Camaro SS (L99) vs. Challenger SRT8/Charger SRT8

[SGOS252382]

Originally Posted by HEMI DAVE

You are silly...in the BEST conditions an SS wont do those times

You're comparing the Challenger to the CTS-V (which is a stretch). Given equal driving and similar track conditions, the CTS-V is a faster car.

The Camaro SS has proved to run mid 12s (12.5) with excellent driving. That's pretty close to your 12.3.

Based on the times I've been seeing from the Challenger SRT-8, its not much faster than a Camaro SS. And in most magazine tests, it runs very similar times (and sometime even slower) to the Camaro SS.

[SGOS252382]

Originally Posted by GoBlue20

lol right.. no SS is a 12.9... whatever you say. I did find a REAL 12.6 for a Challenger 392 though

Stock

NO	Member	Engine	Date	60'	1/8 ET @ MPH	1/4 ET @ MPH	Details
1	nhra stocker	LS3	3/7/10	1.972	8.195 @ 88.58 MPH	12.588 @ 110.30 MPH	263
2	2quick	LS3	1/10/10	1.955	8.204 @ 88.05 MPH	12.615 @ 111.60 MPH	188
3	blufin	LS3	1/12/10	1.932	8.165 @ 86.52 MPH	12.618 @ 110.75 MPH	780
4	02Pewtersix	LS3	10/30/10	2.03	8.317 @ 88.34 MPH	12.710 @ 111.80 MPH	672
5	Monte	LS3	4/24/10	2.012	8.329 @ 87.11 MPH	12.775 @ 110.98 MPH	410
6	b20	LS3	11/15/09	1.936	8.326 @ 85.02 MPH	12.811 @ 108.73MPH	3
7	376Camaro	LS3	7/3/10	2.163	8.438 @ 87.69 MPH	12.831 @ 113.27 MPH	502
8	Toyaholic	LS3	4/13/11	2.017	8.392 @ 86.35 MPH	12.864 @ 110.91 MPH	821
9	8secpumpgasdad	L99	3/8/10	1.9059	8.321 @ 85.54 MPH	12.868 @ 108.7 MPH	270
10	speedy6963	LS3	7/17/09	2.046	8.409 @ 86.59 MPH	12.874 @ 109.08 MPH	10

[HEMI DAVE]

Originally Posted by SGOS252382

What does that prove? 1 guy in excellent conditions ran 12.3 @ 113 mph? Most mags in average conditions get 12.9s - 13.0s.

In similar conditions (close to 0 DA) a well drive CTS-V would have run mid 11s @ 119 mph.

Dont tell me you go by car mags .......They dont even time the runs on a drag strip....NO ...the SS is not a 12.5 car stock....keep dreamin.....

[SGOS252382]

Originally Posted by HEMI DAVE

Dont tell me you go by car mags .......They dont even time the runs on a drag strip....NO ...the SS is not a 12.5 car stock....keep dreamin.....

And the Challenger isn't anywhere close to a 12.3 sec car.

I love how the Dodge boys find the fastest time they can find for a Dodge and treat it as gospel. But when someone else does the same they claim B.S.

I guess the Dodge cars are the only ones that should be considered faster than mag times. The mags say the Camaro SS is a 12.9 - 13.0 sec (and that you dispute saying that Camaro is slower than that).
But when the mags say the Challenger SRT-8 is a 12.9 sec car (you dispute and say its much faster).

I love your reasoning.

[GoBlue20]

Originally Posted by SGOS252382

You're comparing the Challenger to the CTS-V (which is a stretch). Given equal driving and similar track conditions, the CTS-V is a faster car.

The Camaro SS has proved to run mid 12s (12.5) with excellent driving. That's pretty close to your 12.3.

Based on the times I've been seeing from the Challenger SRT-8, its not much faster than a Camaro SS. And in most magazine tests, it runs very similar times (and sometime even slower) to the Camaro SS.

The SRT8 392 is a cool car... but it's gonna run a 12.3 as much as a SS runs a 12.5. There are cars that are just factory freaks... and there are cars with great drivers... and then there's the rest of us.

[klapper]

Originally Posted by SGOS252382

The mags say the Camaro SS is a 12.9 - 13.0 sec (and that you dispute saying that Camaro is slower than that).
But when the mags say the Challenger SRT-8 is a 12.9 sec car (you dispute and say its much faster).

I love your reasoning.

Another way of looking at it is comparing stock rwhp of the L99 and 392. Stock on the 392 is about 420. I'll guess stock on the L99 is 350. Edmunds actually tested the 392 at 452 rwhp (I don't believe their dyno, but the same dyno tested the LS3 at 370 rwhp).

[SGOS252382]

Originally Posted by klapper

Another way of looking at it is comparing stock rwhp of the L99 and 392. Stock on the 392 is about 420. I'll guess stock on the L99 is 350. Edmunds actually tested the 392 at 452 rwhp (I don't believe their dyno, but the same dyno tested the LS3 at 370 rwhp).

Everyone knows the Challenger SRT-8 makes a lot more RWHP. It needs to because it weighs hundreds of pounds more than the Camaro.

[GoBlue20]

Originally Posted by klapper

Another way of looking at it is comparing stock rwhp of the L99 and 392. Stock on the 392 is about 420. I'll guess stock on the L99 is 350. Edmunds actually tested the 392 at 452 rwhp (I don't believe their dyno, but the same dyno tested the LS3 at 370 rwhp).

Ya but HP isn't everything... you have to factor in gearing and weight and all that. The 392 IS a beast... don't get me wrong... just not THAT much of a beast. High 12's, low 13's. Just like the SS and 5.0. Same class despite the price tag

[klapper]

Originally Posted by SGOS252382

Everyone knows the Challenger SRT-8 makes a lot more RWHP. It needs to because it weighs hundreds of pounds more than the Camaro.

Inputing 3850 lbs and 350 rwhp for the L99 into an 1/4 mile calculator, gives 12.95 seconds for the Camaro. 4180 lbs and 420 rwhp yields 12.53 seconds, or about 4 tenths faster.

[SGOS252382]

Originally Posted by klapper

Inputing 3850 lbs and 350 rwhp for the L99 into an 1/4 mile calculator, gives 12.95 seconds for the Camaro. 4180 lbs and 420 rwhp yields 12.53 seconds, or about 4 tenths faster.

How about the LS3 M6 Camaro. It makes around 370 rwhp and weighs around
3850 lbs?

And I'm not disputing that the new Challenger SRT-8 is a little faster than the L99 A6. The LS3 M6 Camaro is slightly faster than the L99 A6 (stock vs stock). I'm disputing that the Challenger SRT-8 is a lot faster than the LS3 M6.

From what I've seen it is very close in performance to the LS3 M6. Others (Dodge boys) tend to think its a lot faster.

[GoBlue20]

Originally Posted by SGOS252382

How about the LS3 M6 Camaro. It makes around 370 rwhp and weighs around
3850 lbs?

And I'm not disputing that the new Challenger SRT-8 is a little faster than the L99 A6. The LS3 M6 Camaro is slightly faster than the L99 A6 (stock vs stock). I'm disputing that the Challenger SRT-8 is a lot faster than the LS3 M6.

From what I've seen it is very close in performance to the LS3 M6. Others (Dodge boys) tend to think its a lot faster.

In terms of 0-100 I really think its all about the same because of the torque curve on the L99 and the way everything is geared... despite 400 vs 426 hp. I really dont think a tenth one way or another is anything (I've seen them a tenth faster and some a tenth slower)... however the 7 tenths claim about a 392 is a bit out there

[klapper]

Originally Posted by GoBlue20

Ya but HP isn't everything... you have to factor in gearing and weight and all that. The 392 IS a beast... don't get me wrong... just not THAT much of a beast. High 12's, low 13's. Just like the SS and 5.0. Same class despite the price tag

True enough, peak hp is not the variable we should compare. It should be area under the torque curve from 2500 to 6500 rpm. Here the Challenger 392 excels having a slightly flatter torque curve than the GM 6.2 and the Ford 5.0. I think the dyno Insideline uses is a little optimistic but at 3000 rpm the 392 is 100 ft. lbs more rwtrq than the 5.0 and 80 ft. lb.s ahead of the LS3. Pretty impressive engine, considering it's only slightly bigger displacement than the LS3.

[GoBlue20]

Originally Posted by klapper

True enough, peak hp is not the variable we should compare. It should be area under the torque curve from 2500 to 6500 rpm. Here the Challenger 392 excels having a slightly flatter torque curve than the GM 6.2 and the Ford 5.0. I think the dyno Insideline uses is a little optimistic but at 3000 rpm the 392 is 100 ft. lbs more rwtrq than the 5.0 and 80 ft. lb.s ahead of the LS3. Pretty impressive engine, considering it's only slightly bigger displacement than the LS3.

Either way it's close. That's all I'm trying to say. We are not talking a full second difference in the 1/4. You can have the faster car and lose if you are only a tenth or 2 quicker and don't drive as good as the guy you are racing. If the argument was "The SRT8 is faster because it runs a tenth quicker"... that I could possibly see.

[ssump29]

Who the hell cares. You pay damn near GT500 price territory and base vette price for a car that can't keep with with those in that price range at all. Now when the ZL1 comes out it will look even worse, considering the dodge top of the line is being compared to the other two brands middle tier cars. LOSE LOSE all around for dodge so who the hell cares.