Dodge Challenger Forum banner
41 - 57 of 57 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,768 Posts
*********************************************************
*********************************************************
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
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:
 

·
Registered
2009 Challenger R/T
Joined
·
2,991 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,683 Posts
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:
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,371 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
2009 Challenger R/T
Joined
·
2,991 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,371 Posts
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:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
2009 Challenger R/T
Joined
·
2,991 Posts
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 [email protected]+ 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$$..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,683 Posts
...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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,371 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
2011 gwe srt
Joined
·
814 Posts
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
i watched a single car 2x4 r/t walk two differnent r/ts all three were bone stock and both raced two times. The truck had a full car length or close to it every time at the 1/4. Those r/ts are no joke. IMO there has to be more hp at play in the truck. Its either that or the r/ts sure werent geared to run the 1/4. It surprised the hell out of me but the owner of the truck said hes never been beat by a stock r/t

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.
camaro should beat it even if they both had the same hp. Its substaintialy lighter. Today its all about hp and its sells just as well as it did in the late 60s early 70s. Im sure if the challenger put out 390 dodge would be bragging about it. They sure have no problem claiming it for the trucks. I think they know that with the scats and hellcats they can cover the guys that want big numbers and make a few more bucks selling it to them. So theres no real reason to squeeze the last hp out of an r/t. Want my guess? Dodge does a bit of a detune compared to the trucks to meet fleet gas miliage requirements because my ram sure doesnt get the fuel economy my silverados did. Not even close. I got 22 with the 5.3s and this 390hp hemi with 390s is lucky to hit 18.
 
41 - 57 of 57 Posts
Top