My 2011 v6 m6 VS my dads 2011 challenger rt

[2010SLVRBULIT]

Originally Posted by gjarzabek009

Every post I read from you the bigger tool you turn out to be.

[SGOS252382]

Originally Posted by a_Username

Go over to challenger talk and find me one R/T that has hit mid 12s without F/I or a cam (and if you can it's obviously a miracle run). Oh and again buddy, let's just remember the fact you can't read or recognize context clues; it's not my fault you're delusional and continue to think that the R/T is god since you bought one. Finally, let's be honest... do you think that YOU have any credibility on anything?

Classic

The Challenger R/T guys take the fastest times they can find and try to pass them off as "average."

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by ViperTomcat

In May of 2010 I ran my 2010 Challenger R/T on the stock street tires and just a K&N Air Intake, no tune, no exhaust mods, no nothing and around a half tank of fuel, roughly 4000 lbs curb weight.

At just after six PM on a friday that may I ran a 13.266 @ 104.87 MPH unadjusted for altitude (time slip is in my sig) in just about 1700 foot air IIRC. Not great air, no major mods, just a K&N intake.

Take that as you will, the majority of my runs at that track in the crappy Southern Oregon air (2000+ foot DA usually) were 13.3, .4's and .5's. I wont make any claims of that versus anyone, I am simply offering that as a sample RT with a very minor mod running a set of times.

I miss that car :(

Anecdote; I'm not denying in the least bit that the R/T is capable of hitting low 13s.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Stew

if you take time to read through signatures there are tons of stock 13.2-13.4 Challenger R/Ts, also tons running in the 12s with very minimal mods.

Tons? By tons do you mean around 15?

[ViperTomcat]

Originally Posted by a_Username

Anecdote; I'm not denying in the least bit that the R/T is capable of hitting low 13s.

I know? I was saying the 13.266 was unadjusted, meaning the raw numbers from the run.

I wasnt trying to pull the "converted to sea level" stuff.

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by a_Username

Tons? By tons do you mean around 15?

well, technically he's right. 15 challengers is many, many tons.

[SGOS252382]

Originally Posted by ViperTomcat

I know? I was saying the 13.266 was unadjusted, meaning the raw numbers from the run.

I wasnt trying to pull the "converted to sea level" stuff.

Your time slip doesn't prove the point we're trying to make about the R/T. Now if most R/T owners ran that time, that would prove something.

You remind me of a guy that goes by the screen name Veetec (a guy from the 350z forum). Whenever anyone in any forum says " the 350z is a mid to high 13 sec car" he posts his low 13 sec time slip trying to prove it isn't.

Veetec is known for running some of the fastest times for a stock 350z (top spots on 350z 1/4 mile lists).

But for him to use his time slips to try to prove what "average" is doesn't prove all that much.

[ViperTomcat]

Originally Posted by SGOS252382

Your time slip doesn't prove the point we're trying to make about the R/T. Now if most R/T owners ran that time, that would prove something.

You remind me of a guy that goes by the screen name Veetec (a guy from the 350z forum). Whenever anyone in any forum says " the 350z is a mid to high 13 sec car" he posts his low 13 sec time slip trying to prove it isn't.

Veetec is known for running some of the fastest times for a stock 350z (top spots on 350z 1/4 mile lists).

But for him to use his time slips to try to prove what "average" is doesn't prove all that much.

What it does prove is that you dont need "great air" or "perfect conditions" to get a low 13 second run out of a R/T. Most R/T owners dont know how to set the car up, launch it or run it.

Its the drivers that are failing the R/T, not the car failing the drivers

[coolman]

Originally Posted by big hammer

the 6.2L vortec max beats the ecoboost quite handily...

If you follow the tests, they run pretty much the same when equipped in the same configurations plus the ecoboost can tow more weight. Pretty impressive from a V-6 no matter how you slice it.

[GretchenGotGrowl]

Originally Posted by coolman

If you follow the tests, they run pretty much the same when equipment in the same configurations plus the ecoboost can tow more weight. Pretty impressive from a V-6 no matter how you slice it.

^^^This^^^

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by big hammer

well, technically he's right. 15 challengers is many, many tons.

lol didn't think about it like that.

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by coolman

If you follow the tests, they run pretty much the same when equipment in the same configurations plus the ecoboost can tow more weight. Pretty impressive from a V-6 no matter how you slice it.

the tests maybe. but if you turn off the t\c on the 6.2 and manually shift-- game over ecoboost.

[GretchenGotGrowl]

Originally Posted by big hammer

the tests maybe. but if you turn off the t\c on the 6.2 and manually shift-- game over ecoboost.

Problem is the 6.2L doesn't make peak torque until 4500 RPM, the EcoBoost makes it at 2500 RPM. If you are towing, making 420 ft-lbs at 2500 RPM is much better than making 435 ft-lbs at 4500 RPM. That's why Ford rates the EcoBoost F-150 with a higher towing capacity than the 6.2L.

[devildoc]

I do know that last year when I was in TX and went to houston for the race night with all the camaros that I beat an stock L99 through the 1/4mi. BaylorAirforce and Badgebunny were there along with plenty of other V6'ers and it was a blast. I would say to the OP that you might not win but depending on how good you are at throwing the stick you could come close on his tail.