RLSH700

Well that is why I thanked you for posting them. Even if the comparison is illogical, I still appreciate reading them.

Albeeno

I appreciate the input / advice from you guys. Thank you. More leg room in the rear and/or being able to seat three in the backseat isn't a factor for me, really. I guess it really boils down to looks and performance. The Challenger is so sexy and I'm sure it will be a beast when it comes to actual performance. I just never thought the SRT8 would be so close to the GT I already have. That really shocked me! And therein lies the problem.

Anyway, one thing I failed to note in my previous post was top speed. Chances are 99% of us will never reach the upper limits but the Challenger is rated at 170 mph vs. 143 mph on the GT. No comparison there obviously. One last point I wanted to make was that it's pretty absurd to think that Dodge is fudging performance times. I can see them fudging output ratings so insurance rates aren't as astronomical as they could be with the "real" horsepower, but I find it extremely difficult to believe the perfromance times are inaccurate.

DSkippy

They do have a storied and cherished tradition in the underestimation trend as for torque and hp.

kevin2323

albeeno open up your eyes. Car companys have been doing this for a long time. they underate their cars performance times, trust me i did my research. Also why are you suprised your car is so close to the srt8s performance times? first of all the 4.9 sec is underated but lets go by what you believe , the gt is 0-60 5.1. so your saying .2 of a second off 0-60 is nothing? that is alot in my book. people modify their cars to hell to shave off .1 off their 0-60. this car will eat the gt in top end and 0-60. i guess you should stick with your stang because if .2 off 0-60 is nothing for you then a .4 sec difference between the gt and the gt 500 should be nothing to you either. enthusiast and car mod nuts by srt8s and z06 and gt500 because they want the more performance oriented model of their company of choice. looks like you want viper numbers out of .4 liters added to an 5.7 liter engine, sorry you need to come down to earth.

ps: I still love ya,

awsure

Not to nitpick with you but 98% of the buyers do not really care about .2 seconds. I do not plan on drag racing mine and I think that's the only reason I really would insist on that finger snap.

I want to hear a Hemi rumble when I put my foot down and I want to feel some Pony power push me back in the seat. I am pretty sure 425HP gets me there. To Albeeno's point this car is damn sexy. Yeah, it weighs over 4000 lbs. So what! It does not need to apologize for the weight because the lines and dimensions of the car are extremely well done. If you chopped it down to lighten it you would lose the look.

Albeeno

kevin, I realize there is a pretty sizable difference in 0.2 seconds and I fully acknowledge that the Challenger bests the Mustang GT in every performance category imaginable. But it doesn't best the Shelby GT500 (which in my opinion would have been a better comparison) 0-60. Please don't give me the whole supercharged thing either. Both cars, out of the box, the GT500 is faster. The Challenger does however best the GT500 top speed (170 vs. 155). But then again, who's gonna do 170 mph or even 155 mph? I don't happen to frequent drag strips, etc. and I certainly don't live and breathe car mods. I'm an all-original guy. So, for the purposes of this discussion, let's leave the multi-thousand dollar mods out of the discussion and all of the what-could-be and just talk straight up stock.

Personally, I'm more concerned about light to light performance than I am about competing on Speed TV's show Pinks... Light to light - I'm confident enough in my own driving abilities and my trusty 5 speed that I'd leave the SRT8 driver scratching his head. I certainly won't beat him, but I'm willing to bet I'd be a helluva lot closer than he probably imagined. Oh, and all the money in my bank account that I saved by not getting the Challenger, would make me quickly forget about the 0.2 second variance. On the other hand, chances are I'd be looking at any stock R/T Challenger from my rearview.

Not that I'm doubting you kevin, but I'd be curious to know what findings your research has turned up to prove your point that manufacturers are underrating their cars' performance times. I don't doubt for a minute that they underrate horsepower and torque, but actual performance times is hard for me to wrap my head around. Believe me, I'm not doubting that you've done your homework, I'm just curious if you can cite one example of a car that is faster then what it is actually being advertised as. Again, I'm not saying it's not true, it's just that I'm not aware of any. Enlighten me.

PS: And while we're splitting hairs on performance here is something to think about - the SRT8 has 9.74 lbs / HP and the Mustang GT is 11.81. That's like, what..... a 0.2 second difference? And just for good measure - the GT500's power to weight is 7.84 (3,920 lbs / 500 HP) http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=115578

Love ya too bruh

tdub2112

I'd go for fatter women.

kevin2323

yea my point is albeeno is that all these mustang guys yell and scream about the gt500 being so much better than dodge cars or w.e. a supercharger is a mod. so if you compare out of the box the chally and the gt500 the gt500 has the slight edge do to the supercharger which ford had to do to make that IMO puny 4.7 l engine make something remote of 500hp. im sorry in my eyes albeeno if your gonna pay 45-50k for a supercharged 4.7 L car, might as well get a car aka the challenger which i believe has slightly better styling and retroness to it and use not even the full 10k your saving just 4-5k to drop a sc in it and it will put out wayyy better numbers than the gt500. out of the box yes the shelby is the winner. i believe top end the chally would destroy the gt base, thats just me. oh and i will be posting my articles soon, i just got home from work and ill get right on it because albeeno im not one of those forum trolers that hates ford and just goes out to bring them down, and im not saying your claiming that about me. ill post it up in a bit. im liking these discussions more and more albeeno.

Justinec101

SRT8 - 9.74
R/T - 10.55
Mustang GT - 11.81

Is the SRT8 really worth the extra 9 grand over the R/T?

kevin2323

Despite what you might think, there ARE examples of cars that come “underrated” from the factory. I stated the BMW E90/E92/E93 335i as an example and I’ll show you some concrete information on that below.

The BMW 335i is claimed by BMW to have 300 hp and 300 ft/lb from the factory (at the flywheel). Average sport cars come with a drivetrain loss of about 15-20%. Let’s assume 15% to be on the “high” side HP/TQ wise. A BMW E9x 335i with 15% drivetrain loss on a Dynojet Dynamometer (Dyno) should dyno somewhere around 245 HP and 250 ft/lb of torque on the HIGH side (since we are assuming the lower average of drivetrain loss). Most 335i dynoed properly on a Dynojet with the right correction factors and correct smoothing are putting down 265-275 HP and 280-300 ft/lbs AT THE WHEELS. This means that either somehow BMW achieved <7% drivetrain loss, or
they seriously underrated the published numbers.


Here are some Dyno graphs (all on Dynojets for comparison purposes):






2 of these dyno’s are stock VS chipped, so I underlined the stock numbers for your convenience.

Moving on to performance numbers, the BMW stated 0-60 time is: 5.3 seconds for 6MT (Manual Transmission) and 5.5 seconds for AT (Automatic Transmission)

Here are some actual 0-60 times from magazines & owners (stock of course):

Car and driver TEST RESULTS: *6MT*
Zero to 60 mph: 4.8 sec

Edmunds Test Result: *AT* This 2007 BMW 335i test car blazed from zero to 60 in 4.8 seconds.

Rob: *6MT*
0-60 in 4.75

[IMG]http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b18/1badzhp/Gtech1.gif[/image
]
** One of my best friends Leandro has a BMW 535i (N54 equipped) that has the same sequential Bi-turbo 6 cylinder as the 335i. BMW rates the car as having a 0-60 of 5.7 seconds for the Automatic Transmission. With me present, he ran a 5.34 0-60 with his G-Timer (that was calibrated in expert mode using vehicle weight, aerodynamic drag coefficient, drivetrain loss, and rolling resistance to secure accuracy).

BMW Doesn’t state a ¼ mile time for the 335i, but drag times (with drag slips to confirm) are from 13.3 to 13.6 (average). A bit faster than expected for a car that does 0-60 in “5.3” seconds for the 6MT and “5.5” for the AT.

*** Oh, and just for kicks, it is remarkable what the N54 equipped BMW’s can do with a little software tuning, some better tires, and a good driver! They’ve hit 11.8 in the ¼ mile with some software tuning. Another company is claiming 11.2 (still on stock turbos, stock internals, etc etc) but no slip is up for that yet so it is still “uncomfirmed”




[quote]ORIGINAL: Albeeno

kevin, I realize there is a pretty sizable difference in 0.2 seconds and I fully acknowledge that the Challenger bests the Mustang GT in every performance category imaginable. But it doesn't best the Shelby GT500 (which in my opinion would have been a better comparison) 0-60. Please don't give me the whole supercharged thing either. Both cars, out of the box, the GT500 is faster. The Challenger does however best the GT500 top speed (170 vs. 155). But then again, who's gonna do 170 mph or even 155 mph? I don't happen to frequent drag strips, etc. and I certainly don't live and breathe car mods. I'm an all-original guy. So, for the purposes of this discussion, let's leave the multi-thousand dollar mods out of the discussion and all of the what-could-be and just talk straight up stock.

Personally, I'm more concerned about light to light performance than I