2009 Dodge Challenger R/T: Skip S^#*%

You guys should probably describe what this is, for the non-GM-initiated:

http://www.carforums.net/showthread.php?t=21991

why dont you guys pull it then? and put on bigger summer tires like early posts mentioned and compare it tit-for-tat against the Challenger SRT-8?

Does it void warranty if you remove it?

This car gets great gas mileage considering it is 376 horsepower and 4000 pounds. I am averaging between 19 and 20 mpg. As for the skip shift, It does suck, but it is worth allowing Dodge to put it on there if it helps avoid gas guzzler taxes and helps the car meet emissions requirements. And it is easy to eliminate. I picked up a "skip shift eliminator" for $17. No more skip shift. I don't think you can simply unplug it. The computer needs to think it succeeded in energizing the solenoid in the tranny that forces you into 4th. The skip shift eliminator tricks the computer with a resistor that mimicks the solenoid. You unplug the harness from the tranny, plug it into the eliminator, and then plug the eliminator into the tranny. Easy.

Can anyone explain to me what is a skip shift wire?

GM practically advertises all the skip shift overrides out there. Personally, I have zero problem with something that allows a car to avoid the gas guzzler penalty AND is also easily defeatable with the manufacturer's blessing.

This how cars in at least the other 49 states (California I'm not so sure) should come, on the lot they meet EPA spec you roll off the lot pull into the McDonald's next door and right there pull the wire/fuse and roar off with max power at your disposal with not a care about the environment.

"If this were my Challenger, I'd pull the skip shift wire out, piss on it and send it back to Dodge"

Don't hold back or anything. Ha!

No wonder it saves fuel.. after driving the challenger for a while you get sick of the skip shift and stop driving the dang thing.

And along the lines of what I said earlier, this whole skip-shift thing is kinda a cool, rare rebellion against the government and its agencies. This feature is nothing more than a pure exploitation of opportunities present in the EPA's testing procedures. Then they go right ahead and make sure that anyone who cares will either disable it or drive in such a way that it doesn't activate. I love it.

IMO, I would do a #2 on it and then send it back. #2 sends more of a message if you get my drift.

My '05 GTO had it. Its not a big deal. When you're trying to accelerate at a pretty normal rate, it doesn't lock out anyway so I really didn't care. In easy-going driving it wasn't bad to go from 1st to 4th since there was so much torque.

Kurt, instead of bitching, why not just ask Dodge what the gas guzzler tax would be on this vehicle and send them a check? You media people kill me since you aren't spending your own money on these vehicles. Find me one owner of these vehicles who would rather pay more for the tax as opposed to a cheap fix to eliminate the function.

Petrolhead- please find me one "efficient" 5.7L V8. Better yet, please explain how you design one.

A more efficient 5.7L? Come on, find me a stock 70's 350 Camaro or 340 Dodge with a 4-speed and a conservative rear end ratio that, even when hyper-miled, is going to break 18-19 on the highway.

Today's V8's from GM and Dodge are remarkably efficient relative to their late 70's early 80's counterparts that offered far worse economy while produced half the power and twice the pollutants.

The Corvette, Camaro SS, and G8 GXP all have it still. Everybody I know that has owned a Corvette and my one friend with a G8 GXP have disabled it. I don't know anybody with a Camaro yet, but I'm sure they'd do the same thing. I'm honestly surprised there isn't one for the Challenger yet.

Define efficient.

The skip shift is simply a gizmo that GM came up with to manupulate the EPA fuel economy test for a couple of extra MPG.

Look at what it saves you in gas-guzzler taxes (probably $1,000 or more) and look at what it costs to deactivate (about $20 and 20 minutes) and stop whining.

I DESPISE THIS P.O.S. I have it on my CTS-V and it is such a royal PITA. :P

All the GTOs had this too. Annoying.

+1 for fuhteng

Doesn’t GM still use pushrods? I mean really, in 2009?

Don’t say it works for them... Cause if I remember correctly they just came out of bankruptcy.

@mini2009"Doesn’t GM still use pushrods? I mean really, in 2009?

Don’t say it works for them... Cause if I remember correctly they just came out of bankruptcy."

They work for me, name another engine that has a low cost to build is very reliable and makes enormous amounts of torque everywhere. I love the M3 V8 or Ferrari V8's but they are very complicated, expensive to maintain and the entry price is much higher than their pushrod counterparts.

^ Not this "pushrods is old" BS again. Can't people come up with fresh material for once?

Low cost to build? Duh, it’s a 30 year old design. Last time that engine saw innovation was when i was in diapers. Plus it runs like a 30 year old engine. Being from the Detroit area, where you can’t throw a stone without hitting a Corvette, I hear many complaints from owners that talk about the engines fragility in the higher RPM bands. That's if you can find the right gear in that slushy box they call a transmission.

Misterfusion
“^ Not this "pushrods is old" BS again. Can't people come up with fresh material for once?”

I say the same for GM, LOLLOLOLOLOLOL!

mini2009- um, I shouldn't even reply but I can't help it. The LS7 and LS9 are among the most impressive engines in production today, period.

@mini2009 Funny, I have a 17 yo corvette with 60k trouble free miles on it and it shifts great and gets 30 mpg on the highway, I guess I could buy a Mini and be on the forefront of technology.

If you care enough about driving your car fast, and know enough to know what skip-shift is, you can take the time/money it takes to disable it.

If you're too lazy/stupid to google "skip shift" then you don't deserve the acceleration anyways.

As an engineer in a very heavily regulated industry, a big part of my job is finding clever ways to deliver good products in spite of some of the unfortunate side effects of regulation. This is a killer engineering workaround. Best would be to run the wiring somewhere it's easy to get to, like inside the glove box or under the driver's seat.

I'll admit that GM has gotten the most out those pushrod 6's and 8's. The only place they lag modern OHC engines is in specific torque output. While a modern pushrod yields 65-70 ftlb per liter, a modern OHC will give 70-75. With high performance versions of each giving maybe 5 or so more ftlb.

@ chavis10

Yea, impressive that they can still sell them. Is a carburetor still an option? I am super impressed to see 500 horsepower derived from a 7 Liter engine.

@ jeepsrt

Hmmm… 17 years 60k… let me see… That’s like 3,500 miles a year….. Wow tons of abuse. I have had my mini for 3 months and have nearly 4,000 miles on it. It’s a daily driver.. It also gets 30 in the city 40mpg highway, and is not fiberglass. Those numbers are also from driving it like I stole it, not sitting in the right lane doing 60mph in 6th gear (what I see most Vette’ owners do). According to the stats, it’s not much slower either. My car is also 3.5 liters and 4 cylinders short of the Vette’.

Let me guess, it sits in a garage most of the year, you’re about 45-50 years old, possibly divorced, maybe 2 kids in college, and wear a Corvette leather coat in the winter?

Using displacement for "specific output" is a fallacy.

You care about engine weight or power output/rate of fuel consumption (hp/gal/hour). Displacement is irrelevant.

In those terms, it's hard to get 426hp out of the same amount of mass as a GM LS3, particularly for the cost, longevity or ease of service.

@ Mad_Science

When you have 30 years to work on it, anything is possible, right?

@mini2009 Hmmm… 17 years 60k… let me see… That’s like 3,500 miles a year….. Wow tons of abuse. I have had my mini for 3 months and have nearly 4,000 miles on it. It’s a daily driver.. It also gets 30 in the city 40mpg highway, and is not fiberglass. Those numbers are also from driving it like I stole it, not sitting in the right lane doing 60mph in 6th gear (what I see most Vette’ owners do). According to the stats, it’s not much slower either. My car is also 3.5 liters and 4 cylinders short of the Vette’.

Let me guess, it sits in a garage most of the year, you’re about 45-50 years old, possibly divorced, maybe 2 kids in college, and wear a Corvette leather coat in the winter?

Actually, I am 35 yo, happily married to a beautiful woman and no kids, the Corvette was my fathers who passed away and I kept it. I own a BMW 330Ci for my wife and drive a pushrod SRT8 Jeep as well as a OHC V8 Tundra with an engine tick for winter and hauling. I get 30mpg in the Vette with mountain driving at 75-80 mph and do not baby it. I won't try to stereotype you for driving a Mini don't try to stereotype me for driving a Corvette.

Wow sweet, I'm convinced, and now converted.

The mini is for sale for the best V8. Even Wards loves them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward's_10_Best_Engines

#7 for 1999!

P.S. Your wifes 330Ci was a great choice. That was top on our list until we got a great deal on a 335i.

@mini2009 Ooh Snap!

"Low cost to build? Duh, it’s a 30 year old design. Last time that engine saw innovation was when i was in diapers. Plus it runs like a 30 year old engine. Being from the Detroit area, where you can’t throw a stone without hitting a Corvette, I hear many complaints from owners that talk about the engines fragility in the higher RPM bands. That's if you can find the right gear in that slushy box they call a transmission. "

You are pretty stupid. Today's OHV V8s have little in common with what was on sale 30 years ago. Only the number of cylinders and bore spacing is the same. Block and head construction, injection methods, throttle control, emissions contols, redlines, NVH levels, cylinder deactivation, etc. are all new.

"Yea, impressive that they can still sell them. Is a carburetor still an option? I am super impressed to see 500 horsepower derived from a 7 Liter engine. "

It still gets better mileage than comparable sports cars with DOHC V8s or V10s with less displacement. What good is "high tech" if it leads to less efficiency in spite of less displacement? Please explain. Ls7 has more high tech materials than 95% of the engines on the market and it redlines higher than most DOHC V8s for sale today.

^
You’re right! That’s why the industry as a whole is collectively moving back to the OHV design.

It’s so darn wonderful that they continue to win awards for efficiency, durability, and performance.

Just like I said above…. #7 best engine in the world in 1999. Yes!

OHC is just as old, if not older. the US was the leading auto industry after WW2 left the rest of the world destroyed and OHV engines were what took hold here. By the time the rest of the world recovered they were starting over and their car companies focused on smaller OHC engines with less displacement and power than their American counterparts. Other countries don't even have a history of using OHV engines extensively and thus you mainly only find them in the US. Bentley uses OHV engines however including in their new model shown in Frankfurt. Did you know that? Of course not.

Probably 80% of the pickups and large SUVs sold in the US are from Detroit and GM/Chrysler trucks use OHV engines. The fact that the Tundra and Titan use DOHC V8s has done NOTHING to improve their market performance. The F150 has a SOHC V8 that is seriously outclassed by the GM/Chrysler OHV V8s.

BTW, spare me the "everyone else is doing it" arguments. The rest of the world does a LOT of things we don't believe in here. They use metric, they tax gas so that its $5/gallon or more, they make diesel use practical, they pass laws to discourage displacement, etc. The US car market is different and has always been and that is why OHV engines flourished here. If our gas prices and laws were the same as those in Europe OHC engines likely would've been more practical. One reason small engines are so prevalent in other countries is that the realities there make that a necessity. There's no place for a large displacement V8 for middle class people in places were gas may be $7 per gallon. In Japan there are taxes on displacement so manufacturers HAD to develop engines that could make as much hp/L as possible.

@1487

“If our gas prices and laws were the same as those in Europe OHC engines likely would've been more practical.”

So again, OHC are more practical, and more efficient for power delivery. My point exactly, thanks.

“The F150 has a SOHC V8 that is seriously outclassed by the GM/Chrysler OHV V8s.”

Like GM, that 5.4L has seen little innovation in years.

Also,

"BTW, spare me the "everyone else is doing it" arguments."

Yea, but Americans have made the choice to make the foreign option the most popular option (see: top cars bought in Cash for Clunkers, and the ‘Big Three’s’(that's relative) P&L statements for the last couple of years ).

I find this humorous. i drive a car with no torque and yet I usually go from first to third, or even fourth around town anyway. Whats all the bellyachin about?

Minilover, The Dodge 5.7L OHV V-8 is a Ward's Ten Best THIS YEAR.

Ward's says "The new Hemi earns its Best Engines honor not on pure emotion or brute force but with an active intake manifold, variable valve timing, cylinder deactivation and a glorious exhaust note."

^ Talking about GM's OHV in this argument.

^ OK, but many of your comments seemed to be aimed at OHV engines in general.

Wow, I think we've finally found the ying to 1487's yang.

@ rda717409 sorry for the confusion. 1487 had expanded the debate. I still don't like the fact they cut corners with it, but at least some R&D has been put into it.

"So again, OHC are more practical, and more efficient for power delivery. My point exactly, thanks."

More efficient if you have penalties for displacement. We don't have such a thing here. In some countries they chose to penalize inefficiency and hp so they have displacement taxes. Since you need more displacement for equal hp in an OHV engine that kind of rules them out. DOesn't mean one is better than the other.

"^ Talking about GM's OHV in this argument. "

what sense does not make? GM and Chrysler use the same tech in their latest OHV designs. You make no sense at all.

"@ rda717409 sorry for the confusion. 1487 had expanded the debate. I still don't like the fact they cut corners with it, but at least some R&D has been put into it. "

Uh, GM and Chrysler have cylinder cut off and VVT in their newest designs. How is GM cutting more corners than Chrysler? What are you talking about?

"Yea, but Americans have made the choice to make the foreign option the most popular option (see: top cars bought in Cash for Clunkers, and the ‘Big Three’s’(that's relative) P&L statements for the last couple of years ). "

some of the stupidest logic I have ever seen. CFC was aimed at small cars. All manufacturers use OHC engines in their small cars. OHVs are used primarily in high peformance cars and trucks- niether of which was helped by C4C genius. Did you miss the part about the Tundra and Titan being flops in spite of DOHC V8s? Go back and read it again.

“what sense does not make? GM and Chrysler use the same tech in their latest OHV designs. You make no sense at all.”

Well stated..lololol. Its b/c the Hemi engine was built from ground up in 2003. The GM engine has had “refreshing” for the last 30 years. God, I love to know the profit margin.. By now it must be 99%... Wait, profits? GM? My bad.
But, if you want me to say it, “Hemi is garbage too for the pushrods.” Got beat out by two forgein OHV engines by Wards, so there.

“Uh, GM and Chrysler have cylinder cut off and VVT in their newest designs. How is GM cutting more corners than Chrysler? What are you talking about?”

*****Newest designs*****… Screw all those people that have bought their cars before 2008-09. They now are FORCED to innovate.

Please do not criticize about logic when your arguments clearly lack any form of it. Lets go back to your previous post

“The US car market is different and has always been and that is why OHV engines flourished here. If our gas prices and laws were the same as those in Europe OHC engines likely would've been more practical. “
They DID flourish here. What do you think will happen to gas prices when the economy rebounds (see 2007-08)?
Now gas prices are lower, but people still have decided to get smaller vehicles. If people felt the way they did in the late 90’s early 2000’s the C4C’s would have been a flop.
So, people have a choice and they want performance, reliability, and efficiency; they want OHV….

As for the Titan and Tundra debate… Jesus, it was a d@mn good FIRST try in that market don’t you think? A market dominated by the Big 3 for what 50 years?