I would say he has a very fast tundra if it is still stock. Not may stock trucks run in the 14's. i know sea level helps but it still seems very fast. A lot of hemi's won't run in the 14's and I haven't seen any comparisons which show a Tundra being any faster than the other big three.
I was behind a two wheel drive RCSB last weekend at the races and he was ecstatic that he ran a 15.97. That was with a DA of about 5000. My stock 97 Camaro SS bracket car run in the 14.20 on the same day and it is the fastest stock one at the track.
It cracks me up seeing truck owners talking about speed and quarter mile times. Do you guys realize how slow 14 seconds is in a quarter mile? These are trucks. Jump over to a pony forum sometime and see what real speed is. I've got a stock Road Star Warrior that will excite your senses much more than any 4.7 or 5.7 truck can.
Perception is reality. If I think my 4.7 is fast, it feels and sounds fast, then it is fast. If I think my 5.7 is too milky smooth even though I'm accelerating faster than a 4.7, then it's really not where I want to be as far as fast goes. How do you like them apples?
A buddy of mine and myself droppped a 350 into a 1970 Chevy Vega GT in high school in the mid 80's, and took it to the track. We ran it a few dozen times, then raced it. We won a few thousand dollars that summer. Our parents had no idea. We were running mid teens consistently. We're lucky we didn't kill ourselves. The unibody was rusted and felt like a snake down the track. Anyhow, mid 10's is fast. 14's and 15's is not fast.
If you want to talk about REAL fast then get on a GSX-R1000 (or any other modern liter bike). With a good rider, any of them are capable of sub 10 second runs and 0-60 in 2.5 +/- .1 and top out at about 180. My 05 gixxer can just about hit 100mph in first.
My truck is quick and a blast to drive, but I agree.... its a truck and meant to haul things not necessary "haul". If I want fast, I just go with two less wheels. Not much out there that can touch it.
yep i know what your talking about. many 302's in early mercury capri's 1970-1973 una body cars. we used to pound the dents back out after gunning it the body would flex. scared the heck out of most who drove in it with me LOL. but one of the fastest capri's i owned was a 2 liter with a cosworth daul ohc and twin side draft webbers. hey back in the mid 80's the vegas and capri's and pinto's were in Lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeyefan
It cracks me up seeing truck owners talking about speed and quarter mile times. Do you guys realize how slow 14 seconds is in a quarter mile? These are trucks. Jump over to a pony forum sometime and see what real speed is. I've got a stock Road Star Warrior that will excite your senses much more than any 4.7 or 5.7 truck can.
Perception is reality. If I think my 4.7 is fast, it feels and sounds fast, then it is fast. If I think my 5.7 is too milky smooth even though I'm accelerating faster than a 4.7, then it's really not where I want to be as far as fast goes. How do you like them apples?
A buddy of mine and myself droppped a 350 into a 1970 Chevy Vega GT in high school in the mid 80's, and took it to the track. We ran it a few dozen times, then raced it. We won a few thousand dollars that summer. Our parents had no idea. We were running mid teens consistently. We're lucky we didn't kill ourselves. The unibody was rusted and felt like a snake down the track. Anyhow, mid 10's is fast. 14's and 15's is not fast.
If I want fast, I just go with two less wheels. Not much out there that can touch it.
Potholes? Washboard? Some sand or water around the next corner? Other vehicles with ten times the mass will "touch" your bike and they won't even feel it. Can't argue that they win in acceleration, but bikes lose big time in accidents. Get into an accident....any accident...on a bike and odds are much higher you will get hurt :cry:.
Potholes? Washboard? Some sand or water around the next corner? Other vehicles with ten times the mass will "touch" your bike and they won't even feel it. Can't argue that they win in acceleration, but bikes lose big time in accidents. Get into an accident....any accident...on a bike and odds are much higher you will get hurt :cry:.
<off_topic>
Thanks Mr. Obvious! And this has what to do with the topic of going fast?
Potholes? Avoid them... Washboard? Standup and let the suspension deal... but honestly, I can't remember riding on washboard. Other vehicles? stay in front of them or get around them quickly.
I'm assuming you've never ridden. If you had, you would know that there is already an inherent danger to riding and every rider accepts that fact. Most of us also know to ride like a ghost since we always assume none of the cagers see us.
</off_topic>
<off_topic>
Thanks Mr. Obvious! And this has what to do with the topic of going fast?
Potholes? Avoid them... Washboard? Standup and let the suspension deal... but honestly, I can't remember riding on washboard. Other vehicles? stay in front of them or get around them quickly.
I'm assuming you've never ridden. If you had, you would know that there is already an inherent danger to riding and every rider accepts that fact. Most of us also know to ride like a ghost since we always assume none of the cagers see us.
</off_topic>
So true man, while back I pulled out in front of a guy on a bike. I looked to make sure the road was clear then pulled out out, zoom, dude barley dodges me. He was moving pretty fast
And this has what to do with the topic of going fast
Surviving it.
Actually the original thread was about a 5.7L Tundra compared to a Gen I, sooo....
Quote:
Originally Posted by xerces
<off_topic>
Quote:
Originally Posted by xerces
If you want to talk about REAL fast then get on a GSX-R1000 (or any other modern liter bike). With a good rider, any of them are capable of sub 10 second runs and 0-60 in 2.5 +/- .1 and top out at about 180. My 05 gixxer can just about hit 100mph in first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xerces
</off_topic>
Bahh...just kidding. but how come you don't like the 14 second quarters the new Tundras can pull? Sure the they are no match for a bike, but the same could be said about a top fuel dragster versus your 1000. It shouldn't negate how well your bike performs.
I took off the spare tire(65lbs) I/4 tank of 91 octane,and the it was a cool night in Ontario, about 10 deg celcius.I made 4 passes, 2 of them were 14.9 and 2 were 15.0 and I went back a year later and made 2 passes,1 was 14.9 and the other was 15.0.
I will absolutely back up that 14.9 timeslip... I am a very experienced drag racer and recently I cracked the trans case on my Monte Carlo, so for the heck of it I ran my Tundra in the Street Legal Class for a few weeks in MAy and June.
What I had added to my '05 (R.I.P.) at the time of the race was the following:
Bed Rug
Access Roll up Cover
Rear Tough Country Bumper
Snow plow Frame
10-ply oversize tires
Floor jack
many types of fluids
2 Full Tool boxes
spare tire
stereo amps under the front seats
I ran 15.9's with the truck.
100 pounds is worth a .10 of a second either up or down. I didn't add up the weight of the add-ons but it could be 800 to 1000 pounds equivalent weight.
70 degrees and humid with a Density Altitude at 3000 +/- feet.
__________________
Tom B.
2007 - DC TRD 4x4, Slate, 5.7 SR5, Toy-Tech 3", 285/75/18 Toyo's Open Country AT , Bedrug, Truxedo Tonneau, N-Fab Nerfs, Eclipse NAV, MB Quart, RFosgate, etc., Snow-Way, TRD Sway Bar
1971 Chevy Monte Carlo Street/Strip - 10.31 @ 130
1970 Chevelle 454 LS6 Power
1987 Olds 442 - Stock Racing Web Page
My 05 AC 4.7 weighs about 4300lbs without the spare. The 07 reg cab 4wd weighs 5335 lbs. 1000 extra pounds the 07 has to accelerate, probalby why the 07 didn't seem much quicker than mine.
Hmmm...My '05 4Runner 4WD 4.7L V8 weighed about 4300 lbs and even with intake/exhaust/tune it couldn't touch my truck. It has the same engine and tranny as your '05 and the fastest it ran was 14.7 (corrected) and that was with est. 300 crank HP.
The 5.7's are deceptively fast. With the quietness/smoothness of the truck and drivetrain its easy to underestimate your speed. There are many times when I look down after getting on it and I'm going 10-20 mph faster than I thought...I didn't think the truck was that fast the first time I drove it either, until I looked down and I watched the needle sweep past 90 mph.
The 2WD 05 and 06 Tundras can go 0-60 in 6.5 seconds, the 07 double cab 2wd in about 6.2-6.3 seconds, and the RCSB 07 in about 6 flat; seems pretty close to me!
I also believe that 05-tundra ran a 14.9 quarter mile time. I got my 2001 Tundra to run a 15.39 with a few minor exhaust modifications years ago and mine has the original 245 horse none vvti 4.7-liter V8.
Yeah I know it's a truck and comparative to a real sports car it's not as fast. I used to have a real fast sports car that would leave the 07 Tundra in its dust. How can anyone who owns an 07 Tundra with a power train as refined as the Tundra's 5.7liter not be impressed with how quick for a truck it is? The 07 Tundra 5.7-liter V8 makes merging onto fast freeways and legally passing enjoyable. Or should I just say a slow and sluggish power train makes driving a vehicle less enjoyable and sometimes frustrating. It’s all in what’s really important to you. I think consumers in the truck market for the most part like a lively power train that can both work hard and play hard too.
Just my .02 so flame away!
__________________
stock exhaust
Formerly Modified JBA headers now SSautochrome headers temporarily
TRD LSD
Extang lift off tonneau
Hankook DynaPro AS RH03
stock air filter & box
220 HP @ 4800 RPM
302 TQ @ 3400 RPM Run With Spintech Sportsman XL muffler, stock air filter, and JBA headers
208 HP @ 4800 RPM
285 TQ @ 3400 RPM Run With Spintech Sportsman XL muffler, TRD air filter, and stock manifolds
204 HP @ 4800 RPM
271 TQ @ 3400 RPM Bone stock
Quarter mile 15.526 @ 87.17 mph bone stock in 40-degree weather 2WD SR5 V8.
Quarter mile 15.389 @ 88.66 mph modified in 60-degree weather 2WD SR5 V8.
0-60 IN 6.88 seconds on G-tech
Dyno run results click here
The 2WD 05 and 06 Tundras can go 0-60 in 6.5 seconds, the 07 double cab 2wd in about 6.2-6.3 seconds, and the RCSB 07 in about 6 flat; seems pretty close to me!
I also believe that 05-tundra ran a 14.9 quarter mile time. I got my 2001 Tundra to run a 15.39 with a few minor exhaust modifications years ago and mine has the original 245 horse none vvti 4.7-liter V8.
Yeah I know it's a truck and comparative to a real sports car it's not as fast. I used to have a real fast sports car that would leave the 07 Tundra in its dust. How can anyone who owns an 07 Tundra with a power train as refined as the Tundra's 5.7liter not be impressed with how quick for a truck it is? The 07 Tundra 5.7-liter V8 makes merging onto fast freeways and legally passing enjoyable. Or should I just say a slow and sluggish power train makes driving a vehicle less enjoyable and sometimes frustrating. It’s all in what’s really important to you. I think consumers in the truck market for the most part like a lively power train that can both work hard and play hard too.
Just my .02 so flame away!
Sorry bro, I have to call BS on those times. In this C/D article an '03 AC Tundra has a 0-60 time of 9.2 seconds and a quarter mile time of 17.2@81mph. Yes it was a non VVT-i, and yes it was 4x4, but not even 30 HP, 400 less lbs and an extra gear is going to buy you 2.8 seconds to 60 mph and/or 2.3 seconds in the quarter mile...
Note: The curb weight for the '03 is listed as 5140 lbs. Someone mentioned earlier that their AC Tundra weighed in at 4300 lbs. Sorry, but the 4x4 package doesn't weigh in at 840 lbs...
Something just isn't adding up here. My '05 V8 4Runner has exactly the same engine and transmission as the '05 Tundras and it was sending power through full time 4WD and had a stock 0-60 of 7.2 sec. The '05 Tundra is heavier (even in 2WD trim) so how does it get to 60 seven tenths faster??
Now you show me some proof of those stock 1st gen times listed above and I'll gladly reverse my opinion.
Re: Tried to blow up a 5.7
Linear Mode
