I would say the roll was 3-4 cars, the 0-100 was about the same.
Thanks for the compliments everyone !
2012 300C vs 03 Mach 1
- Thread starter 03SonicBlueGT
- Start date
I would say the roll was 3-4 cars, the 0-100 was about the same.
Thanks for the compliments everyone !
Alright, everyone shut up.
We ran them, first run is 40-110. Second is 0-100
First run, I started out a little ahead of him but we were in a hurry. He never gained on me, and I pulled the whole time.
Second run, we both spun off the line but I never had trouble pulling on him.
:burnout:
[youtube_browser]JdAfTsGyMbc[/youtube_browser]
[youtube_browser]4VBHy4ljHg0[/youtube_browser]
I hope this puts all the pissing matches to rest.
You're my hero for today.
Surprised the hell outta me too. That 300 had zero problems blowing the tires off. Im impressed!
Ive had 4 dead even highway runs with charger and magnum r/t's...
In my 2002 nissan maxima that trapped 98.5mph
In my 2002 nissan maxima that trapped 98.5mph
Nice run man!! The MACH sounded great and ran hard...
Great daytime vids also.!! Love daytime vids..
Any plans on adding some mods anytime soon?
BTW..The 300C rans strong from a dig I have to say...Nice car and would not mind owning a Chrysler product in the future....
Thanks buddy. Honestly I'm probably gonna do 4.10's, and some wheels and tires with 315's. When i get the money and find a blower, ill put one on. I don't wanna throw every bolt on at this one, like I did my GT. It's too nice of a car.
And the 300's are excellent vehicles. I love selling them. They are beautiful machines!
Yea...I agree about adding on a ton of bolt-ons....but you could do what I did...I kept all the OEM pats that I took off..If I wanted to put the car back to stock, it could be done. However, I am having to much fun with the mods on though..LOL
BTW...back to the race...I see you had a passenger...did the 300C also have one?
No the 300 didn't. Me and my girlfriend were in the mach. Combined we weigh less than 300 pounds.
Makes sense considering those were the older 5.7's...
Last edited:
Looked like you did some puppy kicking
I'll admit the only reason the races were close is because they were pulling wheelies from a 60mph roll. They wasted the energy lifting the car rather than going forward. Complete highway beast!
:beer:
:beer:
:beer:
Good race. Congrats on the win.
Good kill as expected.
Of course the 300 should spin from a dig. Skinny street tires, probably RSAs, good tq, large mass. The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F acting on the body, is in the direction of the net force, and is inversely proportional to the mass m of the body and the contact patch of those skinny tires is the weak link in the take off. It's the same problem I have.
1.First law: If an object experiences no net force, then its velocity is constant: the object is either at rest (if its velocity is zero), or it moves in a straight line with constant speed (if its velocity is nonzero).[2][3][4]
2.Second law: The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F acting on the body, is in the direction of the net force, and is inversely proportional to the mass m of the body, i.e., F = ma.
3.Third law: When a first body exerts a force F1 on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force F2 = −F1 on the first body. This means that F1 and F2 are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
:beer:
Of course the 300 should spin from a dig. Skinny street tires, probably RSAs, good tq, large mass. The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F acting on the body, is in the direction of the net force, and is inversely proportional to the mass m of the body and the contact patch of those skinny tires is the weak link in the take off. It's the same problem I have.
1.First law: If an object experiences no net force, then its velocity is constant: the object is either at rest (if its velocity is zero), or it moves in a straight line with constant speed (if its velocity is nonzero).[2][3][4]
2.Second law: The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F acting on the body, is in the direction of the net force, and is inversely proportional to the mass m of the body, i.e., F = ma.
3.Third law: When a first body exerts a force F1 on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force F2 = −F1 on the first body. This means that F1 and F2 are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
:beer:
That would be wild to have a smaller/lighter Baracuda with an SRT8 motor in it. It is almost like the late 60's where Chrylser came out with the A Body, Dart, Duster. etc.
I had a B-Body 69 Superbee with a 383 and my buddy had a Dart wth a 340...His car would run next to me on the street and we had similar track times of 14.9-15.1. Can't emphasize more the importance of weight and how it impacts the perfromance on a car..
Users who are viewing this thread
