2010 M6 SS vs 2011 392 CHALLENGER

[danielblack60]

Ok I just re-read his post and I myself am not sure what he means by getting a faster reaction time by staging shallow. It's actually easier to cut a good reaction time when you're staged deeper, because it takes less time for your tires to break the beams...

Anyway, shallow stage = faster et, slower rt.

Deep stage = slower et, faster rt.

[Coyotekiller]

Originally Posted by danielblack60

I believe what coyotekiller is trying to say is if you stage more shallow, you can get your car moving more before you break the beams, causing a better elapsed time. Try it yourself next time you're at the track...stage as shallow as possible the first time and the next time deep stage (pull in far enough to turn the "pre stage" bulbs off) and see what the difference is. There's a guy at lake cumberland drag way that is running 6.80s in the 1/8 mile consistently and runs the 7.0 index class occasionally. When he runs the 7.0 class, he deep stages and it slows him down just enough so he can run a 7 second time without lifting before crossing the finish line. Hope that clears it up a little!

You can obtain a faster rt by shallow staging as well but you have to launch on the second yellow to jump the light. Its easier to do this when shallow staged also, since you won't break the plane too early, and in turn red light.

[SRT8Tech]

Shallow staging can get you better ET's but it all depends on how faast the car is to begin with. If I shallow stage or deep stage it makes less than a 10th of a second differance since im not in an 8 second car. Im in a low 12 car. Anyway, I always shallow stage to get all I can out of the ET. BUT shallow staging makes no differance in RT's. All your reaction time is, is you unbreaking the second beam. It doesnt matter if you shallow or deep stage.

[SGOS252382]

Originally Posted by SRT8Tech

Shallow staging can get you better ET's but it all depends on how faast the car is to begin with. If I shallow stage or deep stage it makes less than a 10th of a second differance since im not in an 8 second car. Im in a low 12 car. Anyway, I always shallow stage to get all I can out of the ET. BUT shallow staging makes no differance in RT's. All your reaction time is, is you unbreaking the second beam. It doesnt matter if you shallow or deep stage.

What he said. Deep staging vs. shallow staging in a stock Camaro SS isn't going to amount for much of anything (E.T. wise)
I'd just try to get a smooth launch with as little wheel spin as possible. That will shave more time off a run (60', and 1/4 mile).

[ss409cid]

Originally Posted by Cyber2SS

My brother in the 392 ran mostly 8.50s warm but when he let it cool down he ran a 8.17 and a 8.13 both around 1.88 60ft times. My camaro went best at 8.48 with 2.03 60ft. I could not get any traction launchin around 2500rpm. Once I get tires I assume I could compete but for now he wins round 1 of the the grudge racing.

I cant give any racing advice, but I hope you take next time out.....

[Cyber2SS]

The point is my brother in his boring automatic 392 kicked my sticks butt. Lol I wish Chevy would beef up the motor like the mopar guys did. My whipple is coming on Monday so no worries. Still I think the price of a challenger or any srt is ridiculous!

[newmoon]

Originally Posted by SRT8Tech

Shallow staging can get you better ET's but it all depends on how faast the car is to begin with. If I shallow stage or deep stage it makes less than a 10th of a second differance since im not in an 8 second car. Im in a low 12 car. Anyway, I always shallow stage to get all I can out of the ET. BUT shallow staging makes no differance in RT's. All your reaction time is, is you unbreaking the second beam. It doesnt matter if you shallow or deep stage.

SRT8Tech
Congrats on the new 500 but wasn't your Challenger faster than the 500 bone stock . I have been also thinking about the Challenger 392 myself so I could actually bring the whole family along on a cruise.

[Rock36]

Originally Posted by Cyber2SS

My brother in the 392 ran mostly 8.50s warm but when he let it cool down he ran a 8.17 and a 8.13 both around 1.88 60ft times. My camaro went best at 8.48 with 2.03 60ft. I could not get any traction launchin around 2500rpm. Once I get tires I assume I could compete but for now he wins round 1 of the the grudge racing.

At least you actually went out and ran.

[archtaan]

Congrats on getting out there and having fun. You will get him next time!!!!


I launch at 5000 with my Challenger with a best 60' of 1.48, definitely not on factory tires though. They really suck.

[NoWRX]

Originally Posted by newmoon

SRT8Tech
Congrats on the new 500 but wasn't your Challenger faster than the 500 bone stock . I have been also thinking about the Challenger 392 myself so I could actually bring the whole family along on a cruise.

Maybe from a dig, but the GT500 is certainly faster from a roll.

[Coyotekiller]

Originally Posted by NoWRX

Maybe from a dig, but the GT500 is certainly faster from a roll.

It would be interesting to see them run from a roll... I think it would be closer than you think too.

[goodtime]

Originally Posted by newmoon

SRT8Tech
Congrats on the new 500 but wasn't your Challenger faster than the 500 bone stock . I have been also thinking about the Challenger 392 myself so I could actually bring the whole family along on a cruise.

Originally Posted by NoWRX

Maybe from a dig, but the GT500 is certainly faster from a roll.

Originally Posted by Coyotekiller

It would be interesting to see them run from a roll... I think it would be closer than you think too.

Wow!

Any 2010+ GT500 is still superior to the 392 Challenger in every way. There is also way more potential with them for mods. It is very easy to get another 100HP out of a GT500. You can't do that to a 392 without some serious $$$. It is just not anywhere close for comparison between the two.

[newmoon]

Originally Posted by goodtime

Wow!

Any 2010+ GT500 is still superior to the 392 Challenger in every way. There is also way more potential with them for mods. It is very easy to get another 100HP out of a GT500. You can't do that to a 392 without some serious $$$. It is just not anywhere close for comparison between the two.

I'd agree with you when we speak about modified, but stock for stock I think the 392 automatic is the superior car. The downside like you mention is no computer software tuning available, and little aftermarket support that is fairly priced.

[Coyotekiller]

Originally Posted by newmoon

I'd agree with you when we speak about modified, but stock for stock I think the 392 automatic is the superior car. The downside like you mention is no computer software tuning available, and little aftermarket support that is fairly priced.