392 Test Drive Impressions (vs. 6.1 Hemi) [Archive] - Dodge Challenger Forum: Challenger & SRT8 Forums

: 392 Test Drive Impressions (vs. 6.1 Hemi)


OMOM
05-09-2011, 09:46 AM
Well, got out this weekend, went to a Dodge dealer and took a Blue IE 392 for a spin... it was an auto with sunroof and F1's. Mind you, this was a test drive with the salesman riding shotgun, so I didn't REALLY get on it.

*My 07 Charger SRT8 is lowered with KW Variant 1 coilovers (non-adjustable dampening) and exhaust.

HANDLING:
The 392 felt tighter... the dampening adjustments Dodge performed were immediately noticeable as the ride felt tighter than my car, even with the KW's. Whereas my KW equipped Charger's ride feels less harsh, the Challengers felt more sporty when hitting the bumps... not jarring, but a firm and solid feel. The turn-in felt crisper as well... I didn't feel AS isolated from the road as I do in my Charger... apparently, Dodge's adjustment of the steering column placement and turn ratio worked fairly well. This car could use a set of Hotchkis sway bars, however. The body roll, while not ridiculous, was noticeable and wasn't confidence inspiring compared to Hotchkis-equipped cars I've driven in. Get the sways on this puppy and you'd be a 4300lb slot car (plus get some NT05's, just for good measure LOL).

ACCELERATION:
I wasn't surprised, nor disappointed. It's faster than the 6.1, even from my rather tame experience... and the power appears to be more readily available. Like I said, I didn't get to hammer it too much, but she was faster and she seemed a little more eager to get up and go.

APPEARANCE:
I love the white seats! But... I took a closer look at the driver's side seat and what did I see? Dirt and/or dye transfer on a new car... the left thigh bolster had it. It was disheartening. This dealership was taking pretty good care of the 3 IE's on their lot. All stored indoors. This is further evidenced in that even the manager seemed to think only 1100 392 Challengers were being made, period; IE or non-IE. I corrected their perception error. But they were careful with these cars, it was rather apparent... and there was still the dirt/dye issue.

OTHER:
On the dealers lot was what I believe was an SE, in Toxic Orange. Before you judge Toxic Orange, see it in person! I wasn't a fan, but seeing it up close, with the dark interior... wow! It's NICE!

StealthChallenger
05-09-2011, 10:51 AM
Well, got out this weekend, went to a Dodge dealer and took a Blue IE 392 for a spin... it was an auto with sunroof and F1's. Mind you, this was a test drive with the salesman riding shotgun, so I didn't REALLY get on it.

*My 07 Charger SRT8 is lowered with KW Variant 1 coilovers (non-adjustable dampening) and exhaust.

HANDLING:
The 392 felt tighter... the dampening adjustments Dodge performed were immediately noticeable as the ride felt tighter than my car, even with the KW's. Whereas my KW equipped Charger's ride feels less harsh, the Challengers felt more sporty when hitting the bumps... not jarring, but a firm and solid feel. The turn-in felt crisper as well... I didn't feel AS isolated from the road as I do in my Charger... apparently, Dodge's adjustment of the steering column placement and turn ratio worked fairly well. This car could use a set of Hotchkis sway bars, however. The body roll, while not ridiculous, was noticeable and wasn't confidence inspiring compared to Hotchkis-equipped cars I've driven in. Get the sways on this puppy and you'd be a 4300lb slot car (plus get some NT05's, just for good measure LOL).

ACCELERATION:
I wasn't surprised, nor disappointed. It's faster than the 6.1, even from my rather tame experience... and the power appears to be more readily available. Like I said, I didn't get to hammer it too much, but she was faster and she seemed a little more eager to get up and go.

APPEARANCE:
I love the white seats! But... I took a closer look at the driver's side seat and what did I see? Dirt and/or dye transfer on a new car... the left thigh bolster had it. It was disheartening. This dealership was taking pretty good care of the 3 IE's on their lot. All stored indoors. This is further evidenced in that even the manager seemed to think only 1100 392 Challengers were being made, period; IE or non-IE. I corrected their perception error. But they were careful with these cars, it was rather apparent... and there was still the dirt/dye issue.

OTHER:
On the dealers lot was what I believe was an SE, in Toxic Orange. Before you judge Toxic Orange, see it in person! I wasn't a fan, but seeing it up close, with the dark interior... wow! It's NICE!

I agree T/O looks better in person, especially when the sun is hitting it. On a cloudy day, it looks too copper for my tastes. If they paint a 392 in Hemi Orange though, I may just upgrade.

skialfs
05-09-2011, 11:15 AM
My 09 SRT is pretty flat in the corners stock, I'm curious to know how you could make that kind of assessment on the 392 considering you had a salesman in the seat next to you limiting the extent to which you put it through its paces? Sway bars alone could upset the balance of this car in a negative way. It would have been simple for the engineers to have added a sixteenth to the front sway diameter if they felt it would help. I thought the 392 suspension was already stiffer than the 6.1? Can you compare the 392 to a 6.1 Challenger or just your Charger? Thanks for the review!

OMOM
05-09-2011, 11:50 AM
My 09 SRT is pretty flat in the corners stock, I'm curious to know how you could make that kind of assessment on the 392 considering you had a salesman in the seat next to you limiting the extent to which you put it through its paces? Sway bars alone could upset the balance of this car in a negative way. It would have been simple for the engineers to have added a sixteenth to the front sway diameter if they felt it would help. I thought the 392 suspension was already stiffer than the 6.1? Can you compare the 392 to a 6.1 Challenger or just your Charger? Thanks for the review!

My body roll assessment is based soley on a highway on and then off-ramp runs at about 50-60ish. Ramps I've taken in my Charger SRT8. I guess the fact that the body rolled, despite my relative easy driving, highlights my observation... it wasn't excessive by any means, but noticeable... similar to my stock sway Charger.

Now, thicker sways MAY interfere with the overall ability of the car to handle appropriately, I don't know. Thicker sways, generally speaking, in the SRT8 world, tend to be one of the best mods... is it different with the 392? I don't know. I do know my buddy's hotchkis setup transformed his Charger SRT8.

The suspension is "stiffer" because of the dampening of the coilovers/shocks... hence the "harsher" more solid feel over bumps... generally speaking, sways won't effect your ride quality as much as dampening.

Basically, the 392's body roll was similar to my Charger SRT8 (which would benefit from some better sway bars).

I heard the 392 sways were thicker than previous year Challengers, but I'm no expert, so I'm going by what others have said. I do "know" previous Challengers had more body roll than its SRT8 siblings for some reason, or at least that's what I've heard... so if that's the case, the 392's body roll is less than previous generations and therefore, roughly equal to the body roll of the 06-10 LX platform cars (which benefitted greatly from thicker sway bars).

OMOM
05-09-2011, 12:00 PM
It is my humble opinion that if thicker sways would work in unison with the rest of the 392 suspension (which I suspect they would be fine), that the thicker sways would be a "must have"... if the addition of these two parts is as dramatic on a 392 as they are on the LX platform cars, it will transform this beast from a decent cornering car to a very good cornering car, given its bulk.

Like I said and have hinted at, SRT8's aren't meant to be purely straight line cars... they're supposed to be big, fast cars that handle well... and my initial impression (a short and limited impression) is it does all the above well... I love the twisty roads, and IMO thicker sways would make this car nearly perfect for me.

Off the top of my head, I didn't find mechanical flaw with the car... it could be an inch or so lower (to help with cornering), but other than that, its REALLY REALLY nice!

Cuda340
05-09-2011, 12:01 PM
[QUOTE=OMOM;812560]ACCELERATION:
I wasn't surprised, nor disappointed. It's faster than the 6.1, even from my rather tame experience... and the power appears to be more readily available. Like I said, I didn't get to hammer it too much, but she was faster and she seemed a little more eager to get up and go.
[QUOTE]

This was expected because the 6.4 has more low-end torque.

OMOM
05-09-2011, 12:10 PM
[QUOTE=OMOM;812560]ACCELERATION:
I wasn't surprised, nor disappointed. It's faster than the 6.1, even from my rather tame experience... and the power appears to be more readily available. Like I said, I didn't get to hammer it too much, but she was faster and she seemed a little more eager to get up and go.
[QUOTE]

This was expected because the 6.4 has more low-end torque.

Si senor! It does indeed! :guiness:

I would've liked to have had the car for a day to really get a feel for it... but alas, it was not to happen!

Toxic11
05-09-2011, 01:40 PM
The amount of power the 392 lays down, and the way it lays it down can be very deceiving.. If you come out of the hole at say 10-15 percent throttle it picks up speed rapidly but does so in a very controlled manner, you'd never realize there's another 85-90 percent throttle left... Put her in Autostick and mash the throttle and bang the gears at redline and it's a whole other monster... I realize it's "only" 470 HP but it's a mean 470 HP :)

SRT8Tech
05-09-2011, 01:58 PM
I realize it's "only" 470 HP but it's a mean 470 HP :)
Yeah, I say just a tad under rated. LOL. Especially according to my timeslip. :) There is still more in it too.

OMOM
05-09-2011, 02:34 PM
What would be a deciding factor for me, would be get a 6.1 vs. 392 run... I mean, how many car lengths could a 392 put on a 6.1 in a 1/4? (both driven comprably)?! 1? 2?

Toxic11
05-09-2011, 05:37 PM
Id's say both bone stock, both on an absolutely perfect run, should be 1 maybe 1.5 car lengths. 6.1's run good too!

huggytree
05-10-2011, 05:11 AM
so you test drove a 470 hp car and didnt floor it for a few seconds?

the dealer wouldnt have said anything unless you were 0-100ing it....i think they expect you to get on it for a few seconds....he probably thought you were a girly man

there's a difference between beating on a car and getting on it for a bit...you should have gotten on it to see what the 392 can do!

my car has stains on the seats w/ 8 miles on the OD.

SRT8Tech
05-10-2011, 06:59 AM
Id's say both bone stock, both on an absolutely perfect run, should be 1 maybe 1.5 car lengths. 6.1's run good too!

Exactly, you are looking a few car lengths here. There are a few 6.1's out there running in the 12.7-12.8's @ 108-110 stock in great air. There are a few 6.4L's running 12.3-12.4's @ 110-113 stock in decent air. I guess a rule of thumb is 1 car length per tenth but i never have really tested that theory.

Heminator
05-10-2011, 09:04 AM
Here is the math. Say the slower car traps 0.5 sec behind at 107 MPH.

107 miles/hour (1 hour/60 min)(1 min/60 sec)(5280 ft/mile) = 157 ft/sec. And 157 ft/sec x 0.5 sec = 78.5 feet.

The Challenger is 16.5 feet long, so 78.5 ft = 4.7 car lengths, as measured from nose of lead car to nose of trailing car. Another way to express it would be 62 feet = 3.7 car lengths, as measured from tail of lead car to nose of trailing car.

The faster the trap speed, the larger the distance becomes between the vehicles for any given ET delta. For example, if the trailing car was going 200 MPH, an 0.5 second ET delta would be 147 feet.

OMOM
05-10-2011, 09:32 AM
so you test drove a 470 hp car and didnt floor it for a few seconds?

the dealer wouldnt have said anything unless you were 0-100ing it....i think they expect you to get on it for a few seconds....he probably thought you were a girly man

there's a difference between beating on a car and getting on it for a bit...you should have gotten on it to see what the 392 can do!

my car has stains on the seats w/ 8 miles on the OD.

I did get on it, but just for a few seconds... SOCAL traffic at times moderates impulsiveness! LOL

Ok, you have 8 miles on your car? Or was that when you first got it? Please tell me that was when you got it, and not now! LOL

How do you plan to clean the seats? I heard you can use white show polish (after cleaning)?!

Here is the math. Say the slower car traps 0.5 sec behind at 107 MPH.

107 miles/hour (1 hour/60 min)(1 min/60 sec)(5280 ft/mile) = 157 ft/sec. And 157 ft/sec x 0.5 sec = 78.5 feet.

The Challenger is 16.5 feet long, so 78.5 ft = 4.7 car lengths, as measured from nose of lead car to nose of trailing car. Another way to express it would be 62 feet = 3.7 car lengths, as measured from tail of lead car to nose of trailing car.

The faster the trap speed, the larger the distance becomes between the vehicles for any given ET delta. For example, if the trailing car was going 200 MPH, an 0.5 second ET delta would be 147 feet.

Wow... are you a teacher?! LOL

OMOM
05-10-2011, 09:35 AM
Problem is, is that I've had my 6.1 for about 4 years... and have driven it in a bunch of scenarios/conditions... its so hard to tell from a 10 minute test drive how the cars TRULY compare... I notice the improvements, but at the same time, the line is blurry... catch my drift?!?! Basically, the improvements are there, but overriding 4 years of ownership is hard to do in 10 minutes of "monitored" driving...

Toxic11
05-10-2011, 10:32 AM
Ok Ok... Nobody told me there would be a math quiz....

2+3 = Chair !!! :thumbsup:



Here is the math. Say the slower car traps 0.5 sec behind at 107 MPH.

107 miles/hour (1 hour/60 min)(1 min/60 sec)(5280 ft/mile) = 157 ft/sec. And 157 ft/sec x 0.5 sec = 78.5 feet.

The Challenger is 16.5 feet long, so 78.5 ft = 4.7 car lengths, as measured from nose of lead car to nose of trailing car. Another way to express it would be 62 feet = 3.7 car lengths, as measured from tail of lead car to nose of trailing car.

The faster the trap speed, the larger the distance becomes between the vehicles for any given ET delta. For example, if the trailing car was going 200 MPH, an 0.5 second ET delta would be 147 feet.

Bflagstad
05-15-2011, 05:40 AM
Lets get these things to the track!!! Does anyone have baseline rwHP/rwTQ numbers from a 392 yet?

I would like to see a side by side comparison of a 6.1L like mine against a "stock" 392. I'm willing to meet someone at Rock Falls Raceway in Rock Falls WI so we can post something. But hurry before it gets too warm up here and slows us down! LOL

My buddy just cammed his 2010 Camaro and put 407 rwHP down on the dyno so I need to make some decisions quickly.

Goehner (Flat Gonads)
05-15-2011, 05:43 AM
Lets get these things to the track!!! Does anyone have baseline rwHP/rwTQ numbers from a 392 yet?

I would like to see a side by side comparison of a 6.1L like mine against a "stock" 392. I'm willing to meet someone at Rock Falls Raceway in Rock Falls WI so we can post something. But hurry before it gets too warm up here and slows us down! LOL

My buddy just cammed his 2010 Camaro and put 407 rwHP down on the dyno so I need to make some decisions quickly.

Two different dyno's mine was 417 and 430 rwhp with no modifications.

Bflagstad
05-15-2011, 05:49 AM
Two different dyno's mine was 417 and 430 rwhp with no modifications.

Now that's what I'm talking about! 0-60 times aren't interesting to me these are the kind of things that matter in measuring the machines capability minus the driver!

Nice numbers!

My 6.1L was at 365 rwHP before the Diablo Custom HiTech Motorsports tune which got me to 388 rwHP and 388 rwTQ.

Worst case your stock 6.4L is making 52 more rwHP than a 2009 6.1L, nice!

Goehner (Flat Gonads)
05-15-2011, 05:51 AM
I had an 09 6.1 6 speed, there is a HUGE difference between the 2, trust me on this.

gr8srt8
05-15-2011, 10:08 AM
0-60 times aren't interesting to me these are the kind of things that matter in measuring the machines capability minus the driver!

Just remember, no two dynos are the same. So, "racing" different dynos aren't any better at measuring a machines capability (per se). Use the dyno as a tool... Then take the car to the track to measure its capability.

Bflagstad
05-15-2011, 10:10 AM
Just remember, no two dynos are the same. So, "racing" different dynos aren't any better at measuring a machines capability (per se). Use the dyno as a tool... Then take the car to the track to measure its capability.

Agreed, but it is way better than a bunch of EVIC 0-60 times with a human involved. I agree that there can be a fair amount of variability from dyno to dyno but it gets way worse when you add a human.

gr8srt8
05-15-2011, 10:17 AM
Agreed, but it is way better than a bunch of EVIC 0-60 times with a human involved. I agree that there can be a fair amount of variability from dyno to dyno but it gets way worse when you add a human.

Agreed!:thumbsup: