AZZ-KIKR

Actually Sean, we lose or gain HP just as much as an N/A car up here. Turbo cars seem to only lose around .3-.5 on average.. So, when we correct it, the figures are based on the same as an N/A car..

It's tough to run on the mountain, that time corrected is actually in the 10.6-.7 range at over 130.. Had a DA of 9300+ ft when it ran. Over 90* air temp and the track temp was 110.

It's my home track and when you can run a solid number up here, you have pretty nasty car at sea-level.

GrantG

Supercharged cars suffer same loss of power as NA at altitude (compared to sea level). Turbo cars suffer less since the wastegate will let the turbo spin faster before releasing pressure at absolute boost target (supercharger runs at a fixed speed ratio to the crank).

Only way to keep supercharger from losing power at the same rate as NA would be to change the pulley to make SC spin faster (but that makes it dangerous if you drive down to sea level - turbos make all the adjustments automatically - great for those of us who can have drastic altitude changes in a hour of driving).

Snorman

Absolutely correct about the CF relative to supercharged and turbo cars. I'm so used to looking at DA correction for turbo cars over the last several years that I was thinking along those lines. And altitude isn't much of an issue to me as I'm on the east coast.
That being said, I don't believe for one second that car is capable of a .6 at anywhere near 130 mph bone stock unless Dodge is underrating the car by 75-100 hp.
S.

Chevy Guy

Im guessing it is, has to be the driver and conditions at the time. Heck, I see GT500's and Camaro Zl1's running 13's at the track all the time. I dont blame the car.

JP426

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91jR...ature=youtu.be

Wulverine

Has any stock corvette ever ran faster in that DA?