13' 1LE VS 10' challenger R/T hemi 5.7

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Stew

How is that 7/10s quicker? 13.2 is only around 3/10s quicker than what Motor trend and Car and Driver both got at 13.5 and those were manuals. ANYONE who knows about these cars knows the autos ARE quicker because the torque management in the manuals takes out a lot more power than what it does on the autos. So, you would believe a 12.6 from a stock SS that gets 13.0 in all the magazines, but not a 13.2 from a Challebnger that gets 13.5 in the magazines? R/Ts are NOT the dogs people here make them out to be. Maybe not the quickest one out there, but close enough giving it is 3k cheaper than it's competition and certainly quicker than the competitions V6s..... Sounds like some insecurity to me..........

No I don't believe a stock SS is getting a 12.6 either. Maybe a 12.9. And regardless of what you say, no an R/T is not running a 13.2. I'm not saying they are dogs. They are fast, just not as fast as an SS or GT. And that is due to its weight. However, when you factor in the HP and TQ they make, you can see that they are not fast. LS1 F-Bodys were running those same times with less hp, less tq, and less displacement. I trust the times from Motortrend and Car And Driver or any other magazine because they test cars EXACTLY as it is from the factory. Forum people lie all the time about stock this or stock internal that or whatever. And for the record, where did you get anywhere even close to insecurity from my statements? Sounds like you have no idea what insecurity is because there was nothing at all even remotely resembling insecurity in what I said.

[attymf]

I read only the initial post to this thread and laughed. I have not seen a stock 5.7 hemi run under a 14 ever! I cai and exhaust aint gonna make it come close to a camaro with a V8.

[RA1987]

who won? lol

[Stew]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

No I don't believe a stock SS is getting a 12.6 either. Maybe a 12.9. And regardless of what you say, no an R/T is not running a 13.2. I'm not saying they are dogs. They are fast, just not as fast as an SS or GT. And that is due to its weight. However, when you factor in the HP and TQ they make, you can see that they are not fast. LS1 F-Bodys were running those same times with less hp, less tq, and less displacement. I trust the times from Motortrend and Car And Driver or any other magazine because they test cars EXACTLY as it is from the factory. Forum people lie all the time about stock this or stock internal that or whatever. And for the record, where did you get anywhere even close to insecurity from my statements? Sounds like you have no idea what insecurity is because there was nothing at all even remotely resembling insecurity in what I said.

I like this post much better even though you contradicted yourself. FYI, LS1 F-bodies made more like 350 HP and were around 800 pounds lighter, simply put THAT why they were as quick as they were (HP to weight is FAR more important and straight out HP numbers). By your logic with the LS1s being basically as quick as an LS3 Camaro, that makes the LS3 Camaro look even worse than the Challenger. And no, most people claiming they are stock ARE stock, people were running these times when there weren't even tunes available for these cars. No, low 13s are NOT the norm, but they DO happen. And I regularly see bone stock cars at the track running a few 10ths quicker than what the mainsream magazines get. Be it a better launch, better weather, or lower altitude Magizines rarely, if ever, give you the times a vehicle is truly capable of. Probably good for an average, but not the BEST times and not the WORST times.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Stew

I like this post much better even though you contradicted yourself. FYI, LS1 F-bodies made more like 350 HP and were around 800 pounds lighter, simply put THAT why they were as quick as they were (HP to weight is FAR more important and straight out HP numbers). By your logic with the LS1s being basically as quick as an LS3 Camaro, that makes the LS3 Camaro look even worse than the Challenger. And no, most people claiming they are stock ARE stock, people were running these times when there weren't even tunes available for these cars. No, low 13s are NOT the norm, but they DO happen. And I regularly see bone stock cars at the track running a few 10ths quicker than what the mainsream magazines get. Be it a better launch, better weather, or lower altitude Magizines rarely, if ever, give you the times a vehicle is truly capable of. Probably good for an average, but not the BEST times and not the WORST times.

The LS1 powered F-Body was running a mid to high 13...like a 13.5-13.6. The Dodge R/T is right there at 13.6. The LS3/L99 SS Camaro is a 13.0-13.2. And the SRT-8 is about a 12.8. Those are official times that I have seen and those are the times I was referring to. When I mentioned the LS1 in my last post...I was saying that it runs similar times to the R/T. Maybe I didn't clarify. Hopefully this all clears up what I was saying. But I didn't contradict myself. I have a habit of not saying the years or generation when I say SS.

As far as people running those times and saying they are stock...I don't trust it. Because like I said, people will flat out lie to make them or their car or their favorite car sound faster than it really is. Magazines are by far more trustworthy because they have a reputation as being truthful and unbiased. If they claimed false numbers, trust me their boards and mail columns would be full of people calling them out. Whether they give you the absolute best possible time on the absolute best possible day with the absolute best possible conditions in a factory freak or not isn't my concern. When 2 or 3 mags each consistently report within a tenth or two of each other...that is by far more reliable than some bozo claiming he ran 5-7 tenths faster.

And I agree that weight is a big issue. Which is why I said the R/T and SRT-8 were slow considering the hp and tq they have.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

The LS1 powered F-Body was running a mid to high 13...like a 13.5-13.6. The Dodge R/T is right there at 13.6. The LS3/L99 SS Camaro is a 13.0-13.2. And the SRT-8 is about a 12.8. Those are official times that I have seen and those are the times I was referring to. When I mentioned the LS1 in my last post...I was saying that it runs similar times to the R/T. Maybe I didn't clarify. Hopefully this all clears up what I was saying. But I didn't contradict myself. I have a habit of not saying the years or generation when I say SS.

As far as people running those times and saying they are stock...I don't trust it. Because like I said, people will flat out lie to make them or their car or their favorite car sound faster than it really is. Magazines are by far more trustworthy because they have a reputation as being truthful and unbiased. If they claimed false numbers, trust me their boards and mail columns would be full of people calling them out. Whether they give you the absolute best possible time on the absolute best possible day with the absolute best possible conditions in a factory freak or not isn't my concern. When 2 or 3 mags each consistently report within a tenth or two of each other...that is by far more reliable than some bozo claiming he ran 5-7 tenths faster.

And I agree that weight is a big issue. Which is why I said the R/T and SRT-8 were slow considering the hp and tq they have.

You realize Edmunds got 12.6 for a stock SRT8 automatic, correct? Doesn't that count in your book? Anyways, some may lie, but most do not. As for being slow, havn't mags got like 13.2 for aa 400 HP Automatic SS and 13.5 for a 370 HP R/T? I have seen times as slow as 13.3s for manual SSes too which have 426 HP, this is the problem with you calling it slow for it's HP, by your estimates the SS is painfully slow for it's HP ratings too.

[MEDISIN]

Originally Posted by Stew

You realize Edmunds got 12.6 for a stock SRT8 automatic, correct?

And MotorTrend got 12.9 sec @ 110.7 mph out of an SS and 12.7 sec @ 111.3 mph out of a 5.0. If you're going to cherry-pick best magazine times for a car, at least include all of them.

[MEDISIN]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

Motor trend has went as fast as 12.7 with the 5.0.

You can't simply pick one comparison and build a case around it. Let's look at all of the SS vs 5.0 published head-to-head comparisons:

Motor Trend: GT 12.7 sec @ 111.3 mph, SS 13.1 sec @ 110.8 mph
Car and Driver: GT 13.2 sec @ 109 mph, SS 13.0 sec @ 111 mph
Road & Track: GT 13.2 sec @ 109.3 mph, SS 13.0 sec @ 110.7 mph (0-120 mph: GT 16.4 sec, SS 15.4 sec), Willow Springs Lap: GT 1:37.6, SS 1:37.7)
Inside Line: GT 13.3 sec @ 107.3 mph, SS 13.1 sec @ 110.4 mph

So in the other 3 head-to-head comparisons the 5.0 was slower in the quarter mile, with lower trap speeds, slower to 120mph and slower around a track.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by MEDISIN

And MotorTrend got 12.9 sec @ 110.7 mph out of an SS and 12.7 sec @ 111.3 mph out of a 5.0. If you're going to cherry-pick best magazine times for a car, at least include all of them.

I don't remeber posting any mag times for an SS or 5.0 and I believe those times. I see no problem with an SS running a 12.9 or a 5.0 running a 12.7, so, your point again?

[1985airborne]

NO WORRIES U GOT EM!

[Stew]

Originally Posted by 1985airborne

NO WORRIES U GOT EM!

This, all fun aside if you lose we will immediatly be revoking your mn card and 1LE and asigning you a brown Prius...............

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Stew

You realize Edmunds got 12.6 for a stock SRT8 automatic, correct? Doesn't that count in your book? Anyways, some may lie, but most do not. As for being slow, havn't mags got like 13.2 for aa 400 HP Automatic SS and 13.5 for a 370 HP R/T? I have seen times as slow as 13.3s for manual SSes too which have 426 HP, this is the problem with you calling it slow for it's HP, by your estimates the SS is painfully slow for it's HP ratings too.

You must be a Dodge fan.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

You must be a Dodge fan.

Actually a fan of all, but by what you are saying that was 100% correct.

[SRT8Tech]

Oh wow, there are actually people that STILL don't believe an SRT8 392 can run a 12.2 bone stock??? Whatever, im done with that. Its a fact and proven that they can run 12.2's bone stock. But now not going to believe a bone stock R/T can run a 13.2??? WOW, BOTH of my bone stock auto 2010 R/T Challengers ran 13.2's @ 106 with ZERO mods right off of the showroom floor. Some people just don't get it and those are the people that get their ass waxed by something that "is not supposed to beat them" because the magazine time says so. LOL

Is it the norm for a stock 392 to run a 12.2? Nope, I ran consistent 12.3's-12.4's @ 114. I ran a couple 12.2's and that's it but it did happen in a positive DA and not mine shaft air. ZERO MODS
Is it the norm for a stock R/T Challenger to run low 13's? Nope, but it did happen quite often with my auto R/T Challengers. I consistently ran 13.2's-13.3's with them. ZERO MODS
There is even a vid of a bone stock 2011 auto R/T Challenger running a 13.0!!!!! It happens.....get over it!!!!

NEXT..................