Stock 392 goes 12.6s in the 1/4 even after lifting at the 1000' mark

RMDCJeep

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2021
Messages
21
Reaction score
31
Location
PA
Good weather(even better days are coming), but limited traction.
No torque reserve launch as it spins too much
[email protected] limiter was hit at 990' where I lifted and got on the brakes. - based on the 1/8th and 1000' time this would have gone 12.3-12.4 without me lifting and no speed limiter.

0-60 on this run was 3.82

Not too bad for 5300lb off-road brick.

Being I was at 98.77 mph at the 1000' mark where I lifted and started to brake if I didn't lift and continued on at max of 98.77 mph I would finish at 12.55 ET.

98.77mph = 144.86 feet per second.

320 feet/144.86 feet = 2.20 seconds.

2.20 seconds(remaining 320') + 10.35 seconds(1000' mark) = 12.55 total ET



IMG_3866.PNG
 
Last edited:
Nope. Not too bad. Not too bad at all.
That's TRX territory! Stock??

Looking at the Dragy leaderboard its right in line with many TRX.

No performance mods on the vehicle yet. If I do a full run and can hook on a torque reserve launch I think it will see 12.4, even with the speed limiter.

That run was 3/4 tank of fuel and no weight reduction.

I'm going to try another pass this weekend and see what it does, now I'm just curious if it can run a 12.5 or better as it is.
 
Last edited:
Good weather(even better days are coming), but limited traction.
No torque reserve launch as it spins too much
[email protected] limiter was hit at 990' where I lifted and got on the brakes. - based on the 1/8th and 1000' time this would have gone 12.3-12.4 without me lifting and no speed limiter.

0-60 on this run was 3.82

Not too bad for 5300lb off-road brick.

Being I was at 98.77 mph at the 1000' mark where I lifted and started to brake if I didn't lift and continued on at max of 98.77 mph I would finish at 12.55 ET.

98.77mph = 144.86 feet per second.

320 feet/144.86 feet = 2.20 seconds.

2.20 seconds(remaining 320') + 10.35 seconds(1000' mark) = 12.55 total ET



View attachment 2217
Just impressive!
 
I can run some dragy numbers on my tuned 392 with 35’s. The speed limiter is also removed, but at 100+ speeds, it gets a little squirly.
How did you get the speed limiter removed?
 
Jeep says 0-60 in 4.5 seconds and most tests I have seen are similar. How did you manage 3.82 with no mods?
 
I can run some dragy numbers on my tuned 392 with 35’s. The speed limiter is also removed, but at 100+ speeds, it gets a little squirly.
I heard that! I like that my future XR might be quicker than my Taurus but my Taurus can cruise at 135. Can't wait. They finally started building '22's this week and the last 5 of my Vin is low at 00736.
SHOJeep
 
Jeep says 0-60 in 4.5 seconds and most tests I have seen are similar. How did you manage 3.82 with no mods?
They are conversation as almost all OEMs are, with good DA and practice you can easily beat the times.

Here is what C&D ran on an XR with rollout excluded for at least the 0-60 and 0-100.
jeep.JPG
 
I have read those results from C&D. Why omit the 1 ft rollout? Seems like cheating and makes it harder to compare numbers.
 
I have read those results from C&D. Why omit the 1 ft rollout? Seems like cheating and makes it harder to compare numbers.
They used to always include it until recently, drag strips all include rollout in the 1/4 mile times. It seems some OEMs included it in their times, others don't.

If C&D included rollout it would have been
3.7 to 60
 
The Recon has different gearing, which would account for the faster times. There is NO WAY a stock, regular 392 Wrangler is doing 0-60 in 3.8 seconds. I have used this calculator on many, many vehicles (BMW M550, BMW M330, Porsche Panamera, etc) and it has always been accurate to within .1 seconds of any tests or specs.


Using that same calculator, it comes up with 4.6 seconds on a 0-60 run. Even with my Livernois tuned "regular" 392 (with 35" tires), it only shaves .20 seconds (with +30hp gain).
 
The Recon has different gearing, which would account for the faster times. There is NO WAY a stock, regular 392 Wrangler is doing 0-60 in 3.8 seconds. I have used this calculator on many, many vehicles (BMW M550, BMW M330, Porsche Panamera, etc) and it has always been accurate to within .1 seconds of any tests or specs.


Using that same calculator, it comes up with 4.6 seconds on a 0-60 run. Even with my Livernois tuned "regular" 392 (with 35" tires), it only shaves .20 seconds (with +30hp gain).
My 2019 M5 stock ran 2.9 to 60, using the calculator it would need 850hp...so I'd say it's off some.


Also if you use the Jeeps 470hp and 5200lb(no driver weight added) it shows 5.2 to 60, not 4.6, add a driver it and goes up to 5.4 seconds. Not very accurate. And for fun, I put a Trackhawk's number in and it shows 900hp is needed to get a 3.4 to 60

This calculator doesn't correct for DA either, which can have a large impact on performance times.

I don't use online calculators with poor calculations, I prefer Vbox or Dragy.

Run your dragy times and let's see what your tune did for you. - Also what's your tire weight per corner.
I'll run another dragy time with the video running too.

If C&D runs a 3.7 with rollout, a non-XR can get sub 4s for sure. The XR is hauling nearly 50lb more in tire over the non-XR too.
0-60.JPG
 
Last edited:
Back
Top