2011 Challenger pegging Camaro as target

[assasinator]

Originally Posted by Wandering Scot

If if was a skiff we could all go fishing.

It's hard to say whether the new 6.4 with the A8 will be able to pull off a 3.9, but at this point, no one knows.
I could guess though, that with really sophisticated traction control and a very low first and second gear like the A8 has, it may be VERY possible.

tires man. if it doesnt have 315's it will NEVER run 3's.

it has the same power to weight of a BASE 2011GT. i wont say mine can run 3.9 0-60. even if it has F1 traction control/launch control and 25 speeds.


tires have to accelerate the car. not power. the car would need to keep the tires precisely at their limit. and still no way.


give it 315/35/19 and ill change my mind.




the car is getting tires smaller than i have on my car. insane to think 245's are gonna get a 4200lb car to 3.9 0-60.

[assasinator]

the challenger is the best looking, best interior, and best riding car of the three. i cant say ive raced one in the 2011gt yet. ran some in the turbo car, but that isnt really fair.

[YLWJKT]

Originally Posted by assasinator

tires man. if it doesnt have 315's it will NEVER run 3's.

it has the same power to weight of a BASE 2011GT. i wont say mine can run 3.9 0-60. even if it has F1 traction control/launch control and 25 speeds.


tires have to accelerate the car. not power. the car would need to keep the tires precisely at their limit. and still no way.


give it 315/35/19 and ill change my mind.


the car is getting tires smaller than i have on my car. insane to think 245's are gonna get a 4200lb car to 3.9 0-60.

Most 6.1 SRT8's came with 255's on the rear as part of the "track pack".

I have not heard if the '11 SRT8 has upsized the tires, but traction control can mitigate that.

A really extreme example of that is the new traction control on BMW's 200 rwhp superbike that's capable of going high 9's stock with a 190 rear tire.

[klapper]

The Challenger's reputation has suffered at the hands of magazine reviewers because it's suspension is too soft, and it doesn't feel as nimble as the Camaro or Mustang. That's pretty easy to change with tires/springs/shocks and Chrysler is making these changes.

After the Mustang dropped the 4.6 for the 5.0, it was also the slowest, at least for the entry level v8 trim. That won't change but the 6.4 Hemi will be the top performer in the normally aspirated playing field.

As a final point, a "connected" poster on the LX/Challenger blogs has pointed out there will be 7 engines in the 2011 Challenger, 2 v6s (1 flex fuel), 2 5.7 Hemis (MDS and non-MDS), 2 6.4s (MDS and non-MDS) and one mystery engine.

My guess is the mystery engine is a very limited run of Viper 600 hp v10-powered Challengers. The target for this of course would be the GT500.

[YLWJKT]

Originally Posted by klapper

The Challenger's reputation has suffered at the hands of magazine reviewers because it's suspension is too soft, and it doesn't feel as nimble as the Camaro or Mustang. That's pretty easy to change with tires/springs/shocks and Chrysler is making these changes.

After the Mustang dropped the 4.6 for the 5.0, it was also the slowest, at least for the entry level v8 trim. That won't change but the 6.4 Hemi will be the top performer in the normally aspirated playing field.

As a final point, a "connected" poster on the LX/Challenger blogs has pointed out there will be 7 engines in the 2011 Challenger, 2 v6s (1 flex fuel), 2 5.7 Hemis (MDS and non-MDS), 2 6.4s (MDS and non-MDS) and one mystery engine.

My guess is the mystery engine is a very limited run of Viper 600 hp v10-powered Challengers.

Aluminum block 6.4.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Wandering Scot

Most 6.1 SRT8's came with 255's on the rear as part of the "track pack".

I have not heard if the '11 SRT8 has upsized the tires, but traction control can mitigate that.

A really extreme example of that is the new traction control on BMW's 200 rwhp superbike that's capable of going high 9's stock with a 190 rear tire.

Traction control doesn't make you go faster, it prevents you from going slower. Most of the time, a good driver can post better 0-60's without TC engaged. Every time it engages, it slows the wheels down. And the systems usually are programed such that they'll take away more than what is required to prevent the wheels from spinning because its safer that way.

You can have all the power you want, but if TC is constantly engaging and taking away that power, whats the point in having it in the first place?

[YLWJKT]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Traction control doesn't make you go faster, it prevents you from going slower. Most of the time, a good driver can post better 0-60's without TC engaged. Every time it engages, it slows the wheels down. And the systems usually are programed such that they'll take away more than what is required to prevent the wheels from spinning because its safer that way.

You can have all the power you want, but if TC is constantly engaging and taking away that power, whats the point in having it in the first place?

Depends on how sophisticated / well set up the traction control is.
If it doesn't make you go faster, why does F1, Moto GP, WSBK, and most other forms of motorsports use it?

If the traction control is sophisticated enough and has a fast enough processor to keep the tires on the edge of just breaking loose while applying as much forward thrust to the car as possible, the car will be faster, consistently.

Couple that with an 8 speed transmission and low internal gearing and sub 4.0 second 0-60 times are possible.

Witness the 4 door Mercedes AMG with a 255 tire, car and Driver tested it to a 3.9 in 2007 with the 7 speed auto.
the new A8 is a Mercedes design as well.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Wandering Scot

Depends on how sophisticated / well set up the traction control is.
If it doesn't make you go faster, why does F1, Moto GP, WSBK, and most other forms of motorsports use it?

If the traction control is sophisticated enough and has a fast enough processor to keep the tires on the edge of just breaking loose while applying as much forward thrust to the car as possible, the car will be faster, consistently.

Couple that with an 8 speed transmission and low internal gearing and 3.9 second 0-60 times are possible.

It prevents you from going slower. That may sound like semantics, but its a very important difference. It prevents wheel spin, wheel spin makes you go slower. TC doesn't make you go faster. Lets say someone gets their car to do 0-60 in 6.5s with tons of wheel spin. Add traction control and now they're down to lets say 4.5s in the same vehicle. The car didn't actually get any faster. Why? Because the first time, there was a dumbass behind the wheel that just mashed the gas. With a driver that knows what they're doing, they get the time down to 4.4s without TC.

The system either cuts power, or applies the brakes to prevent wheel spin. It doesn't add any traction to the car. It tries to make the most out of what the car has. Without it, the car would have just as much grip and just as much power. The only difference is that with TC, the power is more easily controlled. Its like saying that Active Fuel Management or Multi Displacement System doubles your engine size. No, they cut your engine in half. Its a reducing system for your car, not an enhancing system. By that, I mean they achieve their aim by reducing what the car would otherwise have, not by adding anything. A traction enhancing system for your car would be something like a .... glue dispenser. Silly, of course but just hear me out. It would give you more grip and make the car accelerate faster (so long as the glue becomes tacky quick enough).

[YLWJKT]

If you're not going slower you must be going faster, yes?

FACT: since the introduction of traction control, race cars and race bikes in innumerable series have gotten FASTER, AND that's with PROFESSIONAL drivers / riders.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Wandering Scot

If you're not going slower you must be going faster, yes?

Not really. Going faster means that you've added performance to the car in some way, shape, or form. The car can now do something it was previously incapable of achieving. Traction control doesn't do that.

Its a safety net. A cut off. A minimum gaurentee. But you can still do better without it.

Originally Posted by Wandering Scot

FACT: since the introduction of traction control, race cars and race bikes in innumerable series have gotten FASTER, AND that's with PROFESSIONAL drivers / riders.

Of course they have. Race vehicles should get faster over time. But thats somewhat beside the point. The use of traction control has reduced the cost of mistakes in numerous racing series. And a single mistake can mean the difference between 1st and 2nd. So again, its not making them faster, its preventing them from going slower.

Since you're convinced that TC makes a car faster, explain how it does actually makes the car go faster.

[assasinator]

first the SRT was getting a v10, now its getting supercar launch control. all from a 46,000 car. wonder how much they lose on each one? 25,000 -30,000 dollars a car.

7 engines? really. i doubt it.you guys are getting rediculous and dont know it.

it wasnt too long ago the 6.4 was a 500hp engine according to rumors.


supercharged 6.4? sure. all aluminum 6.4? why not. maybe HO 6.4 at 500hp. check.

but srt-10 viper spec motor. hmmmmm. launch control.

[YLWJKT]

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.

[assasinator]

you must not be good in physics. heavy vehicle with EVERY acceleration aid there is has a friction coeficient, from the tire to the pavement limit. IMO without trying to calculate it, the available traction is simply not there no matter what aid is used.


slip is not linear. its exponential. managing it is not cheap. expecting a dodge street car to use it is ludicrous.

[YLWJKT]

Originally Posted by assasinator

you must not be good in physics. heavy vehicle with EVERY acceleration aid there is has a friction coeficient, from the tire to the pavement limit. IMO without trying to calculate it, the available traction is simply not there no matter what aid is used.


slip is not linear. its exponential. managing it is not cheap. expecting a dodge street car to use it is ludicrous.

Originally Posted by assasinator

first the SRT was getting a v10, now its getting supercar launch control. all from a 46,000 car. wonder how much they lose on each one? 25,000 -30,000 dollars a car.

7 engines? really. i doubt it.you guys are getting rediculous and dont know it.

it wasnt too long ago the 6.4 was a 500hp engine according to rumors.

I did quite well in physics, thanks.

IF they are using the same design technology as Mercedes uses in their transmissions, which is not much of a stretch considering the A8 was built while coupled with Mercedes, than real traction control is possible.
I posted this above to assisnator:

If BMW can mass produce a traction control system in a motorcycle that can enable the use of an almost 200 rwhp engine for under $14k, why can't Chrysler do it for under $50k.

As far as the 7 engines, I can say this; the manual cars will get non MDS systems while the autos will get MDS, so that accounts for 6 of the engines.

The "7th engine" has been rumored for some time, with speculation of everything from it being a V10 to an aluminum blocked 6.4 to an SC'd 6.4.
My opinion is IF there is a 7th engine it will either probably be a limited production aluminum blocked 6.4 or they will offer the 1320 car with the 426 again.
The latter will not be a street car though so I don't know if you could really classify it as the "7th engine".