intercooled. Also awaiting video of the run. Will post up as soon as it comes to hand.
I would believe it with a 2.0 60 foot time. Not with a 2.7 and not at that trap speed on 8psi. Come on guys, I can't be the only who's about to raise the BS flag. Make me a believer, but at this point the math isn't adding up. That's saying that with that car and drag radials, cutting a 1.8 60 foot (which isn't difficult) will get ~10.2 ET. That's what it would be if you subtracted the difference between 2.7 and 1.8, multiplied by 2, and subtracted that number from 11.7. That gives you a rather accurate of the ET difference give or take 1 or 2 tenths. The LX's that have been in the 10's so far had less unsprung and reciprocating weight, way more traction, and A LOT more Torque than is possible with ANY supercharger putting 8psi on a stock motor and these cars had to struggle to get in the 10's in very good DA's. I know I'm just bench racing here and maybe I'm missing something in my comparative details, but considering it was said to cut a 2.7 60 and "smoke them down the track" I just don't see any 330 foot time allowing an 11.7 with only 8psi of boost on a stock motor. There had to be more HP up top to push it into the upper 120 trap speeds.
Your looking at needing around 700hp in order to pull off 127mph in a 4200lb car. Not saying anyone is lying, but an increase of almost 300hp from 8psi is difficult to swallow. Im not attacking you Steve, but this one is difficult to absorb. Congrats nonetheless.
I'm not doubting the timeslip, nor am I doubting anyone's account of what happened or what they saw. I believe everything except what's going on under the hood.
I'm with you Matt. Something doesn't add up. But then again I watched a 10.98 pass at Ohio that wasn't a 10.98 pass .
ok all to set it straight for the everyone on here, the car is what it is simple! sounds like the same thing as at the lx nationals when we ran the 13.0 in the challenger and everyone said it had cam and heads etc when it did not! the car has rdp cats back thermostate rdp cmr tune rdp supercharger kit nothing else. please note from people who were there bull05 bull05 is offline LX Newbie iTrader: (0) Join Date: Feb 2008 bull05 doesn't look like much now, but drinking milk does wonders And he was doing it pretty easy as Steve said. Was reeling of easy 11's with minimal effoft. Cheers Jason ps...nice pic LE 300 Senior Member LE 300's Avatar Car: 06 Chrysler 300c Join Date: Sep 2007 Member Number: 14401 Location: Melbourne, VIC Trader Rating: (0) Posts: 143 I saw this first hand, the crowd loved it. The guy with the red viper sedan was saying that "chrysler shouldn't be manufacturing vehicles that can outrun the viper!" It was spin city for at least 1/4 track too! Cheers Phil hemimark Member hemimark's Avatar Car: 2007 chrysler 300c srt8 Join Date: Feb 2008 Member Number: 16506 Location: Rockhampton Trader Rating: (1) Posts: 36 I think the only possible way to describe the RDP supercharger is that it is an AMINAL! Most cars you have to try to turn the tyres this thing you have to try to stop turning the tyres. My fisrt run of the day was a 11.87@122mph not qutie sure what my best run was as i didnt get the time slip, but the guys i went down with said they thought it was 11.7? @ 123mph. If anyone has footage of that run and has the time & mph could you please post it This was all on my toyo proxy4s and all i could do was drive it off the line and then run down what ever was in front of me. Then after a day of racing i had the pleasure of driving it 8hrs home and ended up getting better fuel economy on the way home than what i did on the way down. Thanks Guys and i will post a time card and video when we get it.
Actually the 60' and Trap speed is NOT hard to swallow. With that much spin, the trap speeds will be high. Have none of you seen an NSRT4 at the track on street tires? A former friend of mine had well over 500whp in is SRT4 and could only muster a 12.1. Oh, his 60' = 2.4 his trap = 128mph. And that was in a DA well over 7000'. No traction = higher traps. I say congrats to the owner and to RDP. Also, I am sure that the owner will be going to the track again. If he has done this once, he should be able to back it up again and again.
I understand high trap speeds. But, it also comes down to traction. And being on street tires, with that 60 and ET. I find it hard to believe that it hooked after the 1/8th that hard. But I wasn't there, so I'll leave it alone.
Agree'd. SInce I have seen cars with crappy 60's/ET's and high traps that hooked at the 330', I can believe. Who loves ya saggy drawers?
Ron and I discussed this yestereday. I was miffed by these numbers myself. Throw out the MPH. Dropping the 60' to just a 1.9 would put a stock SC car in the mid 10's. Now we know that JMatt got into the 10's with a stock motor on a 3 stage 275 shot setup. His car is not completely stock, and has drag racing suspension, DR's, skinnies, and a HS tq converter if I remember right. Using the old rule of thumb that a .10 improvement in 60' gets you .15 at the end of the 1/4. So .8 would give you 1.2 or and et of 10.5. Just thinking out loud. Everyone is right having a little difficulty with these numbers, because it is way out of what would be expected. Steve, I'm not doubting the numbers, just having a hard time understanding them.
Just so I understand because this happened in Austrailia?? This was run on a 1320 foot (English) measurement and not some kind of metric distance? Jeff
Let me add some comment: 1) Steve @ RDP has always been trustworthy, so I'm inclined to believe him. 2) the rule of thumb is that every .01 in the first 60' equals another .01 down track. But that's not true in this case. That rule of thumb assumes good traction. And it works because a low 60' time is an indicator of HP, so the quicker you are to launch, the quicker the car should be on the rest of the track. In this case the 2.70 isn't from low HP, it's from not hitting the throttle. So someday, if this car gets set up well it could drop one full second off the first 60' from better traction, but that won't relate to much quicker on the rest of the pass. So in theory, the screwy 60' time really suggests a potential for 10.70 seconds. The 129 MPH trap speed certainly agrees with a potential 10.70 second run. Conclusion? Well, I'm skeptical. But Steve has credibility in my opinion, so I'm apt to believe him. The potential 1/4 mile time is plausible. The only thing that doesn't add up is the boost. 8psi shouldn't be able to do that. Of course it's also winter in Australia, so the DA may have been exceptional too. I'd like to see the slip and a video, but as skeptical as I am, I'm still inclined to believed this claim.
Matt, I don't know of anyone beleiving a .1 pickup in 60' is only a .1 in a 1/4 mile. I use a factor of 1.5 to 1. Many use 2.0 to 1.
stop talking and post a damn video please.actions speaks louder than words. this 300 out ran a viper.i want to know what year this viper was?
