My RT - Page 30

AZ MSCL · 11-17-2009, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by REEFBLUE93

That was the owners name, Brian. ART is where I had my Mustang dynoed as well. He said he has no problem with his son's LS1 anymore. Those are impressive numbers on the Challenger, that damn weight just eats the HP gains up to a certain extent. I drive a car that's only 60 hp less and about 70 less on the rwtq but it weighs 3,000 lbs. I can feel it when I have a couple of floor jacks in the back of mine.

While everyone is focused on HP, torque is just as important. A stock 5.7 has 410 ft/lbs of torque.

Speedy1975 · 11-20-2009, 11:59 AM

Well, tried some more 0-60 times yesterday in the Challenger. I'm confident I could get under 5 seconds if I could get traction. I may try again today with slightly lower tire pressure.

This was a 2,000 RPM launch feather out the clutch until I felt some grip then getting on it full throttle. It doesn't even feel like the tires are spinning...I just get a sensation of the back end moving around slightly almost like the posi rear working with only minor slip of the wheels. Obviously it's spinning A LOT.

Zeus · 11-20-2009, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speedy1975

Well, tried some more 0-60 times yesterday in the Challenger. I'm confident I could get under 5 seconds if I could get traction. I may try again today with slightly lower tire pressure.

This was a 2,000 RPM launch feather out the clutch until I felt some grip then getting on it full throttle. It doesn't even feel like the tires are spinning...I just get a sensation of the back end moving around slightly almost like the posi rear working with only minor slip of the wheels. Obviously it's spinning A LOT.

It seems like the Challenger is one of the harder cars to launch.... Not sure if its mass has anything to do with that, but it needs fatter tires imo. In a perfect world, with no wheel spin, it'd probably pull a 4.9 if it pulled a healthy 5.3 with that much left on the road.

mjf6866 · 11-20-2009, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeus

It seems like the Challenger is one of the harder cars to launch.... Not sure if its mass has anything to do with that, but it needs fatter tires imo. In a perfect world, with no wheel spin, it'd probably pull a 4.9 if it pulled a healthy 5.3 with that much left on the road.

i know i have a hard time consistantly launching without spinning too much. i think you are right about the tires too. its hard to "feel" it with the challenger as speedy said. kinda hard to explain, but i think this is part of the reason we are seeing better times in the autos vs the manual challengers.

Zeus · 11-20-2009, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjf6866

i know i have a hard time consistantly launching without spinning too much. i think you are right about the tires too. its hard to "feel" it with the challenger as speedy said. kinda hard to explain, but i think this is part of the reason we are seeing better times in the autos vs the manual challengers.

Yea could be... I've never driven the car so I can't really comment.

1bad65 · 11-20-2009, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjf6866

kinda hard to explain, but i think this is part of the reason we are seeing better times in the autos vs the manual challengers.

The Challenger does seem to get better times out of the autos. The Camaros and Mustangs get better times out of the standards.

As much as I love driving standards, if I was buying a Challenger and planning on racing it alot, I'd opt for the auto.

Speedy and mjf, doesnt that DodgeTony guy who runs excellent track times on his R/T have an auto?

mjf6866 · 11-20-2009, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1bad65

The Challenger does seem to get better times out of the autos. The Camaros and Mustangs get better times out of the standards.

As much as I love driving standards, if I was buying a Challenger and planning on racing it alot, I'd opt for the auto.

Speedy and mjf, doesnt that DodgeTony guy who runs excellent track times on his R/T have an auto?

yep, his is an auto as well.

i agree with ya. if i were getting the car for strictly drag racing, i'd get an auto too, but i do a lot of driving on back country roads which just wouldnt be near as fun with an auto! plus my challenger isnt my daily driver, so traffic with a manual is no issue.

ViperTomcat · 11-20-2009, 01:17 PM

In general the Auto R/T's do see better ET's and 0-60 sprints. You have to trade off however the fact that the autos do see higher drivetrain loss over the manuals AND the exhaust system is a bit more restrictive.

Back in the old days you could easily outshift the old automatics if you were good with the clutch and stick, however, modern automatics, especially the auto in the Challenger, is just plain faster.

From my experience automatic R/T's are running very low 13's (13.00 to 13.3) and the manuals are running higher 13's.

1bad65 · 11-20-2009, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ViperTomcat

From my experience automatic R/T's are running very low 13's (13.00 to 13.3) and the manuals are running higher 13's.

Someone recently posted that Dodge has the SRT8 rated at 13.1 in the 1/4 mile. How does an auto R/T beat that?

ViperTomcat · 11-20-2009, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1bad65

Someone recently posted that Dodge has the SRT8 rated at 13.1 in the 1/4 mile. How does an auto R/T beat that?

That has been a question that even we cant answer. All that is known is that people are posting time slips with stock 09 and 10 Auto R/T's that are turning in low 13 second times.

This is also no bravo sierra on the part of the owners, as I said, scans of slips are showing times anywhere from 12.95 to 13.4...the average seems to be around 13.2.

The SRT folks REALLY cant understand how they have 50 more HP but are getting matched by their less muscled counterparts.

Zeus · 11-20-2009, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ViperTomcat

That has been a question that even we cant answer. All that is known is that people are posting time slips with stock 09 and 10 Auto R/T's that are turning in low 13 second times.

This is also no bravo sierra on the part of the owners, as I said, scans of slips are showing times anywhere from 12.95 to 13.4...the average seems to be around 13.2.

The SRT folks REALLY cant understand how they have 50 more HP but are getting matched by their less muscled counterparts.

More power = harder to hook up the tires.

More weight = slower.

1bad65 · 11-20-2009, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeus

More power = harder to hook up the tires.

More weight = slower.

Well, the weight difference is not such that it should negate the 50 extra hp. And the SRT has a better suspension, and thus should be easier to launch.

Are the stock tires on the SRTs and the R/Ts the same tires, or different ones?

Zeus · 11-20-2009, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1bad65

Well, the weight difference is not such that it should negate the 50 extra hp. And the SRT has a better suspension, and thus should be easier to launch.

Are the stock tires on the SRTs and the R/Ts the same tires, or different ones?

Also how are the car's geared?

1bad65 · 11-20-2009, 02:09 PM

According to the Dodge site, they all have 3.06 axle ratios. But I swear I've read the R/T Classics come with 3.73s.

11-20-2009, 11:59 AM	#408
Speedy1975 FASTER! Drives: Challenger Hellcat, 2SS Camaro Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Middle Tennessee Posts: 2,244	Well, tried some more 0-60 times yesterday in the Challenger. I'm confident I could get under 5 seconds if I could get traction. I may try again today with slightly lower tire pressure. This was a 2,000 RPM launch feather out the clutch until I felt some grip then getting on it full throttle. It doesn't even feel like the tires are spinning...I just get a sensation of the back end moving around slightly almost like the posi rear working with only minor slip of the wheels. Obviously it's spinning A LOT.

11-20-2009, 01:17 PM	#414
ViperTomcat Banned Drives: 2011 Avenger Heat Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Oregon Posts: 1,697	In general the Auto R/T's do see better ET's and 0-60 sprints. You have to trade off however the fact that the autos do see higher drivetrain loss over the manuals AND the exhaust system is a bit more restrictive. Back in the old days you could easily outshift the old automatics if you were good with the clutch and stick, however, modern automatics, especially the auto in the Challenger, is just plain faster. From my experience automatic R/T's are running very low 13's (13.00 to 13.3) and the manuals are running higher 13's.

11-20-2009, 02:09 PM	#420
1bad65 Banned Drives: 2007 Mustang GT Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Austin Posts: 1,148	According to the Dodge site, they all have 3.06 axle ratios. But I swear I've read the R/T Classics come with 3.73s.