My RT - Page 31

Stew · 11-20-2009, 02:10 PM

Both cars should be geared identically (wuiith the exception of 09 R/Ts with the 18 inch 6 speeds that were geared with 3.73 rears instead of 3.92) and al autos should have 3.06 rears and the transmission should have the same gear ratios. Could it possibl be a mix of the lighter weight, maybe a little underrated from the factory and the softer suspension allower better weight tranfer to the rear (since the auto shocks aren't load leveling)?

Dakota Kid · 11-20-2009, 02:20 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?

mmmm, the L99 is every bit as fast as the LS3......

AZ MSCL · 11-20-2009, 02:21 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.

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

A stock SRT has 420 ft/lbs.

Dakota Kid · 11-20-2009, 02:29 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.

That is a heck of a patch of rubber you laid down there!!!!

1bad65 · 11-20-2009, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rham48

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

A stock SRT has 420 ft/lbs.

Really?!

I thought the R/Ts put down ~375. Is this for the 2010s, or for the 2009s as well?

AZ MSCL · 11-20-2009, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1bad65

Really?!

I thought the R/Ts put down ~375. Is this for the 2010s, or for the 2009s as well?

That's HP. 375 HP, 410 ft/lbs torque. 09's and 10's.

1bad65 · 11-20-2009, 02:39 PM

Dodge's site says the 2009 R/Ts put down 401 ft/lb torque.

AZ MSCL · 11-20-2009, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1bad65

Dodge's site says the 2009 R/Ts put down 401 ft/lb torque.

Must be a typo. The Dodge site I have says 410. I went to several sites that did their own testing and they say 410 torque 376 HP.

Horsepower (hp @ rpm) 376 @ 5,150
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm) 410 @ 4,300

I think that's 10 less than both the Camaro and SRT8.

Now I've found a site that says 404 to 398 (torque) but it's the only one so far. I guess I don't know for sure now, but most I've found say 410 ft/lbs.

Challenger R/T,
manual transmission 10.5:1 375 @ 5,800 404 @ 4,200
Challenger R/T,
automatic transmission 10.5:1 370 @5,800 398 @4,200

Found another site saying 398 and 404 torque so I guess I don't know for sure. One or the other!

1bad65 · 11-20-2009, 03:04 PM

Assuming the 5.7L HEMI R/Ts do put down 410 lb/ft torque, how come thats only 10 less than a 6.1L HEMI SRT?

Don't get me wrong, when I was considering a Challenger I was only considering an R/T myself as I think the SRTs are very overpriced. But for $10k more, there should be alot more of a performance gap between the two models. Of course if ALL the mags/Dodge's numbers are truly correct, there really is about a .5 sec difference in the 1/4 mile between the R/Ts and the SRTs.

mjf6866 · 11-20-2009, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1bad65

Assuming the 5.7L HEMI R/Ts do put down 410 lb/ft torque, how come thats only 10 less than a 6.1L HEMI SRT?

good question...the SRT line is in much need of an upgrade to separate itself from its little brother. thats why i couldnt justify paying another 10k for that little of a gap. i know theres more to it than just horsepower and torque, but those are big factors for me.

there is also some speculation that the real hp numbers are more in the lines of 390-400 in the new re-worked 5.7 for '09, but dodge would never advertise that since its so close to the 6.1 and the only number a lot of people look at is the horsepower.

AZ MSCL · 11-20-2009, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1bad65

Assuming the 5.7L HEMI R/Ts do put down 410 lb/ft torque, how come thats only 10 less than a 6.1L HEMI SRT?

Don't get me wrong, when I was considering a Challenger I was only considering an R/T myself as I think the SRTs are very overpriced. But for $10k more, there should be alot more of a performance gap between the two models. Of course if ALL the mags/Dodge's numbers are truly correct, there really is about a .5 sec difference in the 1/4 mile between the R/Ts and the SRTs.

Agreed. I think both the SS and SRT are rated at 420 ft/lbs torque, the big difference is the HP ratings (RT about 50 less). Again, this is why I picked the RT: for the additional $8-10 grand, I can mod it to out perform both the SS and the SRT.

AZ MSCL · 11-20-2009, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjf6866

good question...the SRT line is in much need of an upgrade to separate itself from its little brother. thats why i couldnt justify paying another 10k for that little of a gap. i know theres more to it than just horsepower and torque, but those are big factors for me.

there is also some speculation that the real hp numbers are more in the lines of 390-400 in the new re-worked 5.7 for '09, but dodge would never advertise that since its so close to the 6.1 and the only number a lot of people look at is the horsepower.

Shit! You have a 73 Road Runner? Can I see a pic? One of my favorites!

Muscle Master · 11-20-2009, 03:38 PM

The 5.7 in the R/T is underrated with the manual transmission and puts out 390 HP and 410 ft TQ .... similar to the Ram, the 5.7 with the auto is dead on

mjf6866 · 11-20-2009, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rham48

Shit! You have a 73 Road Runner? Can I see a pic? One of my favorites!

yeah, i will post one up later on. i'm at work now...thats cool...most people dont go for the 73 or 74 body style road runners!

11-20-2009, 02:10 PM	#421
Stew Drives: 92 Luminadead/01 Dakota/97 F150 4x4 Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Eastern, Ky Posts: 3,789	Both cars should be geared identically (wuiith the exception of 09 R/Ts with the 18 inch 6 speeds that were geared with 3.73 rears instead of 3.92) and al autos should have 3.06 rears and the transmission should have the same gear ratios. Could it possibl be a mix of the lighter weight, maybe a little underrated from the factory and the softer suspension allower better weight tranfer to the rear (since the auto shocks aren't load leveling)?

11-20-2009, 02:39 PM	#427
1bad65 Banned Drives: 2007 Mustang GT Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Austin Posts: 1,148	Dodge's site says the 2009 R/Ts put down 401 ft/lb torque.

11-20-2009, 03:04 PM	#429
1bad65 Banned Drives: 2007 Mustang GT Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Austin Posts: 1,148	Assuming the 5.7L HEMI R/Ts do put down 410 lb/ft torque, how come thats only 10 less than a 6.1L HEMI SRT? Don't get me wrong, when I was considering a Challenger I was only considering an R/T myself as I think the SRTs are very overpriced. But for $10k more, there should be alot more of a performance gap between the two models. Of course if ALL the mags/Dodge's numbers are truly correct, there really is about a .5 sec difference in the 1/4 mile between the R/Ts and the SRTs.