If noone els will represent V8's I will (1/4 timeslip)!!!!! (Page 2/41)
Matt Hawkins AUG 30, 08:26 AM
I smell photo shop on that slip If you add up his reaction time and ET, you get 11.748 seconds. It shows his margin of victory at .7851 seconds. Now add that to his time and and substract your reaction time to get your losing time of 11.678. Exactly one second slower than what you show. Still very fast, but very fishy at 10.678. And how did you lose with an ET that was 0.616 seconds faster when your reaction was only .401 slower. I'm calling BS!

Matt

------------------
86 GT, 5-Speed
87 GT, 3.4l DOHC Turbo
95 BMW M3
02 Nissan Altima 3.5SE

R Runner AUG 30, 08:45 AM
GT-X.....


Amen Brother!

Those times kick ***. I was wondering when someone would post a "Who has the fastest V8" thread. 10.6 sec is very impressive. Once I get the final touches on my car I'll let you know what she runs. I think posting your time was a great idea.

For years I have listened to people tell me how fast their V8 is only to be followed by "Well, I don't go to the strip....." Seat-of-the-pants feel is great, but numbers tell all. Oh yea, and please don't quote me computer "fantasy" times. Take it to the track.

Give me 6 weeks. I'll post a time


------------------
Paul Hosler
- Silver '87 GT Daily diver.
- Modified IMSA Tube chassis racecar (in progress)
Smoooooth GT AUG 30, 09:05 AM
.

[This message has been edited by Smoooooth GT (edited 09-30-2003).]

jelly2m8 AUG 30, 09:17 AM

[This message has been edited by jelly2m8 (edited 08-30-2003).]

R Runner AUG 30, 09:28 AM
Wow your right!

There is no way a V8 could keep up with a V6. I suppose I should have put a V6 in mine.
I know I am going to sound like a hypocrite: (computer time thing I just posted, but...) dynoed 645 hp NA, 2300 lb wet. do the math.

Can't wait to get to the track!

------------------
Paul Hosler
- Silver '87 GT Daily diver.
- Modified IMSA Tube chassis racecar (in progress)
JazzMan AUG 30, 10:01 AM
Ok, I looked at the image of the time slip, and specifically I compared all of the 0's on the image. I noticed something interesting when I did that. The zero in his time is the first zero from the "1000" in the left column. No other zeros on the page resemble each other besides those two, and those two are exactly identical. So, based on that and also not really being concerned in any other way about the debate on who's engine is faster, I'd say that this image has been altered.


JazzMan

As a side note, I just realized the 1 is the same also. It appears that he just copied the 10 from the "1000" over on top of whatever the
real time was.

JazzMan

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 08-30-2003).]

Another note: The 36 from his 136 speed is copied from the 4.636 of the other guy's 330 number. LOL! Man, he went to a lot of trouble to fake a time slip, and it wouldn't have taken hardly any more effort to change some pixels around to make the numbers he copied look unique.

JazzMan

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 08-30-2003).]

FieroGTguy AUG 30, 10:37 AM
 
quote
Originally posted by GT-X:
to quote FieroX "F*** the naysayers cause they dont mean S***"

Tyler
edit: spelling

That sure is a perfectly white background for a paper copy. Maybe he just ironed out the wrinkles in photoshop? "Ironed" too many numbers, and forgot what he had?

Greg

Alex4mula AUG 30, 10:38 AM
California Kid AUG 30, 10:40 AM
I'm not going to be so bold as to call his slip a fake, but only to comment that this is the problem when you don't know who to trust!!! Time slips can be faked (and not caught), also video can be faked, and not caught. Computers have opened this door to devious people who want people to believe they are the fastest gun in the west.

It's turning out that the only way you can believe anything anymore, is to be there in person to see the event take place.

pHoOl AUG 30, 10:45 AM
man... screw what everybody else is saying... I think if I'm in Battle Creek i'm going to call for a ride!!