[09CD]

Morning, folks!
I don't post on here much, but wanted to make a few quick statements.
From what we know (have heard or seen), the Hellcat IS a few pounds heavier than the current 392 SRT.
They're fine-tuning the "tooling" at the Brampton, Ontario plant for production. A few have already been built, but production is expected to begin in earnest any time now.
Ralph Gilles (head of SRT group) had a Hellcat at Watkins Glen a few weeks ago. No report on what was done there.
Chrysler took the Hellcat to the 1320" and turned 10.9x with a 6-speed (and roasted the clutch after four passes). The 8-speed automatic should improve the 1320' time by 2 to 3 tenths.
The Hellcat "should" break the 200 mph barrier without too much difficulty.
Information coming from reliable sources are guessing pricing in the high $60K area before options (which shouldn't be many).
They expect a similar 3-year / 36,000 mile warranty as has covered SRT models in the past.
The suspension and drivetrain have been heavily modified from the new SRT Challenger chassis to accommodate the increased stress loads.
The interior looks nothing like the initial SRT8s built in 2008.

For the critics, yes, she's heavy and big. That's what makes this coupe so relevant. She is a great touring car as well as (now) a strip/street fighter. You can drive it all day and not be hurting when you get to the dragway. It will hold 5 adults relatively comfortably, plus 20 cubic feet of cargo. (My '09 SRT has never seen anyone in the back seat, and I do my hauling in my other vehicle, so this is a moot point to me, but might be important to car-nuts with families.)
I have no idea of fuel mileage numbers on the Hellcat, but wouldn't be surprised with a 19 mpg overall figure (based on 6.1L and 6.4L numbers).
The current SRT8 is surprisingly nimble (three sets of worn front tires on my '09 6-speed attest to that). With the changes to the chassis, expect it to handle better than previous models. Like the Z28, the Hellcat will be sporting wider sneakers (275's) and rims (9 1/2").

This is a great time to be a performance car nut. When one of the big three ups the ante, another responds with bigger/better/faster models....then another.
We all benefit from the battle for performance supremacy. I'm glad we have the opportunity to consider buying these cars, regardless of the brand on the nose.

Lately, 2-door coupes have become like the motorcycles/computers of our times....
You might have the fastest model "out of the box" TODAY, but tomorrow another, faster one will be offered that will blow you away.
As for specialized purpose, no car will excel in every department. One will be faster on the strip, another on a road course, and another on the street. If things were made uniformly, we'd have just one tool in our toolboxes.
So let's face it, most of our cars (no matter which brand, model or trim level) are driven on the street for about 99% of their lives. I'm not making purchase decisions based on the 1% of the time they're not. I know I'd never use all of the potential performance my car offers, but it's nice to know it's there if I want/need it.

And as a footnote, I think you'll see something pretty impressive being developed for the Viper. You can't offer another car that can out-perform your Halo car for long without risk of losing customers.

[khell86]

I know the owner of a large dodge dealership in this area who claims to have 3 coming in. He told me price will be 75k. Didnt answer though if that was MSRP or with some kind of a dealer mark up.

[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.

[102SS]

Nothing wrong with posting your best slip,the car did run that after all.

I always try to back it up by running within 100's of my PB before I use it.

[Loading.....]

Originally Posted by 09CD

It will hold 5 adults relatively comfortably...

Never understood why people keep bringing this up. It is completely false - 5 adults?? more like 3 adults with the third barely comfortable. My friend owns a '13 392 in Plum Crazy, he is 6'3" and nobody can sit behind him. Me, him and another one of our friends, who is also 6'3" rode with him to a local bar. I sat in the back, I'm 6'2", and had to sit with my legs across the back seat. the challenger backseat in no bigger than the camaro back seat. I definitely cant see two more adults fitting back there.

[09CD]

Originally Posted by Loading.....

Never understood why people keep bringing this up. It is completely false - 5 adults?? more like 3 adults with the third barely comfortable. My friend owns a '13 392 in Plum Crazy, he is 6'3" and nobody can sit behind him. Me, him and another one of our friends, who is also 6'3" rode with him to a local bar. I sat in the back, I'm 6'2", and had to sit with my legs across the back seat. the challenger backseat in no bigger than the camaro back seat. I definitely cant see two more adults fitting back there.

The average adult is 5' 9" tall and weight 180 lbs. It will hold five adults far more comfortably than the Mustang or Camaro. I didn't say "NFL sized" men.
Try getting four "average sized" adults in a Camaro or Mustang. Still won't happen unless the two in the back are double-jointed contortionists....
I figured "someone" would take issue with "something" I wrote. Thanks for not letting me down.

[McRat]

I don't buy the 5.75 foot average height for a Camaro/Challenger/Mustang owner.

The average height for ALL U.S.A. adult males is 5.75'.

However, males continue to grow after age 18, and shrink starting at 60.

Most my employees and friends are over 5'10". I'd say their average height is 6.0.

[4VFTW]

someone call the National Center for Health Statistics some guy on a car forum says their data is incorrect

average height is just under 5'10"

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by URBAN LEGEND

Right... Because the majority of ZL1 owners track their cars...
These cars will spend most of their lives on highways.

I was thinking about the argument that power is the most important factor because the majority of owners will never track their car. Most people won't 1/4 mile or street race much, if ever, either

All the magazine reviews picked the ZL1 over the GT500 because it is a more balanced car that you could actually live with as a daily driver that is also repeatable over an extended period of hard use. That is real world.

Doesn't mean that I don't want more power or that the Hellcat won't be a absolute terror. I do and it will.

[DrkPhx]

I would be surprised if the Hellcat comes in under $70K base price especially if it really runs high 10's bone stock. As much as I love the new Z/28; I would rather spend that kind of money to run 10's with a DD; then break lap records with a race only car. My 02.

[McRat]

Originally Posted by 4VFTW

someone call the National Center for Health Statistics some guy on a car forum says their data is incorrect

average height is just under 5'10"

I'd love to believe our Government Lackeys, but for some strange reason I think they are full-o-crap.

Maybe my tinfoil hat is affecting my opinion?

What data do you see for Average Height, Males born 1965-1995? This is demographic for musclecars.

[McRat]

Originally Posted by hotlapZL1

I was thinking about the argument that power is the most important factor because the majority of owners will never track their car. Most people won't 1/4 mile or street race much, if ever, either

All the magazine reviews picked the ZL1 over the GT500 because it is a more balanced car that you could actually live with as a daily driver that is also repeatable over an extended period of hard use. That is real world.

Doesn't mean that I don't want more power or that the Hellcat won't be a absolute terror. I do and it will.

Most high performance car owners do not race at all.

They buy their car for the image that racers created.

This is why cars like the CTS-V were created. You know a version of the CTS has ass-raped it's competition. So you buy the car it looks like a CTS-V.

It is no mistake that the CTS-V looks a lot like the CTS. That is the point.

Don't be surprised that only a hotrodder will be able to tell a Challenger from a Hellcat. That is the point.

[Whos_Drivin]

Originally Posted by DarkneSS

The ZL1 should have been all out HP like the Gt500 and Hellcat are. That should have been the 65-70k car, not the Z. Instead now we have two cars that handle great but get spanked on the street where 90% of drivers have their fun. If someone wanted a 50k+ Chevy that handles great, that is what the Vette is for. The Camaro is supposed to be the muscle car, all out straight line performance. Thats why Ford and Dodge don't put nearly as much focus on handling.

People forget that when the ZL1 was released in 2012 it was the fastest and most powerful of the 3. Then in 2013 it was Ford's turn, now Dodge has it for 2015. It's progression and no car company will, or can, stay on top year after year in a competitive market. The ZL1 is now 3 years behind, not sure why anyone is surprised that it's not still on top of newer cars.

[4VFTW]

Originally Posted by Whos_Drivin

People forget that when the ZL1 was released in 2012 it was the fastest and most powerful of the 3. Then in 2013 it was Ford's turn, now Dodge has it for 2015. It's progression and no car company will, or can, stay on top year after year in a competitive market. The ZL1 is now 3 years behind, not sure why anyone is surprised that it's not still on top of newer cars.

is the LSA maxxed out at 580hp? if not then GM has allowed it to wither. If so its time for a bigger TVS