Let'* put it this way:
For your slowest run on 9/2/2004 at 8:08pm, you claimed a temp of 95° and 90% humidity netted you a 16.6397 @ 82.60 mph.
The ACTUAL temp and humidity at 7:53pm on that date in Fayetteville was only 75° and 64%.
For your quickest run, on 9/16/2005 at 8:45pm, you claimed a temp of 45-50° and 0% humidity netted you a 15.697 @ 88.13 mph.
The ACTUAL temp and humidity at 8:53pm on that date in Fayetteville was 80.1° and 67%.
This data is backed up by two sources reporting within 2% of each other.
So what we have is that atmospheric conditions should have HURT your faster run, rather than being grossly in your favor. In other words, we cannot say that 'ideal track conditions' prevailed for you. Quite the opposite.
From the original temp and humidity data you posted above, I'd take a quick glance normally and say to myself:
"Hot humid run slower, Cool dry run quicker, OK!"
But that isn't the case. A 95SE is the lightest production model from 92-99. It weighs in at 3400 pounds dry. Stripping 200 pounds from that car would be tricky. And you have a heavier SLE from a heavier year. Giving your car the benefit of the doubt at 3200 pounds, and ignoring the half-full fuel tank, I don't see how a CAI made a 1 second difference in your ET and posted a time that an L36 would be hard pressed to achieve.
I think all other things being 'above board', that the timing circuits at Fayetteville are grossly inaccurate. This may be reflected in your 3 times from that night being all over the map:
16.01 @ 85.06 (2.44 sixty)
15.82 @ 86.43 (2.27 sixty) 45 minutes later
15.69 @ 88.13 (2.10 sixty) 10 minutes later
Considering this last run was in WORSE atmospheric conditions than your slowest last year, and the run was recorded a mere 10 minutes after another run (virtually no cooldown), I don't see anything that would justify the quicker time.
I see several factors that would make it SLOWER.
I'll keep crunching numbers, but everything on this end looks like a serious timing error at least.
All i can say is....I dunno....Seriously, All i can do is post the time slips and let the "experts" (Bill, Greyhare, John W and Todd and others) take a look at it.....Learning experience for track times that are verified offical by a slip?....i dunno
Well, I can tell you I'm a little tweaked right now at the gross errors in atmospheric conditions you posted above for me to work with. It took me an hour to find all the actual data for all of your runs. If I'm going to help sort this out, I need at least VAGUELY accurate data.