F82 M4 JB4 vs E92 M3 1/4 Mile

[M3lbournE92]

Went to a drag strip the other day and ran into a new F82 M4
I know the M4 is fast, but once I heard he had a JB4 beta I knew I was in for a beating lol
Off the line the m4 is a little slow, but when he got into 3rd, all I saw was taillights.
The second run, he took off his tune to see what he would run stock. At this time the temperatures cooled down from earlier.
We ran again and the M4 spun through first and second, but still ended up catching me at the end.
I got the faster time, but you have to look at the trap speed. 121 Mph is no joke

[gthal]

121 mph trap for the M4 (without JB4) is impressive!

Traction is a real issue from a dig with the M4. In both races you could see the car just struggling for grip. If the car had stickier tires and less slip through the first couple of gears, I wonder what the numbers would look like? I bet they would be very impressive.

[Brosef]

thanks for posting.

[M3lbournE92]

Originally Posted by gthal

121 mph trap for the car (without JB4) is impressive!

Traction is a real issue from a dig with the M4. If the car had stickier tires and less slip through the first couple of gears, I wonder what the numbers would look like?

I was told by the owner that the car ran an 11.6 last week but idk what mph. With drag tires, downpipes and stage 2 software, this cars gonna be scary fast

[///M ARMY]

JB4......

[M3lbournE92]

Originally Posted by Brosef

too bad the F82 wasn't stock - would have made it more interesting. not sure what you mean by getting the faster time, other than 60' and 330'

thanks for posting.

I ran the m4 in the second race on the stock map (JB4 off). In the second race he ran a 13.2 while I ran a 13.0

[Brosef]

where is Wolfinwolfsclothing to comment on these trap speeds?

[Brosef]

Originally Posted by M3lbournE92

I ran the m4 in the second race on the stock map (JB4 off). In the second race he ran a 13.2 while I ran a 13.0

got it - I stopped watching the video after the run was over - didn't see there was a second run.

[turbo8765]

So what did he trap tuned?

[gthal]

Originally Posted by turbo8765

So what did he trap tuned?

121.55 tuned

121.21 no tune

In both cases, the time and trap speed were impacted by traction through the first several gears (or so it appears). The lack of traction on the tuned run must have held the trap speed down.

[gxman]

Well i think you will get a higher trap if you dog the launch, as with the jb4 off run. If he had ran low 12s, his trap would`ve probably been slightly lower?

[Jockey]

425 crank hp

Nope. Those are some impressive numbers.

I'm waiting for how this will be explained away...

[gmd2003]

Originally Posted by gxman

Well i think you will get a higher trap if you dog the launch, as with the jb4 off run. If he had ran low 12s, his trap would`ve probably been slightly lower?

Given traction has a minimal effect on traps , I think it's safe to say the JB4 was on for both runs intentional or not lol .

[gthal]

Originally Posted by Jockey

425 crank hp

Nope. Those are some impressive numbers.

I'm waiting for how this will be explained away...

This is how ----V

Originally Posted by gmd2003

Given traction has a minimal effect on traps , I think it's safe to say the JB4 was on for both runs intentional or not lol .

There have been other, bone stock, cars trapping >120mph. So, likely NOT safe to say JB4 was on for both runs. This sounds like one of those "I don't like the result or don't want to believe the result" responses

P.S. I'm not a drag racer but are you saying that if the car spins its tires down 1/4 of the track it won't impact the speed the car traps? That makes no sense to me but, as I said, I'm no expert on this stuff.

[Jockey]

I saw that coming

[gxman]

Stock trapping 118-119, jb4 on both runs trapping 121ish is a good possibility.

[gmd2003]

Originally Posted by gthal

This is how ----V

There have been other, bone stock, cars trapping >120mph. So, likely NOT safe to say JB4 was on for both runs. This sounds like one of those "I don't like the result or don't want to believe the result" responses

P.S. I'm not a drag racer but are you saying that if the car spins its tires down 1/4 of the track it won't impact the speed the car traps? That makes no sense to me but, as I said, I'm no expert on this stuff.

You obviously aren't a drag racer, Vbox terminal speeds are not trap speeds . A trap speed iS the avg of the last 60feet and is always lower . No stock customer car has trapped > 120mph yet . The fastest car with a slip is 12.0 @ 118.9mph. Some wheel slip even into 2nd gear is optimal for trap speed , on a really good ET run a car will actually trap lower . Of course if lack traction causes you to lift during you're run that's a different story . But when someone has a JB4 installed and it traps the same with the same wheelspin in the tuned vs supposed stock run ....... .

[gmd2003]

Originally Posted by gxman

Stock trapping 118-119, jb4 on both runs trapping 121ish is a good possibility.

+1
119 is moving no need to BS .

[gthal]

Originally Posted by gmd2003

You obviously aren't a drag racer, Vbox terminal speeds are not trap speeds . A trap speed iS the avg of the last 60feet and is always lower . No stock customer car has trapped > 120mph yet . The fastest car with a slip is 12.0 @ 118.9mph. Some wheel slip even into 2nd gear is optimal for trap speed , on a really good ET run a car will actually trap lower . Of course if lack traction causes you to lift during you're run that's a different story . But when someone has a JB4 installed and it traps the same with the same wheelspin in the tuned vs supposed stock run ....... .

Like I said, I'm not a drag racer

[M3lbournE92]

Originally Posted by gmd2003

You obviously aren't a drag racer, Vbox terminal speeds are not trap speeds . A trap speed iS the avg of the last 60feet and is always lower . No stock customer car has trapped > 120mph yet . The fastest car with a slip is 12.0 @ 118.9mph. Some wheel slip even into 2nd gear is optimal for trap speed , on a really good ET run a car will actually trap lower . Of course if lack traction causes you to lift during you're run that's a different story . But when someone has a JB4 installed and it traps the same with the same wheelspin in the tuned vs supposed stock run ....... .

I'm just going by what the owner said. When I was editing the video I thought the same as you did, that he had the tune on. When I talked to the owner before the run, he told me he took the tune off to see what the car would do. We waited 2 hours between runs and local temp was around 67-70 degrees as opposed to 75 during the first run. I believe the cool down period was beneficial to the turbos. ALSO we both ran as soon as we got to the track

[gmd2003]

Originally Posted by M3lbournE92

I'm just going by what the owner said. When I was editing the video I thought the same as you did, that he had the tune on. When I talked to the owner before the run, he told me he took the tune off to see what the car would do. We waited 2 hours between runs and local temp was around 67-70 degrees as opposed to 75 during the first run. I believe the cool down period was beneficial to the turbos. ALSO we both ran as soon as we got to the track

He was full of shit , not you're fault

[gthal]

Originally Posted by gmd2003

He was full of shit , not you're fault

Not to be argumentative but is your only evidence that he was "full of shit" that you think the trap is too high?

You don't believe there is any other possible reason other than he was bullshitting or was wrong about removing the JB4? Maybe the car would have trapped 121 if it was stock and the JB4 wasn't delivering what it should have? All I'm saying is you are pretty black and white and it seems to me that your logic is based solely on not believing a stock car could trap 121. Seems a bit weak to me.

P.S. I'm not saying you are wrong... I don't know... but I don't know that either of us really know.