Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Road Kill Drive-Thru' started by SVTlove, Sep 11, 2011.
Hell the guy above me has a friend that ran 12.2 stock oke:
Why buy a 392 for n/a power when you can do it in a lighter car with a 4.6 or the new 5.0 :dw:
That's hauling, for the sake of purity though unless he removed them he had a strut tower brace and subframe connectors listed in another thead.
RumbleBee.org - The Dodge Ram Rumble Bee Owner Community :: View topic - Finally took the challenger to the track
Not that there would be a big change in his 1/4 or anything but little hard to claim 100% stock when who knows what is on the car that he forgot to mention.
Still damn impressive for such a big car. Are the automatics just that much better than the manuals?
I guess it's possible that another car at ATCO or something could pull of a freak time I guess. Just no way the one I'm talking about can really shave off 5 tenths and trap 4mph higher when he's already running in -400 da and we all power shifted/no lift shifted the car. Must be a lemon or something, weather doesn't get much better than that for most of us.
Well hell then my car is stock
I owned a 2010 Dodge Challenger SRT8 (auto) before trading it in for my 2011 GT500.
I loved the Challenger, and would have both if I could afford it.
Getting in the car and looking down the hood felt like being behind the wheel of my 1970 buick skylark again. Starting it up, it just sounded angry. And while it's completely subjective, I will say that I did prefer the sound of my Dodge to my GT500.
You're not just buying performance when you're buying a Challenger, you're buying an image... I would even say you're buying the closest thing to a "Modern Muscle car" as you can get.
That being said, I traded mine in because I wanted a pure bad a$$ street machine, and it was cheaper (not to mention safer with the warranty) to do it by getting a GT500 rather than strapping on a TVS2300 blower on a non-forged motor.
My brother still has his 2010 Challenger SRT8 (manual), and went with a Magna TVS2300(8lbs), LT headers, Cam, and a fairly mild tune (for the build). My stock GT-500 *may* take him if I can hook up, but it's still ridiculously fast.
Drive what you want, life would be boring if we all drove the same thing.
BTW, I suggest going to an SRT track experience if you can. You can find the vouchers for pretty cheap (around $200) and you get a full day of track time (I did Vegas speedway). Autocross, head to head, and hotlaps with their pros (who would make you re-think your "auto" insults). I was impressed by the capability of the dodges.
I've said it numerous times... Between my buddies srt8 charger, his dads 392 challenger and the Durango r/t (2011) Ive had the pleasure of driving dodge hasn't been given enough credit. Those vehicles are worlds above the crap I'm used to from GM. Glad to see them being built and seeing the owners flogging them at the track.
I think you have it all backwards :shrug: You were stating how great the Challenger was if I remember correctly.
+1. Enjoy the Challenger. It's a mean looking car. The retro look for the Charger was a complete failure. They did a nice job with the Challenger (especially the SRT 8).
I think I was misunderstood. Was just saying that you had a massive power and weight advantage, so it should be no surprise that he didn't keep up at all. Altitude kills n/a mills much more than f/i ones. I bet he was down ~20% from the factory rating. It would still lose at sea level though
Right on :beer:
Supercharged cars lose just as much as N/A cars at altitude.
If it were a turbo car that would be a different story.
A supercharged engine can't process any more air and begins losing power as it rises above sea level just as a naturally aspirated engine does..
The difference in turbo cars is they often have more capacity with a wastegate to limit turbo boost, (which at altitude would just stay closed earlier and longer to compensate for loss in air quality).
The type of FI needs to have the ability to increase speed or have reserve capacity to maintain sea-level horsepower at altitude. A positive displacement blower with x pulley doesn’t magically have the capability to process more air. It loses power as it rises above sea level just as a naturally aspirated engine does. The only type of supercharger that can compensate for a loss in air quality are ones fitted with a transmission.
There proof to back up what you are saying somewhere? Everywhere that I read states FI of any kind loses less than N/A as the DA rises. I'm all ears if what you are saying is true... just the first time I've heard that.
He is right. I see proof of this every year at the track. Turbo cars run what they would atwant sea level here at 5000 ft+ and na cars and supercharged cars run around 1 full second slower than they should.
I think you missed what I was asking actually... he stated they lose just as much. IF that was true why would they have used superchargers on planes in the old days to deal with DA effects? Also why would the NHRA correction factors give a different correction factor for supercharged vehicles vs N/A? If he is correct that's great I will learn something new... just asking for proof here is all.
I will see what I can find. I believe the supercharge on planes thing was to up the power to be able to still have power up high but not to counter act the da. Does that make sense? I am horrible at explaining how I think
for what its worth, my WRX is mostly stock and it does not feel much different at all at Denver's altitude than it did I lived in florida. (it certainly does feel weaker when we drive it up I-70 into the mountains and the altitude climbs significantly higher). But the cobra felt stronger, stock vs stock comparison, when I drove it in San Diego and then in Denver.
A superchargers gearing will always keep the same ratio. Say you are running 9at psi sea level. Once you get to 5000 ft say the air is 3 times thinner. Then you would only be pushing 3 psi. Now with a turbo the wastegate wont open till it hits 9 psi therefor it builds up to that point regardless of how dense the air is to start with. That is the way I understood it.
Sounds about right. Welcome to the hills by the way.