Automotive News, Media & Press - C&D - 2012 Dodge Charger SRT8 392 HEMI Super Bee

The Dodge Boys' latest bargain bullet.

http://media.caranddriver.com/images/12q1/448933/2012-dodge-charger-srt8-super-bee-photo-448997-s-787x481.jpg

March 2012
BY TONY SWAN PHOTOGRAPHY BY PATRICK M. HOEY

For anyone who lived through and reveled in the muscle-car era, the present provokes some serious reflection. Like, what the hell was that all about?

Sure, the heyday of big-inch V-8s saw some awesome rides rumbling out of Detroit. Moreover, we revere those cars today beyond all reason. Try bolting yourself into a pristine Hemi ’Cuda convertible for less than a million bucks.

However, you can bolt yourself into something that’ll run rings around that old ’Cuda, without going to an auction, and for a fraction of the cost. That’s what this muscle car is all about. And in the best muscle-car tradition, the Dodge Charger SRT8 Super Bee costs substantially less than its fancier SRT stablemate—$4300 less.

Whatever muscle-car flavor you favored back in the day—Pontiac GTO, Chevy 409, Dodge Hemi Charger—it was basically good for just one thing: reducing your Goodyear Polyglas tires to smoke or, with not very many repetitions, to shreds. Stopping? Turning? Fuhgedaboudit.

Modern Muscle

http://media.caranddriver.com/images/12q1/448933/2012-dodge-charger-srt8-super-bee-64-liter-v-8-hemi-engine-photo-449011-s-520x318.jpg

Although big horsepower and steam-engine torque are still seductive, modern enthusiasts expect a complete menu of dynamic attributes, rather than those one-dimensional rockets of yesteryear.

Which brings us to this Super Bee, a modern interpretation of those uninhibited pavement scorchers of yesteryear.

Massive power? Check. Today’s Chrysler Hemi V-8 engines generate even more thrust than did their legendary ancestors, even though it’s known that the published output of the old 426 Hemi—425 hp—was deliberately rated lower than the actual output, a measure calculated to bamboozle insurance companies.

No Frills

http://media.caranddriver.com/images/12q1/448933/2012-dodge-charger-srt8-super-bee-interior-photo-449012-s-520x318.jpg

But there are other similarities to the Super Bees of yore. The basic formula back then was to jam a big engine into an otherwise spartan car. No frills. Frills added a little something to mass as well as quite a bit to cost, and all the prospective owner really wanted was enough wheelspin to slow the rotation of the earth, with a little identifying exterior trim to make guys driving lesser rides eat their hearts out.

Compared with the standard Charger SRT8, the latest Super Bee is certainly devoid of frills. Although the bucket seats are adorned with uninhibited striped cloth upholstery—and provide a measure of lateral support unknown in 1969—no one could call them fancy, and some might even call their appearance tacky.

The big info screen that dominates the center dash of upscale Chargers and Chrysler 300s is absent, and the minimalist audio system is reminiscent of the AM units found in the good old days. No nav, of course. But at least the windows operate by power rather than crank. That would be taking things a bit too far.

One nonretro feature is a digital g-meter, tucked between the speedo and tach. At max lateral, it should read 0.86 g, which is what we recorded on the skidpad. However, taking your eyes off the road and gleaning info from this tiny device—about two-by-four inches—while generating serious g-loads is equivalent to texting the Gettysburg Address while driving on California Highway 1 south of Big Sur. As the late Waylon Jennings tunefully observed, “Ain’t livin’ long like this.”

Dynamic Drama

http://media.caranddriver.com/images/12q1/448933/2012-dodge-charger-srt8-super-bee-interior-photo-449013-s-520x318.jpg

If the contemporary Super Bee is faithful to the no-frills formula, it’s also faithful to the rocket-sled tradition.

Chrysler’s 6.4-liter pushrod Hemi V-8 provides propulsion, hammering 470 hp and 470 lb-ft of torque to the Getrag limited-slip rear diff via a five-speed automatic transmission. The A580 tranny is far from new—it first saw service in Chrysler products back in 2004, when the sign on the HQ building read DaimlerChrysler—but paddle shifters have been added for 2012, delivering remarkably crisp shifts.

Also, although 0.86 g isn’t extraordinary on today’s grip grid, it’s way better than any street rubber available in the late ’60s and early ’70s could provide.

That said, generating optimal sprints is still a bit of a challenge. Even though this Super Bee’s Goodyear Eagle RS-A2 tires (245/45ZR-20) are stickier and far more durable than the Polyglas rubber of the glory years, getting the big Dodge out of the blocks without excessive wheelspin is tricky.

Our test car did the 0-to-60-mph dash in 4.2 seconds, 0-to-100 in 9.8, and the quarter-mile in 12.6 at 115 mph. Those numbers are a significant improvement over those of the last Charger SRT8 we tested; that car hit those same marks in 4.6 and 11.0, respectively, covering the quarter in 13.1 at 110.

The Super Bee also stopped a little shorter—165 feet from 70 mph versus 168 for the other Charger SRT8, despite a soft brake pedal and all-season tires versus the SRT8’s Goodyear Eagle F1 Supercar rubber. (The same summer rubber is optional on the Super Bee, too, and likely would have improved the braking and roadholding figures.)

Zigs and Zags

http://media.caranddriver.com/images/12q1/448933/2012-dodge-charger-srt8-super-bee-fender-badge-photo-449008-s-520x318.jpg

In the real world (as distinct from Woodward Avenue, circa 1969) the Super Bee delivers transient responses and steering feel that make those hallowed honkers of yesteryear feel positively crude.

Tuned under the savvy eye of SRT senior vehicle dynamics engineer Chris Winkler, a Sports Car Club of America veteran racer, the big Dodge knows how to dance. Higher spring rates than those of the standard Charger SRT8 help to minimize the car’s substantial mass. The Super Bee gets standard Bilstein shocks rather than the adaptive units employed in the higher SRT8 trim levels—another cost-reduction measure—but even so, the yield is agility with enough compliance to make the ride quality tolerable on an everyday basis. Hydraulically assisted rack-and-pinion steering that’s quick (2.6 turns lock-to-lock) and informative lends additional dynamic credibility.

All the foregoing is enhanced by the belligerent basso rumble coming from the Super Bee’s twin exhausts, exuding menace that’s music to the ears of true muscle-car mavens.

The Price of Performance

http://media.caranddriver.com/images/12q1/448933/2012-dodge-charger-srt8-super-bee-photo-449004-s-520x318.jpg

As noted, the Super Bee is all about muscle, and its standard features are minimalist to keep the price of entry down. Air conditioning is standard, with manual dual-zone climate controls. There’s iPod connectivity with a USB port and Bluetooth with voice command—didn’t see much of that in 1969—and an audio input jack. The driver’s seat has power adjustability, the steering column tilts and telescopes, and the steering wheel and the shift knob are wrapped in leather.

On the outside, you get genuine Super Bee badges, and stripes that wrap around the rear deck from side to side, just like in the good old days. The Super Bee package comes in two colors—Pitch Black or Stinger Yellow. The latter is recommended for extroverts only.

Fuel economy—a nonissue in the muscle-car heyday—is better than you might expect: 14 mpg city and 23 mpg highway, according to the EPA. But not quite good enough to escape a $1030 guzzler penalty. We logged 17 mpg.

The base price: $43,450, including the guzzler tax.

Does that sound like a lot? Well, yes. But it’s less than the standard Charger SRT8. If you’re still reluctant, check the bids for original muscle cars on a couple televised auctions, think about it, and then get back to us

http://media.caranddriver.com/images/12q1/448933/2012-dodge-charger-srt8-super-bee-photo-449002-s-520x318.jpg

Highs: Face-distorting torque, wheelspin galore, surprisingly civilized ride-and-handling balance, precise steering.

Lows: Mushy brake pedal, minimalist interior, garish upholstery, ridiculous g-meter.

PRICE AS TESTED: $43,450 (base price: $43,450)

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 9.8 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 16.8 sec
Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 4.4 sec
Top gear, 30–50 mph: 2.4 sec
Top gear, 50–70 mph: 2.7 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.6 sec @ 115 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 178 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 165 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.86 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 14/23 mpg
C/D observed: 17 mpg

http://www.seeklogo.com/images/C/Car_And_Driver-logo-E622991DF4-seeklogo.com.gif (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2012-dodge-charger-srt8-super-bee-test-review)

Love the seats

Pretty comparable to a LS1 with bolt ons in the 1/4 mile

Thats as fast as a ZL1 auto.

Thats as fast as a ZL1 auto.

:confused: & where are you getting this.......

I would drive this. I think it would be a damn sweet daily driver.

Also, not nearly as fast as a ZL1, but I don't think it is trying to be either.

Pretty comparable to a LS1 with bolt ons

If you consider nitrous as a bolt on then yes, it would be.

:confused: & where are you getting this.......

I would drive this. I think it would be a damn sweet daily driver.

Also, not nearly as fast as a ZL1, but I don't think it is trying to be either.

Here it is and ya it is.
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=216280

12.5 was the best Hennessey's pro driver could manage. VS 12.6 from a magazine dullard.
If I do interweb math based on the fact most cars always run faster at the track than they do in magazines, and factor in the ZL1 "was" driven at a prepped track. One can only draw the conclusion that the Super Bee is faster than a ZL1.

The Hemi 392 is essentially a factory "heads and cam" upgrade on the conventional 6.1 litre Hemi.

The motor itself is phenomenal. I did research into the architecture of the motor when I was seriously considering a Challenger R/T. All the go fast specs are there, albeit untapped in factory form. The engine is truly a sleeping elephant.

good looking car. glad that dodge is in the game.

here's an off topic question....where exactly does the gas guzzler tax go?

Here it is and ya it is.
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=216280

12.5 was the best Hennessey's pro driver could manage. VS 12.6 from a magazine dullard.
If I do interweb math based on the fact most cars always run faster at the track than they do in magazines, and factor in the ZL1 "was" driven at a prepped track. One can only draw the conclusion that the Super Bee is faster than a ZL1.

GM went 12.1 in the ZL1
AutoBlog went 12.0 in the ZL1
Hennessey went 12.5 in the ZL1


Hennessey went slow on purpose, they want to make their overpriced products look better.

I would drive this. I think it would be a damn sweet daily driver.

Also, not nearly as fast as a ZL1, but I don't think it is trying to be either.

This...

If you consider nitrous as a bolt on then yes, it would be.

What?!?!? LOL... bolt ons buddy, LT headers, intake, exhaust, etc can run mid-low 12's. Who said anything about spray??? :confused:

Here it is and ya it is.
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=216280

12.5 was the best Hennessey's pro driver could manage. VS 12.6 from a magazine dullard.
If I do interweb math based on the fact most cars always run faster at the track than they do in magazines, and factor in the ZL1 "was" driven at a prepped track. One can only draw the conclusion that the Super Bee is faster than a ZL1.

Lol If you honestly think that the ZL1 runs 12.52 @ 116 then your a retard.... :gtfo: If you read on... Your see they get better times. They ran a stock CTS-V & got 12.5 @ 116 :bang: look at all of Hennessey's 1/4 mile runs. They are ALL slower then what they should be. Stock CTS-V run high 11's to low 12's & they have less power, & weigh more then the ZL1.

In case you missed it... http://blogs.hotrod.com/the-race-to-the-10s-23325.html I think with some slicks & more seat time it will get into the 10's

But anyway don't wanna thread hijack so lets get back to the Charger SRT8! :)

This...



What?!?!? LOL... bolt ons buddy, LT headers, intake, exhaust, etc can run mid-low 12's. Who said anything about spray??? :confused:




Even if the HP numbers on an LS1 were bumped into the Hemi territory by a gratuitous amount of mod's, its not going to be able to match the torque figures. A lot of stuff has to line up for a full bolt on F-Body to match this car and by no means is it going to be a consistent contender.

And that's just the baseline for the Dodge. It can only get faster from there. Have you examined the Hemi engine? The things a beast. It has 16 spark plugs and two complete burns in one power stroke.

Even if the HP numbers on an LS1 were bumped into the Hemi territory by a gratuitous amount of mod's, its not going to be able to match the torque figures. A lot of stuff has to line up for a full bolt on F-Body to match this car and by no means is it going to be a consistent contender.

And that's just the baseline for the Dodge. It can only get faster from there. Have you examined the Hemi engine? The things a beast. It has 16 spark plugs and two complete burns in one power stroke.

Yea sorry I meant its comparable to a LS1 with bolt ons in the 1/4 mile. Who cares about hp/tq... But a well put together LS1 with H/C/I can make that amount of power & would do A LOT better then 12.6 sec @ 115 mph... Just saying! The hp/tq numbers for the Charger is IMPRESSIVE but I mean its just another brick & half

Even if the HP numbers on an LS1 were bumped into the Hemi territory by a gratuitous amount of mod's, its not going to be able to match the torque figures. A lot of stuff has to line up for a full bolt on F-Body to match this car and by no means is it going to be a consistent contender.

And that's just the baseline for the Dodge. It can only get faster from there. Have you examined the Hemi engine? The things a beast. It has 16 spark plugs and two complete burns in one power stroke.

My car with 100 less hp would keep up or win all else being equal i.e. tires. With 470hp, an f-body would stomp that car at EVERYTHING except interior or ride quality stuff. But, it's funny how you aren't comparing c.i.s here. Don't pick on our lonely old 346....it's still holding its own in that respect.

And the dual plug design has been around 20 years, yep 20 years ago Ford was doing it, actual Nissan was too a little before that I think. Its for emissions you dope. Not for power. Know what you're talking about before you rattle off.

And to add to that, to insinuate that a second burn on the "power" stroke is beneficial for power just shows you have a low working knowledge of how a combustion engine actually works. While modern day electronic ignitions may fire bursts of spark on the plug to create a more complete burn, to think that one completely different spark for a completely different plug from some other point in time then the standard ignition timing event would create magical previously unlocked hp is downright ridiculous. Remember, internal combustion engines have been in production 100+ years. This is just another engine, Dodge isn't creating miracles here.

But, I like the car, except the boy racer-ish look of it. I would like this car in an all black package or something more subtle. I wish dodge would stop with the freakin yellows/greens and shit. For a sedan, bone stock, 115mph is moving pretty damn good. Handling and braking don't seen on-par with acceleration though.

My car with 100 less hp would keep up or win all else being equal i.e. tires. With 470hp, an f-body would stomp that car at EVERYTHING except interior or ride quality stuff. But, it's funny how you aren't comparing c.i.s here. Don't pick on our lonely old 346....it's still holding its own in that respect.

And the dual plug design has been around 20 years, yep 20 years ago Ford was doing it, actual Nissan was too a little before that I think. Its for emissions you dope. Not for power. Know what you're talking about before you rattle off.

And to add to that, to insinuate that a second burn on the "power" stroke is beneficial for power just shows you have a low working knowledge of how a combustion engine actually works. While modern day electronic ignitions may fire bursts of spark on the plug to create a more complete burn, to think that one completely different spark for a completely different plug from some other point in time then the standard ignition timing event would create magical previously unlocked hp is downright ridiculous. Remember, internal combustion engines have been in production 100+ years. This is just another engine, Dodge isn't creating miracles here.

bolded......think again.


cessna's been doing it a lot longer. it does affect power. if you think i'm wrong, then go get something with dual plugs, disconnect 1 plug from each cylinder, then come back here, and tell us just how much power you lost.

First, I'm not referencing planes in any way shape of form, and you should have picked up on that by the title of this website and the fact that I referenced no airplane or other aeronautical device, company, or item in my post. Second it WAS for emissions (in automobiles), the reason I know this is because 100hp engines were using it...i.e. non-performance application. In the era of these dual plugged automotive engines there was major changes taking place in the automotive industry dealing with technology and emissions requirements. Manufacturers were struggle to keep up with the government's new regulations. And, when talking about disconnecting one plug, taking a piece of an engineered puzzle away proves nothing. The ignition system was designed with the second plug in-mind, and it was for a more complete burn meaning lower waste, meaning lower tail-pipe emissions. Take that same engine, all else being the same, but engineer a one plug ignition system and it will make no LESS power. Go flex your intellectual muscles on the Cessna boards, because unlike you I have actually OWNED several dual plug headed vehicles, a Nissan and a Ford like I spoke of above. :gtfo:

First, I'm not referencing planes in any way shape of form, and you should have picked up on that by the title of this website and the fact that I referenced no airplane or other aeronautical device, company, or item in my post. Second it WAS for emissions (in automobiles), the reason I know this is because 100hp engines were using it...i.e. non-performance application. In the era of these dual plugged automotive engines there was major changes taking place in the automotive industry dealing with technology and emissions requirements. Manufacturers were struggle to keep up with the government's new regulations. And, when talking about disconnecting one plug, taking a piece of an engineered puzzle away proves nothing. The ignition system was designed with the second plug in-mind, and it was for a more complete burn meaning lower waste, meaning lower tail-pipe emissions. Take that same engine, all else being the same, but engineer a one plug ignition system and it will make no LESS power. Go flex your intellectual muscles on the Cessna boards, because unlike you I have actually OWNED several dual plug headed vehicles, a Nissan and a Ford like I spoke of above. :gtfo:

i know you didn't reference aircraft. i simply mentioned that as a point of reference.
i think if you took one of those 100hp dual plug cars, and removed a single plug from each cylinder, you might be surprised at the loss of power. i've worked on plenty of them. they weren't there solely for emissions.

oh yea....when you burn the a/f mixture more completely.....what do you get? more power. :D

Sounds neat....still don't understand why there isn't an optional Manual trans....

And to add to that, to insinuate that a second burn on the "power" stroke is beneficial for power just shows you have a low working knowledge of how a combustion engine actually works. While modern day electronic ignitions may fire bursts of spark on the plug to create a more complete burn, to think that one completely different spark for a completely different plug from some other point in time then the standard ignition timing event would create magical previously unlocked hp is downright ridiculous. Remember, internal combustion engines have been in production 100+ years. This is just another engine, Dodge isn't creating miracles here.



“In the 1980s Japanese manufacturers reduced unburned hydrocarbons by placing spark plugs either in the exhaust pipe (which fired with every piston ignition) or in the exhaust manifold (which fired each time their corresponding cylinder fired). Chrysler morphed this idea to include dual fired plugs on each cylinder, which allows the firing to take place closer to top dead center, and then again when the piston is on the back side of the power stroke.” (Gemmel , 2012)

Gemmel , M. (2012, April 16). Srt v8 engines: 6.1 and 6.4 (392) v8s. Retrieved from http://www.allpar.com/mopar/SRT-V8.html

The secondary spark plugs are specifically used to complete the burn of unburnt hydrocarbons in the combustion cycle before a catalytic converter is needed. It claims that some power is added, "but not very much". How much is not very much is debatable, but I would wager a guess that two is better then one especially when the engine reaches the upper ranges of the RPM band and incomplete combustion is more likely to happen.

Thanks for posting that. Proves what I was trying to say. Emissions.

. But, it's funny how you aren't comparing c.i.s here. Don't pick on our lonely old 346....it's still holding its own in that respect.



I'm not comparing cubic inches because it's not worth mentioning. The HEMI has the LS1 outgunned. A bolt-on LS1 would not be competitive and you would have to do a thorough Heads/Cam to an LS1 to eclipse the performance margin of the 6.4 litre HEMI. Even then, a punched out LS1 would not hit the 6.4 litre mark.

The HEMI has it matched on displacement, total HP and Torque, HP and Torque under the curve, engine architecture and design, and flow figures.

The heads flow 270 CFM at .600 inches of lift. By comparison, stock LS1 heads flowed 230 CFM at .600 and LS6 heads flowed 257 CFM at .600

It just makes power and a lot of it. The fact that it's stuck in a 4200+ lbs Charger will not be the magical equalizer.

Thanks for posting that. Proves what I was trying to say. Emissions.

Did you even read the article? It used to be for emissions. Chrysler morphed the idea to include two power cycles on one downward stroke. One spark plug fires at top dead center, the second spark plug fires on the downward stroke.

That's specifically to create power, with the reduction of NOX emissions being secondary.

Do you honestly think that setup is not going to create power?

Love the look, would buy. 43k is a tad pricey and I disagree with the last statement from the article....

The base price: $43,450, including the guzzler tax.

"Does that sound like a lot? Well, yes. But it’s less than the standard Charger SRT8. If you’re still reluctant, check the bids for original muscle cars on a couple televised auctions, think about it, and then get back to us"

What a freakin joke. This a NEW car with built in depreciation, those cars have actually held value and appreciated. IF there is even gasoline 40 years from now and I still have the car, we will see what it's worth. Also never mind the factor Mopars are so unique based on the variations of options and the hardcore following that statement is a little off. 43k is high for most people, those who can afford a 43k fun car are not 16 to 30 year olds... unless you deal drugs or something.

Do you honestly think that setup is not going to create power?

A single plug ignition can create the exact same power output. Period. If I'm lying to you go ask the guys running 6s in the 1/4 on just 8 plugs.

I'm not comparing cubic inches because it's not worth mentioning. The HEMI has the LS1 outgunned. A bolt-on LS1 would not be competitive and you would have to do a thorough Heads/Cam to an LS1 to eclipse the performance margin of the 6.4 litre HEMI. Even then, a punched out LS1 would not hit the 6.4 litre mark.

The HEMI has it matched on displacement, total HP and Torque, HP and Torque under the curve, engine architecture and design, and flow figures.

The heads flow 270 CFM at .600 inches of lift. By comparison, stock LS1 heads flowed 230 CFM at .600 and LS6 heads flowed 257 CFM at .600

It just makes power and a lot of it. The fact that it's stuck in a 4200+ lbs Charger will not be the magical equalizer.

Are you on crack? 6.4 liter compared to 5.7? 392 compared to 346. Its simple, by your math, lets do a 6.0 LQ stroked to 402 (10 c.i. difference) and give me a stock ported casting of similar cfm. LQ makes more power, period. And with only 8 plugs to change during tune-ups. Hey tell you what, go look up 5.7 Hemi numbers then get back to us. :gtfo:

This is turning into a stock vs modded thread.

Dodge--- maker of republican flagships....complete disregard to global warming not even an attempt to be efficient...in any way shape or form. The pinnacle of american arrogance and stupidity coupled with no ingenuity.

They should have sold off the Challenger's rights to any other manuf and it would of been far more car than to just look at.

It's remarkable how this company survives. Clearly it does not deserve to.

A pig with a bloated heart. I'd pay maybe 9 grand for that pos.

Dodge--- maker of republican flagships....complete disregard to global warming not even an attempt to be efficient...in any way shape or form. The pinnacle of american arrogance and stupidity coupled with no ingenuity.

They should have sold off the Challenger's rights to any other manuf and it would of been far more car than to just look at.

It's remarkable how this company survives. Clearly it does not deserve to.

A pig with a bloated heart. I'd pay maybe 9 grand for that pos.

This is a discussion about a special edition of a V8 performance sedan. If you're concerned about global warming and MPGs, the Prius forums are here (http://priuschat.com/forums/?). They may frown on your owning an F-body though.

This is turning into a stock vs modded thread.

yea....sorry......didn't mean to take part in that in one of your threads. i'm out.

I'm not comparing cubic inches because it's not worth mentioning. The HEMI has the LS1 outgunned. A bolt-on LS1 would not be competitive and you would have to do a thorough Heads/Cam to an LS1 to eclipse the performance margin of the 6.4 litre HEMI.
Wait wait wait, am I reading this right? You need a "thorough heads/cam" LS1 to eclipse 470 fly wheel hp (~400rwhp)??? Cam only LS1s can make 400RWHP no sweat....
"Thorough" H/C/I LS1's are making well over 500RWHP...

I'm not comparing cubic inches because it's not worth mentioning. The HEMI has the LS1 outgunned. A bolt-on LS1 would not be competitive and you would have to do a thorough Heads/Cam to an LS1 to eclipse the performance margin of the 6.4 litre HEMI. Even then, a punched out LS1 would not hit the 6.4 litre mark.

The HEMI has it matched on displacement, total HP and Torque, HP and Torque under the curve, engine architecture and design, and flow figures.

The heads flow 270 CFM at .600 inches of lift. By comparison, stock LS1 heads flowed 230 CFM at .600 and LS6 heads flowed 257 CFM at .600

It just makes power and a lot of it. The fact that it's stuck in a 4200+ lbs Charger will not be the magical equalizer.

15 years after the release of the LS1, I would hope the 392 has it out gunned.

A single plug ignition can create the exact same power output. Period. If I'm lying to you go ask the guys running 6s in the 1/4 on just 8 plugs.



Are you on crack? 6.4 liter compared to 5.7? 392 compared to 346. Its simple, by your math, lets do a 6.0 LQ stroked to 402 (10 c.i. difference) and give me a stock ported casting of similar cfm. LQ makes more power, period. And with only 8 plugs to change during tune-ups. Hey tell you what, go look up 5.7 Hemi numbers then get back to us. :gtfo:

How many F-Bodies came with 6.0 litres?

15 years after the release of the LS1, I would hope the 392 has it out gunned.

Apparently, bolt on auto LS1's would make short work of the 392 all day every day.

Apparently, bolt on auto LS1's would make short work of the 392 all day every day.

I was talking about the motors stock vs stock in response to the horsepower, torque, and head flow numbers you posted.

I was talking about the motors stock vs stock in response to the horsepower, torque, and head flow numbers you posted.

Correction. By stock you mean full bolt ons for the LS1 and stock for the Dodge 392.

By stock flow numbers you mean a punched out 6.0 with Dart Heads flowing in excess of 350 CFM versus the stock 392 heads.

And really, when were comparing any GM engine to any other engine, were really talking about the most potent punched out radical head cam combination engine ever produced versus the stock to the paper air filter example for another auto manufacturer.

Its okay, we get it.

Correction. By stock you mean full bolt ons for the LS1 and stock for the Dodge 392.

By stock flow numbers you mean a punched out 6.0 with Dart Heads flowing in excess of 350 CFM versus the stock 392 heads.

And really, when were comparing any GM engine to any other engine, were really talking about the most potent punched out radical head cam combination engine ever produced versus the stock to the paper air filter example for another auto manufacturer.

Its okay, we get it.

You sure flew off the handle. Calm down and take a deep breathe. It will be ok. Maybe it will only take Chrysler 14 years to outgun the next gen SBC.

You sure flew off the handle. Calm down and take a deep breathe. It will be ok. Maybe it will only take Chrysler 14 years to outgun the next gen SBC.

Somehow, I get the feeling that 14 years from now people will still be using the LS1 as the measuring stick for modern day performance.

I'm not comparing cubic inches because it's not worth mentioning. The HEMI has the LS1 outgunned. A bolt-on LS1 would not be competitive and you would have to do a thorough Heads/Cam to an LS1 to eclipse the performance margin of the 6.4 litre HEMI. Even then, a punched out LS1 would not hit the 6.4 litre mark.
.

No, a bolt-on LS1 would definitely give this car a hard time. Mid 12 second times are very, very possible with a bolt-on LS1, a H/C LS1 wouldn't even be a fair race. This Charger makes tons of power, but the weight and sheer mass of this thing is what really hurts it. Still a very nice car regardless though.

Somehow, I get the feeling that 14 years from now people will still be using the LS1 as the measuring stick for modern day performance.

Might very well be in some cases :nod: It's still a killer platform even to this day :judge:

http://gifsoup.com/view4/2101092/that-escalated-quickly-o.gif

Thanks for posting that. Proves what I was trying to say. Emissions.Standby for NEWS! :D
And the dual plug design has been around 20 years, yep 20 years ago Ford was doing it, actual Nissan was too a little before that I think. Its for emissions you dope. Not for power. Know what you're talking about before you rattle off.It was "for" emissions, but it actually helps power as well, albeit only by a little. It creates a cleaner burn or as they put it, a more complete burn. One of the main reasons for dual plug heads is to reduce detonation. That tells us much about the reality in a nutshell. Less detonation = a longer running and stronger engine. It can handle more timing, for example, which helps create more hp.

Can't remember when NISSAN started, but Ford began using dual plug heads in or around 1987(88 model), 20+ yrs back. MOPAR, however, did it as far back as 1970! http://www.allpar.com/mopar/hemi/hemi.html Read that stuff... The dual plug part is roughly half-way down the page.

But, I like the car, except the boy racer-ish look of it. I would like this car in an all black package or something more subtle. I wish dodge would stop with the freakin yellows/greens and shit. For a sedan, bone stock, 115mph is moving pretty damn good. Handling and braking don't seen on-par with acceleration though.I think the article said this car is available in 2 color packages, the aforementioned yellow and... BLACK!

Love the look, would buy. 43k is a tad pricey and I disagree with the last statement from the article....

The base price: $43,450, including the guzzler tax.

"Does that sound like a lot? Well, yes. But it’s less than the standard Charger SRT8. If you’re still reluctant, check the bids for original muscle cars on a couple televised auctions, think about it, and then get back to us"

What a freakin joke. This a NEW car with built in depreciation, those cars have actually held value and appreciated. IF there is even gasoline 40 years from now and I still have the car, we will see what it's worth. Also never mind the factor Mopars are so unique based on the variations of options and the hardcore following that statement is a little off. 43k is high for most people, those who can afford a 43k fun car are not 16 to 30 year olds... unless you deal drugs or something.Hmmm... I was thinking they're looking forward after a quick look back. They probably suspect VERY few will buy this car and because if that, the future value will be immense. Based on that, 43k seems like a bargain. I'm more with you on the whole "wait and see" thought. I know production will be limited and so will sales. I also know there are plenty of things to choose between, which weren't available "back when" and therefore, value of something made today will rarely match that of the "muscle car era" regardless performance advantages. Seems to me, they could build this new car for about 30k, so 43 is a profit indeed.

A single plug ignition can create the exact same power output. Period. If I'm lying to you go ask the guys running 6s in the 1/4 on just 8 plugs.What about the guys running 4's? Oh yeah... They've got 16 plugs. :nod:

Are you on crack? 6.4 liter compared to 5.7? 392 compared to 346. Its simple, by your math, lets do a 6.0 LQ stroked to 402 (10 c.i. difference) and give me a stock ported casting of similar cfm. LQ makes more power, period. And with only 8 plugs to change during tune-ups. Hey tell you what, go look up 5.7 Hemi numbers then get back to us. :gtfo:I ain't gettin' into this silly pissin' contest, but I do wonder what the 5.7L HEMI has to do with this? Clearly, this is about the 6.4L(and to some degree, 6.1L) version. The 5.7L HEMI today has a 390hp rating and up to 407 lb-ft torque. That's more than the 5.7L LS1. It is 345ci. Dodge offers a 426 HEMI crate engine making 540hp-530lb-ft torque. That's not too bad.

Dodge--- maker of republican flagships....complete disregard to global warming not even an attempt to be efficient...in any way shape or form. The pinnacle of american arrogance and stupidity coupled with no ingenuity.Clearly, your "license" hasn't expired... With that, this isn't about global hoaxing...er... warming, none of which is caused by or affected by man... Now then. Did you know that this particular car, offered by the "maker of republican flagships" (Republicans prefer Lincolns, but the way), gets BETTER economy than the Chevy flagship, Corvette ZR1??? Didya, huh huh, didya??? Probably not. It apparently also gets better mileage than the ZL1 and CTS-V and let's not concern ourselves with the fact those cars completely overpower it, because hey... YOU think Chrysler doesn't care about our globe and somehow, GM does... :zzz:

They should have sold off the Challenger's rights to any other manuf and it would of been far more car than to just look at.

It's remarkable how this company survives. Clearly it does not deserve to.

A pig with a bloated heart. I'd pay maybe 9 grand for that pos.I'm no Dodge fan, but you're completely insane by comparison! You evidently have no understanding in the slightest, what these vehicles bring to the automotive table. They incite violence, so to speak. These over-sized and over-performing monstrosities offer more reason for more performance among competitors. Let it be and if you care about the environment, you may quit breathing at any time you desire, saving that much more precious oxygen for the rest of us. :nono:

Just tell us you were joking and all is well. :nod:

No, a bolt-on LS1 would definitely give this car a hard time. Mid 12 second times are very, very possible with a bolt-on LS1, a H/C LS1 wouldn't even be a fair race. This Charger makes tons of power, but the weight and sheer mass of this thing is what really hurts it. Still a very nice car regardless though.He wasn't actually talking about a drag race between two cars, one with an 800 lb advantage over the other. He was talking about power/torque figures.

Might very well be in some cases :nod: It's still a killer platform even to this day :judge:I think you misspelled "killed" in that response. :jest:

On a more serious note, the LS1 isn't a platform, it's an engine. A single design of the LS-series. ;)

You have way too much time on your hands qouting so many ppl.
And since you think your also an english teacher you misspelled by for "but" woohoo ya doof. Petty but I figur'd you would point that kind of stuff out.

The bottom line is both Ford and GM have attempts and more times than not are very successful in blending performance and economy...they are something to be proud of by most American muscle heads. Even though they chose to enter that scene very late. If they wouldnt have tho...the imports would be that much more dominant so they did so for selfish reasons...whatever at least they have tried....even if strictly to gain back lost sales.



Hmmm... I was thinking they're looking forward after a quick look back. They probably suspect VERY few will buy this car and because if that, the future value will be immense. Based on that, 43k seems like a bargain. I'm more with you on the whole "wait and see" thought. I know production will be limited and so will sales. I also know there are plenty of things to choose between, which weren't available "back when" and therefore, value of something made today will rarely match that of the "muscle car era" regardless performance advantages. Seems to me, they could build this new car for about 30k, so 43 is a profit indeed.



Why don't u try doubling your meds? this was good comedy. You think/believe Chrysler has that much foresight? that they're counting on future value? hahaha you're a bafoon. hahaha oh man hilarious. haha "43K seems like a bargain" HAHAHAHA "global hoaxing" HAHAHA we should feed the whales with you. but they're likely to spit you out....in turn you'll turn that into a biblical comparison.

This is a turd. A Pontiac G8 is a much better thought out car and like it there are many. This is a rolling slab of metal further hunked down with a lowly crafted hemi. Like I said "maybe" 9 grand.

What I will tell you and where you are somewhat remotely correct on is...you are exactly the IQ level they need to reel in and buy this mental midget's gocart. Hahahaha.

Please don't buy Chevrolet.

Dodge is the Arby's of American cars.....no one really eats there but yet somehow someway...they carry on...always limping....green turkey and all...

...or secretly laundering mob dough. Either way...eat all the drippy cheez whiz sandwiches u want. How this made it from paper to real is beyond everything.

You have way too much time on your hands qouting so many ppl.It isn't like it takes any less time to do it singly, Sir thinksalittle.

And since you think your also an english teacher you misspelled by for "but" woohoo ya doof. Petty but I figur'd you would point that kind of stuff out.Glad you took the time to say I misspelled "but" and all, BUT... I won't waste my time pointing out all your errors. It's obvious you never completed 5th grade grammar, so I'll try to leave you alone on that. In simply the above quote alone, there are no fewer than SIX grammatical errors, by the way. Don't waste much time talking down to anyone on the interwebz, kiddo. Lest you hear of people thinking, "No! There all gonna laugh at you!" as they do exactly that.

Yes, I know you meant something different, but I responded to what you actually said. :nod:

The bottom line is both Ford and GM have attempts and more times than not are very successful in blending performance and economy...they are something to be proud of by most American muscle heads. Even though they chose to enter that scene very late. If they wouldnt have tho...the imports would be that much more dominant so they did so for selfish reasons...whatever at least they have tried....even if strictly to gain back lost sales.This has nothing to do with much of anything and wouldn't, even if you'd typed it well enough to mean what you wanted to say. The point you're conveniently leaving out is, GM has 3 performance models offering less economy than that of the car this thread is supposed to be about, making your unwanted comments that much more ridiculously useless. You went out of your way to trash the Dodge product, not even being aware how terrible some GM's still are. Then again, you're proving to be rather lacking in the intelligence area in general. I now know what to expect from you... Nothing of value.

Why don't u try doubling your meds? this was good comedy.Doubling my meds will not make you intelligent(nor will anything else, apparently)! I won't bother doing so, but I recommend you see a doctor sooner rather than later.

You think/believe Chrysler has that much foresight? that they're counting on future value? hahaha you're a bafoon. hahaha oh man hilarious. haha "43K seems like a bargain" HAHAHAHA "global hoaxing" HAHAHA we should feed the whales with you. but they're likely to spit you out....in turn you'll turn that into a biblical comparison.Perhaps "If I only had a brain should be in your signature... I wasn't talking about Dodge having foresight. I was talking about the article. Pay attention much? You're just about as clueless and confused as I've seen here in quite some time. "hahahaha bafoon"... Buffoon is the correct spelling, DUMB ASS! If you had a clue, you long ago lost it... You're creating laughter, at you, not with you.

This is a turd. A Pontiac G8 is a much better thought out car and like it there are many. This is a rolling slab of metal further hunked down with a lowly crafted hemi. Like I said "maybe" 9 grand.Yeah, Pontiac's G8 is so damned nice, it's a wonder Pontiac isn't the #1 selling brand in America, as opposed to GONE! The Charger in question will run circles around the G8 as far as performance goes. I'm sure you've never been in a new Charger either, or you'd know it is also very comfortable, as is the 300 it shares the chassis with.

What I will tell you and where you are somewhat remotely correct on is...you are exactly the IQ level they need to reel in and buy this mental midget's gocart. Hahahaha.Coming from the likes of you, everyone EXCEPT you will surely take heed and note how much brighter than me you are... Yep, they sure will. So tell me, what's it like going to work at 12 because you decided school wasn't cool? Were I as intelligent as you, I'd leave people like me alone in the "mental midget" kinda comments... You, by no means strike any intelligent and educated man as anything of the sort.

Please don't buy Chevrolet.There's the kind of thing GM simply ABHORS(look it up, simpleton) from its "customer base," because it gives them a glimpse of the idiots who not only want to purchase their products and lack the funding, but it also helps "ward off" otherwise possible customers because those people don't want to appear STUPID to the rest of us... Just ask someone to explain that part to you as I haven't got the time or inclination(look that up too, mo-ron).

Dodge is the Arby's of American cars.....no one really eats there but yet somehow someway...they carry on...always limping....green turkey and all...Oh BOY, what a knee slapper! Give it a rest. We don't want people begging for tickets to your show just yet... :zzz:

...or secretly laundering mob dough.Neither, totally. They did what GM did and took from the people through the US government. So far, so good.

Either way...eat all the drippy cheez whiz sandwiches u want. How this made it from paper to real is beyond everything.It's only "beyond" the likes of you. People with any amount of sophistication will see the good and the bad with this car. However, most already know more about Dodge than you ever will, because they're not blinded by the emblems...

Standby for NEWS! :D
It was "for" emissions, but it actually helps power as well, albeit only by a little. It creates a cleaner burn or as they put it, a more complete burn. One of the main reasons for dual plug heads is to reduce detonation. That tells us much about the reality in a nutshell. Less detonation = a longer running and stronger engine. It can handle more timing, for example, which helps create more hp.

Can't remember when NISSAN started, but Ford began using dual plug heads in or around 1987(88 model), 20+ yrs back. MOPAR, however, did it as far back as 1970! http://www.allpar.com/mopar/hemi/hemi.html Read that stuff... The dual plug part is roughly half-way down the page.

I think the article said this car is available in 2 color packages, the aforementioned yellow and... BLACK!

Hmmm... I was thinking they're looking forward after a quick look back. They probably suspect VERY few will buy this car and because if that, the future value will be immense. Based on that, 43k seems like a bargain. I'm more with you on the whole "wait and see" thought. I know production will be limited and so will sales. I also know there are plenty of things to choose between, which weren't available "back when" and therefore, value of something made today will rarely match that of the "muscle car era" regardless performance advantages. Seems to me, they could build this new car for about 30k, so 43 is a profit indeed.

What about the guys running 4's? Oh yeah... They've got 16 plugs. :nod:

I ain't gettin' into this silly pissin' contest, but I do wonder what the 5.7L HEMI has to do with this? Clearly, this is about the 6.4L(and to some degree, 6.1L) version. The 5.7L HEMI today has a 390hp rating and up to 407 lb-ft torque. That's more than the 5.7L LS1. It is 345ci. Dodge offers a 426 HEMI crate engine making 540hp-530lb-ft torque. That's not too bad.

Clearly, your "license" hasn't expired... With that, this isn't about global hoaxing...er... warming, none of which is caused by or affected by man... Now then. Did you know that this particular car, offered by the "maker of republican flagships" (Republicans prefer Lincolns, but the way), gets BETTER economy than the Chevy flagship, Corvette ZR1??? Didya, huh huh, didya??? Probably not. It apparently also gets better mileage than the ZL1 and CTS-V and let's not concern ourselves with the fact those cars completely overpower it, because hey... YOU think Chrysler doesn't care about our globe and somehow, GM does... :zzz:

I'm no Dodge fan, but you're completely insane by comparison! You evidently have no understanding in the slightest, what these vehicles bring to the automotive table. They incite violence, so to speak. These over-sized and over-performing monstrosities offer more reason for more performance among competitors. Let it be and if you care about the environment, you may quit breathing at any time you desire, saving that much more precious oxygen for the rest of us. :nono:

Just tell us you were joking and all is well. :nod:

He wasn't actually talking about a drag race between two cars, one with an 800 lb advantage over the other. He was talking about power/torque figures.

I think you misspelled "killed" in that response. :jest:

On a more serious note, the LS1 isn't a platform, it's an engine. A single design of the LS-series. ;)

You sir are a gentleman and a scholar.

I would give you a high five over the computer if I could.

This will have to suffice instead.

o/ \o

Doubling my meds will not make you intelligent(nor will anything else, apparently)! I won't bother doing so, but I recommend you see a doctor sooner rather than later.


Right, right... but you do admit there are meds involved here. And with them come side effect...and altho you will not admit it...we could all be suffering through your multi qouting spews because of them. Why not just go back? go back tell them to double or give you something else. Cmon be a big person...the problems are bigger than you and I.

The article reads:
"Stoping? Turning? Fughedaboutit"
"minimalist audio reminiscent..of AM"
" altho 86 g isn't extraordinary....it's way better than 60's and 70s" Hahaha well I should fuggin hope so.
"$43500 including guzzler tax...Does that sound like a lot? Well yes...but blah blah blah" more LMAO!!

The article is expertly crafted. It's perfect actually. (forgiving the Waylon Jennings qoute).

Properly non medicated processing:
Pay 43K for an AM radio'd..overpower'd freak show that just barely outshines 60's and 70's lateral. Forget about stopping. And oh yea we did throw in power windows.
The nerve of them to drop the bilstein shocks(a minimal imo) but oh oh they gave us "genuine" super bee emblems...:bang:

You'd have to be on meds to buy this car......no pun intended It'llRun.
Seriously lets get you some help..make that call...its the first step...say it to the doc...." i think I need a little more"..."yea I might need more"....go on now.... It will help you. We're all on your side..look at little vasquez....go on now. Maybe you could update your sig? to how much u want to get stung by a super bee...in black. <--your dirty little secret huh? in a lincoln.....

You sir are a gentleman and a scholar.

I would give you a high five over the computer if I could.

This will have to suffice instead.

o/ \oThank you, but as you can see, NOT fully agreeing with some will earn you scorn and whining around this place... Mostly the youngsters, but it can come from anyone. Oh well... It's part of doing your own homework and having vast knowledge because of that, I suppose. I've gotten used to it. I spent more than 20yrs around the automotive aftermarket and I've heard as much silliness in person as I read on the net, and usually from the same type of people... Those who are new to the environment and unconvinced until they see it several times themselves.

Right, right... but you do admit there are meds involved here.How much is nothing times 2?

And with them come side effect...and altho you will not admit it...we could all be suffering through your multi qouting spews because of them.The only thing you are suffering is utter ignorance and a case of... well, I'll let that go for now. I will add, "multi-quoting" isn't a side effect or any sort of problem. It's intention, though you don't know it, is to save bandwidth.

Why not just go back? go back tell them to double or give you something else. Cmon be a big person...the problems are bigger than you and I.It appears your cynicism has gotten the best of you.

The article reads:
"Stoping? Turning? Fughedaboutit"
"minimalist audio reminiscent..of AM"
" altho 86 g isn't extraordinary....it's way better than 60's and 70s" Hahaha well I should fuggin hope so.
"$43500 including guzzler tax...Does that sound like a lot? Well yes...but blah blah blah" more LMAO!!

The article is expertly crafted. It's perfect actually. (forgiving the Waylon Jennings qoute).Therefore, apparently warranted your silly initial remarks!

Properly non medicated processing:
Pay 43K for an AM radio'd..overpower'd freak show that just barely outshines 60's and 70's lateral. Forget about stopping. And oh yea we did throw in power windows.Seriously, it seems you've missed quite a bit of what they're saying. The "stopping, turning, Fuhgedaboudit" part was their reference to the cars of the actual "muscle car era" and not the one written about here. I didn't see where they claimed this car has an AM radio. Maybe you could point that out for us?? It said the minimalist audio system is reminiscent of those old cars, not a direct copy.

It also doesn't "just barely" outshine the 60's and 70's cars... You obviously lost track of the story early on, and haven't yet gotten back to find yourself in it... This car stops from 70 in some 165 feet... That's pretty good and I suspect, much shorter than most of even the best cars of the 60's. Most 60's and 70's cars didn't get to .86g's if for no other reason, because the tires would hardly allow that. Even the article says as much.

This new Charger... 0-60 in 4.2(basically no car of the 60's did that, save perhaps an actual race car or AC Cobra. 0-100 in 9.8 isn't all that slow(quicker than an auto or manual equipped stock 2010- Camaro SS in several tests).

1/4 mile ET: 12.6 @ 115... This is heavier than even the Camaro SS and comparing auto to auto, ask yourself if this car seems slow... Now ask yourself which "muscle car" of the 60's or 70's did that while stock in showroom condition. Most of those old cars reached "terminal velocity" around 130mph... This Charger nearly reaches 180... Which is slow again? Not even the current Camaro SS can go there in total stock form.

They also "cheaped out" and fitted all season radials on this car, yet it still performed better than many available today, let alone the 60's.

If those numbers seem so sad and "barely" better than the past, check these out! http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/reviews/drives/4309166
"we scooted the SS to 60 mph in just 4.90 seconds. We hit 100 mph in 10.74 seconds and the quarter-mile was dispatched in 13.02 seconds at 111.43 mph." - Popular Mechanics
http://www.autostead.com/2010-chevrolet-camaro-ss-2ss/
http://www.insideline.com/chevrolet/camaro/2010/2010-chevy-camaro-ss-0-60-in-46-seconds.html
http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/driven/0903_2010_chevrolet_camaro_ss/viewall.html
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2010-chevrolet-camaro-ss-v8-short-take-road-test

If you can read through all those articles and still tell yourself that this Charger is all that bad, you're as lost as it seems.

The nerve of them to drop the bilstein shocks(a minimal imo) but oh oh they gave us "genuine" super bee emblems...:bang:Whatever. They happened to think it rode even better because of, not in spite of "better" shocks/struts.

You'd have to be on meds to buy this car......no pun intended It'llRun.That's your opinion. Millions more than agree with you will disagree with you on that thought. The car won't sell all that well, but it was never intended to sell well. That's the joy of being a Chrysler branded vehicle. High sales aren't the biggest priority.

Seriously lets get you some help..make that call...its the first step...say it to the doc...." i think I need a little more"..."yea I might need more"....go on now.... It will help you. We're all on your side..look at little vasquez....go on now. Maybe you could update your sig? to how much u want to get stung by a super bee...in black. <--your dirty little secret huh? in a lincoln.....How about forming a real and coherent sentence? Apparently the one in need of meds is you.

Great performer BUT, too darn expensive. Sorry. Compared to the Mustang and Camaro, there is nothing I can see that warrants a price tag of $43K in my honest opinion.

Nice car if you're willing to pay the premium.

The 5.7L HEMI today has a 390hp rating and up to 407 lb-ft torque. That's more than the 5.7L LS1. It is 345ci. Dodge offers a 426 HEMI crate engine making 540hp-530lb-ft torque. That's not too bad.

Again, why are we comparing a motor that debuted in 2011 (392 Hemi) to a motor that debuted in 1997 (LS1)? It took Chrysler how many years to surpass the LS1's 345hp and 350tq ratings with their 5.7L Hemi? And as you know GM's LS6, which is also 5.7L, was making 405hp and 400tq in 2002. I would hope that GM, Ford, and Chrysler are currently producing higher performing V8's than anything they were producing 10 to 15 years ago.

And that 426 Hemi looks like a badass motor. I really hope they make it an option or offer it in a special edition Challenger or Charger in the next couple years. :usa:

Again, why are we comparing a motor that debuted in 2011 to a motor that debuted 1997?Because "fanboys" on here decided to, that's why. It began at post #3, intentionally or not.

It took Chrysler how many years to surpass the LS1's (5.7L) 345hp and 350tq ratings?Technically, they surpassed the LS1 and the LS1 never surpassed them back, before there was the 1993 LT1, let alone the LS1. The 5.7L HEMI has been around since roughly 2003... The V10 has been around since 1992... I believe it bested the LS1 before the LS1 ever existed, but maybe that's just me. :jest:

And as you know GM's LS6 (also 5.7L) was making 405hp and 400tq in 2002. I would hope that GM, Ford, and Chrysler are currently producing higher performing V8's than anything they were producing 10 to 15 years ago.There are plenty of legitimate reasons to not be producing more, but all 3 have discarded those reasons and done better anyway. Good for them!

And that 426 Hemi looks like a badass motor. I really hope they make it an option or offer it in a special edition Challenger or Charger in the next couple years. :usa:I wanna see an aluminum 6.4L myself, but only for those Dodge boys. They could use a break in nearly all categories. :jest:

Technically, they surpassed the LS1 and the LS1 never surpassed them back, before there was the 1993 LT1, let alone the LS1. The 5.7L HEMI has been around since roughly 2003... The V10 has been around since 1992... I believe it bested the LS1 before the LS1 ever existed, but maybe that's just me. :jest:

Let's stick to late model V8's to keep this as close to apples to apples as possible. So it took Chrysler 6 years to develop a 5.7L motor to beat the LS1? And by the time it was released it was already behind GM's upgraded 5.7L (LS6).


And I agree, an aluminum block 392 would also be nice. But to me it was an absolute shocker that Chrysler released the 392 in production vehicles with an iron block then turns around just a few months later and releases the all aluminum 426 as a crate motor. I would have thought they would use an aluminum block 392 for production vehicles and iron block 426 crate motor to market to the performance crowd. :confused:

He wasn't actually talking about a drag race between two cars, one with an 800 lb advantage over the other. He was talking about power/torque figures.

I think you misspelled "killed" in that response. :jest:

On a more serious note, the LS1 isn't a platform, it's an engine. A single design of the LS-series. ;)

Yeah, I guess you're right. Didn't even realize that we weren't even talking about actual performance figures here until you pointed it out. Power/torque output that 6.4 has is excellent, I'm very impressed, but it can only go so far in a car that weighs as much as it does, so that makes the power/torque argument kind of invalid. Proof being that a 14 year old bolt-on LS1 with a decent driver could probably run right with it.

Also, "platform" was the wrong word I'll admit but you know what I meant :jest:

Let's stick to late model V8's to keep this as close to apples to apples as possible. So it took Chrysler 6 years to develop a 5.7L motor to beat the LS1? And by the time it was released it was already behind GM's upgraded 5.7L (LS6).Heh... You asked. I answered... Just sayin'... :lol:

And I agree, an aluminum block 392 would also be nice. But to me it was an absolute shocker that Chrysler released the 392 in production vehicles with an iron block then turns around just a few months later and releases the all aluminum 426 as a crate motor. I would have thought they would use an aluminum block 392 for production vehicles and iron block 426 crate motor to market to the performance crowd. :confused:Idonno... I remember when aluminum was "race only" stuff and iron was the enemy(due to the obvious, weight and heat). Now those tables have shifted a bit in American vehicles, except Dodge... It took them WAY too long to offer that engine, btw.

When the 6.1L came out, I distinctly remember saying, "It's an IRON block?" I was stunned... They could lose money on aluminum or they could see major improvements. Apparently they were afraid of regular production aluminum and that's too bad. We all know it can work very well.

Yeah, I guess you're right. Didn't even realize that we weren't even talking about actual performance figures here until you pointed it out. Power/torque output that 6.4 has is excellent, I'm very impressed, but it can only go so far in a car that weighs as much as it does, so that makes the power/torque argument kind of invalid. Proof being that a 14 year old bolt-on LS1 with a decent driver could probably run right with it.Yep. I don't think many doubt that a 470hp 4th gen would rip right on past the 470hp Challenger... That race would essentially qualify as "a big joke" to most here.

Also, "platform" was the wrong word I'll admit but you know what I meant :jest::lol: Can't say you're wrong there. :chug:

It's yellow and has a bee on it.

It's yellow and has a bee on it.

I wonder if all people can see the same shade of yellow?

I wonder if all people can see the same shade of yellow?

I don't know, but this car is yellow and has a bee on it.

I don't know, but this car is yellow and has a bee on it.

If a Charger is produced without a Bee, is it still a Super Bee?

i think i may have mentioned this in another thread.....but here in my little corner of new jersey, as of late, i'm seeing a LOT more chargers, and challengers than i used to see. i see them almost as much as i see the mustangs and cameros.

I have so wanted to run a 392 in my SS, but I can only find them (along with Mustangs and everything else) when I'm out in the DD stratus. The SS must scare them. :eyes:

I don't know, but this car is yellow and has a bee on it.I wonder if all bees can see the same shade of yellow, and if they even know they're yellow... :jest:

I have so wanted to run a 392 in my SS, but I can only find them (along with Mustangs and everything else) when I'm out in the DD stratus. The SS must scare them. :eyes:

ya know the ONLY cars that've tried playing with me in the gt so far?(and it's probably better, 'cause with only 1600 miles, i still don't wanna beat on it too much)
a MILF in an infinity.....didn't take much at all to play the stay out front game
a goofball in a turbo-diesel mercedes. took a little less than the infinity.
a goofball just the other night in a 05-09 bodystyle mustang. with a fucking SIX cylinder. i STILL don't know exactly what the hell he was trying to do. i was cruising at 80....as i was passing him, he accelerated just enough to not let me pass at that speed. after a few seconds, he pulled a couple cars up, and was going away, so i figured he just decided to go faster. next thing ya know, he's dropping back, and pacing me now. so i took it out of od, and ran her up to 110, was nearly a quarter mile in front, and went back to normal cruise mode.
here he comes, pulls up in back of me, and stays about 4 cars back for about 10 miles. then he flies by me. a couple miles up the road, i'm still doing my 80, but here i am catching him again. i went by him, while i was still only doing 80, as he lost speed going up a hill for the overpass.

i guess he felt good that he passed a v8 car. :jest:

I wonder if all bees can see the same shade of yellow, and if they even know they're yellow... :jest:

i wonder why people will say something like "i'll make a bee-line to the shop.

you ever seen a bee fly?

i wonder why people will say something like "i'll make a bee-line to the shop.

you ever seen a bee fly?:lol: Yeah and to think, there's a road in Florida call "The BEE LINE highway" which is essentially straight! There's also the same basic name for roads in both Alabama and Arizona... Florida also has "The Beeline Expressway" to the north of the highway... figure that out! :jest:

Bees fly all over the place, as if they're lost. Then, they turn around and retrace the entire route to find their way back home!

ya know the ONLY cars that've tried playing with me in the gt so far?(and it's probably better, 'cause with only 1600 miles, i still don't wanna beat on it too much)
a MILF in an infinity.....didn't take much at all to play the stay out front game
a goofball in a turbo-diesel mercedes. took a little less than the infinity.
a goofball just the other night in a 05-09 bodystyle mustang. with a fucking SIX cylinder. i STILL don't know exactly what the hell he was trying to do. i was cruising at 80....as i was passing him, he accelerated just enough to not let me pass at that speed. after a few seconds, he pulled a couple cars up, and was going away, so i figured he just decided to go faster. next thing ya know, he's dropping back, and pacing me now. so i took it out of od, and ran her up to 110, was nearly a quarter mile in front, and went back to normal cruise mode.
here he comes, pulls up in back of me, and stays about 4 cars back for about 10 miles. then he flies by me. a couple miles up the road, i'm still doing my 80, but here i am catching him again. i went by him, while i was still only doing 80, as he lost speed going up a hill for the overpass.

i guess he felt good that he passed a v8 car. :jest:

:jest: That's great! I've had two 4.6 3valve mustang gt's with various mods go down, 1 2011 5.0 that was a dead heat and 1 1998 Trans Am owned by a buddy of mine where we 'raced'. We were just messing around because neither of us could hook and we didn't want to chance a cop sitting on the street.

All the cars just rev but don't do anything are everything from riced out civics to 80 somethings monte carlo with a v8 camming and exhaust with 20-something plus inch rims.

No 392 Dodge, no newer 5th gens, most mustang guys or vettes are to be found when I bring the SS out. Odd.....:judge:

My car with 100 less hp would keep up or win all else being equal i.e. tires. With 470hp, an f-body would stomp that car at EVERYTHING except interior or ride quality stuff. But, it's funny how you aren't comparing c.i.s here. Don't pick on our lonely old 346....it's still holding its own in that respect.

And the dual plug design has been around 20 years, yep 20 years ago Ford was doing it, actual Nissan was too a little before that I think. Its for emissions you dope. Not for power. Know what you're talking about before you rattle off.

And to add to that, to insinuate that a second burn on the "power" stroke is beneficial for power just shows you have a low working knowledge of how a combustion engine actually works. While modern day electronic ignitions may fire bursts of spark on the plug to create a more complete burn, to think that one completely different spark for a completely different plug from some other point in time then the standard ignition timing event would create magical previously unlocked hp is downright ridiculous. Remember, internal combustion engines have been in production 100+ years. This is just another engine, Dodge isn't creating miracles here.

All else equal? That would mean that your F-body has to weigh 4,2xx lbs.

Obviously weights of the chassis I consider a fixed amount, i.e. stock. Meaning that big nice inflated hp number really doesn't directly translate into ETs. I was illustrating if these two cars theoretically lined up and one car had a sticky tire, the other would get the same. Win going the f-body with less hp all else being equal.

As a guy with 3 kids...unable to justify a two door without feeling guilty...and unable to afford 3 cars...it's appealing. I wish it was 4k and under in weight.

Nowdays I have an 06 Charger R/T 5.7 , 36k miles on it, no options, currently and for a family sedan with an eye towards decent performance it meets our needs. I wish I had more options from Chevrolet or Ford, for that matter, as far as rwd sedans. This replaced my less streetable drag truck and I don't feel so bad about it now. Best I can muster with a diablo tune, DR's, and an open diff is 2.1 60ft. 13.86 at 1100ft. Eh...it's still nice.

The price for that "Super Bee" is still too high imo. It should at least be available for under 40k, keeping LSD and why no aluminum block yet? These things need to lose weight and losing weight off the nose would be even better for those of us who drag race. Maybe they'll shrink the platform, go to that 8sp auto for less rpm drop between shifts, and get that aluminum block in there.

And...why do I only have one post showing? lol Member since 04 but haven't gotten on in a LONG time.

Thought I heard Chevy was going to put out rwd sedan? Is that a go?

Just in case it hasn't been clarified, a slightly bolt on ls1 can easily beat the 392 in the 1/4, I had 4 mods done, Nittos, lid, catback and a converter, low 12s all day with an ls1 intake. No where near full bolt on.

Just in case it hasn't been clarified, a slightly bolt on ls1 can easily beat the 392 in the 1/4, I had 4 mods done, Nittos, lid, catback and a converter, low 12s all day with an ls1 intake. No where near full bolt on.

http://www.troll.me/images/creepy-willy-wonka/cool-story-bro-thumb.jpg

http://www.troll.me/images/creepy-willy-wonka/cool-story-bro-thumb.jpg

yes it is :nod:

yes it is :nod:100% irrelevant, but cool... How does a totally stock LS1 fare? Consider the realities here... IF you can. :zzz:

100% irrelevant, but cool... How does a totally stock LS1 fare? Consider the realities here... IF you can. :zzz:

I only posted that because someone in this thread mentioned that it would take a full bolt on ls1 to take out that charger in the 1/4.

I only posted that because someone in this thread mentioned that it would take a full bolt on ls1 to take out that charger in the 1/4.True, but it's probably always best to quote the actual post you're referring to as it can help reduce some confusion and avoid any potential relevancy issues once a thread gets to be multiple pages long. :nod:

True, but it's probably always best to quote the actual post you're referring to as it can help reduce some confusion and avoid any potential relevancy issues once a thread gets to be multiple pages long. :nod:

Yeah that was my fault, I read the first page but didn't see that the thread got this long.

this "LS1 vs. everything else" debate will never end. Until the ATS-V comes out next year and sets the new benchmark for GM performance sedans that is ;)

420+HP/TQ through a 6speed auto/manual and a ~3600lb. curb weight. With all the safety and technology you could ever want to boot. Yes, I know the Vette will always be the king but that's in a different category. Apples to apples would be Viper vs. Vette.. since we're talking 4 doors here, the ATS-V is going to destroy anything in its path from Mopar and Ford. The alpha platform is going to dishout GM ass-kickings all over the place just like the good old days of the 98-02 LS1s :usa:

this "LS1 vs. everything else" debate will never end. Until the ATS-V comes out next year and sets the new benchmark for GM performance sedans that is ;)You ARE kidding, right? I mean, we've seen newer, better LS series engines offering much better results for a friggin' decade already. There are already SEVERAL cars that offer more than the supposed upcoming ATS, which, from what I've read, won't even have a V8 available. The CTS-V is plenty, but there's also the ZL1 and ZO6 and ZR1... Further, the Camro SS is available with more power already. None of the aforementioned cars has an LS1 and all are more powerful, etc.

420+HP/TQ through a 6speed auto/manual and a ~3600lb. curb weight. With all the safety and technology you could ever want to boot. Yes, I know the Vette will always be the king but that's in a different category. Apples to apples would be Viper vs. Vette.. since we're talking 4 doors here, the ATS-V is going to destroy anything in its path from Mopar and Ford. The alpha platform is going to dishout GM ass-kickings all over the place just like the good old days of the 98-02 LS1s :usa:Are Ford and/or Dodge even offering a car in the class?

If GM offers the twin turbo V6, it will be great for the buyer. Personally, I'd need a whole bunch more reason to choose the ATS over the CTS.

I'm not comparing cubic inches because it's not worth mentioning. The HEMI has the LS1 outgunned. A bolt-on LS1 would not be competitive and you would have to do a thorough Heads/Cam to an LS1 to eclipse the performance margin of the 6.4 litre HEMI. Even then, a punched out LS1 would not hit the 6.4 litre mark.

The HEMI has it matched on displacement, total HP and Torque, HP and Torque under the curve, engine architecture and design, and flow figures.

The heads flow 270 CFM at .600 inches of lift. By comparison, stock LS1 heads flowed 230 CFM at .600 and LS6 heads flowed 257 CFM at .600

It just makes power and a lot of it. The fact that it's stuck in a 4200+ lbs Charger will not be the magical equalizer.

This is inaccurate data. The 270CFM you speak of is from the 1st gen 5.7 hemi head which is no longer used. The new 5.7 eagle head flows 300@600 lift that is on all the RTs and current trucks. The 6.1 on the old srts and flows similar to the eagle. The 392 carries the new "apache" head that flows 330-340. It has been ported out to 400cfm. It's a steal at the current price from Mopar, but it does need a big cube motor to show its full potential.

I like that a lot. Can't afford a new one. Wish it had a manual tranny option. Wish it was available with 18" wheels. Other than that, Winner!! I'd totally make that a daily driver with a decent exhaust and maybe a shift kit if they make one and a more performance oriented torque convertor.
:burn:

Great looking cars in person. I tried racing one on the highway after work yesterday not having a clue what they run. I'm a Chevy guy but i'm happy to see Dodge make some performers because i'm sick of racing Mustang GT's.

To clarify the two plugs per cylinder issue. This has been done at least since the 1930's on Radial and all Reciprocating engines. Cessna is not an engine manufacture so they haven't been doing it for years lol. They do however have Lycoming and Continental Horizontally Opposed engines that all have them. They also have two Magnetos that provide the spark which is a self contained system which creates its own circuit not needing an alternator. In aviation they use dual plugs for redundancy so in case one magneto happens to fail in flight, the other will continue to operate the engine sufficiently until it lands. It does however also provide a power increase. When performing a ground run you do a magneto check. You shut off one magneto around 1200-1500 rpms and look for a slight RPM drop. Typically an engine will drop anywhere from 50-150 rpms before slightly rising back up. That is whats accecptable

Who has an article about how Hemi utilizes the dual spark plugs? Someone mentioned that they fire one at TDC and one after TDC. That means the timing is COMPLETELY retarded lol. I could see one firing at 25 degrees BTDC and one 5-10 degrees BTDC.

I'd like to know how that works too.