Made 8 0-60 runs (1st-to-2nd slow launch) just now cuz the cars feeling so strong. I just knew I could beat my personal best of 9.2 seconds. And I did on EVERY run but then I got greedy. I wanted -.001 more second and just couldn't get it.

Eight runs:

1. 9.000
2. 9.120
3. 9.210
4. 9.011
5. 9.081
6. 9.002
8. 9.044

I don't ask much but sheesh you'd think .001 second was gonna break the universe up.

So damn tempting to cheat, take the spare and jack out and crank the tire pressures to 40psi. But I wont... I'm determined to do this the "old fashined way." Maybe I'll throw the NGK's in tomorrow and toss the Bosch's.

maybe the ignition coils are strong enough to run a slightly larger gap which can produce a better fire ball hmmmm. I was planning an MSD or the like upgrade in the future anyway

seems they've kinda sold out, made their prices more in line with the competition and gave up on being "the best." No first hand knowledge as I havent used an MSD product since the late 80's but I'm seeing a lot of grumbling in print.

looking at. MSD just comes to mind like XEROX or Coke. Who was it again I wanted to use?

Both the OEM wires & the Nology wires fair well with this gap.

10 gallons of gas weighs more than the spare tire with jack, tools and the back upper/lower seats. But here's an interesting piece of trivia for those interested. On a roadcourse, EVERY Audi I've EVER driven did faster laps with a FULL tank of gas than an empty one. They like the weight split differential with more weight on the rear.

I know a straight line is different but just thought I'd share that lil nugget.

<center><img src="http://home.ec.rr.com/miktip/DasCoupe.jpg"></center><p>Learned this back in my SCCA days, with my 1986 Coupe GT! ;O)

We won't tell.

And I'm at 6,000 ft elevation which means on a 2.8 12v with 172HP@ sea level I had 141HP in stock dress. When all my work is done I will hook up to the local DynaPak and test for net affect. But even then I'll be 18% lower than an identically prepared car at sea level. Kind of amazing the cars I'm hanging with or beating from a red light of late tho. My 210HP chipped/exhaust 1.8TQ still beats my 2.8 but when I put the 190 chip in the 1.8T the 2.8 beats it (all rolling starts). But neither race is a "walk-away" by any stretch till over 100mph. And from 70-130mph it's a dead heat against the 210HP chip and a walk-away from the 190HP chip. But then there's gearing that enters into it and the 2.8 is definately geared better for high speed.

but between you, me and the lamp post 8.68@ 58*F with 97 octane and 8.55@104 octane @62*F. These cars LOVE good gas... $4.30per gal gas!! I don't believe the gas was in and of itself was the contributing factor as much as the lack of timing retardation due to the gas. Thats why I want to experiment with a timing module from Split Second once the ACR-2 is up and running.

That's no little thing. As far as the 19 yr olds,you just give 'em some obscure formula that proves they are doing it even though it doen't seem so.

those sub-9 second times preceeded the MAF bore and 3" induction hose. I forgot that little snippet. That was on a stock MAF with stock induction hose and plenum. Bet yer ass timing is "no little thing."

advance as it'll give. Made a big difference at the strip and day to day.

or MSD at half the price :)

Just kidding. Check UrS4's method of acceleration. Then you will see how he comes up with those numbers. ;-)