Results 1 to 15 of 15

Ran my 99 5.3 at the track.

This is a discussion on Ran my 99 5.3 at the track. within the Track / Dyno forums, part of the Performance category; I have a 99 Silverado reg cab long bed. 5.3 auto 2wd. It ran 15.5s at 88. Mods are Jegs ...

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    10

    Ran my 99 5.3 at the track.


    Support FSC and see no ads! - Click Here
    I have a 99 Silverado reg cab long bed. 5.3 auto 2wd. It ran 15.5s at 88. Mods are Jegs muffler, Spectre cold air, HPP, free mods, Auto Zone electric fan. It has 3.42s with G80. I was surpirsed how much the truck weighed at the track scale. With half take of gas and some small tool boxes behind the seat it was 4350# with out me in it. My 93 Z28 was under 3400# without me in the car.
    I am not complaining, this was a good time for running at Lebanon Valley Dragway. It has a higher elevation than sea level tracks. My other cars would go 2 or 3 tenths faster at New England Dragway with the same conditions. I am going to do a 3" cat back and go back when the weather is cooler. Maybe try an under drive pulley too. Try for 14.90s

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Euless, Texas
    Posts
    4,937

    Re: Ran my 99 5.3 at the track.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin View Post
    I have a 99 Silverado reg cab long bed. 5.3 auto 2wd. It ran 15.5s at 88. Mods are Jegs muffler, Spectre cold air, HPP, free mods, Auto Zone electric fan. It has 3.42s with G80. I was surpirsed how much the truck weighed at the track scale. With half take of gas and some small tool boxes behind the seat it was 4350# with out me in it. My 93 Z28 was under 3400# without me in the car.
    I am not complaining, this was a good time for running at Lebanon Valley Dragway. It has a higher elevation than sea level tracks. My other cars would go 2 or 3 tenths faster at New England Dragway with the same conditions. I am going to do a 3" cat back and go back when the weather is cooler. Maybe try an under drive pulley too. Try for 14.90s
    What was your 1/8 time and mph? How about your 60'?

    Your truck is LIGHT in terms of a truck.
    1983 G20 Conversion Van, 383 TPI, 10.5:1 compression, Custom Reed Roller cam, Ported 906 Vortecs, Doug Thorley Tri-Y headers, dual 2 1/2" exhaust, 4L60E, 3.08 gears. 7427 PCM in MPFI Mode

  3. #3
    -Jeremy XLR8N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,621

    Re: Ran my 99 5.3 at the track.

    Thanks for posting up the weight. Mine will be similar in weight.

    What is HPP?


    you would pick up some good times by doing -

    Custom tune
    Long tubes
    free flowing exhaust
    Quote Originally Posted by Xander Berkeley
    I'd better make hay while the sun shines.

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Woodstock Ontario Canada
    Age
    37
    Posts
    8,263

    Re: Ran my 99 5.3 at the track.

    Quote Originally Posted by XLR8N View Post
    Thanks for posting up the weight. Mine will be similar in weight.

    What is HPP?


    you would pick up some good times by doing -

    Custom tune
    Long tubes
    free flowing exhaust
    Hypertech poer programmer.


    A proper PCM tune will have this truck in the 14's.

    peace
    PAuly
    97 GMC 2wd RCSB 5.7, s10 2700 footstall, Hooker 24621hkr LT's , 2.5" cats dual 4"pipes exit B4 pass. side tire, custom driveshaft 3.42 G80 FIPK MAF descreen GM/Mercruiser Marine intake manifold 29lb LS2(EV6) injectors Ed Wright PCM(best mod), LT4 KM 14.8@94mph 2.007 4000lbs 122mph

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    10

    Re: Ran my 99 5.3 at the track.

    60' were 2.4s. I don't remember what the 1/8 mile was or where I put the slips. I thought about a custom tune but got the HPP used for $110 to my house. It did make a noticable difference.

  6. #6
    Registered User custm2500's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ohio
    Age
    30
    Posts
    2,576

    Re: Ran my 99 5.3 at the track.

    Well spend $250 on a custom tune and you will be in the 14s! Maybe 15.1 but it will help big time!

    That truck isn't light, it is right where you would expect it.

    "01 GMC 2500 HD, Bagged, BB Tuned, Dumped exaust, and Race built trans with 2800 Stall

  7. #7
    91 GMC Sierra ST gmc406's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canada SK
    Age
    32
    Posts
    817

    Re: Ran my 99 5.3 at the track.

    Not too shabby. What is the elevation now that you mentioned it? 90% of the people on here brag about their times and compare to other trucks, but fail to mention that they're at sealevel.

    My truck runs 12.9's at 105mph in 2600 feet. Which is ~12.60's@~108mph. There are other things to take into consideration, but that's a long story. This will at least give you an idea, if the condiions were the same.

    Vehicles with NOS or forced induction are affected less. There are convertion charts for these, but I can't find it.

    Play around with it: http://www.iroc-zpostforum.com/NHRACF.htm
    Last edited by gmc406; 08-17-2010 at 09:33 PM.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Euless, Texas
    Posts
    4,937

    Re: Ran my 99 5.3 at the track.

    Quote Originally Posted by gmc406 View Post
    Not too shabby. What is the elevation now that you mentioned it? 90% of the people on here brag about their times and compare to other trucks, but fail to mention that they're at sealevel.

    My truck runs 12.9's at 105mph in 2600 feet. Which is ~12.60's@~108mph. There are other things to take into consideration, but that's a long story. This will at least give you an idea, if the condiions were the same.

    Vehicles with NOS or forced induction are affected less. There are convertion charts for these, but I can't find it.

    Play around with it: http://www.iroc-zpostforum.com/NHRACF.htm
    Also take into consideration DA at the track. Depending on the weather, a track at 650 ft elevation can have a DA as high as 4000+.

    Post a time slip and the tracks name and we can figure all the numbers. You might have 14s potential the way the truck sits now.

    There is a DA calculator in the tools tab at Dragtimes.com
    Last edited by Fast305; 08-18-2010 at 09:13 AM.
    1983 G20 Conversion Van, 383 TPI, 10.5:1 compression, Custom Reed Roller cam, Ported 906 Vortecs, Doug Thorley Tri-Y headers, dual 2 1/2" exhaust, 4L60E, 3.08 gears. 7427 PCM in MPFI Mode

  9. #9
    91 GMC Sierra ST gmc406's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canada SK
    Age
    32
    Posts
    817

    Re: Ran my 99 5.3 at the track.

    You are correct. That's what I ment when I said there are other things to take into consideration. Many people don't understand the entire concept as a whole.

  10. #10
    Registered User custm2500's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ohio
    Age
    30
    Posts
    2,576

    Re: Ran my 99 5.3 at the track.

    For me you vehicle runs what the slip says. I understand the DA but you can't claim what you vehicle should run in my opinion.

    "01 GMC 2500 HD, Bagged, BB Tuned, Dumped exaust, and Race built trans with 2800 Stall

  11. #11
    91 GMC Sierra ST gmc406's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canada SK
    Age
    32
    Posts
    817

    Re: Ran my 99 5.3 at the track.

    You have a point. A 14.00 second vehicle at sealevel compaired to a 14.00 second vehicle at 5000 feet, who has the faster vehicle? That's my point.

    A person shouldn't really convert their times and then come on here and boast. I understand what you're sayin. I think people need to mention a little more info when they mention their times. Maybe not every little detail, but something as simple as elevation gives a better idea.

  12. #12
    -Jeremy XLR8N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,621

    Re: Ran my 99 5.3 at the track.

    Quote Originally Posted by gmc406 View Post
    You have a point. A 14.00 second vehicle at sealevel compaired to a 14.00 second vehicle at 5000 feet, who has the faster vehicle? That's my point.

    A person shouldn't really convert their times and then come on here and boast. I understand what you're sayin. I think people need to mention a little more info when they mention their times. Maybe not every little detail, but something as simple as elevation gives a better idea.
    If you are running a 12.50 at 2600 ft and guys similar are running 12.2s at sea level. This is a good way to figure out the difference.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xander Berkeley
    I'd better make hay while the sun shines.

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Euless, Texas
    Posts
    4,937

    Re: Ran my 99 5.3 at the track.

    Quote Originally Posted by gmc406 View Post
    You have a point. A 14.00 second vehicle at sealevel compaired to a 14.00 second vehicle at 5000 feet, who has the faster vehicle? That's my point.

    A person shouldn't really convert their times and then come on here and boast. I understand what you're sayin. I think people need to mention a little more info when they mention their times. Maybe not every little detail, but something as simple as elevation gives a better idea.
    I agree, which is why I usually post the slip and correct for COMPARISON.

    Also lets say someone goes to the track in 40*, 30% humidity weather and runs say a 15.5...Then performs $1500.00 in mods and goes back to the track on a 105*F, 40% humidity day. Now they run a 15.1. Now they are discouraged from the little improvement they see. When the truck in reality is substantially quicker.
    Last edited by Fast305; 08-19-2010 at 12:33 PM.
    1983 G20 Conversion Van, 383 TPI, 10.5:1 compression, Custom Reed Roller cam, Ported 906 Vortecs, Doug Thorley Tri-Y headers, dual 2 1/2" exhaust, 4L60E, 3.08 gears. 7427 PCM in MPFI Mode

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    10

    Re: Ran my 99 5.3 at the track.

    Correction factor is good for racers that go to more than one track. If you run 12.0 at one track that is slow and go to a faster track with the same set up you may be racing in another class, need more safety equipment, change jetting, etc. Car Craft would always post the correction factor after they ran one of their project cars at a high elevation track in CA. It gives people an idea of what they would run with the same set up if they duplicated the build (depending on their track conditions). I am not going to dump a lot of speed parts on the truck. I bought it to haul stuff and pull my trailer. Some of the performance stuff helps with mileage and that is a plus. I will post what I run if I go back in cooler conditions.

  15. #15
    Not Really Bob
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Newark, DE
    Posts
    1,878

    Re: Ran my 99 5.3 at the track.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin View Post
    60' were 2.4s. I don't remember what the 1/8 mile was or where I put the slips. I thought about a custom tune but got the HPP used for $110 to my house. It did make a noticable difference.
    You got ripped off. As did I when I bought one back in the day. Resell it, get a custom tune and you should be able to get 14's no problem.
    99 Silverado ECSB 4X4, LQ4, Patriot Stg. 2 243's w/ 59cc chambers, TR224-112, Pacesetter LT's, Nelson tune, FLT Lvl 5.5, PI 3400, UD pulley, 160* t-stat, E-fans, 6'' Fabtech lift, 3'' body lift, 37'' XTerrains, 4.56's, 4'' shackle flip 13.3 @ 99mph on 37's or 13.0 @ 101mph on 31's

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
     BMW - Cadillac - Camaro - Corvette - Mercedes - Mustang - F150 - Ferrari - Lamborghini - Porsche - Ranger