2011 6.4L challenger dyno #s
#1
2011 6.4L challenger dyno #s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q6Qs4UGVH8
420HP/420TQ SAE A little higher than I would have guest. I guess that explains the 12.44 ETs
420HP/420TQ SAE A little higher than I would have guest. I guess that explains the 12.44 ETs
#3
TECH Enthusiast
420 rwhp? sounds anout right for a broken in car. probably a bit lower off the showroom. probably 405rwhp. sounds exactly right.
doesnt sound a single hp under rated to me.
420rwhp is maybe 480-485 crank on a broken in motor. no suprise there. still doesnt equal a 12.44 @110.
it is what is it. an old school hemi.
doesnt sound a single hp under rated to me.
420rwhp is maybe 480-485 crank on a broken in motor. no suprise there. still doesnt equal a 12.44 @110.
it is what is it. an old school hemi.
#4
TECH Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ Hometown: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 4,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stock for stock the HEMI sounds a helluva lot better than the 5.0 and especially the LS3, which is so muffled you can hardly tell it's a V8.
Trending Topics
#10
I'd be curious to see what it does on an engine dyno. I'm guessing 480-490 given that drivetrain. It was reported on one of the Mopar boards that they had to take out some timing to pass emissions. With headers and some timing it reportedly made 525 at the crank. It's too bad they put it in such a pig. That motor has a ton of potential. I know a local shop who did a max effort porting on those heads and darn near had 400 cfm out of it.
#12
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (8)
I think they should offer a live axle option on this car... that could knock a few pounds off and make it better at the strip.
#13
TECH Resident
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eau Claire-ish, WI
Posts: 853
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
420whp is about 500 crank, a good bit more than the rated 470. Pretty sad if it's only trapping 110 with that much power. I think a diet would have been much better than more power for this car.
#14
TECH Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ Hometown: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 4,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure other drivers will be able to extract more out of this car stock.
#16
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (6)
420 rwhp? sounds anout right for a broken in car. probably a bit lower off the showroom. probably 405rwhp. sounds exactly right.
doesnt sound a single hp under rated to me.
420rwhp is maybe 480-485 crank on a broken in motor. no suprise there. still doesnt equal a 12.44 @110.
it is what is it. an old school hemi.
doesnt sound a single hp under rated to me.
420rwhp is maybe 480-485 crank on a broken in motor. no suprise there. still doesnt equal a 12.44 @110.
it is what is it. an old school hemi.
The last cutaway I saw of a 5.7 Hemi (2008) it had a wedge piston design and a Hemi head. I was under the impression that "old school hemis" were hemi piston and head design, not just hemi heads. This would lead me to think these new engines are more of a Wedge design than Hemi.
Feel free to correct me here, just curious. Thanks.
#17
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Burleson/Ftw,Texas
Posts: 3,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question about "old school hemi"........
The last cutaway I saw of a 5.7 Hemi (2008) it had a wedge piston design and a Hemi head. I was under the impression that "old school hemis" were hemi piston and head design, not just hemi heads. This would lead me to think these new engines are more of a Wedge design than Hemi.
Feel free to correct me here, just curious. Thanks.
The last cutaway I saw of a 5.7 Hemi (2008) it had a wedge piston design and a Hemi head. I was under the impression that "old school hemis" were hemi piston and head design, not just hemi heads. This would lead me to think these new engines are more of a Wedge design than Hemi.
Feel free to correct me here, just curious. Thanks.