Toyota Recall - Largest Ever!

[BuickGN]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: brianl703
The 1/4 mile times on that truck put it on par with a stock Fox body Mustang from 20 years ago.


Yup.

Mine went 14.2 @ 99.9Mph BONE STOCK. With 285,000Km on it.


Was that stock or "stock" lol.

Stock around here for the Fox body guys meant gears, a timing bump, and flowmasters. Same for my crowd though, stock was a chip, filter, and more boost.

For the life of me I can't remember what the 5.0s trapped at stock. I remember the ET range and some of the Notch backs running in the 13s but can't remember the mph.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: brianl703
The 1/4 mile times on that truck put it on par with a stock Fox body Mustang from 20 years ago.


Yup.

Mine went 14.2 @ 99.9Mph BONE STOCK. With 285,000Km on it.


Was that stock or "stock" lol.

Stock around here for the Fox body guys meant gears, a timing bump, and flowmasters. Same for my crowd though, stock was a chip, filter, and more boost.

For the life of me I can't remember what the 5.0s trapped at stock. I remember the ET range and some of the Notch backs running in the 13s but can't remember the mph.


3.08 gears and whatever exhaust came on it when I bought it.

It got equal length headers and went 14-flat, got underdrives, electric fan and an aluminum driveshaft and went 13.8 @ 101.

 

[brianl703]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

Your 60-120Mph time is always close to DOUBLE that value due to aerodynamics.


You got my hint! (Actually you most likely already knew the answer).

What can we safely assume about the aerodynamics of a Tundra compared to a supercar?

The transmission also plays a part. 1st gear puts a lot more torque to the wheels than does whatever gear the Tundra might be in between 60 and 110.

No, Toyota has NOT figured out how to design a transmission that can put as much torque to the wheels in 3rd gear as it does in 1st. My understanding, however, is that they're working on it and it's development will precede that of the perpetual motion machine.

 

[robbobster]

Maybe in metric seconds...

 

[BuickGN]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: brianl703
The 1/4 mile times on that truck put it on par with a stock Fox body Mustang from 20 years ago.


Yup.

Mine went 14.2 @ 99.9Mph BONE STOCK. With 285,000Km on it.


Was that stock or "stock" lol.

Stock around here for the Fox body guys meant gears, a timing bump, and flowmasters. Same for my crowd though, stock was a chip, filter, and more boost.

For the life of me I can't remember what the 5.0s trapped at stock. I remember the ET range and some of the Notch backs running in the 13s but can't remember the mph.


3.08 gears and whatever exhaust came on it when I bought it.

It got equal length headers and went 14-flat, got underdrives, electric fan and an aluminum driveshaft and went 13.8 @ 101.


Not bad. I remember in the 90s when my car ran 13s, there wasn't much that could touch it. It almost hurts to think that some ecnonomy cars and full size trucks can nearly match the performance or our "muscle" cars from back then. I pains me to think that if my GN was stock I would have to fight to beat a stock full sized Tundra.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Actually you should look at trap speeds not just ET's.

We like trap because it is way less dependent on driver, ET is all about the launch.

While it is impressive that the ol' Tundra can git, it is NEVER going to do 60-110 in 5 seconds!

This is a classic example of the Butt-o-meter gone wrong. Real drag racers know that the BMeter is notoriously inaccurate.

 

[brianl703]

Ehh...so...if the Tundra can do 0-60 in 6 seconds..and 60-110 in 5 seconds..which adds up to 11 seconds...how come it's 1/4 mile time is 14.5 seconds at 93MPH?

Something does not add up here. Clearly, it takes this truck 14.5 seconds to get to 93MPH. If it took 6 seconds to get to 60MPH, that means it took 8.5 seconds to get from 60MPH to 93MPH. (6 + 8.5 = 14.5).

Well, Toyota might have equipped the Tundra with a Flux Capacitor. That could explain it.

 

[mikered30]

Youtube: Tundra 0-100 mph in 15 seconds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHxzBN3otFI

 

[Norm Olt]

"Never eat anything bigger than your head!"

"WARNING: Do not eat this plastic bag. The State of California has determined that this plastic can cause cancer if consumed!"

"Remove from outer package before heating OR eating!"

My favorite: Don't let the floor mat get scruntched-up under the gas or brake pedals!

p.s. Same goes for the empty cups from Starbucks, the bags of [censored] from McDonalds, or your hat...

 

[crinkles]

Originally Posted By: robbobster
Maybe in metric seconds...

 

[Amkeer]

This is what I will do to put this to rest. Add another 5-6 seconds on to the 5 that I came up with. That is 11 then 6 that gives you 17 seconds from 0-110. If you are not happy with that go ahead and and add 8 to the 5 and make it 13.

I am not about to videotape 60-110. So the next best thing is to succumb to whatever time you think is reasonable. Nevertheless, I put up some videos of some OZZY tunes for your enjoyment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSxbFfHla6c&NR=1

 

[webfors]

after watching a few of those tundra videos I'm lovin' that truck.. especially the tug of war vids..