2011 Challenger pegging Camaro as target

[Blue Maro Demon]

Look at this article....http://www.examiner.com/autos-in-det...ealer-brochure

Dodge is actually going to try and be as fast as the new Z/28 Camaro based on rumors of it having the CTS-V's LSA engine. They act like they are going to try and top it with this new 392. Whats funny though is that they dont' even have a clue as to what GM is doing with the car exactly they are just going on rumors as GM hasnt stated what engine it will have or anything yet. Not to mention the Camaro already has a weight advantage over the Challenger even with extra horsepower it wont help them much unless they lose significant weight. The Z/28 may very well even be the lightest 5th gen Camaro. I still expect the Challenger to come in dead last even with the updated engines across the board since im sure the SS will be updated maybe even the V6.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Wandering Scot

DGthe3you must have majored in either political science or philosophy.

I on the other hand majored in mechanical engineering and have been building and riding AMA, WERA and IDBA road racing and drag racing championship winning racebikes for the last 20 plus years.

It allows the vehicle to make the most use of the power available, by reading and processing data inputs faster than any human could ever hope to achieve, therefore allowing a higher level of power to be consistently applied to make forward thrust.
It's that simple.

Talk to any professional racer and he will tell you that traction control allows him to go faster by allowing him to get on the throttle sooner.


You possess the typical non racer mentality that it's a "safety net" to prevent you from wadding yourself up. You also seem to possess the misconception that a "gifted human" can consistently out perform a well set up traction control system and make a vehicle go faster without it.

I view it as a tool to maximize the performance I can wring out of a vehicle. It's a tool to make the vehicle go faster, not slower.
It allows my to build engines with more horsepower because I can harness / manage that power to increase forward thrust, and more forward thrust = speed.

If you want to bandy semantics, traction control it does this momentarily reducing power to enable the traction to be regained and then reapplies full power. It can do this hundreds of times a second. It does not however "make the vehicle slower." Without it, the vehicle could never exploit the power it has and would simply spin and stop forward thrust.

Tell you what. Go ride a BMW S1000R around the track, now disable the TC and and ride it again. You WILL go slower.

Actually, I majored in mechanical engineering as well. I even specialized in mechatronics, so I know a thing or two about electro-mechanical systems.

Your argument for TC making cars faster is that people can post better lap times. But the method by which the times are improved is by the elimination of a negative (wheel spin). Wheel spin makes you go slower. We agree on that. Traction control eliminates wheel spin. We agree on that. Therefore, it prevents you from going slower. Somehow, you disagree and think it makes the car faster. It does not add to the performance of a car, it stops something else from taking away performance.

To me, saying that the TC makes a car faster is a lot like saying that you earn more money because you've paid off a mortgage or car loan, based soley on the fact that you have more money available to you. But of course you're not earning more, you've merely eliminated a negative (in this case, loan payments).

[assasinator]

lets see how much the 392 HEMI is underrated as the article says. the first MDS system was on a 1962 tempest. pontiac took a 389 and cut it in half to make a slant 4 cylinder. i have a buddy with one.

it seems to be agreed in SRT forums that at 360-369 rwhp the SRT8 6.1 hemi automatic is underrated. they figure it makes 430-450hp, a 5-25hp underating, and that the 6.4 is really a 500hp engine.

if thats the case a 6.4 srt auto should make another 41 rwhp, ranging from (401rwhp) <----yep to 410rwhp<----nope. i guess the losses are steep for the drivetrain. they figure 369rwhp is 430-450 crank.

i figure its 369 rwhp. my math is done with rwhp. too bad the camaro SS auto isnt 426 rated. an auto 2011gt usually makes 355rwhp from an automatic. about 14rwhp less. guess it makes 436hp according to SRT math.

if it does make 500hp and 430-440rwhp it will be newsworthy, and i will apologize to dodge.

[Z/28orSs]

Originally Posted by SlingShot

I think your missing the point, GM knew a year a go what the others were bringing, they should have stayed on top ...

that does not win the sales race
all gmshould care about is sales not anything else

[Mcnamee]

Originally Posted by REEFBLUE93

My point was, there was no competition for over 7 years, NONE. Did Ford have a mole inside the GM engineering department that was feeding them inside info? Ford didn't know exactly what the 5th Gen Camaro was going to consist of, and I'm not talking just hp numbers. They let GM show their hand and then they reacted, that's not the same as catching up, not even remotely close. There's no spin here, it is what it is. The Camaro came out after an 8 year hiatus and Ford responded, no catching up involved. I can't explain it any clearer than that. Had the Camaro been in production from 02-09 and Chevy had upped the ante each of those years and Ford responded, that would be catching up. You cannot play catch up when there's not an adversary to catch up to.

After gm stopped making the 2002 Camaro SS, it lasted 8 years of being faster or about the same speed as the mustangs that followed lol. Sure gm didn't sell it but regardless it was still faster or just as fast, so ford just caught up

[assasinator]

Originally Posted by Mcnamee

After gm stopped making the 2002 Camaro SS, it lasted 8 years of being faster or about the same speed as the mustangs that followed lol. Sure gm didn't sell it but regardless it was still faster or just as fast, so ford just caught up

and it took 30 years for the LS to come along and be slower than a 1964 galaxie with a 427 high riser. (12 second with tires). and a very heavy car.

The first two lightweight Galaxies, using 289 cu in (5 l) bodies, were assembled at Fort Wayne, Michigan, late in January 1963, to be tested at the 1963 Winternats. Bill Lawton's Tasca Galaxie turned the best performance, with a 12.50 pass at 116.60 mph

you see how it sounds when you say "my 9 year old car is just as fast"? a 1964 galaxie 427 is faster than all of our stock cars. its irrelevant.

[BlackieRay]

Originally Posted by chain777

So how's GM doing with those non aspirated engines?

Nobody else produces a V8 off the shelf that has 550hp so I'd say pretty darn good.

Oh no, the dreaded vette "card". I know it's bitter when someone does it, but it definitely trumps all, and pisses all off too.

Aspirated engines FTW. All engines should be aspirated, do low 12s and get 10mpg

Just can't see why aspirated cars don't sell very well. It's a mystery.

[DroptopZ]

Not to nitpick, but it's 'naturally aspirated' or 'forced induction.' Not aspirated and not aspirated

But yeah, discussion... please continue I think this should be less of a pissing contest and more of a 'Wow, it rules that car manufacturers are competing so much... I win as a result!'

[Sax1031]

Originally Posted by Mcnamee

After gm stopped making the 2002 Camaro SS, it lasted 8 years of being faster or about the same speed as the mustangs that followed lol. Sure gm didn't sell it but regardless it was still faster or just as fast, so ford just caught up

The ls1 f-bodies were faster than a 03/04 Cobra and GT500.

Just for a hint. The 03/04 Cobra still posted times faster than we have seen out of the 2011 GT and 5th gens.

[DroptopZ]

Originally Posted by Sax1031

The ls1 f-bodies were faster than a 03/04 Cobra and GT500.

Just for a hint. The 03/04 Cobra still posted times faster than we have seen out of the 2011 GT and 5th gens.

I think the point he's trying to make is that the LS series engine really forced Ford to up their game. Let's face it, the SOHC 4.6 they used in the GT for years was nothing more than a boat-anchor. It really didn't respond so well to mods, but EVERYBODY had one. The DOHC in the Cobras (pre 03) was a decent engine but still didn't respond to bolt-ons etc the way the LS did. When Ford came out with the '03 Cobra, people screamed 'Yeah, but they had to boost it!' I was never personally a fan of that argument.

Then again, we can look at what the 5.0 did originally with the TPI motors GM was running. The LB9 and L98 f-bodies were slower than the foxbody stangs by a bit, so GM came out with the LT1 and ruled for a while.

Bottom line, guys: it's a game of back and forth. While I don't see the original 5.0 (or even the terminator engine) being groundbreaking (terminators have problems, or so I hear... although some poeple made crazy power with the cars). I think the LS series engines really kind of revolutionized what performance was about when they came out--especially since they were so mild when you wanted them to be and got great economy for such performance... but it's possible Ford is doing something similar with the Coyote motor now. Not that I'll ever own one I'm still a GM fanboi, but more just because they're my style.

I guess, give credit where credit is due. No one is playing 'catch-up' this time on either end. It's a constant battle. Just be glad that the big 3 all have competetive performance options so you can get what you like.

[Sax1031]

Definitely.

I have always loved the LS1 f-bodies. The LS series engines are definitely among the best small blocks every built.

[Mcnamee]

Originally Posted by assasinator

and it took 30 years for the LS to come along and be slower than a 1964 galaxie with a 427 high riser. (12 second with tires). and a very heavy car.




you see how it sounds when you say "my 9 year old car is just as fast"? a 1964 galaxie 427 is faster than all of our stock cars. its irrelevant.

That's totally irrelevant, your comparing 40 years difference vs 3 lol....it took that long to bring horsepower back because of emission laws and what not, the 2002 camaro and 2005 mustang had to meet the same emission laws, and then ford kept the 4.6 in the mustang until 2010, the point I was making is they didn't change their engine until the new camaro and challenger came out.

Originally Posted by Sax1031

The ls1 f-bodies were faster than a 03/04 Cobra and GT500.

Just for a hint. The 03/04 Cobra still posted times faster than we have seen out of the 2011 GT and 5th gens.

Gee I wonder why its faster? You are comparing forced induction vs Naturally aspirated, I was talking The N/A motors, and the price difference between a camaro ss and a svt cobra was almost 10 grand US and even more here in canada, I know because my grandfather has a svt cobra and never mind the gt500 price gap between a 2002 SS is massive, I was comparing SS vs GT.

[IDMTfirefighter]

Originally Posted by VictoryMuscleCars

Pony car battles will be won and lost year to year... the gauntlet will pass back and forth with the only winner being the driver. This is all great for the auto enthusiast. I'm so pumped that the Pony car war is back!!

Right on.
Good natured owner rivalry is great and we all win when we get to drive the car we love.
competition is good for everyone in that (hopefully) quality increases and prices decrease.
In my opinion the new V6 Challenger will be a big step up for new SE owners but I doubt performance increases will be phenomenal

[Sax1031]

Originally Posted by Mcnamee

That's totally irrelevant, your comparing 40 years difference vs 3 lol....it took that long to bring horsepower back because of emission laws and what not, the 2002 camaro and 2005 mustang had to meet the same emission laws, and then ford kept the 4.6 in the mustang until 2010, the point I was making is they didn't change their engine until the new camaro and challenger came out.



Gee I wonder why its faster? You are comparing forced induction vs Naturally aspirated, I was talking The N/A motors, and the price difference between a camaro ss and a svt cobra was almost 10 grand US and even more here in canada, I know because my grandfather has a svt cobra and never mind the gt500 price gap between a 2002 SS is massive, I was comparing SS vs GT.

I knew the stipulations for your statement would come out.


And I didn't realize the 2002 SS had an MSRP of 22k.