2011 challenger SRT-8
01-31-2011, 11:28 AM
#52
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: MI
Posts: 1,292
Where was I mistaken again? Should I have said "multi billion"? No. To design a new independant platform for the challenger to ride on and somewhere to build it would be a billion dollar investment. This all spawned from the assumption that there has been no suspension changes from 2010 to 2011. Then there was that the designers must be terrible not to be able to hook up 500hp using a IRS. I think even 67 should know that a SRA is a lot easier to use for a drag setup. I only pointed out that at this point chrysler probably isn't able to afford creating a new platform just for a 2 door sports coupe to ride on. Did I over exagerate the cost of that? Sure. Is it still true that it would be too expensive? Yes. We can sit here and argue semantics all day. The fact is the 2011 challenger is leaps and bounds better than the 2010 in every way. Is it the bang for the buck purchase or even competition for the mustang? no. To say that it 'sucks' is a poor use of hyperbole, but that looks like the kind of things you post elsewhere.
Why did you make this thread if you already had your opinion on the vehicle?
Why did you make this thread if you already had your opinion on the vehicle?
Last edited by LostBoyz; 01-31-2011 at 11:37 AM.
01-31-2011, 02:59 PM
#53
Mish-ogynist
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Helena, MT
Posts: 3,780
If you read my first post I was looking for more info on the car, if anyone has seen one at the track. Nobody seems to know anything more than I knew though. The only thing i've seen on it is motor trends review which has it being pretty crappy in all performance respects. Hopefully in the next several months people will buy some and take them to the dragstrip. aparently so far the fastest stock run in one has been 12.4@110mph.
Last edited by Mishri; 01-31-2011 at 03:06 PM.
01-31-2011, 06:21 PM
#55
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,302
Not a bad ET, but thats a pretty low trap for the HP. Looks like it might be hooking well, but struggling to overcome the weight. Either that, or they geared it way high in 3rd, 4th, etc, to increase mileage, but in doing that, knocks it out of its powerband between shifts. I'm simply speculating, so if anyone knows the actual gear ratios, or any other reason for it to trap 110, I'm all ears and would love to know the facts.
01-31-2011, 06:42 PM
#57
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,302
The only one I've seen is 13.0 at 111.
Edit.... car and driver ran 12.9 at 114 with one. It appears that the Chrysler engineers ran that 12.4 at 110.
Edit.... car and driver ran 12.9 at 114 with one. It appears that the Chrysler engineers ran that 12.4 at 110.
Last edited by Stone629; 01-31-2011 at 06:53 PM.
01-31-2011, 07:03 PM
#58
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: OH
Posts: 850
motor trend got 13.0 @ 111.3
atricle also says it has "bilstien dampers, recalibrated suspension geometry, revised negative camber settings and a quicker steering ration"
atricle also says it has "bilstien dampers, recalibrated suspension geometry, revised negative camber settings and a quicker steering ration"
Last edited by 3.0Taurass; 01-31-2011 at 07:09 PM.
