That would be one wicked "granny grocery getter"

That GTech data is pretty cool. Do you have ANY beefs with the GTech or the software?

Very impressive stats. You've done a good job modding. Pretty damn close to equally my 400 Firebird.

In my experiences with the G-Tech Pro Competition, it is only good for measuring gains in performance not for giving accurate performance numbers. Before going to the track I thought it was pretty accurate, but after visiting the track a few times, my opinion has changed. This is why:

G-Tech Results:
Reaction Time: 0.766
Sixty Foot: 2.385
330 Foot: 5.858
1/8 Mile: 8.702
1/8 Mile Speed: 88.67
1000 Foot: 11.113
E.T.: 13.118
Speed: 114.10 MPH
0-5: 0.173
0-10: 0.695
0-15: 1.043
0-20: 1.565
0-25: 1.739
0-30: 2.261
0-35: 2.609
0-40: 2.957
0-45: 3.305
0-50: 3.827
0-55: 4.175
0-60: 4.772
0-65: 5.393
0-70: 6.089
0-75: 6.611
0-80: 7.481
0-85: 8.177
0-90: 9.047
0-95: 9.743
0-100: 10.613
0-105: 11.482
0-110: 12.352
Timeslip from track:



On the second slip you will notice the date is January 5, 2000, the track was having problems with their timing equipment and after they reset it they never changed the date back, i have had people in the past say I was lying about the times when they saw the date, and I don't need any of that going on, because it just makes them feel bad when I have to send them 15 other timeslips, and pics of the car and stuff, so don't start that here please.

If you notice the 60 foot time was MUCH more horrible on the G-Tech pro and got almost as good of a ET and does 0-110 in 12.352 seconds whereas the timeslips trap at ~107 and are ~12.80. The G-Tech is only consistant with itself and not anything else. That is just from my experience, if you want times go to the track, if you want to see if a mod did any good do before and after g-tech runs.

Oh yeah, the GTP is in the right lane on both of those slips (although it is pretty obvious).

Another example of theortical vs. actual. :?

For something thats just hooked up to a lighter socket it'* an amazing piece of technology...

We have wanted to run it at the track, but we keep forgetting to bring it, but those logs tell you it isn't accurate if you look into them a little deeper. The 60 foot is way worse (which it should be on street tires instead of the slicks we run at the track, and the fact that we didn't care what the 60 foot was so were weren't babying it, and the spring blocks weren't in and a lot of other variables that I'm not gonna get into, we could've pulled the same 60 foot on the street but we weren't trying), and there was a passenger in the car (me) when the G-Tech log was taken, and the car had no track prep (spare tire was in and also the headlight was still in, and the TCS fuse was in). I know why the 60 foot is way worse, and I included that in my analogy of how far off it is. Like I said, even with all these things against the car it does 110 .45 seconds quicker on the street than it takes to hit 107 at the track. That is WAY off, especially if you look at 105. It does 105 in 11.482 seconds, yet it does 106 in 12.780, that is 1.3 seconds for 1mph difference. You have to remember that the car is at least 200lbs heavier in the tests, and had a LOT worse traction. But the G-Tech is consistant with itself, so it gives us those inaccurate times every time, and as long as we know how far off it is we can basically tell what the 1/4 mile times are gonna be. Maybe you got lucky and got one that just happened to be close to accurate, along with consistant. But you really can't just trust a little plastic thing that mounts on your windshield and plugs into the cigarrette lighter.

Why not? I understand how it works, and if done right, it should be very close, like some people report.