Quote:
Originally Posted by MEDISIN
It must be tough when facts and data stand in the way of your misconceptions. Professional reviews are not perfect, but they do provide a platform for comparison using standardized methodology. Just how different are magazines times vs actual owners? Would you be surprised to see the top 25 fast list posted on ChallengerTalk for the 392 are in line with magazine times?
SRT8Tech 12.253@113.86 1.907 60' 392 A5 stock
Capo 12.395@12.395 1.906 60' 392 A5 Stock
newmoon 12.464@112.00 1.929 60' 392 A5 stock (Error on MPH on time slip)
KyHemiRT 12.517@110.84 1.849 60' 392 A5 stock
SparkChicken 12.566@111.76 1.913 60' 392 A5 stock
Kakdiesel1 12.593@113.71 2.070 60' 392 A5 stock
Flying Dutchman 12.630@111.92 2.033 60' A5 stock
bskylerj 12.650@110.44 1.904 60' 392 A5 stock
555ss 12.685@109.16 1.878 60' 392 M6 Stock
DonP 12.696@110.06 1.912 60' 392 A5 stock
Red Barron 12.744@109.92 2.021 60' M6 Stock
hemi420 12.769@113.35 1.933 60' 392 M6 stock
MrBohica 12.789@115.09 2.1011 60' 392 stock
CrankCase 12.805@109.05 2.007 60' M6 stock
rayzazoo 12.847@109.89 1.976 60' 392 A5 stock
GodsRodsHEMI 12.911@110.33 2.059 60' 392 A5 stock
Hoopester 12.974@112.09 2.059 60' 392 M6 stock
Madcoder 13.013@107.22 2.174 60' 392 A5 stock
Whisky Tango Foxtrot! 13.093@109.31 2.121 60' 392 M6 Stock
Mayra 13.220@107.30 2.161 60' 392 A5 stock
Litos 13.268@106.58 2.119 60' 392 A5 stock
rmeaux 13.320@108.56 2.228 60' 392 M6 stock
SRT8PWR 13.393@108.47 2.272 60' 392 M6 Stock
kwoolums67 13.709@102.79 2.079 60' 392 Stock
AZZKIKR 13.730@102.62 2.146 60' M6 382 Stock
B5Classic 14.350@102.00 2.454 60' 392 M6 Stock
Owners: 12.98 @ 109.4mph
Reviews: 12.85 @ 112.1mph
|
So. The top 10 of this list is as fast or faster than the fastest time of all the mag tests? (12.6) Id say thats pretty damn good.
18 of 25 are as fast or faster than the slowest mag result. (13.0?)
Notice the #1 is a 12.25. Pretty astounding for a car that puts down 410ish rwhp. More on that further down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEDISIN
So the cars Dodge drops off to Road&Track, MotorTrend and Car&Driver for performance testing aren't real? Not every ZL1 runs 11.7 and not every 392 runs 12.2. This is why we look at averages from professional reviews to see what the car is capable of running in the hands of someone with experience.
Average from professional reviews:
ZL1: 0-60, 4.0 sec; 1/4mile 12.20 @ 118mph
392: 0-60, 4.6 sec; 1/4mile 12.85 @ 112mph
Diff: 0-60, 0.6 sec; 1/4mile 0.65 @ 6mph
Will some owners best these times? Absolutely. Will some cars run stronger than others? Of course. Will some be dogs for some unknown reason. You bet. This is why we look at multiple reviews for an average.
|
Can you do a average of the top 25 ZL1 list vs 392? Im more interested in seeing that comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEDISIN
This is where you've gone wrong. You're taking marketed horsepower to compare these cars. Let's look at what these cars are actually putting down.
Edmunds Dyno
392: 452hp/443lb-ft Link
ZL1: 497hp/497lb-ft Link
In reality less than 50hp separate them. 392 is a great motor, no two ways about it. The cars are the same weight, the 50hp difference explains the 0.6 sec difference to 60; 0.65 difference in the quarter and 6mph difference in trap speed. |
No actually this is where you've got it all wrong. As im sure you know the dyno Edmunds uses is known to be very HAPPY.
Here are some REAL WORLD results. Another reason to put down mag crap.
393 -
6pd 410-
416-
427rwhp 1 7/8 Kooks long tube headers w/ hi flow cats, Borla xr1 resonators and rear muffler deletes.jmb cold air intake-
418-
405-
408-
408-
I could go on and on. Now there will be happy dynos out there just like the one Edmunds uses. Sure you'll find the bs 440rwhp dyno results but those may very well be the cars that go out there and run 13.3's@106. How would one explain that even @ 4200lbs. Also watch out for results like that from companies like HPE and RDP. Shady at best. Dodge may have underrated the engine some but at most it may be 500hp imo. Thats still 80 less than the ZL1. Thats being really generous to the ZL1.
Now if the LSA is rated at 580 and is only putting down 470rwhp on avg that only means Chevy has some explaining to do. Not me. A loss of 110hp is horrible imo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEDISIN
Given the price differential, I certainly hope so. There is no shame in losing to a car that costs $20,000 more. Around a road course, I hope you're right. Dodge has never taken handling seriously in the Challenger. While the Boss 302/1LE and ZL1/GT500 have gone toe-to-toe on the track, Dodge has been noticeably absent. For years, Dodge has had no answer to the high HP offerings from Chevrolet and Ford. Better late than never I suppose.
|
I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEDISIN
I don't think people are making fun of SRT8 weight vs ZL1. It's in relation to the GT, both the SRT and SS look overweight.
GT: 3,618lbs
SS: 3,908lbs
SRT: 4,170lbs
If the Hellcat really does weigh 4440lbs, that is 300lbs more than the ZL1 and 500lbs more than the GT500. Yes it's a roomy car but that's a lot of weight to throw around. Did you buy a Challenger because it can accommodate 5 people?
|
I dont own a challenger. I know plenty of ppl that do, and yes seating 5 was a selling point.
Also i thought the ZL1 was 4200.
Oh and thanks for the awesome response. At no point was i offended or felt the need to be defensive. Keep up the good work! LOL
