C&D - 2012 Dodge Charger SRT8 392 HEMI Super Bee
04-16-2012, 11:54 AM
#21
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
04-16-2012, 12:23 PM
#23
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
04-16-2012, 12:29 PM
#24
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
04-16-2012, 01:52 PM
#25
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.
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.
04-16-2012, 03:23 PM
#26
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (96)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Turnin' Wrenches Infractions: 005
Posts: 24,240
Likes: 0
Received 81 Likes
on
72 Posts
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. 
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.
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.
04-16-2012, 03:34 PM
#28
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.
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.
04-16-2012, 03:39 PM
#29
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.
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.
04-16-2012, 05:36 PM
#31
TECH Senior Member
"Thorough" H/C/I LS1's are making well over 500RWHP...
04-16-2012, 07:13 PM
#32
Launching!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
04-16-2012, 07:35 PM
#33
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
04-16-2012, 07:38 PM
#34
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
04-16-2012, 07:45 PM
#35
Launching!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
04-16-2012, 07:53 PM
#36
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
04-16-2012, 08:11 PM
#37
Launching!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
04-16-2012, 08:13 PM
#38
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
04-16-2012, 08:33 PM
#39
TECH Fanatic
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.
.
.
It's still a killer platform even to this day 
