7.0 Hemi?
 

I found this tidbit of information in a wikipedia article about Hemi engines:

"On Aug. 17, 2007, a rumor surfaced that the 2008/2009 Challenger SRT will, in fact, be powered by a 7.0L hemi engine - marking the return not only of the Challenger marquee, but also of a 426 cubic inch displacement engine. The engine reportedly will be based (loosely based) on the current hemi engines, but will feature four valves per cylinder with dual-independent variable cam timing. Reportedly, this step was needed to best the Chevrolet LS7 engine, which is slated for the 2009 Camaro redux. Performance figures for the 7.0L hemi have not been disclosed yet."

To read the full article see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Hemi_engine

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

Nice speculation, but that's all it is. Especially when it comes from Wikipedia, basically it has as much credibility as anything else on the internet, or message board for that matter. Basically, if the person on here is who he says he is then we can definitely see the 6.1 coming out with the release, any other engines are rumor right now and unfortunately hold no credibility until there is a little better evidence to back it up.

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

Why are so many people here so "quick" to believe any tired rumor about excessive pricing on the Challenger even if provided by the guy who ask "if you want ketchup with the fries" but this is shot down with the first post.

Me, I'm excited. I want to own every Ford and Chevy I run against and I rather do it without after-market add ons.

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

Not true. There is a 6.9 that has been developed for SRT and is in the product plan for Challenger, but I don't know if it has been approved. And as far as I know, it's just a Hemi, not some DOHC thing.

Besides, they won't need DOHC to beat the LS7. LS7 makes 505 hp. The 6.4 that is going in the SRT Challenger should beat that without a problem.

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

I read this 7.0 Hemi thing about 6 weeks ago, but I did not want to bring it up because as far as I can tell it is just shear speculation.

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

Basically, this is what I say about Dodge and the reputation. When a new engine is so close to being brought out, there is usually a little more information about it on the internet. When they were testing out the 5.7 Hemi and the 6.1 Hemi, I could read about it on more places then just the message boards or on Wikipedia, actually, I don't think that was around back then. It actually came from credible sources that said they were testing out these engines, I remember the 6.1 having issues so it took them longer then they wanted to bring out that engine. Here we are sitting six months away from launch of the Challenger and suddenly there's talk of a 6.4 and a 7.0 but nothing about testing of it, no credible information other then inside sources that heard from a source that saw the mother of the CEO in the office.

Basically, what I'm saying about all of this is that I don't want to get to excited. Yeah, I have to admit that some of it's there, yeah, I would love a Challenger that cold smoke the Mustang and the Camaro with those engines, but right now I'm looking at the 5.7L sitting in a heavy car with IRS. Unless that changes, I think the Mustang with it's 300 hp is going to run about the same as the Challenger with it's 425 hp. Now the 6.1 on the other hand....

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

while it is no secret that the 6.4 (392) is very real...these 7.0L rumors have been going around for quite some time. if they were ever to release this engine in a vehicle, i would have to think that it would be the long-rumored "viper hemi"...or some other ultra high end vehicle.

also, whoever wrote that wiki articles didnt know that the LS7 is already in production, and it makes 505hp? the same as the 6.4? the only reason that the challenger would "need" a bigger engine, is because it weighs 4200lbs!

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

Let me rephrase that, both of these engines are indeed real in one way or the other, but testing in terms on them being in the Challenger have not been done, of course I suppose there is a chance that they could be testing them, though by indications they are either having problems with it, since they are bringing out the 6.1 in the Challenger, or they want to have a unified launch. Or, I may just be screwed up all around and have no clue what I'm talking about. Wouldn't be the first.

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

most of the production 6.4 rumors that i have heard, have claimed that they are having cooling problems with it...ive heard this from people in auburn hills, one of which has spent some time behind the wheel of the challenger.

im sure most people here have seen the pictures of the charger srt8 with the masked up challenger front end (some of which i shot)...*supposedly* that is one of the test vehicles working on the cooling problem, and they are using the challenger front end on a charger chassis to try to solve the cooling issues..ive seen a few other odd mules around AH lately, including a masked SVT badged ford truck...

uh oh, look at me speculating!

*DISCLAIMER*-MY COMMENTS IN THIS POST ARE RUMORS, AND THERE IS NO BASIS OTHER THAN WORD-OF-MOUTH. THESE RUMORS ARE NOT FACT. I just want to make clear that here, rumors are rumors, not scripture. ;)

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

Well see, I stand corrected. They could be testing the engine in the Challenger....sort of.

What I'm seeing is that maybe 08 is a bad year to get the Challenger, other then it's going to be very expensive. Engine wise, it looks like the people that get the 08 may just get screwed over because new engines are coming out in 09. Granted this information is from a truck website, but being that the 5.7 is the same in the car as it is in the truck, other then the car looses some power, then I'm sure this is going to be the same thing in the cars, changes to the engines.

From www.pickuptruck.com

Some new powertrain information has also come to light.

At a recent industry conference in Traverse City, Michigan, Frank Klegon, Chrysler's executive vice president of product development, reiterated earlier statements that Chrysler is focused on producing advanced engines for all its vehicles, including the Ram.

Mr. Klegon highlighted, "A significantly upgraded version of the renowned 5.7-liter HEMI V8 with gains in fuel efficiency, refinement, horsepower and torque, will debut in the 2009 model year."

It's rumored part of the HEMI power boost will come from the addition of variable valve timing and a bump in displacement.

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

I have seen and heard of more engines with variable valve timing and that would be awesome to have.

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

I posted a 7.0L/426 Hemi question here a year ago as a"wouldn't it be great if...." kind of thing. Just daydreaming at the time. A 7.0L/426C.I.D Challenger w/true Shaker hood or a hood scoop like old Challenger T/A would, IMO, be the biggest 'top that Chevy and Ford' ever.

Last yearpost: https://dodgechallenger.com/forums/m...mi/tm.htm#5157

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

I work for a dodge chrysler jeep dealer. Ive heard a couple different things. One, is that the R/T challenger will feature the 6.1L engine, instead of the normal 5.7L hemi. Then the SRT challenger would eventually feature the 6.4L hemi, Producing 500+ hp. While that would be nice, I dont think they will do that.

As far as the 7.0L Hemi.... John Hennesy's tuning company makes a kit for the srt8 jeep grand cherokee that bores the regular 6.1L hemi out to 7.0L. Ive never seen one race but if you do a search in youtube for a 7.0L grand cherokee, you will find a vid of the engine running and reving. Sounds nasty. I think the name of the mod is the Hennesy 600 or 650. I think that dodge would have trouble putting such a big engine stock in a challenger, as they are already having problems matching a 6.1L hemi to a manual transmission.

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

yeah, ive seen quite a few of the "new hemis" turned into 426 hemis...there was a display with one at the mopar nationals, in a 70 cuda, IIRC.

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

I know I have heard RUMORs that the updated 5.7L HEMI offered in the trucks will offer more than 2 valves per cylinder. Regardless, I have serious doubts that they will offer a 7.0L HEMI. This would probably be very close to the 600hp range and would threaten the Viper's sales. The 6.4L is a very likely possibility but I have serious doubts about there being a 4 valve per cylinder 7.0L offering. It doesn't fit with the category of the car, I would first expect a supercharger. It would drive prices up even further to build such an engine. The fuel consumption would be terrible (unless they finally give it taller gearing and put the Challenger on Jenny Craig).

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

Now that is funny.

And here she is.

[IMG]local://upfiles/17/B476217D063D45B6A9CD1DBF6C9E156D.jpg[/IMG]

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

LOL! Talk about taking things literally. Doesn't seem like Jenny is doing too much for the Challenger's weight, in fact, it appears to be a few ounces heavier now that the photo is on it, but I don't think that Jenny would appreciate the other way literally. Although she likes to look slim, I doubt that having a two ton car laying on top of her would help her figure in the way she would want it.;) Splat! :D

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

I'm pretty sure four valves improves fuel economy, and will help with emissions, also. It makes sense.

They would use the same Tremec as in the Viper, which is good for 600 ft-lbs. If GM is going to 600, why shouldn't Chrysler?

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

First, I'd like to say hello to everyone.

secondly, for the 2008 challenger, there are going to be 3 models DEFINITELY released, one with an 8 cylinder 6.1 liter, the 2nd with a 5.7 liter, and the 3rd with a 3.5 any other options won't be out til later i'm assuming...? look at magnaflow exhaust's new offerings for the 2008 challenger, they've already developed an exhaust system for each of these cars. i always read everyone's post on this website arguing about whether the 6.1 and 5.7 will both come out in 08, and no one ever mentions the engine size for the "6-cylinder model", other than stating it's a 6 banger. so now we have some fact...

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

And just to back that up, so no one thinks i'm putting out rumors, here's the link to the new mangaflow exhaust systems for those 3 engines.

http://www.magnaflow.com/02product/s...cat=Challenger

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

the speculation of an exhaust company means very little to me..

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

Speculation? The fact that the site hasn't been updated in months shows that at one point it was simply speculation. However, if you look at big auto parts companies recently updfated websites which actually SELL the parts, they also have the same exhaust systems listed for sale. You're telling me a multi-million dollar business is going to publicly announce that it will be selling a product, then come along with an "oops... there's not even a car that's going to fit the product we're marketing!"??? come on.

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

And do you think a multi-billion dollar company is going to stick to some random plan just out of consideration to some aftermarket exhaust company?

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

I looked up Flowmaster, Jegs, SummitRacing and Borla, and I do not see the 2009 Challenger only the one you listed.

It is easy to later make a few changes to engines sizes listed and who cares except for the few of us early birds.

I am not sure I am convinced that any plan has been shown to aftermarket companies yet.

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

hey, i could be wrong. just my thoughts on what info i've found.

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

So what other ones are there other than Magnaflow? You made it sound like there was several, I am just looking to find them.

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

lets also keep in mind that the challenger is sitting on a slightly altered LX platform..which means that any listings could easily be for a charger or magnum...lets also keep in mind that the odds are very good that not a single one of these companies has gotten their hands on a challenger for R&D, because if dodge was sending out challengers for R&D to aftermarket companies, you can guarantee that the news would get out about that...pictures would surface, etc...

tha very well could be magnaflow (who is trying desperately to catch up with the bigger companies like pipes or flowmaster) getting some attention from people saying "hey look, magnaflow has challenger parts"...

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

As far as I know, no OEM ever sends cars to aftermarket companies for development, and certainly not before the car has been launched.

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

i know how companies deal with fitment issues on new models...do you?

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

No, because I never worked with an aftermarket company. I only worked with the OEM, and I know we never wasted time dealing with aftermarket companies at all, ever.

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

they dont just make the parts and HOPE that they fit...they have to rely on either the companies ability to purchase a vehicle for testing, or in the case of some companies, they rely on regular people who want to get a free part for letting the company in question thrash the car for a while.

either way, would you buy a part, or even consider it, from a company who has guaranteed NO R&D on the vehicle? i sure wouldnt, who knows if it will fit, or if its better than the OEM setup. id bet that they have that listed just so that people will visit their site, as search engines hunt for things like that, and having it now will put them above other companies once the car is released.

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

Welcome to aftermarket parts.

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

Since mine is going to be a daily driver the 6.1L is more than sufficient. I dont live close enough to a gas station to have anything bigger. [sm=gears.gif]

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

what do you mean welcome to aftermarket parts? i dont own a single vehicle that doesnt have aftermarket parts, and i dont buy parts that obviously have no R&D behind performance claims or fitment...especially exhaust...then again, i bent most of my systems myself.

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

Blackflag, 4 valves per cylinder does not automatically equal better fuel mileage. GM's most fuel efficient V8 engines are the pushrod line instead of their overhead cam models (and I'm not taking into account the AFM versions). I'll give you a few real life examples. GM took their 60 degree V6 engine and added a 4 valve DOHC head to their engine and increased the displacement to 3.4 liters and the fuel mileage dropped from 29 mpg with the 3.1 liter to 26 mpg. Granted the displacement grew and they gave it a slightly shorter 3.43 over the standard 3.33 in the models it was equipped with but later a OHV version of this engine line was offered in the 2000-2005 Impala and it was rated at 32 mpg with gearing in the 3.07-3.05 range.

When they offered the "Shortstar" (V6 Northstar 4 valve DOHC) as an "upgrade" from the 3800 series II in the Intrigue, the fuel mileage dropped from 30mpg to around 27-28 while offering similar gearing; meanwhile, the supercharged Grand Prix GTP offered shorter gearing with their supercharged 3800 pushrod and got equal to 1 mpg better on the highway.

Most recently, the 3.5L "High Value" (2 valve OHV) powered Pontiac G6 only featured a 4-speed automatic and got between 30-32 miles per gallon, then they offered the 3.6L "High Feature" (4 valve DOHC) version in the GTP and now the GXP with a six speed and despite similar gearing the best the combo could muster is 28 mpg.

The same thing is true with Chrysler, the best fuel mileage the 3.5L (4 valve SOHC) received in the LH cars was 26-27; meanwhile, the 3.3L normally got 28 (2 valve OHV).

Therefore, there are no guarantees that it will improve the mileage. I would tend to believe that it would do the opposite.

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

To insinuate that aftermarket parts do not have any R&D is a little callow.

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

ive dealt with AEM on MANY occassions to help them find people in certain areas willing to lend their vehicle for fitment and performance testing, and in return the person gets a free 300+ dollar part...also, some people ive set up have gotten much more expensive exhaust systems, turbo setups, etc.

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

Well, you can't compare across vehicle lines because there' are too many variables. And you can't fairly compare two different engine families, because there are too many differences between the two. (For example, your Chrysler comparison compares a 3.3l to a 3.5l, which accounts for the fuel economy difference in itself.)

But on a single engine family, multiple valves will generally give better fuel economy because of the more efficient cylinder filling. Volumetric efficiency increases over two valves, which virtually dictates better fuel economy. However, nothing is absolute. (You may put on 4-valve heads with a cam that is far less fuel efficient and lose the benefit.) But it's pretty well understood that four valves = better FE. A good compromise between performance, FE, and emissions is the three valve arrangement, which MB and Ford have kind of settled on. Two valve is a little dated/cheap in my opinion.

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

I think that the 4 valve and 3 valve are for performance. I draw my conclusion from the fact that I have a Stealth 3.0 4 valve engine and my son has a 3.0 2 valve Stealth. I make more power but he gets better gas mileage. Same block, different heads. More air fuel with the 4 valves. I mean it just breaths. But I'm no engineer, just a self owned driveway technition.:D But I do have 30 years expierence;). And I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express one time.

RE: 7.0 Hemi?
 

Okay now I think we have found the route to your problem with the Hemi. You don't like it because its a 2 valve per cylinder pushrod engine. Funny how when you first joined the site, you were bashing the Hemi saying it wasn't a true Hemi, then you want to make it even less like a Hemi by going 4 valves per cylinder. Amusing but not quite as amusing as your response.

A little background info for you Blackflag. The 3.5L is based off of the 3.3L. They are from the same block. Essentially, you have just argued that the Chrysler 3.5L is from a completely different family than the 3.3L and that explains why it gets lower fuel mileage, so then if a 7.0L Hemi would be produced with 4 valves per cylinder and OHC with the 5.7L/6.1L/6.4L block, would it be become a whole new family? No, its called they switched the engine from a pushrod design to an overhead cam 4 valve head which is all that happened to the 3.3L base when they made the 3.5L. The 3.5L had the same axle-ratio (3.66), same transmission (A606/42LE), same platform (LH), same vehicles, higher compression ratio (depending on the year 10.4-9.4 vs. 8.9 to 1) which improves fuel economy mind you, etc. as the 3.3L, so explain all the other mystery variable that have not been included. If your argument was sound, it would at least be able to maintain the same fuel mileage despite all of this.

Also the same thing is true about the 3.4L DOHC engine, it was based off of the GM 2.8L/3.1L/3.4L block, they just made an OHC out of a pushrod is all that happened, and that is exactly what would happen here if they made a 4 valve DOHC Hemi. Same procedure

How about more examples about how your argument is wrong? The early Saturns had the 1.9L engine in either 2 valve SOHC or 4 valve DOHC. A SC1 2 valve SOHC model would get 40 mpg when equipped with the 5-speed manual with an axle-ratio of 4.06; meanwhile, when it offered the 4 valve DOHC which according to your argument should improve fuel economy only got 37 mpg when equipped again with the 5-speed manual transmission and the same axle-ratio of 4.06. How about more examples, the GM 2.3L Quad-Four when 2 valve SOHC 5-speed manual 2.84 axle ratio equipped got around 33 mpg in the earily 90s Grand Am; however, the 4 valve DOHC version only got 30 mpg with the 5-speed manual and 2.84 axle ratio combo. Two examples of a three mpg drop with the same sized engine, both originally OHC designs, same gearing, same transmissions, same car. etc. The problem is there so far no proof of the opposite happening anywhere.

Each of the other examples demonstrated in my previous post showed how even though the 4 valve DOHC engine had the gearing advantage, new technology, same platforms, etc. each time it got lower fuel mileage. It appears your theory is no longer a theory because it has been proven to be incorrect over and over again.

Out of all of the different car companies in the world, the last two I would ever use as a benchmarker or one t