C&D - 2012 Dodge Charger SRT8 392 HEMI Super Bee
04-15-2012, 12:29 PM
#1
TECH Veteran
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ Hometown: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 4,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C&D - 2012 Dodge Charger SRT8 392 HEMI Super Bee The Dodge Boys' latest bargain bullet.
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
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
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
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
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
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 **** 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 **** 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
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
Trending Topics
04-15-2012, 08:04 PM
#8
TECH Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Levittown PA
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
04-15-2012, 08:38 PM
#9
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
04-15-2012, 09:39 PM
#11
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,894
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
04-15-2012, 10:08 PM
#12
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
6 Posts
What?!?!? LOL... bolt ons buddy, LT headers, intake, exhaust, etc can run mid-low 12's. Who said anything about spray???
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.
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.
If you read on... Your see they get better times. They ran a stock CTS-V & got 12.5 @ 116 
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!
Last edited by DoggyB22; 04-15-2012 at 10:19 PM.
04-15-2012, 11:59 PM
#13
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
04-16-2012, 12:26 AM
#14
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
6 Posts
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.
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.
04-16-2012, 03:29 AM
#15
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (96)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Turnin' Wrenches Infractions: 005
Posts: 24,241
Likes: 0
Received 79 Likes
on
70 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by 01ssreda4; 04-16-2012 at 03:35 AM.
04-16-2012, 03:39 AM
#16
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (96)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Turnin' Wrenches Infractions: 005
Posts: 24,241
Likes: 0
Received 79 Likes
on
70 Posts
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 ****. For a sedan, bone stock, 115mph is moving pretty damn good. Handling and braking don't seen on-par with acceleration though.
04-16-2012, 08:41 AM
#17
TECH Resident
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: NJ
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
04-16-2012, 09:06 AM
#18
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (96)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Turnin' Wrenches Infractions: 005
Posts: 24,241
Likes: 0
Received 79 Likes
on
70 Posts
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.
Last edited by 01ssreda4; 04-16-2012 at 09:12 AM.
04-16-2012, 10:09 AM
#19
TECH Resident
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: NJ
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
