Tundra vrs Raptor and BRZ quarter mile videos

[bee2]

Don't know if these have been posted before


Ford RAPTOR
http://youtu.be/ZW5RpsTABk4




Subaru BRZ
http://youtu.be/SltzVSCZ4W4



Edit:

Shouldn't these videos auto embed?

[Vmax2007]

Wow, everyone of them was SLOOOOW! 16.9 sec 1/4 mile? Really?

I thought the Tundras were running low 14's stock?

Maybe it was a 4.7L?

Edit: I see now they were at 6K feet above sea level....but still. Pathetic.

[bee2]

Originally Posted by Vmax2007

Wow, everyone of them was SLOOOOW! 16.9 sec 1/4 mile? Really?

I thought the Tundras were running low 14's stock?

Maybe it was a 4.7L?

Edit: I see now they were at 6K feet above sea level....but still. Pathetic.

I think it was a 5.7 but if you look at the comments a few guys say they are getting in the 14s as well.

[got-rice]

Originally Posted by bee2

Shouldn't these videos auto embed?

you need to use the long link for it to be embedded because of the site's coding.

[CTB727]

[hardtopte72]

A guy I used to work with has a bone stock 5.7 liter regular cab Tundra that ran a 14.1.

[sweeneyp]

SOOOO slow, that has to be the smaller v8 or v6. Even a highlander can do a quarter mile in 15.5 @ 91mph.... That would just be sad (and more than a little bit hilarious) if my highlander beat it down a drag stip


EDIT: OOOOHHHHHH, read the description, they are over a mile above sea level. That explains a whole lot. Alright 16.9 seems a little more realistic with the 5.7L

edit's edit: oops, didn't see Vmax already posting that.

[PhatRoyale]

They should use that footage for the next Fast and Furious movie.

Just add a few nos button pressing cut shots and stretch the scene out to include 20 gear changes and you're in business.

[Vmax2007]

These videos prove that "fast" is a relative term.

30 years ago, 16 sec 1/4 miles were considered "fast"...even for muscle cars.

I used to think my 14 sec truck was "fast"...which I guess it is for a 5500lb "brick on wheels"... but since I bought my Vette, it now feels like a giant sloth.

[silver04rollas]

Originally Posted by sweeneyp

SOOOO slow, that has to be the smaller v8 or v6. Even a highlander can do a quarter mile in 15.5 @ 91mph.... That would just be sad (and more than a little bit hilarious) if my highlander beat it down a drag stip


EDIT: OOOOHHHHHH, read the description, they are over a mile above sea level. That explains a whole lot. Alright 16.9 seems a little more realistic with the 5.7L

edit's edit: oops, didn't see Vmax already posting that.

Maybe, because you should think deeper as to why it is not adding up and what the variables might be at play here???

Remember, all of those ideal times you are talking about are adjusted according to sea level in track tests.

Here are density altitude correction factors:

http://www.gnttype.org/techarea/misc/altitude.html



My guess is, they definitely are running at very high altitude. Hence, they are making way less horsepower than sea level. Turbo engines are less affected by high altitude than naturally aspirated engine that lose a lot of HP at very high altitude.

My guess is, they are running at atleast 5000 feet above sea level. High altitude results in low density air. Thinner air results in lower compression ratio, whiich in turns means less combustion and hence less power/torque (the unit is called 'density altitude').

Edit:

Turns out my guess was correct. It is written in the description. It was in Colorado, which is notorious for a very high drivetrain loss due to high altitude

There is no way any of those cars will run 14s at that altitude.

Ford RAPTOR SVT vs Toyota Tundra TRD
at Bandimere Speedway in Morrison CO at almost 6000 feet above sea level.
Subscribe for tons of Drag Racing Videos Every Week!!
612to303 Drag Race Quarter Mile

[Vmax2007]

Originally Posted by silver04rollas

Edit:

Turns out my guess was correct. It is written in the description. It was in Colorado, which is notorious for a very high drivetrain loss due to high altitude

There is no way any of those cars will run 14s at that altitude.

Really? Gee, I didn't even notice that.

[hardtopte72]

I used that calculator at that Tundra Ran a 16.9 which at 6000 feet is right around a 15.6. Still slow, but a ton better.

[silver04rollas]

Originally Posted by hardtopte72

I used that calculator at that Tundra Ran a 16.9 which at 6000 feet is right around a 15.6. Still slow, but a ton better.

He just took off from idle. He did not brake-torque or use any launching techniques, which is why it was slower than expected.

[J0s3]

Originally Posted by silver04rollas

He just took off from idle. He did not brake-torque or use any launching techniques, which is why it was slower than expected.

You are right, he's not using any launching technique; and, he has a really bad reaction time, almost 1 sec.

[silver04rollas]

Originally Posted by J0s3

You are right, he's not using any launching technique; and, he has a really bad reaction time, almost 1 sec.

Generally, reaction time is not factored into the ET, which is why sometimes you see a car that is behind actually running a quicker time than the car that left earlier after the staging.

But, yeah launching and all that jazz.