[MEDISIN]

Originally Posted by AEP11

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?)

It is important to remember these "fast-lists" found on every enthusiast site are self-reported times subject to sample bias. I'm not suggesting people lie, stretch the truth and misrepresent themselves or their accomplishments on the internet... But if Joe Blow makes three passes on Friday night, 12.8, 12.4 and 13.0, guess which one is getting uploaded? Some will upload all three and explain what happened on the 12.8 and 13.0 runs which is full disclosure and should be applauded. But it is safe to say for every time posted on an internet fast list there are hundreds of runs that are not being posted for various reasons.

Originally Posted by AEP11

Notice the #1 is a 12.25. Pretty astounding for a car that puts down 410ish rwhp. More on that further down.

Indeed. Even more astounding - a bone stock Mustang GT can run 12.22 @ 115.18. Ironic his username is Pure Stock.

Originally Posted by AEP11

I went ahead and did the avg of the top 19 of both.

ET
ZL1-12.137
392-12.704
Diff-0.567

MPH
ZL1-117.55
392-111.10
Diff-6.44

Again. Right back to the .6 + 6mph advantage. I was a bit surprised at how many 120+mph were on that list. I expected maybe one. Those 4 def helped out the end num. Where as im also surprised at how many sub 110's was on the 392's list.

As I said, remarkably similar to professional reviews and the difference is consistent across the board.

Originally Posted by AEP11

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.

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.

Of course the Edmunds dyno reads higher than what most others do. The important point here is both of these cars were tested on the same dyno and the difference was ~50hp. Don't get hung up on the numbers, as you said above they do not always correlate with performance metrics. A dynamometer is a tuning tool, nothing more.

Originally Posted by AEP11

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.

15% driveline loss would equate to 493rwhp
20% driveline loss would equate to 464rwhp

Again, these numbers are exactly what I would expect from the LSA in the ZL1. Every dyno is going to generate different results - you can't simply compare numbers from different dyno's in a head-to-head.

I'll even use my own example. Stock LSA in the Cadillac is rated at 556hp/550ft-lb. My car (automatic transmission) made 458hp/455lb-ft bone stock. That is 17.6% less hp and 17.3% less torque than the SAE rating. Pretty much what I would expect.

Originally Posted by AEP11

I dont own a challenger. I know plenty of ppl that do, and yes seating 5 was a selling point.

And that's a selling point of the Challenger - it is spacious. Personally I would start looking at the Charger, 300, SS Sedan, CTS-V if I was looking for performance with room for 5 but that's just me.

Originally Posted by AEP11

Imo that just isnt enough given the power advantage the ZL1 has. I think it should be close to a 1 sec advantage on avg.

Also note that the fastest 392 would be #15 on the ZL1's list. To me if it would have came in at #19 it would have been impressive. We're talking about a car with 110 less hp, almost the same weight, and im assuming its 5 speed isnt as good as the zl1's a6.

The other thing to keep in mind here is the diminishing returns on HP. The relationship between E.T. and HP is not linear. We often talk in terms of "rule of thumb", e.g. a 100lb reduction in weight or a 10hp increase is equal to a 1/10th drop in E.T. or a 1mph increase in trap speed. While that may be true in some areas of the E.T. continuum, I'm not convinced it applies when we get into the 13-second range. I'll make a case for this here.

Challenger R/T (375hp)
MotorTrend: 0-60 in 5.0, 13.5 1/4mile at 105.9mph, 4078lbs
Car&Driver: 0-60 in 5.1, 13.6 1/4mile at 106mph, 4140lbs

Challenger SRT8 6.1L (425hp)
Edmunds: 0-60 in 5.1, 13.6 1/4mile at 104.5mph
MotorTrend: 0-60 in 4.8, 13.3 1/4mile at 106.1mph
MotorTrend: 0-60 in 4.7, 13.1 1/4mile at 108.3mph
Car&Driver: 0-60 in 4.8, 13.3 1/4mile at 108mph

Challenger SRT8 6.4L (470hp)
C&D: 0-60 in 4.5, 12.9 1/4mile at 114mph, 4203lbs
MotorTrend: 0-60 in 4.6, 13.0 1/4mile at 111.3mph, 4260lbs
Edmunds: 0-60 in 4.7, 12.9 1/4mile at 111.0mph, 4257lbs
Edmunds: 0-60 in 4.5, 12.6 1/4mile at 112.1mph, 4257lbs
Road&Track: 0-60 in 4.6, 13.0 1/4mile at 109.8mph, 4350lbs

Average with 375hp: 0-60 in 5.05, 13.55 1/4mile at 106.0mph
Average with 425hp: 0-60 in 4.85, 13.33 1/4mile at 106.7mph
Average with 470hp: 0-60 in 4.58, 12.88 1/4mile at 111.6mph

Granted the car added 100-150lbs in weight going from 375hp to 470hp but for that 95hp gain, it only improved 0.67 tenths and 5.6mph in the quarter mile.

Mustang GT 4.6L (300hp)
Car&Driver: 0-60 in 5.2, 13.8 1/4mile at 102mph, 3523lbs
Car&Driver: 0-60 in 5.1, 13.8 1/4mile at 103mph, 3575lbs
MotorTrend: 0-60 in 5.1, 13.6 1/4mile at 99.9mph, 3520lbs
Road&Track:0-60 in 5.3, 13.9 1/4mile at 101.4mph, 3510lbs
Edmunds: 0-60 in 5.9, 14.1 1/4mile at 101.0mph

Mustang GT 5.0L (412hp)
MotorTrend: 0-60 in 4.4, 12.7 1/4mile at 111.3mph, 3612lbs
Car&Driver: 0-60 in 4.6, 13.2 1/4mile at 109.0mph, 3580lbs
Road&Track: 0-60 in 4.6, 13.2 1/4mile at 109.3mph, 3665lbs
Edmunds: 0-60 in 5.1, 13.3 1/4mile at 107.3mph

Average with 300hp: 0-60 in 5.05, 13.55 1/4mile at 106.0mph
Average with 412hp: 0-60 in 4.67, 13.10 1/4mile at 109.2mph

Again, the car gained maybe 100lbs in weight going from 300hp to 412hp but for that 112hp gain, it only improved 0.45 tenths and 3.2mph in the quarter mile. So I don't think the "rule of thumb" of 10hp = 1/10th applies across the continuum. Adding 100hp to a Civic may very well drop the E.T. by a full second, but when as you get into the 13's and lower, diminishing returns are evident.

Originally Posted by AEP11

The thing that has me thinking that is the fact that dodge is now marketing the 8spd 392 as an LOW 12sec car vs HIGH 12sec they said it was with the 5spd. That thing must have really been crap.

Marketing aside, its just too difficult to tell without seeing performance metrics. Yes, it should improve over the 5 speed, and if they've improved launch control and torque management algorithms, then this may be a true low 12-sec car. Time will tell.

Originally Posted by AEP11

Overall the .6 advantage is worth it if spending $54k on a loaded 392. Id pay a little more and get the great handling, faster ZL1.

Id take the core 392 (40k) over the ZL1 and just throw a blower on it with the money saved. Not comparing those two as its stock vs modded. Just stating what i would do.

Indeed there are much easier/cheaper ways to get power. If HP/$$ were the only metric to guide us, we would all be driving modified Mustang GT's

Originally Posted by AEP11

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

Me either. Good discussion. Exactly what these forums are intended for.