Camaro SS vs 6.4 HEMI

[08-G35s/6MT]

Originally Posted by assasinator

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

Where did you come up with 365 rwhp ? Someone pulling a figure out of their butthole ? InsideLine dynoed the Mustang GT 5.0, it managed 395 rwhp/365 lb-ft on the same Dynojet 248 dynomometer they tested the 392 Challenger on. The number includes a 3% SAE weather correction factor.

http://blogs.insideline.com/straight...ang-gt-50.html

[Sleestack]

Originally Posted by 08-G35s/6MT

Where did you come up with 365 rwhp ? Someone pulling a figure out of their butthole ? InsideLine dynoed the Mustang GT 5.0, it managed 395 rwhp/365 lb-ft on the same Dynojet 248 dynomometer they tested the 392 Challenger on. The number includes a 3% SAE weather correction factor.

http://blogs.insideline.com/straight...ang-gt-50.html

Dyno results will vary, even on the same dyno or on the same day. Peak numbers aside, the most impressive thing about the 392 is the Torque curve. The Hemi boyz did a good job on this one.

[08-G35s/6MT]

Originally Posted by Sleestack

Dyno results will vary, even on the same dyno or on the same day. Peak numbers aside, the most impressive thing about the 392 is the Torque curve. The Hemi boyz did a good job on this one.

InsideLine dynoed the Mustang GT 5.0, it managed 395 rwhp/365 lb-ft on the same Dynojet 248 dynomometer they tested the 392 Challenger on. InsideLine's quote..."The number includes a 3% SAE weather correction factor." InsideLine used the same DynoJet 248 dynomometer for the 392, old SRT8 and Camaro SS.

[porcupinekiller]

Originally Posted by 28.

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

+1.
That's one very nice looking land yacht.

[assasinator]

Originally Posted by 08-G35s/6MT

Where did you come up with 365 rwhp ? Someone pulling a figure out of their butthole ? InsideLine dynoed the Mustang GT 5.0, it managed 395 rwhp/365 lb-ft on the same Dynojet 248 dynomometer they tested the 392 Challenger on. The number includes a 3% SAE weather correction factor.

http://blogs.insideline.com/straight...ang-gt-50.html

ive got to be very careful how i answer you. to start with I OWN A FREAKING 2011GT, I THINK I KNOW ABOUT EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT THEM BESIDES TABLE NAMES FOR VCT!!!!


there are no 2011gt's that dyno 395rwhp without mods. mine makes 398rwhp with tune and offroad X. the dodge and ford were RINGERS!!!!!

[08-G35s/6MT]

Originally Posted by assasinator

ive got to be very careful how i answer you. to start with I OWN A FREAKING 2011GT, I THINK I KNOW ABOUT EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT THEM BESIDES TABLE NAMES FOR VCT!!!!


there are no 2011gt's that dyno 395rwhp without mods. mine makes 398rwhp with tune and offroad X. the dodge and ford were RINGERS!!!!!

What are you calling them liars then ?? (Did you dyno in 4th gear while driving a manual transmission equipped Mustang GT on a Dynojet 248 at 300 feet above sea level in California where the air is denser ? Tennesse is several thousand feet above sea level if I'm not correct, where the air is thinner, I live in Oklahoma at about 1500 feet above sea level, Oklahoma used to be a huge lake) I should believe them as much as you, and since that I have to do that, so what you are saying is they are lying or you are. If Ford sent a ringer, then why can it do 0-60 in 4.4 and the 1/4 mile in 12.6 stock on a completely different Mustang? MotorTrend got those numbers, and those numbers are repeatable..... Plus you only have a tune and Off Road X which may make 10-15 more hp, meaning 5-10 at the wheels, plus you dynoed 3 above InsideLines(398 vs 395) which makes InsideLines number realistic.


Eff it, all these facts and figures by other people, eff it all, it's all just a conspiracy and a lie I'm telling you dude...

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by 08-G35s/6MT

What are you calling them liars then ?? (Did you dyno in 4th gear while driving a manual transmission equipped Mustang GT on a Dynojet 248 at 300 feet above sea level in California where the air is denser ? Tennesse is several thousand feet above sea level if I'm not correct, where the air is thinner, I live in Oklahoma at about 1500 feet above sea level, Oklahoma used to be a huge lake) I should believe them as much as you, and since that I have to do that, so what you are saying is they are lying or you are. If Ford sent a ringer, then why can it do 0-60 in 4.4 and the 1/4 mile in 12.6 stock on a completely different Mustang? MotorTrend got those numbers, and those numbers are repeatable..... Plus you only have a tune and Off Road X which may make 10-15 more hp, meaning 5-10 at the wheels, plus you dynoed 3 above InsideLines(398 vs 395) which makes InsideLines number realistic.


Eff it, all these facts and figures by other people, eff it all, it's all just a conspiracy and a lie I'm telling you dude...

I don't think they're ringers but the 5.0 numbers are a tad high just like the 392 numbers are too high (especially when compared to the trap speeds the new srt has been getting). It makes more sense to say the dyno for both cars are about 20-25hp too high. But just looking at the data they DO have, looks like the new 6.4 puts down 60rwhp more than the 5.0 while weighing 600lbs more so it should be a tad bit faster but real close.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by SWAT 79

The words not out yet, all we know is that the challenger is faster then the mustang and the mustang is faster then the camaro, in their respective v8 categories.

Challenger R/T is not faster than either the Camaro SS or Mustang GT, which are the 3 comparable V8's. Its hardly fair to pit the SRT8 against the GT500, and there is no respective Camaro to either one right now.

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.

15% isn't conservative anymore, unless you're talking all wheel drive.

And how do you get 15% loss equalling 509 at the crank? Inside Line got a reading of 452 at the wheel. With an assumed 15% loss thats 532 crank. I can't really think of how you even got 509 from than.

[assasinator]

Originally Posted by 08-G35s/6MT

What are you calling them liars then ?? (Did you dyno in 4th gear while driving a manual transmission equipped Mustang GT on a Dynojet 248 at 300 feet above sea level in California where the air is denser ? Tennesse is several thousand feet above sea level if I'm not correct, where the air is thinner, I live in Oklahoma at about 1500 feet above sea level, Oklahoma used to be a huge lake) I should believe them as much as you, and since that I have to do that, so what you are saying is they are lying or you are. If Ford sent a ringer, then why can it do 0-60 in 4.4 and the 1/4 mile in 12.6 stock on a completely different Mustang? MotorTrend got those numbers, and those numbers are repeatable..... Plus you only have a tune and Off Road X which may make 10-15 more hp, meaning 5-10 at the wheels, plus you dynoed 3 above InsideLines(398 vs 395) which makes InsideLines number realistic.


Eff it, all these facts and figures by other people, eff it all, it's all just a conspiracy and a lie I'm telling you dude...

why, yes the operator did dyno it in 4th on the first run in my 2011 mustang GT M6 by accident. its the lower number(383rwhp) on this dyno sheet. call the phone number on the sheet and ask him yourself. the 395 rwhp inside line 2011gt DYNO is BS, period. if you knew anything about dynomometers, they dyno lower in lower gears. in my case 4th gear dyno'd 14rwhp lower than the correct 5th gear.

"only an offroad X, and tune? only? how about 20-30 rwhp more than stock. and my car had 8000miles, so it was broken in.



our altitude is 641 feet at the dyno. there is the "proof". man you very little about cars, so please quit insisting you do. google car knowledge is not the same as real experience. 420rwhp for a 392 is believable. 375rwhp is a high number for a coyote. 365 is more average. 3.31 2011gt's have higher numbers because the driveline losses are reduced by the taller gearing. same reason that official 4v records include the gears used. a person can use 2.73's strictly to get a "record" on a dyno.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

part of the problem with the InsideLine dyno used is that the front of the vehicle is outside of the facility, while the air measuring tool for the dyno is inside. This can greatly affect the reading of what it believes SAE correction should be. The outside air is going to be denser and cooler than what is measured by the dyno inside.

[assasinator]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Challenger R/T is not faster than either the Camaro SS or Mustang GT, which are the 3 comparable V8's. Its hardly fair to pit the SRT8 against the GT500, and there is no respective Camaro to either one right now.


15% isn't conservative anymore, unless you're talking all wheel drive.

And how do you get 15% loss equalling 509 at the crank? Inside Line got a reading of 452 at the wheel. With an assumed 15% loss thats 532 crank. I can't really think of how you even got 509 from than.

he got that number because the hype associated with the 392 will exceed even the invincible coyote. the 392 will soon have 600hp/600tq, and run 1.70 60' times on 255 all season tires.

[08-G35s/6MT]

Originally Posted by assasinator

he got that number because the hype associated with the 392 will exceed even the invincible coyote. the 392 will soon have 600hp/600tq, and run 1.70 60' times on 255 all season tires.

Uhh... haha okay, I don't even really care

[assasinator]

So how does the new SRT8 392 perform? First, it's fast, as in really fast. Dodge claims the 392 is capable of putting down a quarter-mile time of 12.4 seconds at 110.0 mph (the last 2010 we tested did 13.3 at 106.1). Well, our tester, which delivered a 13.0 flat at 111.3, easily outhustled the '10 but couldn't quite live up to Dodge's lofty prediction. (That said, the realized trap speed was higher.) Further, the 392's 0-to-60 time dropped 0.2 second to 4.6 compared to that of last year's 6.1 liter, putting it ahead of the Camaro SS (4.7) but a bit behind the Mustang GT (4.4).

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz18AzWdwBg





that is a far cry from 12.4 at 114mph.

[Sleestack]

Originally Posted by assasinator

So how does the new SRT8 392 perform? First, it's fast, as in really fast. Dodge claims the 392 is capable of putting down a quarter-mile time of 12.4 seconds at 110.0 mph (the last 2010 we tested did 13.3 at 106.1). Well, our tester, which delivered a 13.0 flat at 111.3, easily outhustled the '10 but couldn't quite live up to Dodge's lofty prediction. (That said, the realized trap speed was higher.) Further, the 392's 0-to-60 time dropped 0.2 second to 4.6 compared to that of last year's 6.1 liter, putting it ahead of the Camaro SS (4.7) but a bit behind the Mustang GT (4.4).

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz18AzWdwBg


that is a far cry from 12.4 at 114mph.

The Camaro and 5.0 are 'capable' of 12.5 (good driver, great conditions), and most are clustered around ~12.9 @111. Not a stretch to see the 392 capable of 12.4 or less, given controlled tests of 12.6,12.9, and 13.0.

C/D: 12.9@114
Inside Line: 12.6@112.1
MT: 13.0@111.3