2015 Challenger Hellcat 707 HP

[SEVEN-OH JOE]

Originally Posted by Loading.....

Seems like this one slipped through the cracks... http://www.challengertalk.com/forums...38/index2.html Post #19.

How'd it get to Buffalo, yesterday? Sikorski? How'd he get it home? Sikorski? Another insightful 'net post.

Buffalo, yesterday:

[MEDISIN]

Originally Posted by rocket403

The 11.4 that I quoted was Cars.com I had to go back but found the Time slip that cars.com had, IT WAS NOT an onboard estimate you are so fast to try and put everyone in their place, rather than have a discussion you want brow beat everyone.

Here is the link it was a mule we will need to wait and see what the guys with the Hellcats are running but I would bet that many with DR will be in the 10's

http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2...the-strip.html


I guess we should add that time to your times you have posted

Cars.com: 1/4mile 11.4 @ 122.31mph;automatic
MotorTrend: 0-60, 3.7sec; 1/4mile 11.7 @ 125.4mph; 4449lbs automatic
Car&Driver: 0-60, 3.6sec; 1/4mile 11.7 @ 126mph; 4488lbs automatic
Edmunds: 0-60, 4.8sec; 1/4mile 12.5 @ 118.8mph; 4454lbs
Road&Track: 0-60, 3.9sec; 1/4mile 12.0 @ 124.8mph; 4458lbs

There I fixed it for you.

I would think with 3 different 0-60mph stopping distances we should average them to 104 for the Camaro and 105 for the Challenger

Sadly Cars.com has never reviewed a GT500 or ZL1. There is no context for comparison. So I can post an 11.3 @ 127mph timeslip for a GT500 or a 11.6 @ 120mph by a ZL1. That doesn't make it a fair comparison does it? Four independent reviews have been posted with results for ALL THREE cars. The results are not that impressive for the Dodge.

Car&Driver:
Hellokitty: 0-60, 3.6sec; 1/4mile 11.7 @ 126mph; 4488lbs automatic
---GT500: 0-60, 3.5sec; 1/4mile 11.8 @ 125mph; 3891lbs
------ZL1: 0-60, 4.1sec; 1/4mile 12.3 @ 119mph; 4120lbs

MotorTrend:
---GT500: 0-60, 3.8sec; 1/4mile 11.6 @ 125.7mph; 3871lbs
Hellokitty: 0-60, 3.7sec; 1/4mile 11.7 @ 125.4mph; 4449lbs automatic
------ZL1: 0-60, 3.9sec, 1/4mile 12.2 @ 116.6mph; 4051lbs

Edmunds:
---GT500: 0-60, 3.9sec, 1/4mile 12.1 @ 120.6mph; 3870lbs
-----ZL1: 0-60, 4.1sec, 1/4mile 12.4 @ 116.0mph
Hellokitty: 0-60, 4.8sec; 1/4mile 12.5 @ 118.8mph; 4454lbs

Road&Track:
---GT500: 0-60, 3.5sec, 1/4mile 11.7 @ 128.1mph
Hellokitty: 0-60, 3.9sec, 1/4mile 12.0 @ 124.8mph
------ZL1: 0-60, 3.9sec, 1/4mile 12.1 @ 119.9mph

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by MEDISIN

Sadly Cars.com has never reviewed a GT500 or ZL1. There is no context for comparison. So I can post an 11.3 @ 127mph timeslip for a GT500 or a 11.6 @ 120mph by a ZL1. That doesn't make it a fair comparison does it? Four independent reviews have been posted with results for ALL THREE cars. The results are not that impressive for the Dodge.

Car&Driver:
Hellokitty: 0-60, 3.6sec; 1/4mile 11.7 @ 126mph; 4488lbs automatic
---GT500: 0-60, 3.5sec; 1/4mile 11.8 @ 125mph; 3891lbs
------ZL1: 0-60, 4.1sec; 1/4mile 12.3 @ 119mph; 4120lbs

MotorTrend:
---GT500: 0-60, 3.8sec; 1/4mile 11.6 @ 125.7mph; 3871lbs
Hellokitty: 0-60, 3.7sec; 1/4mile 11.7 @ 125.4mph; 4449lbs automatic
------ZL1: 0-60, 3.9sec, 1/4mile 12.2 @ 116.6mph; 4051lbs

Edmunds:
---GT500: 0-60, 3.9sec, 1/4mile 12.1 @ 120.6mph; 3870lbs
-----ZL1: 0-60, 4.1sec, 1/4mile 12.4 @ 116.0mph
Hellokitty: 0-60, 4.8sec; 1/4mile 12.5 @ 118.8mph; 4454lbs

Road&Track:
---GT500: 0-60, 3.5sec, 1/4mile 11.7 @ 128.1mph
Hellokitty: 0-60, 3.9sec, 1/4mile 12.0 @ 124.8mph
------ZL1: 0-60, 3.9sec, 1/4mile 12.1 @ 119.9mph

Medisin I know we have gone back and forth on you excluding the cars.com review, but here is something I just noticed, no one here except you is comparing it with the gt500 or zl1. The main arguing going on here is can the car run the 11.2 dodge said it could. Cars.com came the closest with the 11.4 yet you continually dismiss it bc they didn't do a test like this with the gt500 or zl1....well that's not what people are saying. They also did it the way everyone wanted it done, they went to a drag strip and posted times lips. Not with timing equipment on the car, but a tracks timing system and you still dismiss the 11.4 run like it never happened bc they didn't test the gt500 or zl1 like it.

Now they went to test dodges claim of 11.2 did it happen no. They did not run the number dodge said who knows why, JOE will maybe say amped up test mule, others say bad track conditions, others say the car simply can't do it. I just want to know why you ignore the one test that did it the most proper way, with video and actual timeslips lol. It has nothing to do with the gt500 or zl1

If you want to say its not the norm, it was hero run or why was only 1 out of 5 able to evencome close or whatever cool with me. That's bad for dodge I get it. It makes them look really bad that they made such a big deal about it and only 1 review came close, didn't even get it ut only came close yeah that looks bad.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by SEVEN-OH JOE

...I seriously suspect the Z06 has a MUCH better chance, on its Z07 rubber, of duplicating those numbers than the Hellcat does. Don't you?

Hellcat Charger: 4560 lb/707hp = 6.45 lb/hp; 54/46% distribution; 275/40X20s (rear)

2015 Z06/Z07: 3524lb/650hp = 5.42 lb/hp; near-50/50 distribution; 335/25X20 Sport Cups (rear)

Again, time will tell.

I sooooooo want to see this match up. Both automatic. Spot the Cat drag radials. According to manufacture claims they should be equal but I'd take the bet that the Vette will win handily.

[cal45]

Originally Posted by hotlapZL1

I sooooooo want to see this match up. Both automatic. Spot the Cat drag radials. According to manufacture claims they should be equal but I'd take the bet that the Vette will win handily.

Agree with you there - shouldn't be an issue as the Z06 is 1300 lbs lighter.

[SpeedIsLife]

Originally Posted by shaffe

Medisin I know we have gone back and forth on you excluding the cars.com review, but here is something I just noticed, no one here except you is comparing it with the gt500 or zl1. The main arguing going on here is can the car run the 11.2 dodge said it could. Cars.com came the closest with the 11.4 yet you continually dismiss it bc they didn't do a test like this with the gt500 or zl1....well that's not what people are saying. They also did it the way everyone wanted it done, they went to a drag strip and posted times lips. Not with timing equipment on the car, but a tracks timing system and you still dismiss the 11.4 run like it never happened bc they didn't test the gt500 or zl1 like it.

Now they went to test dodges claim of 11.2 did it happen no. They did not run the number dodge said who knows why, JOE will maybe say amped up test mule, others say bad track conditions, others say the car simply can't do it. I just want to know why you ignore the one test that did it the most proper way, with video and actual timeslips lol. It has nothing to do with the gt500 or zl1

If you want to say its not the norm, it was hero run or why was only 1 out of 5 able to evencome close or whatever cool with me. That's bad for dodge I get it. It makes them look really bad that they made such a big deal about it and only 1 review came close, didn't even get it ut only came close yeah that looks bad.

The reason why the 11.4 run is ignored is because it's a minority report, it presents the uncomfortable reality that:

A: The 11.2 run is achievable on street tires, 2/10ths isn't that huge of a gap.

B: The reviews were not the complete indication of the truth.

When you have a preconceived notion of a situation, which Medisin does, you have to discard any factors that call your conclusion into question.

Is the 11.4 an outlier so far? Yes

Is it out of the norm of the other reviews? Yup

Does it mean the 11.2 claim by Dodge is believable? Yes

The fact is the magazine reviews NEVER get the best times out of the cars, IE why a LS3 Camaro blasted out a 12.5 run when the best magazine time was what? 13 flat? 12.9?

[MEDISIN]

Originally Posted by shaffe

Medisin I know we have gone back and forth on you excluding the cars.com review, but here is something I just noticed, no one here except you is comparing it with the gt500 or zl1. The main arguing going on here is can the car run the 11.2 dodge said it could. Cars.com came the closest with the 11.4 yet you continually dismiss it bc they didn't do a test like this with the gt500 or zl1....well that's not what people are saying. They also did it the way everyone wanted it done, they went to a drag strip and posted times lips. Not with timing equipment on the car, but a tracks timing system and you still dismiss the 11.4 run like it never happened bc they didn't test the gt500 or zl1 like it.

Now they went to test dodges claim of 11.2 did it happen no. They did not run the number dodge said who knows why, JOE will maybe say amped up test mule, others say bad track conditions, others say the car simply can't do it. I just want to know why you ignore the one test that did it the most proper way, with video and actual timeslips lol. It has nothing to do with the gt500 or zl1

If you want to say its not the norm, it was hero run or why was only 1 out of 5 able to evencome close or whatever cool with me. That's bad for dodge I get it. It makes them look really bad that they made such a big deal about it and only 1 review came close, didn't even get it ut only came close yeah that looks bad.

Is the Cars.com run the norm? Maybe, maybe not. I agree with you, nobody has achieved Dodge's advertised times yet but surely someone out there will beat it eventually and every Mopar leg-humper will run around thinking every Hellcat will run 11.2 when clearly that is not the case.

The reason I continue to compare the Hellcat to the ZL1 and GT500 is simply because they are direct competitors. Every review and mention of the Hellcat frames opinion, discussion, results in the context of the ZL1 and GT500. The Hellcat was touted as being the new top dog muscle car when in fact, it is slower than a GT500 in a straight-line and slower than both on a track.

My point with this Cars.com timeslip is two-fold. First, had Cars.com taken a stock GT500 or ZL1 with them that night and those cars run 11.3 and 11.6 respectively, I wouldn't think much of the Hellcat's performance. Second, there are plenty of GT500 timeslips in the low 11's just like Cars.com. There are several mid-11 timeslips by ZL1's on this site, just like Cars.com. Okay, now what?

Originally Posted by SpeedIsLife

The reason why the 11.4 run is ignored is because it's a minority report, it presents the uncomfortable reality that:

A: The 11.2 run is achievable on street tires, 2/10ths isn't that huge of a gap.

B: The reviews were not the complete indication of the truth.

When you have a preconceived notion of a situation, which Medisin does, you have to discard any factors that call your conclusion into question.

The truth? Please tell us what is "the truth"? The Cars.com represents a hero run that has not been matched or duplicated in many, many tries. Of course there are magazine beating hero runs posted on every enthusiast forum but guess what, there are also many, many personal bests that are slower than magazine times posted on those same forums. When you average them out as I have done for all three cars, the owners "hero times" are within one-tenth and one mph of the magazine times. So please tell us what is "the truth"?

[96MrBass]

And what will the hellcats average time end up being 11.4/11.2 that's the question?
If a manufacturer now claims a certain time and know one ever achieves or betters it are those times really ligit?

[lewylew]

I have a feeling all those numbers will be met or beat. All of my cars that I have tracked have exceeded what the magazine reviews. I don't see why the Hellcat will be any different.

[SEVEN-OH JOE]

Originally Posted by lewylew

I have a feeling all those numbers will be met or beat.

Which numbers? The magazine numbers, or FCA's numbers? LARGE difference.

[newmoon]

The truth is that you are so blinded by your hate of the Hellcat you can’t see or think straight. You can’t believe that Dodge has built a faster car in every measurable way compared to your AARP endorsed Cadillac CTSV. By the way did you notice that the Hellcat Challenger happened to represent itself well at this event? Please take a look at some of the supposed track warriors which this Hellcat was faster than.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-revi...he-motown-mile

[rocket403]

The difference between the ZL1 and the Hellcat at the Motown Mile is .51 The GT500 and Hellcat is .18.
Not bad for a car that some say is only good in a straight line, and can't turn because of it size and weight.

[07-SRT]

Originally Posted by newmoon

The truth is that you are so blinded by your hate of the Hellcat you can’t see or think straight. You can’t believe that Dodge has built a faster car in every measurable way compared to your AARP endorsed Cadillac CTSV. By the way did you notice that the Hellcat Challenger happened to represent itself well at this event? Please take a look at some of the supposed track warriors which this Hellcat was faster than.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-revi...he-motown-mile

NewMoon.... You are wasting your breath trying to convince people who look through rose colored glasses and bleed a certain manufacture. Doesn't matter if it's Dodge, Ford or GM. There is no convincing regardless of what data you provide. It ends up twisted and manipulated by them.

[rocket403]

Originally Posted by SEVEN-OH JOE

700 hp in something that weighs less than an Abrams tank would be a much more unforgettable ride. Something that could keep up with a GT PP or a 1LE on a road course would be nice, too. Balance is missing. Even the true believers @ Mopar admit the better buy, and overall car, is the SRT Scat Pack. But hey, if smoke shows are the thing that get the kiddies excited in your neighborhood, nothing serves that role better than a 6-speed Hellcat.

I guess the Hellcat is your car then as it beat the GT and 1LE at the Motown Mile. LOL

I guess the balance is still missing because it is a Dodge and not for what it can and can't do.