Camaro SS vs 6.4 HEMI

[MG]

Originally Posted by 08-G35s/6MT

Using a very CONSERVATIVE 15% drivetrain loss the Challenger makes 509 horsepower at the crank, IRS has a higher drivetrain loss than LRA as well. It makes damn near 100 more horsepower and torque at the wheels then the Camaro SS.



All of these were done on Mustang dynomometers(No relation to the Blue Oval) and therefore the variable of dyno type is taken out, making the results more relevant. Someone else on the forum pulled a 380ish for the LS3 Camaro SS, but that was on a higher reading dyno dynamics dynomometer.



Inside Line also dynoed the Camaro SS LS3:
364-horsepower and 371 pound-feet of torque whp. Using a 15% drivetrain loss it makes around 419 horsepower, which seems about right.
http://blogs.insideline.com/straight...-the-dyno.html





Here's Inside Line's own words on the Mustang GT 5.0 Dyno

"Inside Line's tester reliably belted out 395 horsepower at 6,600 RPM and 365 pound-feet of torque at 4,350 rpm. That's at the wheel, natch, and since IL estimates the 'Stang sees only an 11% to 13% driveline loss thanks to its stick axle, the car is likely making somewhere between 438 and 446 horsepower at the crank – far more than the advertised 412."




Seems as though Ford and Dodge both underrated their cars, why would you want to do that ??

Camaro LS3- 419 bhp(15% drivetrain loss/ IRS)

Mustang- 442 bhp(averaged InsideLine's two estimates(12% loss/ LRA)

Challenger SRT8 392- 509 bhp(15% drivetrain loss/ IRS)

Because they know Chevy will come back. HARD!!!

[klapper]

Mr CLuTcH:...but I expected lower times out of the SRT....

The 12.6 is from the only automatic test of these three reports (manually shifted though). Another 392 automatic was videod at 12.44 but in very good air. For most people an automatic is the way to go fast; it's certainly true for the Challenger.

[klapper]

Originally Posted by 08-G35s/6MT

Seems as though Ford and Dodge both underrated their cars, why would you want to do that ??

There's an alternate interpretation: Ford and Dodge built "ringers" for press testing. Pretty easy to see why they would want to do that. There's a third alternative, the InsideLine dyno is a little off it's calibration since the SS was tested. From a video on the RedLetterDodge.com hemi tour, the 392 dyno'd at 420 whp. However, that's the SAE corrected number, uncorrected it made 443 whp so like all NA engines the hemi really likes good air.

[Mr CLuTcH]

Originally Posted by klapper

Mr CLuTcH:...but I expected lower times out of the SRT....

The 12.6 is from the only automatic test of these three reports (manually shifted though). Another 392 automatic was videod at 12.44 but in very good air. For most people an automatic is the way to go fast; it's certainly true for the Challenger.

Of course, but who was it......NHRA Stocker pulled off a 12.5 in his LS3,......call it a hero run, but with the right driver the LS3 can be cutting it real close with the new Hemi. I just was expecting low 12s. 12.3, 12.1, 12.4. In that ball park.

But then again,.....that's grand-sport territory.

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by Mr CLuTcH

Of course, but who was it......NHRA Stocker pulled off a 12.5 in his LS3,......call it a hero run, but with the right driver the LS3 can be cutting it real close with the new Hemi. I just was expecting low 12s. 12.3, 12.1, 12.4. In that ball park.

But then again,.....that's grand-sport territory.

The bone stock LS3 corvette has gone as fast as 11.7 with street tires last time I knew.

The c5 zo6 was hitting high 11's with street tires in 2002.

*talking hero runs obviously...

[08-G35s/6MT]

I wish the Camaro and Challenger didn't weigh 3800 lbs.+ , my 2nd Gen G35 sedan(weighs 250 lbs less than the G37 coupe) weighs appx. 3500 lbs. and it's plenty heavy, I cant imagine driving a 4200 lb. Coupe all around...

[Mr CLuTcH]

Originally Posted by 08-G35s/6MT

I wish the Camaro and Challenger didn't weigh 3800 lbs.+ , my 2nd Gen G35 sedan(weighs 250 lbs less than the G37 coupe) weighs appx. 3500 lbs. and it's plenty heavy, I cant imagine driving a 4200 lb. Coupe all around...

Yeah, I know what you mean...

The Camaro's weight is what sometimes makes me want to just save up all my money and buy a grand-sport and "mod up", to get up to the level of performance I'd want. It's weight is definitely a problem, but it's stunning visual design quickly forces you to overlook that problem. hahaha.

I wish the Camaro came in at around the 3,600lbs territory, at the least,....it's just a happy thought. Since the Camaro and Challenger weighs so much we have to really add "big power" to get our performance numbers where we want.

And when I say "big power", I mean anything 500hp or over,....to the wheels. I'd be satisfied when I can run 10s on average, and then join the 200mph club. The Camaro might be heavy, but it has some great power for the price and it looks damn good! That's not up for discussion!

[08-G35s/6MT]

Originally Posted by Mr CLuTcH

Yeah, I know what you mean...

The Camaro's weight is what sometimes makes me want to just save up all my money and buy a grand-sport and "mod up", to get up to the level of performance I'd want. It's weight is definitely a problem, but it's stunning visual design quickly forces you to overlook that problem. hahaha.

I wish the Camaro came in at around the 3,600lbs territory, at the least,....it's just a happy thought. Since the Camaro and Challenger weighs so much we have to really add "big power" to get our performance numbers where we want.

And when I say "big power", I mean anything 500hp or over,....to the wheels. I'd be satisfied when I can run 10s on average, and then join the 200mph club. The Camaro might be heavy, but it has some great power for the price and it looks damn good! That's not up for discussion!

True, true. But being heavier does make it more stable at speed and therefore might give you more of a "solid" feeling if you know what I mean, so that could be an upside ? Weighing more helps in crashes too, which is often overlooked, since the Camaro also has such a long hood and so much crumple zone in front, I cant imagine a safer design for a car. The Camaro has the punch and the stunning good looks to make up for its weight(heck it's not THAT heavy for its size, it weighs about the same as a G37 coupe; Two ton Challenger, now that on the other hand is sorta flabby).

[08-G35s/6MT]

Originally Posted by steeleshark2

It doesnt say RWHP anywhere in there!!

They say whp, not rwhp.

[MG]

I think the heavy steering has alot to do with the car feeling hefty.

[SGOS252382]

I'm not sure if this has been posted. I didn't have the time to read through every post.

Motortrend (Dec 3, 2010 article)
13.0 @ 111 mph in the 2011 Dodge Challenger SRT-8.

Here's a link.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...est/index.html

[28.]

I honestly could care less if its slightly faster or slowwer than our cars. Fact is it's frikkin gorgeous...

[assasinator]

Originally Posted by 08-G35s/6MT

Using a very CONSERVATIVE 15% drivetrain loss the Challenger makes 509 horsepower at the crank, IRS has a higher drivetrain loss than LRA as well. It makes damn near 100 more horsepower and torque at the wheels then the Camaro SS.



All of these were done on Mustang dynomometers(No relation to the Blue Oval) and therefore the variable of dyno type is taken out, making the results more relevant. Someone else on the forum pulled a 380ish for the LS3 Camaro SS, but that was on a higher reading dyno dynamics dynomometer.



Inside Line also dynoed the Camaro SS LS3:
364-horsepower and 371 pound-feet of torque whp. Using a 15% drivetrain loss it makes around 419 horsepower, which seems about right.
http://blogs.insideline.com/straight...-the-dyno.html





Here's Inside Line's own words on the Mustang GT 5.0 Dyno

"Inside Line's tester reliably belted out 395 horsepower at 6,600 RPM and 365 pound-feet of torque at 4,350 rpm. That's at the wheel, natch, and since IL estimates the 'Stang sees only an 11% to 13% driveline loss thanks to its stick axle, the car is likely making somewhere between 438 and 446 horsepower at the crank – far more than the advertised 412."




Seems as though Ford and Dodge both underrated their cars, why would you want to do that ??

Camaro LS3- 419 bhp(15% drivetrain loss/ IRS)

Mustang- 442 bhp(averaged InsideLine's two estimates(12% loss/ LRA)

Challenger SRT8 392- 509 bhp(15% drivetrain loss/ IRS)

That's all window dressing. What really matters is this: the 392 is rated by Dodge at 470 horsepower and 470 lb-ft of torque, and the 2011 model not only makes bigger numbers than the outgoing SRT8, they arrive sooner too. Peak torque arrives at 4200 rpm, some 600 rpm lower in rev range than the 2010 model, and peak power hits at 6000 rpm (the 6.1's peak power is at 6200 rpm).
On the Dynojet chassis dyno, we measured the 392's potency thusly:




is there even a single thing you are right about? anything? not really.

the realy numbers are:
mustang 365rwhp
2010SS..375rwhp
392hemi. 420rwhp

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by SGOS252382

I'm not sure if this has been posted. I didn't have the time to read through every post.

Motortrend (Dec 3, 2010 article)
13.0 @ 111 mph in the 2011 Dodge Challenger SRT-8.

Here's a link.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...est/index.html

Lol someone can't drive.