Actual HP for the 5.7 liter HEMI [Archive] - Dodge Challenger Forum: Challenger & SRT8 Forums

: Actual HP for the 5.7 liter HEMI


govolz1970
01-10-2012, 02:32 AM
This may be beating a dead horse, but why are we suppose to believe they "de-tuned":liar: the 5.7 to go into a Challenger RT (375hp w/406 ftlbs)when the same motor is rated at 390 hp and basically the same torque of the the Ram? Oh yeah, because they probably couldn't get people to spend that extra 10 or 12g for 35hp you really get in the SRT8, but seriously are we all that stupid?:pillepalle:

jonmandude
01-10-2012, 03:14 AM
The Ram has a different intake and the 6-speed 5.7 has 386hp with a .1 increase in combustion.

Toxic11
01-10-2012, 03:18 AM
This may be beating a dead horse, but why are we suppose to believe they "de-tuned":liar: the 5.7 to go into a Challenger RT (375hp w/406 ftlbs)when the same motor is rated at 390 hp and basically the same torque of the the Ram? Oh yeah, because they probably couldn't get people to spend that extra 10 or 12g for 35hp you really get in the SRT8, but seriously are we all that stupid?:pillepalle:


It has nothing to do with spending the extra on the SRT8, because honestly, most of the money in an SRT car is in the rims and the brakes :)

The 5.7 in the car is different than in the Ram. The Ram has the dual path intake that is used on the 392, and also has variable valve timing and slightly more compression. Those things add up to more torque (which is useful in a truck) and adds horsepower as well.

MDFR_R/T
01-10-2012, 03:21 AM
Apparently most people are. The enthusiasts like yourself and all others who are apart of forums know what we have and what our R/T's are capable of. Do I regret not getting an SRT, not one bit. Now the 392, that is one beast all on its own. Lol. But then again I see them in lots going for 50k+ when you can buy an R/T for low 30k's. Its all in the eye of beholder I guess.

randycat99
01-10-2012, 06:05 AM
The whole 375 vs 390 hp thing is certainly the great paradox for Dodge's Hemi products. A part of me still believes that it was/is mostly a marketing distinction influence rather than actual mechanics of the hardware.

Rudedog
01-10-2012, 06:33 AM
Has anyone posted dyno numbers from the Ram's Hemi?

Litos
01-10-2012, 06:45 AM
i got the Ram with 5.7.

active intake manifold + auto 6-speed + 3.92 gear = more hp/tq than an R/T

SRT8Tech
01-10-2012, 06:50 AM
The Ram 5.7 has a BIGGER CAM and variable intake. Thats why......................

jim383
01-10-2012, 06:51 AM
In the jeep the hp is 360.

Litos
01-10-2012, 06:52 AM
Has anyone posted dyno numbers from the Ram's Hemi?
be on the lookout for my dyno numbers when my truck hits @ 4500-5000 miles.

it has 1300 right now lol.

gonna let'er break in - then i'll spin the rollers.

looking for @ 330-340hp and 370tq untuned on ARD's dyno in Houston.

FYI, my 392 made 418/420 with flowmaster Super 44 weld in mufflers with 3" straight pipe and a Legmaker CAI.

Lane Meyer
01-10-2012, 07:01 AM
How hard would it to do a intake swap from a truck? Find one in a salvage yard. Maybe worth it. Yes - No?

randycat99
01-10-2012, 08:19 AM
It would be interesting to get better info on what the variable intake introduces, as far as performance. I have a hard time believing it can do much in short-runner mode, with just a flap that opens a bit to expose a shorter path. The tuning of the shorter path may be legitimate, but if it cannot flow more (or as much) as the uninterrupted long runner, then what's the point? People take such pains to ensure a smooth path along the induction tract with mild bends...but suddenly a sharp detour in a variable intake is going to be beneficial? I like the concept, but the realized design makes me wonder a bit.

It would be interesting to get solid info on the Ram cam vs. Challenger cam, as well.

Personally, I don't think any hardware differences are needed to facilitate an explanation for the power difference. It is simply a native "390 hp" powerplant in both vehicles, and they could easily adjust where the actual pk ends up by tweaking ignition and throttle mapping at the very end of the rpm band. The engine is just as "strong" through the powerband, either way...they just terminate at a different pk hp at a particular rpm, to satisfy marketing. Would they bother to futz with engine controls just to facilitate different marketing specs?...I dunno. Seems way more easy and plausible that it is just the same engine all around, and they just put a different marketing number on each one.

Another interesting (but not at all definitive) source of information are you Trinity (or similar) users out there. Seems like you ought to be able to select the "hp PID" to get realtime updates on that. Do a trace, do a pk hp run on an isolated road, and then see what the OBD has to say about hp.

Hemi666
01-10-2012, 08:33 AM
This may be beating a dead horse, but why are we suppose to believe they "de-tuned":liar: the 5.7 to go into a Challenger RT (375hp w/406 ftlbs)when the same motor is rated at 390 hp and basically the same torque of the the Ram? Oh yeah, because they probably couldn't get people to spend that extra 10 or 12g for 35hp you really get in the SRT8, but seriously are we all that stupid?:pillepalle:

The factory HP ratings appear to be at the crankshaft not RWHP which is more important. You should Dyno you car and you will see the actual numbers. I did a dyno test and Custom Dyno tune on my 2009 R/T Challenger with the 5.7 and with all my upgrades and the custom tune we are at 343 RWHP / 386 lbs torque and 405-410 HP at the Crank shaft. Thats approx 25-30 HP gain at the crank from stock. These are real world numbers. It will really be a shocker to see how low actual numbers are to projected HP.
Mike (Hemi666)::weird:

chris1992
01-10-2012, 08:46 AM
be on the lookout for my dyno numbers when my truck hits @ 4500-5000 miles.

it has 1300 right now lol.

gonna let'er break in - then i'll spin the rollers.

looking for @ 330-340hp and 370tq untuned on ARD's dyno in Houston.

FYI, my 392 made 418/420 with flowmaster Super 44 weld in mufflers with 3" straight pipe and a Legmaker CAI.

You seem a but optimistic with those numbers. Looking online most are making about 300rwhp stock and 320rwhp tuned.

SRT8Tech
01-10-2012, 08:46 AM
It would be interesting to get solid info on the Ram cam vs. Challenger cam, as well.



Noooooo problem. :)

pdx.challenger
01-10-2012, 09:02 AM
The whole 375 vs 390 hp thing is certainly the great paradox for Dodge's Hemi products. A part of me still believes that it was/is mostly a marketing distinction influence rather than actual mechanics of the hardware.

Agreed. While an enthusiast knows the SRT has additional features besides the engine, such as suspension, brakes, wheels, etc, the average consumer would only see $10k-$15k more for a gain of 35HP.

Red Barron
01-10-2012, 09:13 AM
i got the Ram with 5.7.

active intake manifold + auto 6-speed + 3.92 gear = more hp/tq than an R/T

+ four doors + full frame = slower

Raydar
01-10-2012, 09:52 AM
This topic has been beaten to death over the years.
The general consensus is that the R/T is under-rated. My R/T 6 speed Dynoed ~355 at the wheels. This with a stock tune.
Assuming 10% drivetrain loss, that's 390 and change. Many others are doing about the same.
I posted my dyno chart in another thread, but it's been a while.

aarcuda
01-10-2012, 10:02 AM
Noooooo problem. :)
very interesting. yes, the rams cam IS bigger. more duration and more overlap.

JeffsGonePlumCrazy
01-10-2012, 10:34 AM
This topic has been beaten to death over the years.
The general consensus is that the R/T is under-rated. My R/T 6 speed Dynoed ~355 at the wheels. This with a stock tune.
Assuming 10% drivetrain loss, that's 390 and change. Many others are doing about the same.
I posted my dyno chart in another thread, but it's been a while. 355rwhp stock thats a little high my friend, but dyno's differ, and I would go to say that these transmissions aren't that effecient for only a 10% loss more like 13-15%, 10% is like fwd or rwd rear engine territory. I dynoed 340rwhp with exhaust and cai on stock tune, that puts mine around 400 using my formula, which is to say bone stock it would have made around 390. The low point I have seen is around 330rwhp and most averaging around 335rwhp with a stick. I also wonder why no one has tried a truck cam swap, to see what it would gain, I would say that the ram and challenger engine make around the same hp the ram probably makes a bump more they just used different methods to reach it, think of exhaust system the ram uses restriction city.

randycat99
01-10-2012, 10:53 AM
I think the snag there is if you really do employ the 15% loss factor, then it makes his projected engine hp even better than 390 hp. ;)

Great contribution on the cam specs, SRT8Tech!

Litos
01-10-2012, 10:56 AM
lol @ 10% drivetrain loss.

for autos it's like 15%.


and yes, based on a 15% drivetrain loss experienced on multiple cars on ARD's dyno, i see my truck making @ 320hp and 340ftlbs - i forgot it's a truck with big ol tires.

i'll dyno probably by the end of February. should have over 4000 miles by then.

Litos
01-10-2012, 10:58 AM
I think the snag there is if you really do employ the 15% loss factor, then it makes his projected engine hp even better than 390 hp. ;)

....and here's the thing:

(1) 15% drivetrain loss is what's expected in any automatic vehicle on the road

(2) some dynos will actually take 15%, like the dyno that i have taken my last 3 cars to, but other dynos will only take @ 8% (see the guy's thread where he made 441whp on a stock 392 HAHAHA !!!)

looks like radar's dyno was only taking 9%, which is the reason for his generous dyno numbers.

Red Barron
01-10-2012, 11:09 AM
....and here's the thing:

(1) 15% drivetrain loss is what's expected in any automatic vehicle on the road

(2) some dynos will actually take 15%, like the dyno that i have taken my last 3 cars to, but other dynos will only take @ 8% (see the guy's thread where he made 441whp on a stock 392 HAHAHA !!!)

looks like radar's dyno was only taking 9%, which is the reason for his generous dyno numbers.

Are you saying the Dyno is taking out a percentage for driveline loss?

JeffsGonePlumCrazy
01-10-2012, 11:13 AM
I would figure more around 17% with an auto. I have always been taught 15% was about stardard in a manual give or take. Given a 99up 5-speed 2v 4.6 Mustang is rated at 260hp, and most claim 265-270 actual, these cars stock generally put down 225-230rwhp. Mine with weld in flowmasters, cai, and a tb made 236rwhp w/stock tune. Just my experiences and I don't think a T6060 is any more effecient than a T3650. I am not trying to hate at all, I just want to deal in absolute facts to disprove misconceptions, based on my dyno time and things I have been around these have become facts to me. I guess other peoples experiences can differ tho.

chris1992
01-10-2012, 11:23 AM
lol @ 10% drivetrain loss.

for autos it's like 15%.


and yes, based on a 15% drivetrain loss experienced on multiple cars on ARD's dyno, i see my truck making @ 320hp and 340ftlbs - i forgot it's a truck with big ol tires.

i'll dyno probably by the end of February. should have over 4000 miles by then.

Yeah thats a bit closer to what I'd expect, being a truck with big tires, the drive train loss will be more than a Challenger. Still a fast truck none the less, guy I know has an R/T single cab ram with a tune and 4.10s was running 13.7s. He beat a GTO actually

randycat99
01-10-2012, 11:23 AM
I don't think there should be a different number for these auto's as far as dyno factors (maybe in the days when it was only 3 gears and no lockup clutch, but not in any modern automatic). If they are testing in lock-up mode, then it is an all-mechanical connection, anyway (should be no difference from testing a manual, in theory). There is no fluid link to introduce "extra" losses (which is kind of a bogus notion, altogether, in suggesting it would be a constant percentage for any given rpm).

JeffsGonePlumCrazy
01-10-2012, 11:48 AM
Are you saying the Dyno is taking out a percentage for driveline loss? I haven't heard of that myself lol, I just figured it was thru the various dyno manufacturers calculations and designs on the variances dyno to dyno, I know the mustang dyno is a load type and uses loads and resistance under various conditions to measuere hp hence the low numbers. The car itself should be taking out the driveline loss, since power is measured thru the driveline to the dyno lol, I know there are calibration corrections for temp and altitude, I have seen dyno's rate engine hp as well as rear wheel, but to me that should just an after the fact conversion and no bearing whatsoever on your rwhp and tq numbers.

1FST4DR
01-10-2012, 11:58 AM
I just dyno'd a 2011 on a mustang dyno that I use a lot for our tuning. He wanted to see a before and after as we will be installing a 2011 392. It made 348 rwhp and as the motor got heat soaked it went slightly down from there.

Hope this helps..

RebelRoy
01-10-2012, 12:36 PM
As soon as I start hearing dyno numbers I immediately tune out, the results are usually so laughably high and bogus yet everyone wants to believe they have the magic motor from the factory that is secretly more powerful than advertised. All I can say is go to a track and show me some times that are better than everyone else and then we can talk. It doesn't matter what car I see it all the time, everyone thinks their car makes more than it is rated when in reality 99% of the cars out there are right at where the factory rates them. 4th gen LS1's and terminator mustangs are about the only ones I can think of off the top of my head that were underated from the factory in the past 10 years, I'm sure there might be a few more but the Hemi isn't one of them. There is no reason to underate the 5.7 hemi.

BrianM10
01-10-2012, 01:20 PM
I really wish my M10, which is a 5.7 R/T with some extras, really had. From what I am reading and with the hood/intake and the new exhaust its in the 420's. I could really feel the difference with the petal and the tires after the exhaust. After a tune I will be looking for the real numbers. I just have to find a place to dyno it.

Raydar
01-10-2012, 01:56 PM
355rwhp stock thats a little high my friend, but dyno's differ, and I would go to say that these transmissions aren't that effecient for only a 10% loss more like 13-15%, 10% is like fwd or rwd rear engine territory...

Here's the chart. I was at work earlier, and didn't have time to dig it out.
(The last run, at 358, was made with only the air duct connected. No filter or airbox.
The other two were with a stock filter but a modified - similar to the SRT - airbox.)
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x72/raydar_fiero/Dyno011610Medium.jpg

Remember, this was a 6 speed car.
This was a Dynojet dyno. Generally one of the more "generous" dynos.
The air was also very cool and very dense. (50s and high humidity.) I couldn't have conjured up more favorable conditions.
This was done during a dyno day in north Atlanta.
A couple of observations... The automatic cars were in the 335 range, without a tune. Picked up a few HP, afterwards, with a canned tune.
The 6 speed R/Ts with 20" wheels and a tune seemed to dyno quite similarly to mine, with 18" wheels and no tune. (I wouldn't think that larger wheels would weigh enough to negate a tune, but the numbers were there. Could just be a coincidence. though.)

You can make of this, whatever you want. :D

randycat99
01-10-2012, 04:12 PM
As soon as I start hearing dyno numbers I immediately tune out, the results are usually so laughably high and bogus yet everyone wants to believe they have the magic motor from the factory that is secretly more powerful than advertised. All I can say is go to a track and show me some times that are better than everyone else and then we can talk. It doesn't matter what car I see it all the time, everyone thinks their car makes more than it is rated when in reality 99% of the cars out there are right at where the factory rates them. 4th gen LS1's and terminator mustangs are about the only ones I can think of off the top of my head that were underated from the factory in the past 10 years, I'm sure there might be a few more but the Hemi isn't one of them. There is no reason to underate the 5.7 hemi.

The irony here is that the track argument would actually suggest the 5.7 isn't just a mere 370-ish hp, by the way it is able to remotely keep up with 420-ish hp Camaros and Mustangs, let alone beating them on occasion. That just shouldn't be happening with less hp AND higher weight on a Challenger.

Litos
01-10-2012, 06:53 PM
I just dyno'd a 2011 on a mustang dyno that I use a lot for our tuning. It made 348 rwhp and as the motor got heat soaked it went slightly down from there.

that's about 15-16%, which is quite normal for a mustang dyno.

in theory the 392 should make +/- 395ish. maaaaybe even break 400 on THAT dyno.

I haven't heard of that myself lol, I just figured it was thru the various dyno manufacturers calculations and designs on the variances dyno to dyno,
exactly.

As soon as I start hearing dyno numbers I immediately tune out, the results are usually so laughably high and bogus yet everyone wants to believe they have the magic motor from the factory that is secretly more powerful than advertised.
HAHAHA !!!!

i'm the same way man - some people just dyno their cars by themselves on a random day without having other cars dyno with them.

example, if you own a 392, have another 392 go with you and dyno that day. hell, find a DSP tuned SRT6.1 to compare those numbers also.

nobody around here has friends that get together and do dyno days !?!?

last dyno day we had here in Houston we had over 30 cars dyno in one day :)

i'm just spoiled !?!?

golphin
01-10-2012, 07:11 PM
I don't even care. I have both and they both have the 5.7 and Clapton on for tunes. The Challenger makes me want to haul ass and I am fine just cruising in the Ram, but I know I can haul ass when I want to. Neither will beat everybody out there in a race but both will beat most of them.

robo5555
01-10-2012, 07:43 PM
The Ram has a different intake and the 6-speed 5.7 has 386hp with a .1 increase in combustion.
386???/Thought it was 376.

Hemi666
01-11-2012, 07:55 AM
that's about 15-16%, which is quite normal for a mustang dyno.

in theory the 392 should make +/- 395ish. maaaaybe even break 400 on THAT dyno.


exactly.


HAHAHA !!!!

i'm the same way man - some people just dyno their cars by themselves on a random day without having other cars dyno with them.

example, if you own a 392, have another 392 go with you and dyno that day. hell, find a DSP tuned SRT6.1 to compare those numbers also.

nobody around here has friends that get together and do dyno days !?!?

last dyno day we had here in Houston we had over 30 cars dyno in one day :)

i'm just spoiled !?!?
*********************************************************
*********************************************************
Your 392 numbers sound pretty close. We did a Dyno Day with our club and 1 392 was there he dynoed at 420 RWHP in stock trim. Our 5.7 hemis were in the 330 to 345 range the higher ratings was modified with tunes etc.Our 6.1 hemis were in the 360 to390 range.One 6.1 had 402 RWHP.
Its all a crap shoot, but the dyno will show you closer to reality output #s.
My car has 343 RWHP & 386 lb torque. It sure feels like more though!! Like they say "Nothing pulls like a HEMI"
Mike ( Hemi666 ):zlurking:

RebelRoy
01-11-2012, 07:59 AM
The irony here is that the track argument would actually suggest the 5.7 isn't just a mere 370-ish hp, by the way it is able to remotely keep up with 420-ish hp Camaros and Mustangs, let alone beating them on occasion. That just shouldn't be happening with less hp AND higher weight on a Challenger.Not really, it has more to do with the gearing in the Rt compared to the Camaro manual to manual(LS3 is 3.45 RT is 3.92 or so) and the auto Camaro's are only 20 hp more than the RT so they aren't that far apart until the speeds increase past 75 or so. Stick Camaro's just aren't able to put all of the power down and don't have as good a rear gear as the Challengers, run a stick RT against a stick SS from a 60mph roll and you'll see the HP difference quickly since traction isn't a limiting factor anymore, just like a 392 will walk an SS hard up top. That's how the Mustang is so fast 0-60 is gears, up top the 392 and Camaro will pull right past them but we are talking 100mph and up.

randycat99
01-11-2012, 08:52 AM
Hence, the "track" example is not conclusive at all about hp (which your original claim was alluding otherwise), if all of those other factors you describe can influence different results and outcomes.

On the matter of gearing, I think it has been well established in a different topic that just comparing axle ratios is not sufficient at all to assess a gearing advantage. You really have to bring in the actual transmissions ratios combined with the axle ratio to get a reasonably accurate picture of any gearing advantage.

RebelRoy
01-11-2012, 01:17 PM
Hence, the "track" example is not conclusive at all about hp (which your original claim was alluding otherwise), if all of those other factors you describe can influence different results and outcomes.

On the matter of gearing, I think it has been well established in a different topic that just comparing axle ratios is not sufficient at all to assess a gearing advantage. You really have to bring in the actual transmissions ratios combined with the axle ratio to get a reasonably accurate picture of any gearing advantage.My original claim of the track is still true, the RT holds up well for most of the 1/4 because of gearing but the SS is still faster a more dramatic real world display would be a rolling highway pull that's why i said take them at 60 and run them and you'll see the difference in horsepower pretty quickly. As for the track the SS is still around half a second faster than the RT and the mph is around 111mph for the Camaro and 105 or so for the RT, that shows you the hp difference. I've never seen a stock RT listed at 13 flat, just about every mag has gotten that time for the SS and around 13.5 and up for the RT, just check out this link and see the disparity once you get into 0-100 0-140 and see the hp difference shows up there http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2010-chevy-camaro-ss-vs-2010-ford-mustang-gt-2009-dodge-challenger-r-tmuscle-car-comparo-powertrain-chart.pdf If you notice the Mustang in this article was the old 4.6 that made 100hp less than the new 5.0 which with that extra 100 hp runs about .8 better in the 1/4 and about 5-6 mph better than the pervious car. The Camaro only makes about 50 more than the Hemi So I'd say there is no reason to believe the Hemi is over rated. Maybe comparing the L99 it would be more fair since the hp gap is only 24hp or so but not the LS3.

RebelRoy
01-11-2012, 01:20 PM
Hence, the "track" example is not conclusive at all about hp (which your original claim was alluding otherwise), if all of those other factors you describe can influence different results and outcomes.

On the matter of gearing, I think it has been well established in a different topic that just comparing axle ratios is not sufficient at all to assess a gearing advantage. You really have to bring in the actual transmissions ratios combined with the axle ratio to get a reasonably accurate picture of any gearing advantage.The gears in both 6 speed manuals are almost identical so it is fair to compare rear gears giving the Challenger a better gear to get off the line.

Litos
01-11-2012, 01:24 PM
*********************************************************
*********************************************************
Your 392 numbers sound pretty close. We did a Dyno Day with our club and 1 392 was there he dynoed at 420 RWHP in stock trim. Our 5.7 hemis were in the 330 to 345 range the higher ratings was modified with tunes etc.Our 6.1 hemis were in the 360 to390 range.One 6.1 had 402 RWHP.
Its all a crap shoot, but the dyno will show you closer to reality output #s.
My car has 343 RWHP & 386 lb torque. It sure feels like more though!! Like they say "Nothing pulls like a HEMI"
Mike ( Hemi666 ):zlurking:
those numbers sound about right.

last dyno day we had (2) 392's dyno. mine made 408/409 - the other 392 Charger made 414/414.

we had 5 DSP tuned 6.1's with intake and exhaust making 360-366hp.

one guy made 373, which was crazy.

another guy had a 6.1 6-speed with Johan tune and long tubes make 386hp.

only 6.1 breaking 400whp on this dyno would be camm'd.

Hemi666
01-12-2012, 08:02 AM
those numbers sound about right.

last dyno day we had (2) 392's dyno. mine made 408/409 - the other 392 Charger made 414/414.

we had 5 DSP tuned 6.1's with intake and exhaust making 360-366hp.

one guy made 373, which was crazy.

another guy had a 6.1 6-speed with Johan tune and long tubes make 386hp.

only 6.1 breaking 400whp on this dyno would be camm'd.
**********************************************************
Wow, the numbers you guys got are an almost exact dupe of our Dyno day. 408-409 RWHP is great. Once they do the tunes for predator you will get a bit more zap to the wheels. My 5.7 has gained about 30 HP at crank and guestimated 10-15 at the wheels with my mods. She is squirrely and fun to drive.
Mike. (Hemi666)
:bigthumb:

chris1992
01-12-2012, 08:27 AM
The gears in both 6 speed manuals are almost identical so it is fair to compare rear gears giving the Challenger a better gear to get off the line.

What about the R/T autos with a 3.06 ratio?

randycat99
01-12-2012, 09:01 AM
The gears in both 6 speed manuals are almost identical so it is fair to compare rear gears giving the Challenger a better gear to get off the line.

You are correct that they are pretty similar ratios, with differences in 2nd and 3rd standing out, relative to 1st being very close. Interestingly, the Tremec in the Camaro SS is a very close match in 2nd and 3rd to the automatic in the Challenger. So it makes you wonder if how does the shorter axle in the M6 Challenger yield a benefit that counters the M6 Camaro, yet the taller axle ratio in the A5 Challenger evidently yields a benefit that counters the M6 Challenger?

I'll post this up for discussion material:
http://www.challengertalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=41941&stc=1&d=1326387880

RebelRoy
01-12-2012, 11:19 AM
The point all along was the Hemi is not under rated, the Camaro L99 which only makes 24hp more is still faster to 60 by several tenths and in the 1/4 mile by about half a second. Since the manual tranny LS3 and RT both have almost identical gears inside the transmission it shows how even with worse gears the Camaro shows it's 50hp advantage in the 111mph trap times compared to 105 or so for the RT. Your 5.7 Hemi's aren't under rated.

BigDaddyWiz
01-12-2012, 12:40 PM
The point all along was the Hemi is not under rated, the Camaro L99 which only makes 24hp more is still faster to 60 by several tenths and in the 1/4 mile by about half a second. Since the manual tranny LS3 and RT both have almost identical gears inside the transmission it shows how even with worse gears the Camaro shows it's 50hp advantage in the 111mph trap times compared to 105 or so for the RT. Your 5.7 Hemi's aren't under rated.

how do you explain L99s and new 5.7's dynoing around the same RWHP numbers on the SAME dyno when one is advertised at 370HP and one at 400HP? there isnt 24 hp separating the two. maybe 10.

and it aint a fluke when its been shown time and time again.

way to cherry pick the numbers on the camaros btw. when you say the L99 is faster to 60 by "several tenths" you mean to tell me the L99 is a mid 4 second 0-60 car?

chris1992
01-12-2012, 03:12 PM
Lol what stock camaros are trapping 111mph, especially with the L99? I haven't seen that at my track, most are 105-106 with the modded ones around 108-110. That's even in negative DA.
Plus comparing 1/4 mile numbers between a the LS3 and 6-speed R/T isn't too concrete of evidence. The auto R/Ts are well known to run quicker in the 1/4 mile because of the lack of wheel hop and no timing pulled between shifts, and that's even with the 3.06s.

BigDaddyWiz
01-12-2012, 04:32 PM
Lol what stock camaros are trapping 111mph, especially with the L99? I haven't seen that at my track, most are 105-106 with the modded ones around 108-110. That's even in negative DA.
Plus comparing 1/4 mile numbers between a the LS3 and 6-speed R/T isn't too concrete of evidence. The auto R/Ts are well known to run quicker in the 1/4 mile because of the lack of wheel hop and no timing pulled between shifts, and that's even with the 3.06s.

camaro/mustang guys dont seem to acknowledge the times that the autos are putting down, Chris. i guess if a magazine didnt test it, it doesnt exist :icon_wink:

RebelRoy
01-13-2012, 07:22 AM
Lol what stock camaros are trapping 111mph, especially with the L99? I haven't seen that at my track, most are 105-106 with the modded ones around 108-110. That's even in negative DA.
Plus comparing 1/4 mile numbers between a the LS3 and 6-speed R/T isn't too concrete of evidence. The auto R/Ts are well known to run quicker in the 1/4 mile because of the lack of wheel hop and no timing pulled between shifts, and that's even with the 3.06s.I think I made it pretty clear when i was talking about the LS3 that they trap 111mph, I never said the L99's trapped that if so please show me. L99's run quicker 0-60 times than the LS3 manuals do around 4.6 seconds to 60, RT's are not under 5 seconds and if you think so you are delusional. The reason the L99 auto's are so slow in the 1/4 mile isn't because of their loss of 26 hp it's because the Chevy auto tune is crap, as soon as people get the auto tuned they are in the 12's with no other mods. Like I said keep thinking you have this vastly under rated motor if it makes you feel better about yourselves. Stock for stock the L99 vs the RT the RT is gonna lose same for the LS3 vs RT. 392 destroys the LS3 and the higher you run them the worse it gets for the Camaro.

RebelRoy
01-13-2012, 07:27 AM
how do you explain L99s and new 5.7's dynoing around the same RWHP numbers on the SAME dyno when one is advertised at 370HP and one at 400HP? there isnt 24 hp separating the two. maybe 10.

and it aint a fluke when its been shown time and time again.

way to cherry pick the numbers on the camaros btw. when you say the L99 is faster to 60 by "several tenths" you mean to tell me the L99 is a mid 4 second 0-60 car?Cherry pick? You are joking right, it's pretty well established the L99's run to 60mph in around 4.6 seconds, I've never heard of an RT auto or stick doing that same feat in under 5 usually 5.1 so let's do the math 5.1 -4.6 equals .5 tenths, last I checked .5 tenths was several tenths unless it isn't in your world. Man there really is some cherry picking going on in this thread and it's by you, lol. LS3's run 0-60 in 4.8 so that would still be .3 tenths quicker than the RT. And I don't have a Camaro or a Mustang, I am actually buying a SRT-8 this Fall so I don't get the troll comments I read, I just can't stand ridiculously inflated dyno numbers and everyone thinking they have a under rated factory motor, I could see it if you were detroying Mustangs and Camaro's stock off the showroom floor but if and when an Rt does beat one it isn't by much and doesn't happen often without bad driving on the others part. The 5.7 is a good engine with good power but it isn't making 400 hp. That's not trolling that's reality, sorry some of you can't tell the difference.

chris1992
01-13-2012, 08:35 AM
I think I made it pretty clear when i was talking about the LS3 that they trap 111mph, I never said the L99's trapped that if so please show me. L99's run quicker 0-60 times than the LS3 manuals do around 4.6 seconds to 60, RT's are not under 5 seconds and if you think so you are delusional. The reason the L99 auto's are so slow in the 1/4 mile isn't because of their loss of 26 hp it's because the Chevy auto tune is crap, as soon as people get the auto tuned they are in the 12's with no other mods. Like I said keep thinking you have this vastly under rated motor if it makes you feel better about yourselves. Stock for stock the L99 vs the RT the RT is gonna lose same for the LS3 vs RT. 392 destroys the LS3 and the higher you run them the worse it gets for the Camaro.

Where did I say that I believe the 5.7L was underrated in HP? I was just saying how its not fair to compare a 6speedR/T to an SS seeing as the 6speeds are suffering from a lot of torque management and wheel hop as of now. The auto R/T is a pretty close competitor to an L99 as I've witnessed it quite often at the track.

I do believe though that an R/T is underrated by most people in the performance division..most don't realize that the 5.7 is making the same or close to the same RWHP as an L99 while only weighing 100lbs more (R/Ts can range from 3950-4150)..I'd say one of the biggest handicaps the Challenger has besides the obvious weight problem, is tires. Drag racing on narrow all season 235/55/18s Michelins or 245/45/20 RSAs isn't the way to go for a good 60' (and we all know thats where a race is won or lost). Where as the SS has wider 275pirellis to help it get to moving a lot quicker. With just a catback, sticky tires (still only a 1.94 at the time, but I was new to racing), and some nice DA I ran a 12.83..then after a canned tune I was in the mid 12s. Do I believe the R/T is underrated in HP? Not nearly as much as I believe the R/T is underrated in what type of numbers it can post up at the track. Magazines have given the R/T such a bad name that I'm constantly accused of running nitrous or having an SRT8..even SOME SRT8 guys can't believe my R/T is running as quick or quicker with the same mods as them. I personally believe the R/T does pretty well for itself considering its weight and gearing handicap. Once you throw sticker tires on it, tune it, and open the exhaust a bit more..you have a car that can run consistently mid 12s@109+ even on street tires.

Not trying to argue, because I like a good debate..but the L99 and R/T can really be a close race given the same 60's/launch. The SS will begin to edge the R/T out at the end of the track due to aero, HP difference, gearing, and weight..but still a closer race than most people want to admit.

Just so you know.. I've been to the track in the past two years more than I can remember and I have over 150 timeslips with my R/T, so I've seen what all of these cars are capable of in all types of weather. I've driven an L99, a 5.0, multiple 5.7s, a few 6.1s including a 500rwhp KB 6.1, and a stock IE 392.. So I'm not just pulling this out of my a$$..

randycat99
01-13-2012, 10:25 AM
...if and when an Rt does beat one it isn't by much and doesn't happen often without bad driving on the others part. The 5.7 is a good engine with good power but it isn't making 400 hp. That's not trolling that's reality, sorry some of you can't tell the difference.

I don't think anybody has suggested that the 5.7 is a 400 hp motor. Some have suspected that it may be closer to 390 than 370, though.

Similarly, I don't think anybody has been saying RT's will definitively beat Camaros. I did suggest earlier that it is impressive how well the RT can keep up or even stay close, given an alleged 40-45 hp handicap to the Camaro.

Fwiw, I think it was Popular Mechanics that did a related feature on the Challenger RT (automatic, iirc) and managed to eek out a 0-60 run at 4.8 sec...damnedest thing, I agree. Does one data point make it eminently true? Probably not. Is it entirely implausible?...I wouldn't say that, either.

BigDaddyWiz
01-13-2012, 11:28 AM
Cherry pick? You are joking right, it's pretty well established the L99's run to 60mph in around 4.6 seconds, I've never heard of an RT auto or stick doing that same feat in under 5 usually 5.1 so let's do the math 5.1 -4.6 equals .5 tenths, last I checked .5 tenths was several tenths unless it isn't in your world. Man there really is some cherry picking going on in this thread and it's by you, lol. LS3's run 0-60 in 4.8 so that would still be .3 tenths quicker than the RT. And I don't have a Camaro or a Mustang, I am actually buying a SRT-8 this Fall so I don't get the troll comments I read, I just can't stand ridiculously inflated dyno numbers and everyone thinking they have a under rated factory motor, I could see it if you were detroying Mustangs and Camaro's stock off the showroom floor but if and when an Rt does beat one it isn't by much and doesn't happen often without bad driving on the others part. The 5.7 is a good engine with good power but it isn't making 400 hp. That's not trolling that's reality, sorry some of you can't tell the difference.

never said you were trolling, never said the 5.7 is a 400hp engine, and never said the R/T was faster than the camaro. randycat sums up pretty much what i am saying in his last post.

and yes, i am serious about the cherry picking.

in my world, i go with what has been done in the real world. not in a magazine where you can "do the math." a lot of times with magazines, numbers are derived on different days with different drivers for each car so i cant take them to heart like you do, but since they come out in your favor for this argument, its the be-all-end-all decision factor. some call it bench racing, you may have heard of it?

and you still didnt explain the close rwhp dyno results between an 09+ 5.7 and an L99.

JeffsGonePlumCrazy
01-15-2012, 09:59 AM
As soon as I start hearing dyno numbers I immediately tune out, the results are usually so laughably high and bogus yet everyone wants to believe they have the magic motor from the factory that is secretly more powerful than advertised. All I can say is go to a track and show me some times that are better than everyone else and then we can talk. It doesn't matter what car I see it all the time, everyone thinks their car makes more than it is rated when in reality 99% of the cars out there are right at where the factory rates them. 4th gen LS1's and terminator mustangs are about the only ones I can think of off the top of my head that were underated from the factory in the past 10 years, I'm sure there might be a few more but the Hemi isn't one of them. There is no reason to underate the 5.7 hemi. Then why is the average across the board on a dynojet does a six speed r/t put down 335rwhp I believe thats a little more than the rated 376, they aren't way overrated but I would say 390 is about dead nuts on. Chryslers panty waste electronics and restrictive programming is why the manual cars don't put down blazing times on the track and the weight of the cars. I know this since I own one, and have had dealings with all kinds of performance cars from the big three. There are many auto guys running low 13s bone stock. Track times are track times, but just because a car doesn't run a supposed certain number doesn't mean that its not making a certain amount of power compared to a similar car. The cars weight, cars electronic sensitivity to atmoshperic conditions, track prep tires, many variables on the way a car runs on the track. I used to run 8.6s in the 1/8th all day with my bolt on, geared 04 Mustang GT with only 260rwhp on crappy nitto drags and even on the factory goodyear eagles. The reason it ran good, light car, less advanced computer control system that didnt have to check over your every move and had control over the tb, better weight transfering suspension. Get in where you fit in is all I got to say.