707hp 650tq

[Wingznut]

Ok. It is a supercharged engine.... A pulley swap and a different tune for an increase of 17% is not anything impressive.

But 825hp is incredibly impressive.

 

[Topweasel]

Ok. It is a supercharged engine.... A pulley swap and a different tune for an increase of 17% is not anything impressive. Every supercharged engine on the market is trivial to up the boost pressure and make gobs more power. There is just a trade off with drivability, mileage, and most importantly, engine life and reliability.

But that's not what it's about. It's about them doing dyno tests of the Engine as the made it off the line doing over 100 more HP then they have the engine rated.

 

[Ferzerp]

But 825hp is incredibly impressive.

It by no means is for a non-production engine. It might be impressive if they released a reliable, warrantied one, but just upping the speed a supercharger is by no means impressive.

 

[Ferzerp]

But that's not what it's about. It's about them doing dyno tests of the Engine as the made it off the line doing over 100 more HP then they have the engine rated.

Yeah, no. You're taking an comment from an anonymous source that states nothing of the nature, and creating your own narrative around it. The comment you are referring to was presented as one of the set ups tested prior to final specs. With it being supercharged, it is obvious that this would have come from a spinning the supercharger faster. Your claim that the production version makes 825 but is sold as 707 hp is pure fantasy and wishful thinking on your part.

 

[rommelrommel]

825 with straight pipes, no heat soak, and no smog considerations wouldn't be totally unbelievable.

 

[Topweasel]

Yeah, no. You're taking an comment from an anonymous source that states nothing of the nature, and creating your own narrative around it. The comment you are referring to was presented as one of the set ups tested prior to final specs. With it being supercharged, it is obvious that this would have come from a spinning the supercharger faster. Your claim that the production version makes 825 but is sold as 707 hp is pure fantasy and wishful thinking on your part.

All I am telling you is what the article said. Not what your alluding to which is making adjustments to get better performance. And you didn't say anything about this being a tune up or part swap. You said 17% is disappointing for a tune up and a swap. If you want to call the article BS then do so. You didn't. You talked about as though it was a tune and that wasn't what the article said at all. It's quite possible they were talking about prototype or developmental engines, but that isn't what the insider is suggesting.

 

[Ferzerp]

Then by all means, cite your source.

 

[Wingznut]

It by no means is for a non-production engine. It might be impressive if they released a reliable, warrantied one, but just upping the speed a supercharger is by no means impressive.

Hard to take you seriously, if you really don't believe that much HP is impressive. I get the feeling that if it were the new Z06 with such an engine, you'd be drooling all over it.

 

[DaTT]

Ok. It is a supercharged engine.... A pulley swap and a different tune for an increase of 17% is not anything impressive. Every supercharged engine on the market is trivial to up the boost pressure and make gobs more power. There is just a trade off with drivability, mileage, and most importantly, engine life and reliability.

I do believe that Chrysler locks their ECU's so tunes cannot be applied without some serious workarounds. I think it was even mentioned in one of the videos in this very thread.

 

[Ferzerp]

I do believe that Chrysler locks their ECU's so tunes cannot be applied without some serious workarounds. I think it was even mentioned in one of the videos in this very thread.

They had a good year there where everyone was locked out (I owned a 2011 Challenger SRT for a while), but it was eventually broken, and after that, shortly after each new year is released, tuner support arrives.

edit: ditched the challenger due to poor handling, and continual minor issues.

 

[darkswordsman17]

There's also rumors that they're having trouble meeting emissions at 707hp. Now maybe it's because they are underrating the engine (keep in mind with superchargers, it could be that it makes 825 but the blower saps enough that the end result is lower, so I wouldn't be surprised if that was somehow the issue), or who knows, maybe it's all BS. Guess we'll see, as if it gets delayed then we'll probably have a pretty good idea something is up.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-dodge-challenger-srt-hellcat-test-review

A powered front axle would help, but you’ll want more rubber out back, too. The Hellcat’s 275/40R-20s are all too easy to reduce to the rubber pellets now thickly coating the wheelwells of our test car. It takes feet as light as a ballerina’s to get the Hellcat to 60 mph in 3.6 seconds—0.1 behind the GT500—and through the quarter-mile in 11.7 at 126 mph—0.1-second ahead and 1-mph faster than the GT500. Dodge quotes an 11.2-second quarter-mile on the tacky surface of an NHRA-certified drag strip, but the Pirellis feel so overstressed that hitting that low ET would also require dropping tire pressures to about 10 psi. (We always conduct our acceleration tests at the manufacturer’s recommended tire pressures.) At higher speeds, though, the Hellcat runs away from everything in its price range. It hits 150 mph in 17 seconds flat, 0.8-second ahead of the Viper and the same time as we recorded from the quickest C6 Corvette Z06 we ever tested. Indeed, it out-accelerates just about every front-engine, rear-drive car we’ve ever hooked our test gear to. Improving on this car’s acceleration would require moving the engine behind the driver—and preferably sending power to the front wheels, too.

**********

As for the other aspects of the 707-hp Dodge Challenger’s performance, the three-mode Bilstein shocks do a commendable job of taming body roll even in their least aggressive setting. Punch them up to Track mode, however, and bumps appear below you that you never knew existed before. Handling is very flat, and the steering quick and responsive but pinky light. With such a quick rack, it feels a little artificial. But this is a 4488-pound car that does an excellent job of handling its weight. The Challenger may not dive much under heavy braking, but passengers will, as the SRT hauls down from 70 mph in just 154 feet.

So it’s not a one-trick ’cat. But it’s so good at its best trick that it’s easy to overlook the others. It’s easy and fun. Really fun.

Meh, I'll take pre-production "reviews" like that with a bunch of salt. Those are basically PR setups and they don't compare it to anything so all they do is praise it. Unless Dodge seriously upgraded the suspension (and tuning, which seeing their results with the new Viper, I'd remain skeptical that they worked any magic with the Challenger) I'm guessing it will still suffer from the same complaints as before. Since I know they did pay some attention to the suspension with the upgraded shocks and other tweaks I would expect it to handle better but I'm doubtful it's made it drastically better, let alone help it compare favorably to even the previous Mustang and current Camaro (even just using the GT500 and ZL1 and not the track focused versions).

It absolutely is a one trick pony, but it's trick is pretty good so I wouldn't fault it much. But let's be reasonable. The only reason to consider the Hellcat is the acceleration and bragging of 700+ horsepower.

Hard to take you seriously, if you really don't believe that much HP is impressive. I get the feeling that if it were the new Z06 with such an engine, you'd be drooling all over it.

It's reasonably impressive but not exactly some amazing feat. Personally I was disappointed that the new Viper wasn't making similar power from it's much lighter naturally aspirated engine. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it would have performed just as well by putting the Viper engine in the Challenger and Charger, especially with a bit of work to push the output close to the Hellcat. It might would even have been cheaper considering all the work they had to put into the Hellcat.

If we're able to consider other aspects, then absolutely the Z06's 650/650 figures could be more impressive (it only has 50 less horsepower, although we'll see what both powertrains dyno at in the real world). For instance if it's significantly lighter, more efficient, more responsive (compare output curves), reliability, cost, and/or has a smaller packaging size, then less horsepower might be very worth the tradeoff.

 

[Gillbot]

But that's not what it's about. It's about them doing dyno tests of the Engine as the made it off the line doing over 100 more HP then they have the engine rated.

Not really, when I worked there testing is always done on engines to find their limits. Sometimes upgrades are applied to strengthen of engineering determines it is a justifiable change. You wouldn't believe what the test cells put some of the engines through on torture tests.

 

[Topweasel]

Not really, when I worked there testing is always done on engines to find their limits. Sometimes upgrades are applied to strengthen of engineering determines it is a justifiable change. You wouldn't believe what the test cells put some of the engines through on torture tests.

Again not trying to sell article as fact. I was just saying that the article in question implied that these were engines dyno'd before install in production cars. I was clarifying with a user who basically said it was a somewhat disappointing tune ignoring the fact that the article again implied it was a production engine. Someone wants to challenge the validity of the source, fine I don't know enough about SRT's work to debate either way. Though I will say that they already stated a couple of times that every engine gets a 80% power run on the dyno before install. So this could be extrapolated numbers from that.

 

[Ferzerp]

We've all seen the claims of the "anonymous source" and never have I seen it presented as you have. This is why I have requested you to cite your source.

 

[LTC8K6]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BZOcxQQC2M&feature=player_detailpage

669hp consistently at the wheels.
60mph in 3.7
1/4 in 11.7 at 125
1 mile 30.1 at 174
60-0 109 feet
.94G
22mpg rating hwy

This is a damn impressive car, imo.

The Charger should be as well.

And what a wonderful sound...

 

[Ferzerp]

For what it is worth, those performance metrics look very, very similar to magazine tested stats for the 2013-2014 GT500 as well (apart from being around 10% lower mileage that is)

 

[LTC8K6]

No one cares about Mustangs. :biggrin:

 

[natto fire]

Why exactly? Or have you bought in to the "herp derp pushrods suck" hype? The produce different characteristics, but certainly aren't inferior. You get less power per liter of displacement (which is an utterly meaningless metric unless you buy insurance in one of the backwards countries that bases it on displacement). You (typically, but not necessarily. LT1 seems to do ok mileagewise) get worse mileage. You typically get more power and torque in a given physical volume as well as a lighter, lower center of gravity engine.

It's all about what is important for a given application, but frankly, pretending that an OHV engine is automatically inferior to an OHC engine is pure ignorance.

I was in that camp as well (oh to be 16 again) until I found out that all that high-tech stuff just added more weight. When GM's LS7 only weighs ~40% more than a Honda F20C, but makes 210% more power, it is a pretty convincing argument for pushrods.

No comment on the OP, because I have hated every Chrysler vehicle I have ever had to work on, drive, or own. Regarding the transmission though, I wish Chrysler would have acknowledged they suck at making transmissions back when they ruined Jeep and not put their junk tranny in and scrapping the ZF unit before it...

 

[KentState]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BZOcxQQC2M&feature=player_detailpage

669hp consistently at the wheels.
60mph in 3.7
1/4 in 11.7 at 125
1 mile 30.1 at 174
60-0 109 feet
.94G
22mpg rating hwy

This is a damn impressive car, imo.

The Charger should be as well.

And what a wonderful sound...

So much power at the rear wheels but not that impressive in the 1/4.

 

[Gillbot]

So much power at the rear wheels but not that impressive in the 1/4.

Bad driver and/or tires.

 

[KentState]

Bad driver and/or tires.

Thought it was an auto? Should be pretty easy to drive.

 

[Kadarin]

Bad driver and/or tires.

I'm guessing that this much horsepower is going to require a lot more tire to get effective traction off the line. I had the same problem with my '12 Shelby GT500 (with only 550hp); first and second gears were both relatively useless.

 

[Gillbot]

Thought it was an auto? Should be pretty easy to drive.

I'm guessing that this much horsepower is going to require a lot more tire to get effective traction off the line. I had the same problem with my '12 Shelby GT500 (with only 550hp); first and second gears were both relatively useless.

My Camaro was an auto, 400 wheel and a 100 shot even on sticky tires it was hard to keep it from spinning. Most reviewers also do their "1/4 mile" testing on unprepped surfaces so their launches are usually soft. Even if they do go to a track, typical tires don't bite well on the prepped surface since they are made for tread wear and not max traction.

 

[KentState]

My Camaro was an auto, 400 wheel and a 100 shot even on sticky tires it was hard to keep it from spinning. Most reviewers also do their "1/4 mile" testing on unprepped surfaces so their launches are usually soft. Even if they do go to a track, typical tires don't bite well on the prepped surface since they are made for tread wear and not max traction.

Has to be something because a consistent 669 rwhp is 787 hp with a 15% drivetrain loss. Trapping at 125 @ 11.7 is slower than the manual GT500.

 

[Gillbot]

Mine ran a 11.6@119 before nitrous with a 1.6 sixty but he weight was 3520 with me in it. That car is a bit heavier but I bet it wasn't launched nearly as hard and has more of a highway gear in it.

Most review sites do a generic 1/4 where they just pace it off using the odo on a straight stretch or they use an electronic meter and call it good enough. It's all about efficiency in the 1/4 if you really want a good time. Let the car get into the hands of real people, then we'll see some numbers churn out.