Dyno-Tested: 2011 Dodge Challenger SRT8

Sweet engine. Nice broad power across much of the rev range. Makes the LS3 look weak on paper. We all know how fat the Chal is though.

@audisport:
"Sweet engine. Nice broad power across much of the rev range. Makes the LS3 look weak on paper. We all know how fat the Chal is though."

Problem is, so is the Camaro. If the Camaro were lighter, the power deficit wouldn't be a big thing. With the Camaro itself coming in at an ungainly 4000 lbs, though, this match suddenly doesn't look too good for the GM pony car; and you really shouldn't have to step up to the Corvette to find a contender.

We'll see what happens when the supercharged Z28 Camaro arrives. We all know what a beast the LS3 is when supercharged (LS9/LSA). We'll see what wonders it can work for the Camaro.

Ohhh check out the classic 911 and the NSX in the background!! Can someone please make one of those a new long termer?

too rich for my blood... but that is looking sweet. i was convinced Mustang GT for me, but the more i see the Challenger...

hi Jason, I've seen you there on many occasions. I just drop in to talk to Mark and run.

I seem to remember the 11 Mustang 5.0 on the dyno pulling 435 hp.

Awesome power. Dodge does weigh more though. I would like to see some track numbers on it. I own a 2010 SRT 8 Challenger. It looks like I will have to supercharge it to stay ahead of the game.

Glad manufacturers still make great muscle cars and not everybody is brainwashed with this "Green" junk.SRT 8 not only looks amazing has great street presence,interior is 10 x better than Camaro or stang.
Having owned German for past 10 yrs i think this will bring back to domestics.
Handling i know is not stellar but everything else is near perfect on this monster.

"Pretty much puts an end to all the doom and gloom preaching by those who say fun cars are going to be gone and we will all be forced to drove hybrids and electrics."

That's because Americans have super short attention and memory spans and they have already forgotten about the super high gas prices we experienced a year and a half ago. But just wait until gas spikes to $5.00 a gallon or more, cars like this will be sitting on dealership lots with cobwebs all over them. Not only that, but just like the last huge spike in price, car dealerships will be taking in these fuel inefficient pony cars, as well as all the SUV's and pickup trucks as trade-ins for cars like the Prius and Insight, because the dumb owners will be crying at the pump the way they did last time. People in this country never learn.

These sorts of car are fossils, only they don't know it yet. If this is your kind of thing, enjoy it while you can, and make sure you can continue to enjoy it when gas shoots up real again, although I know for most Americans planning for the future is tough to do, it's all about living for today!

This car is one serious piece of manburger. I'm guessing a power bump could be expected if you fed it beef gravy instead of pump gas

Are these numbers SAE-corrected? They seem kind of high relative to the factory HP ratings. The dyno of the 392 Challenger on the RedLetterDodge.com tour on video shows 420 RWHP (corrected) and 440 RWHP (uncorrected). I was suspicious about the Insideline Mustang with 390 RWHP as being representative and I'm thinking the same on this Challenger.

why was this dyno corrected and not the one InsideLine used? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q6Qs4UGVH8

why was this dyno corrected and not the one InsideLine used? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q6Qs4UGVH8

This is for dgs4, I have owned many muscle cars, and gas prices are a consideration, but what all you tree hugging electric loving guys and gals out there don't understand is, power(electricity) costs money too, and when your 5 year old prius is up for a 4000 dollar battery, don't come crying to all us muscle heads. The funny thing is every hybrid on the market(even the halo volt, has a gas engine as well as electric). Come back and talk to us when you get your 1st power bill after plugging in that pig.

It's like looking at a blue whale... lol

awesome numbers for a straight line race.. and that's about all this car is made for.

not to mention it has a really boring interior -_-

"awesome numbers for a straight line race.. and that's about all this car is made for"

ever driven one?

"not to mention it has a really boring interior"

as apposed to a cluttered one?

Those are some good numbers being put down. Looks a little underrated if you ask me.

The real winner here is the consumer. Between all the pony cars you have quite the variety of respectable cars from the base v6s to the gt500s, srt8, and z28 (if it ever comes out).

Also, I will guarantee you dgs4, that I will never trade in my fun car to drive an appliance, regardless what gas costs. I'll live in a shed if I have to, hell I plan on living in a shed anyway to buy and live with the next gen viper.

I grew up a GM fan, but this car is so nice. To me this is the best looking pony car today for sure...or since the early 1970's. If they could only be a bit less expensive....

Sadly its just not enough to matter... With its heavy weight its still barely faster than the base Mustang GT or Camaro SS is a straightline. It's man handled by them both in the turns... Worse yet is the GT500 is not even competition for the SRT8 and the upcoming Z28 will be in the GT500's zone or better. For a top of the line performance car its certainly basic compared to the others.

Im not sure why people are comparing this at all to the Camaro, the Camaro SS doesnt compete with the SRT8 it competes with the RT the SS is the Camaros middle grade trim level, with the V6 being the entry as with the Dodge, and an upcoming supercharged model above the SS. The RT is well behind the GT and SS in speed test that in fact they only compare the SRT that cost some $10,000 more than both (even though its priced against the Shelby, and upcoming Z28). My point make it a fair fight if your going to compare its Dodges fault the Challenger is behind, thats like comparing an RS6 to an 535i and saying look the RS6 has more power so it wins kinda dum.....

HP/liter?.......... 71 HP/L
What an utter and complete piece of crap!
The power efficiency of this thing is 58% of a discontinued Honda engine.
Only dimwitts can think this any sort of achievement!
"Gee BooBoo you put a tractor trailer engine on a car and it goes faster! Its good to be smarter than the average bear!"
ROLF

dmpete +1

6sptl says:

HP/liter?.......... 71 HP/L
What an utter and complete piece of crap!
The power efficiency of this thing is 58% of a discontinued Honda engine.

I could not resist responding to this by saying that your comparison is like saying someone has a crappy job because they make X$ per mile of commute to work; it makes no sense to anything about which anyone cares.

If you want to compare HP per MPG, or HP per pound of engine weight, fine that's relevant. I think you will find in those metrics an M3,Civic SI, EVO, or WRX is not so awesome as you might think when compared to OHV engines.

Perhaps you can counter why the Honda K series is the favorite swap into RX-7 or Miata's and not LS series engines, right?
(I don't even own a domestic or muscle car right now, btw)

t10 let me put it simply
If this tractor motor from mopar were as efficient producing power as an F20/F22 S 2000 engine it would produce about 732 HP (no turbo neccessary thank you). Even if we gave it a 20% "handicap" for being the overweight lard ass 8 cylinder that it is, it should make 652! From an engineering point of view, this thing is not even close to competitive to a 12 year old Honda engine.
Frankly, its an absolutely pathetic POS
BTW Honda does make a normally aspirated 3.5L v8, those make 700HP. They are a little pricey though :)

450 WHP? That would be well over 500 at the crank! Either Dodge is seriously underrating this engine, or the dyno correction is off. It'd be really cool if it's the former.

God that torque curve is as flat as a table! What an engine. Who cares that it is heavier than the SS? It is by a mile better looking. The SS looks like a bloated cartoon pig. And it has a new interior this year and is better looking than the SS interior as well. All the cars in this class are so fast the difference really does not matter. So it comes down to if you want to look silly in a Chevy or cool in that nice looking Dodge.

6sptl, since you brought up Japanese engines, find me one at this price point that makes 425HP+. Actually, it doesn't have to be Japanese. Find me any non-domestic engine that makes 425HP+ in a vehicle at this price point.

viss1... First off Honda engines you speak of have pathedic TQ figures it may have 240h.p out of a 2.0 but 139fttq is simply garbage end of story. Bodyblue... you might want to check out M.T first test of this PIG 4.6 0-60 and 13.0 flat at 111 that is sad considering this has 50 h.p and 50tq more then the Camaro and costs 10 more and is only Matches the Camaro in a straight line. The Camaro is outselling the Mustang and Challenger so your dislike is only your opionion stop hating on the Camaro because it's been on the market almost 2 years and still outselling the ALL NEW Mustang.I think it's Ironic you call the Camaro a pig eidolways because it weighs 3850 not 4,000 and this oversized boat is 4300lbs. This is a Epic fail from Dodge the gt500 and the z28 will crush this pig and cost the same!

@6sptl

HP per liter is not a good indicator of how efficient and engine is, it is TQ per liter. You will find that nearly all performance N/A production engines hover around 70-80 ftlbs/liter. Domestic, Japanese, Italian, etc.

Stop playing the power/displacement card, and accept that V8's are cool. If you want 2 liters I suggest you stop by 7-11 on the way home.

/tryingtobeadultaboutthis

hah

Yeah

I owned an S2000 and while it was plenty fun on the open road it was like piloting a battleship around town. I'd take a torquealicious V8 over it any day.

" you might want to check out M.T first test of this PIG 4.6 0-60 and 13.0 flat at 111 that is sad considering this has 50 h.p and 50tq "

I just read it, MT must be hiring a pretty poor driver, this srt8 trapped 5mph faster than the camaro yet only got there .1sec quicker. Many other publications have shown a 12.4 quarter with the same 0-60 and trap speed

To the post above knocking hybrids, etc...ie cars that get great gas mileage...be thankful for them, as they allow companies like Chrysler to build rides like this.

comparing an S2000's F20C to a 6.4 hemi = fail.

You forget to mention that the S2000 is a torqueless wimp. You have to rev it to the stratosphere to make any power. It's all about tradeoffs.

1. I'd hit it.

2. Those are some incredible photos. Who took them, and what equipment was used?

Oh pleazee. Torque is for tractors not sport cars. If you want to pull a stump in your farm buy one of these. As a sport vehicle I'd rather drive a miata. Cost less a ton more fun.

Great Motor but ill take a GT500 for a few extra grand. When the Z28 comes out it will be game over for the dodge. The challenger looks so good though so its hard to say. At least we have all 3 to compete again. If Dodge really wanted to compete with the Z28 and GT500 then make this the R/T motor and make the SRT motor the Viper V10. I would love a comparison between GT500, Z28 and V10 Challenger. Man that would be great. Its nice to dream. Car looks awesome but if Dodge had any balls they would not offer the car in automatic. R/T with auto I get but if you want SRT they should make a 6 speed manual ONLY. The blue looks great but I am still on orange with black stripe person.

"...Oh pleazee. Torque is for tractors not sport cars....."

(6sptl)

Torque x rpm is where horsepower comes from. This kind of comment is typical of the engineering illiteracy that abounds on the internet. The real metric of a good engine is not the single number of peak horsepower (or torque) at some rpm, it's the "area under the torque curve" over the usable rpm range. By that metric this appears to be an awfully good engine. Plus being a 2 valve, single cam engine it's relatively cheap to manufacture, which is another relevent metric of a good engine.

I am a the kind of track day performance Nazi who takes the foam out of the rear seats in my M3 to save weight. By the numbers the new Boss 302 should be the Muscle car I would like in my driveway but every time I see a Challenger or drive one I want one so bad. They are just fun to drive, have 10X more swagger than the Ford or Chevy and look amazing. They have the X factor. I want one for my daily driver.

Ignore the obvious troll, guys.

This would probably be my # 1 choice for a cross country trip across America, a big comfortable boat with enough performance.

This is a car I wanted to hate, but I have to admit the thing has huge presence even if in the end it only has 90% of the performance of a Camaro or Mustang.

In my mind it's kind of the domestic version of a CL or CLS AMG from Merc. Not the sharpest track tool but big and good looking and can lay down the law in a straight line.

Looks great, but.......

1) It's still too heavy. Absurdly heavy. Stop giving it so much power, and put it on a diet.

2) It's still (even more) expensive. Way too expensive. Add on top of that, dealers' markups, and it's borderline ridiculous.

3) And worst of all, it's still slow. Mid 4's 0-60, and high 12's 1/4??? Get real. You can spend $17,000 on an LS2 GTO and get the same performance just about.

Having said that, it is def underrated from the factory. Very nice powerband, but it's a shame it's hampered by this anchor on wheels. As for the Camaro, the Challenger is hands down a better muscle car, but how many people want such a 1-dimensional car?? And in terms of performance, the GT500 and the upcoming Z28 will murder this thing, and have a lot more potential and aftermarket support as well.

the camaro is only a few hundred pounds lighter, and the challenger has a usable back seat and a huge trunk. It all depends on what you want.

Also the z28 will be more expensive than this and gt500 and will be even heavier than the SS

This car has grown on me. I didn't really care for it at first, but it's a pretty car and I've heard some awesome exhaust on SRT8s. Is it the fastest or lightest car? No, but it's fast and pretty.

The problem is that although is that you understand the HP equation perfectly you dont understand what it means from an engineering standpoint. In order to put that torque to work you have to add revolutions to that torque, if not all cars would be diesels! What makes a car fun is the progressive rise in power as the rpms go up, if not electric cars would be the most fun of all! The reason this engine is crap is that for all purposes it might be a diesel. besides fuel injection this thing could have been easily manufactured in 1952! No variable timing, 2 valves per cylinder, hell my lawnmower has a more sophisticated and efficient engine than this! Hey this might impress the Duke brothers but its as backward as an Oklahoma congressman Yeehaw!

6sptl, you were asked to show a motor with anywhere close to this that is near its price point. Please refrain from commenting until you figure one out.

One thing for everyone to remember: 470 HP is a NATURALLY ASPIRATED figure. The new Z/28 and GT500 beasts are supercharged. Add a supercharger to this motor and voila- the numbers are likely better than the 540 horses the Shelby puts out. Whether it's 470, 500 or 550, that's a lot of power- more than any of us will use other than taking it to the dragstrip on the weekend. I appreciate all three cars but like many others say, the Challenger just stands out and has that "wow" factor. I've driven both Challengers (SRT8 auto and R/T manual) as well as rented an SS Camaro in Florida for a week and to me, it's no contest. I hated the Camaro's interior and view out of it (and it seemed soooo wide) but it did look cool and pull pretty hard. The Challenger just drew more looks and is a bit more roomy...not to mention that I couldn't fit my suitcase in the trunk of the Camaro at all!
Here's some wishful thinking.. how about Dodge builds a LE Challenger with the famed 426c.i as a modern version of the Hemi? Supercharged of course...

"The reason this engine is crap is that for all purposes it might be a diesel. besides fuel injection this thing could have been easily manufactured in 1952! No variable timing, 2 valves per cylinder, hell my lawnmower has a more sophisticated and efficient engine than this! Hey this might impress the Duke brothers but its as backward as an Oklahoma congressman Yeehaw!"

WOW either you are about 15 or totally ignorant of anything automotive. The above engine will be running strong long after your Honda motor has thrown a few timing belts a 9000 RPM.

The Challenger is what it is....as a former Mustang GT owner (05) I still like the Ford better but not by a hell of a lot. I love the Challenger and would love to own one. Just give me a nice bright White R/T and auto so I can ease on down the road in style....and go like hell when I felt like it. It is a grown ups car and that is fine with me.

I did love driving the R/T with the 6spd though. It seemed like 2nd gear pulled really hard which gave me a pretty good thrill...and this coming from an owner of a last generation Cobra Terminator. The ultimate Challenger to me though is the SMS 570 (google it if you haven't seen it).

The Camaro's interior is horrid. But I don't think the Challenger's is much better.

I def agree the Challenger is roomier and more comfy, but it should be for it's size advantage.

The GT500 is lighter than now than ever before because it now has an aluminum block, and it's lighter than both the Chally and Maro.

Yeah, they're supercharged versus N/A. That's my point. They have more potential because they're internals are designed to withstand forced induction, and it'll be much easier to add substantial amounts of power. GT500's can handle over 700hp on stock internals, the LSA is prolly capable of the same. This thing won't get near that number w/out something terminal happening.

A friend of mine has an '08 GT500 and is running over 600hp with it. However, the stock SC can only go so far and he's now looking to upgrade to the Ford Racing TVS SC that is capable of more power. Point is- even the older Shelby's were built to handle the power. Even my 'dinosaur' Cobra 4.6 4V can handle quite a bit. Right now I'm putting out about 550 at the crank with it.

I'm not sure how the internals are on the 6.4 but if they are strong enough, Dodge should offer a supercharged version in the future that is capable of further mods.

I agree to a point about the Challenger's interior but as bland as it is- it's still better than the Camaro's IMO. With that being said though, Chrysler is releasing brand new interiors that are getting much praise in most of their vehicles across the board. The Challenger will follow suit no doubt and get an upgraded interior.

Ill take a CTS-V Coupe instead. The price is getting pretty damn close and this thing is on another level.

The CTS-V is a mean machine but it's in a different class. A luxo-rocket? lol. 556 horses in a car as comfy as a day at the spa is a combination you don't see too often without a huge price tag. If I had to pick one car, it would be a hard choice between the new GT500 and this new 392 Challenger.

"...The reason this engine is crap is that for all purposes it might be a diesel. besides fuel injection this thing could have been easily manufactured in 1952! No variable timing, 2 valves per cylinder..."

(6sptl)

If you don't understand the "area under the torque curve" just say so and we'll explain. The 5.7 hemi was on Wards 10 best engines for quite a number of years so regardless of illiterates like 6sptl the hemi engines are not crap. They represent an engineering solution to a problem, that pushrod engines do well at: making a powerful fuel efficient compact powerplant for low cost.

There are any number of comparisons of which can be used to demonstrate this; start by comparing the fuel economy of the 6.2L Camaro to coupes and sedans with more sophisticated more expensive engines. There are any number of cars of equal or slower performance that with lighter or equal weight can't beat the EPA fuel economy of this pushrod v8 powered car.

Try: BMW M3 (420 hp V8)
Audi S5 (354 hp V8)
Audi R8 Spyder (430 hp V8)
Jaguar XK (385 hp V8)
Mercedes E550 Coupe (382 hp V8)
Lexus ISF (416hp v8)
Infinity M35 sedan (300? hp v6)

Amazingly this 3800 lb pushrod v8 coupe ties the Accord v6 coupe (manual) and Mazda 6 for highway mileage.

"...GT500's can handle over 700hp on stock internals, the LSA is prolly capable of the same. This thing won't get near that number w/out something terminal happening..."

(a1c_scg)

Probably not true. I don't know what modifications are done to the LX hemi cars running in the 10s and 9s, but I doubt there's serious issues with the bottom end. I think the advantage of the hemi over the 5.4 Ford is the limited bore size of the 5.4 (3.5 inches). It shrouds valves and even with 4 of them I suspect the 2v hemis (and LS GM v8s) will outflow the 5.4 4v head when ported to the max.

Its an engineering midget even compared to this:
http://www.hondas600.com/imageviewer.php?Photo=brochure9.jpg
ROLF

klapper says:
Amazingly this 3800 lb pushrod v8 coupe ties the Accord v6 coupe (manual) and Mazda 6 for highway mileage.

You are pointing out that in the real world a FEATURE ( hp/displacement) is good when paired with a BENEFIT, just like most technology. Power per displacement is a feature who's main benefit appears to be "it's really cool to rev and engine out".
BENEFITS would be ...

it makes the car fast
it makes the easy to drive around town across a variety of gears
it gets great gas mileage

If an engine, let's say the 4L in the M3 get's worse gas mileage, is less powerful, and even weighs as much or more than a comparable OHV engine one may want to question if the power per /displacement is of value.

klapper-

I'm referring to completely stock internals. No way is this thing's compression ratio low enough to handle any kind of serious boost.

455ho-

Yeah, the modular DOHC Ford engines are beasts. I've always heard the general rule of thumb as non-Termi Cobras (and Mach 1's) like yours being able to hold 600hp, the '03-04 Cobras 800hp, and the GT500's a little more, 850~ on stock motors. Of course, the blower, fuel delivery system and supporting systems have to be modded to compensate.

Maseratimusik:

I mentioned earlier that to compare the Challenger's 392 to the upcoming Z/28 and Shelby isn't really a direct comparison. Both of the latter cars are supercharged. Add a comparable SC to the Challenger and watch figures go into the 550 range and beyond.

6sptl- I'm assuming that stands for some crappy torque-less honda product u drive. Only a moron would say they'd take a miata over this. U are obviously a sissy who cant handle anything with torque as u seem to think driving a car which is gutless below 8000 rpms makes it fun. Who the hell says that? God would love to meet u someday just so I can point and laugh at the POS that u drive and then blow ur effing doors off right after i kick u in ur small sac.

Please go get into ur miata and make sure to secure ur skirt and purse prior to pulling up next to one of these awesome challengers. U will surely be laughed and and made fun of as much as possible just for the fact that u r a sissy and drive sissy cars.

"...Yeah, the modular DOHC Ford engines are beasts..."

(a1c_scg)

I made the point they have a serious hp limitation, namely the bore spacing. There's a reason that all the performance versions have been supercharged; it's the only way to get a lot of air/fuel into that tiny bore. They run out of breath in normally aspirated mode pretty quick compared to their hemi and LSx competitors.

If you want to talk about a beast of a engine how about the '68 426 hemi super stocks. With no supercharger required the best of the breed dyno over 1000 hp (440 cu. in.) and run 160 mph in the 1/4.

"if u give Mercedes a 6.4 l engine they will increase the hp to at least 600"

well thats weird the 2010 s63 has a 6.3L V8 makes 510/456, though it does cost $127,000. The 2011 s63 is a 5.5L V8 536/590, but its twin turboed and costs $135,000.

While a factory FI setup might be easier to upgrade at first, no one says you can't throw a supercharger on this setup.

big freakin balls

6sptl you honda fanboys make me laugh haha. When you cant compete hp or fast wise you always go to the MPG or Hp/liter argument. Your comparing 200hp 4cly engines when it doesnt even take much to get 200hp efficently these days. And what are you talking about electric cars are fun! I just instant Tq means nothing to you....then again you are a honda fanboy and have to wind your honda engine up to 8000rpm just to get your 200hp and 130tq

Inside Line do yourself a favor and find a new dyno. Your numbers for the 2010 GT500 where way off and I'm sure these are as well. From the pics it looks like both were done at the same place.

http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2009/06/defying-dyno-expectations-in-the-2010-shelby-gt500.html

Nobody on any of the Shelby forums including my 2010 GT500 dyno'd anywhere close to that bone stock.

I can't believe in 2010 I'm still reading comments about horsepower per liter. I thought that died with the ricer age of the late 90s.

6sptl, you would be DEVASTATED if you realized how INFERIOR many of the European and Japanese engines are to Chrysler's Hemi and GM's SBC when it comes to cost, complexity, overall performance, engine size and engine weight. Adding in very good reliability, good fuel economy and GREAT ease of modification is just icing on the cake that makes THESE engines the real engineering achievement. Engineering achievement, if you are German, I suppose, is to create a product with the absolute most complex technology. It is an arbitrary goal that rewards you with more funny-sounding acronyms on a brochure, I suppose. Part of it is it's what the buying demographic wants, in many cases. But the real achievement is an engine like GM's LS7. Here are the facts:

BMW 90 degree V10
500hp at 7750rpm
383lbft at 6100rpm
4999cc
8250 rpm max
40 valves
Bore x Stroke (mm) 92 x 75.2
12.0:1 CR
528lb dry weight

LS7 90 degree V8
505hp at 6300rpm
470lb/ft at 4800rpm
7000cc
7000 rpm max
16 valves
Bore x Stroke (mm) 104.8 x 101.6
11.0:1 CR
458lb dry weight

The LS7 is 70 pounds LIGHTER than the BMW 5.0L V10, no larger externally, while producing the same power, 90lb-ft more torque, for several times less engine cost. With 2 valves per cylinder, no direct injection, no variable valve timing. If you try to tell me that winding an LS7 out to its 7000rpm redline is too boring for you, then you are flat out lying. And we haven't even started talking about how much of a giant, expensive PITA it would be if you decided 500hp wasn't good enough on the M5 V10. Do you see how HP/liter is such an inept way to compare anything?

The only place HP/liter actually matters is in a racing class with a displacement cap. In the real world, it doesn't matter at all, as I have shown. What matters is HP/cost, HP/engine weight, HP/physical engine size or even HP/mpg.

I agree that the hp/L argument is quite inane. Fwiw, though, here are some interesting hp/L specs that are oft ignored:

@4000 rpm...
Dodge 5.7 vvt hemi..54 hp/L
Honda 2.2 vtec....43 hp/L

@5500 rpm:
Dodge 5.7 vvt hemi..68 hp/L
Honda 2.2 vtec....66 hp/L

that what the over taxed suspension needed- more power.

I'll take less hp, but gimme a better suspension set up and LESS weight.

Not everyone who buys a muscle car plans to run it on a track on the weekend. Cool, fun, and brutally fast are what matters, and if I was shopping for a Mustang GT500, Camaro Z28, or Charger SRT-8 I wouldn't lose sleep if I picked the slowest of the three.

In terms of styling, I may be a minority but I would put the latest tweaks to the Mustang at best with the Charger a close second, and the Camaro behind. But all three look great. And even though superchargers are a proven and effective technology, I think just using 392 cubic inches to make massive power is really cool.

That puts the Charger as the winner in my book.

If I planned to track the car, things would be different.

kosmo69 - I've never heard anyone say the SRT-8's suspension is overtaxed. That argument is tough to make even for the R/T (which is calibrated for a softer ride, but is still competent). And the '11 SRT-8 has some meaningful enhancement that make it handle even better.

@onramp says:

My 50cc moped puts out 4kw of power.

That's 5.44 hp for you standard weenies.

5.44 hp per 50cc equates to 108.8 hp/liter.

Does that make my moped a better engineering achievement than your Honda 2.2 vtec?

No fairz when bringing 2-cycle engines into it! :p

Its like I'm really on /o/. Anyway, 6sptl is sort-of correct in that VTEC does yield good HP/L numbers on N/A 4-cylinder engines. HOWEVER, those numbers often if not always come at the expense of low end torque production. If VTEC were a fully variable system instead of a 2 or 3 stage system, it would be a different story. Honda announced such a system back in September 2006 (http://www.autoblog.com/2006/09/25/honda-reveals-the-advanced-vtec-engine/ , but I've yet to hear about it in a production vehicle, so they are apparently still working the bugs out of the system. Until Advanced VTEC (or whatever they decide to call it# makes production, VTEC will, in my eyes, forever be an outdated technology. If Chrysler takes the Cam-in-Cam technology that debuted on the 2008 Viper V10 and applies to all the Hemi engines #which I am assuming they will#, look the **** out. GM is also #allegedly# copying Cam-in-Cam for use in the Gen V small block engine family.

Moving on, if the numbers are to be believed, assuming 20% drivetrain loss through the automatic transmission, the 392 is producing 565 horsepower at the flywheel. Those numbers are a bit high for me to believe. I would suggest taking the car #assuming IL still has access to it) and strapping it to another dyno, if only for the sake of juxtaposition.

Vtec only yields good hp/L number by virtue of extended rpm performance. The numbers I showed above demonstrate that when normalized for like-rpm, even a good ole ohv hemi is achieving comparable hp/L as a vtec, within its designed rev range. Then comes the revelation that Dodge's hemi is indeed *that* good or has vtec been just a big sham the whole time?...

The Challenger SRT8 is a beautiful car and always will be. The Camaro apparently appeals to a certain segment of enthusiasts, but it is not beautiful nor will it ever be. Both have quite acceptable stock performance, yet both could be better; however, the aftermarket will address those issues. If my choice had to be one of these two, I would choose the Challenger even if it was the poorer performer in every category as I find the Camaro simply too impractical: I don't like its exterior or interior, and no amount of performance advantage is going to make up for that. Yes, I do wish that the Challenger was less expensive.

At the risk of touching a couple of tar babies in this thread:

1) There is nothing wrong with the dyno results that Edmunds is posting. For the poster who references the dyno numbers obtained for the GT500 as being unprecedented, I will point you to:

http://www.musclemustangfastfords.com/videos/01/mm-ff-2011-shelby-gt500-dyno-test/6240/index.html

They returned 500 whp on a 2010 GT500 (admittedly on a spike at the end, but even without that the numbers were in the 480-490 whp range on a Dynojet).

Keep in mind that getting good dyno numbers, especially on a roller dyno is dependent on tire inflation, strap down tension, alignment, and cooling airflow. MD Automotive uses a fan which is certainly better than average for dyno shops around the country.

2) On the topic of hp/L, I agree, its not a useful comparison point for a modern automobiles. Its' really a shame that anyone still brings that up - especially in such a argumentative fashion. That said, those attempting to argue that Honda's VTEC implementations are somehow less than impressive, are making questionable cases IMO. First of all, attempting to compare hp/liter at arbitrary rpm points on engines with disparate rpm ranges is pointless. If you want to pursue such an approach, you might consider at least normalizing points to a percentage of rpm range for each engine. And of course, if you're going to do it, using chassis dynos is probably not the best way to measure ultimate efficiency given the variables involved.

3) Honda engines have plenty of low end torque production for their size. It's just that they tend to keep producing torque to very high rpm levels. The myth that Honda VTEC engines produce poor low rpm torque is just that, a myth, perpetuated because those Honda engines usually get compared to the competition's larger engines that produce similar hp. Compare engines of like displacement and there is no dearth of torque on Honda's part. Also, don't forget that current i-VTEC applications use infinitely variable cam phasing along with dual stage lift/duration/profiles. That this works quite well is quite evident when you view the torque curve of something like the K20Z3 in the Civic Si, which produces about 85-90% of its peak torque from 2000 to 8000 rpm.

The only low rpm limitation of designing an engine to produce high rpm hp, no matter what the valvetrain actuation, is that you have to design the head ports and other non-variable engine parts to sustain those airflow levels.

And with that, I'll disappear again for a few more months...

I'll counter that the WHOLE misconception about vtec hp/L superiority comes precisely from rpm effects. Normalize that out (compare engine to engine, rpm to rpm), and it becomes apparent that the vtec engines are really nothing all that special aside from the extended redline. This may be exactly what you are looking for, in which case vtec is definitely the engine to get. If you do NOT spend much drivetime actually hovering in that 6000-8000 rpm range, then vtec is largely pointless. People think that a hp/L rating is entirely constant for an engine, but it is most certainly not. It is entirely dependent on what rpm range you spend a great deal of time at. A "100 hp/L" rating on an engine is an utterly irrelevant spec if you are only driving it at an rpm such that the best you are seeing is 60 hp/L, I'm sure all can agree...

As a final point about low end torque on vtec:

@ 2000 rpm...
Dodge 5.7 vvt hemi..23 hp/L
Honda 2.2 vtec....11 hp/L

The reality is that while the low end torque of a vtec may be "decent" in the scope of "8000 rpm engines", it is really small potatoes in the larger scope including less "exotic" performance engines that get their work done at more sane rpm. It's coming up a whopping 50% short in output/L at low rpm.

Absolutely! We keep harping on the same thing "vtec is based on RPMS' Well lets not get excited about the obvious! The entire point is that it takes engineering expertise to make and engine that can rev at those speeds and not self destruct!. Metals like titanium, fiber reenforced cylinders, molybdenum alloys, multiple camshafts, multiple valves and the list goes on and on. Not only is the technology superbly more advanced, its also superbly more reliable. You rev this fat ancient engine to 9000 RPMS once and it ends up in the dumpster, that honda engine will do it day in and out for years! COmparing this thing to a vtec engine is like comparing a blunderbuss to an m4 carabine. Yep one is big and loud but the other one is sophisticated and 30 times as deadly.

6sptl, producing high HP via high RPMs is not always the preferred solution. All the VTEC in the world isn't going to get a 2.0L engine to produce the 400 lbs/ft necessary to get a 4000 lb. car moving.

Your comment about reliability is meaningless. There are more Chevy small blocks out there with 200K+ than there are Honda 4 cyl's. If you're talking about whether a typical domestic V8 could handle 8000 RPM, of course it could not. But why would you want to?

And you continue to ignore the cost factor. Even your beloved Honda couldn't engineer a V8 that could rev to 8000 RPM and sell it at the Challenger's price point.

To everyone mocking this engine:
A 2010 Mercedes S63 has a 6.2 liter V8 rated 518 horsepower and 465 foot pounds of torque in a $133,000 car.

Dodge comes out with a V8 that is 3% larger, has more torque, has 10% less power on paper ( and in this dyno seems to have gobs more torque and maybe 3% less power ) all in something that costs one third as much as an S63, and Dodge has problems? If anything, this makes Mercedes look bad, don't you think?

With respect to fuel economy: this thing has cylinder deactivation, and the engine is colossal. I bet the fuel economy, both EPA and real world, is decent. When the owner isn't driving like a bat out of hell, the engine can run just fine as a 3.2 liter 4-cylinder and comparatively sip fuel.

Well said, viss1! What 6sptl does not seem to get is that modern big engines ARE delivering hp/L just fine at rpm that people actually use and frequently use. That is far more important than any vtec paper spec that rarely emerges as real output in real practice. Vtec redlines are like bragging you have a 200 mph car, when the reality is you will be lucky to even use 70 mph of it on a hwy on any given day.

Damn, was really hoping this wouldn't go this way.

onramp, please don't make yourself the argumentative equivalent of 6sptl. Your comments to the effect that VTEC engines "are really nothing all that special aside from the extended redline" show as much a lack of understanding about engine technology and operation as some of 6sptl's comments about power/liter, "low-tech" V8s and such.

And 6sptl, this isn't the 80's anymore, modern pushrod V8's are very advanced in ways you may not be aware of. The analogy of M4 to Blunderbuss is laughable. One only need consider the cylinder head development in the modern GM LSX engines to realize that a lot of advanced modelling and technology has gone into creating some very slick parts. And making a 7 liter LS7 live at 7000 rpm while still passing emissions and meeting modern durability standards at a sub 6-figure price tag is massive accomplishment.

As a point of comparison, I (or any moderately intelligent and semi-educated individual) can make virtually any V8 in production today spin reliably to over 8000 rpm if I put the money into the rotating assembly (although I can't speak for long term durability without changing geometry). What I can't do is get them to make power up there without altering cams, intake manifolds, exhaust manifolds, heads, etc. What Honda has done (and one could also argue for BMW, Ferrari, Audi/Lambo) is create engines that are capable of making effective power at very high rpms (8000+) while maintaining low rpm usability. 20 years ago, before the implementation of VTEC, a 9000 rpm capable automobile engine would idle at 1500+ rpm, be incapable of passing even the most rudimentary of emissions tests, and be almost undriveable below 2500-3000 rpm. Now, they make power at former race engine speeds, do it for a long, long time, and pass the most stringent emissions laws ever created. Anyone who has ever tried to make a modified vehicle pass CARB certification will know how amazing that really is.

And finally, onramp, your hp/l numbers at various rpms are, to put it bluntly, bs. I don't know what dyno graphs you're attempting to pull your data from, but an F22C engine in an S2000 does not produce only 63 lbs-ft of torque at 2000 rpm, which is what it would have to do to produce only 11 hp/liter. As I said in my first post, you're making comparisons with data of unknown provenance and questionable relevance. If hp/liter is a bad metric for comparison (and I agree it is), then it is bad period. If you feel it is a bad metric, then stop using it, or you're just being hypocritical.

That's the data, I've picked up. If you don't agree with it, then you don't agree with it.

The reason I have introduced hp/L figures at various rpm is to simply counter those who live by the hp/L mantra. You can try to talk torque or low end output to those people all day, and it never sinks in. So if hp/L is all they will understand, then speak to them in that language.

As for the S2000, you may have 2000 rpm confused for 3000 rpm, where the output certainly wakes up to hit a long plateau of 135-ish ft-lb of torque. Even there, the hemi still makes for a good comparison:

@3000 rpm...
Dodge 5.7 vvt hemi..39 hp/L
Honda 2.2 vtec....32 hp/L

I agree with you that the mainstay achievement of vtec is to bring an aggressively-tuned 9000 rpm engine while maintaining good idle quality for a production car and not-horrendous low end torque. To that extent, it does achieve a unique thing. It's just when people take the hp/L mantra and run with it to infer all sorts of "efficiencies" over all other engines...that's when it is time to throw some cold water on it. To boot, it is not the engine for everybody or everything just out of "efficiency" or hp/L. That's all I aimed to expose.

Comparing hp/L at like rpm is absolutely relevant and valid, just like there is a particular hp value for every rpm in an engine's powerband. It's not all summed up in a single pk hp number, as many are lead to believe when they peruse the specs of a car. The real kicker is that we typically operate a car at lower rpm that is no where close to the one near redline that gives the pk hp, yet nobody even questions what the hp actually is at those lower rpm beneath the glory of the pk hp spec that is so rarely put to use.

Well, using 18% drivetrain loss, which is probably on the low side, this thing would be making 555 engine horsepower. That's awesome if these numbers aren't inflated. Chrysler is supposed to be dropping prices across the board according to our zone sales rep. I hope they stuff this 392 into a 300, I loved how those cars drove with the standard SRT hemi. I'd also like to see 6 speed manual numbers......

The data you picked up? Or did cherries have something to with that?

I happen to spend a lot of time on the dyno onramp. And over the course of about 10 years, a few hundred S2000s have passed through my doors. Your data is wrong. Go ahead and post a link though, I'd like to see this S2000 that's only making 22 hp at 2000 rpm. And yes, I've already found several other posted graphs showing about twice that amount from various dynos around the country.... http://www.modified.com/tech/0710_sccp_greddy_turbo_kit_for_honda_s2000/photo_04.html

As for the rest, glad you can agree that VTEC was a pretty serious technological advancement in engine technology. And if you really want to persist in debunking all those people who live by the hp/L mantra (do they exist? Are they made of straw?), you might at least consider using normalized operating range numbers from the same dyno. After all, a higher revving engine uses tighter gearing, which results in greater torque multiplication, which results in greater thrust. A statistically accurate comparison would normalize measurements at a percentage of rpm range. 600 to 6400 rpm for a Challenger for example. 700 to 7500 rpm for a 370Z. And 850 to 8100 rpm for a 2.2 liter (actually 2.157) S2000, or 900 to 9000 for a 2 liter S2000. Otherwise, all those hp/L zealots can simply point out that any engine that revs higher than another is making infinitely more hp/L at high rpm, right? Can't let the terrorists win.

No, I didn't cherry pick the data. I try to find the best data that is available (because it doesn't really make good use of my time to find bad data on purpose). The issue with vtec dynos is that most of them only chart 3500 rpm and above. So the one I found that charted down to 2000 rpm was simply the one I found. This isn't a hit job to besmirch your beloved engine of choice.

I can tell you have taken some sort of offense, since vtec is not being spoken of as a supreme ruler of engines of some sort. You need not take such offense. I only aimed to provide some hp/L specs at typical rpm that people may actually encounter in their car to put some perspective on the matter, rather than just trumpeting a "go for broke" scenario. You may choose to evaluate in a different manner, which is fine, but that only reflects that you have different objectives/priorities in the matter, not that one technique is more correct than another.

Most poignantly, things are not as simple as an instant 100+ hp/L just by turning the key on a vtec. It should be interesting to most people that it has to put its pants on just like many other engines in the context of like rpm to rpm.

Here's some more hp/L specs to tie it all back to this blog topic:

@4000 rpm...
Dodge 6.4 vvt hemi..55 hp/L
Dodge 5.7 vvt hemi..54 hp/L
Honda 2.2 vtec....43 hp/L

@6000 rpm...
Dodge 6.4 vvt hemi..74 hp/L
Honda 2.2 vtec....80 hp/L

Nice. Sure, they went to the easiest and cheapest trick of the book. Bump the displacement. Reading many of the posts we find ourselves in the same dilema. A Honda curve ball and hell broke loose.

Wow, as usual , the truly wonderful comments from all the arm chair quarterbacks....Nothing matters except how the car runs in a head to head race (when comparing all these wonderful numbers for performance sake) . Its all about the combination of power across the rev range to gearing to weight to aerodynamics to traction. All must be considered.

Honda makes great engines. So do several other companies. As for this Hemi engine, pretty impressive, makes good power everywhere. Just because an engine is not a 28 valve per cylinder rev master doesnt mean its not effective or technologically advanced etc. Who cares how its laid out or what size it is if it WORKS. More displacement is ALWAYS better for more power across the rev range, period. Just think how great it would be if Honda had a 4.0 liter V8 (two S2000 engines together) making 480 naturally aspirated pump gas power ....nice , EXCEPT they DONT make it.

Horsepower is the measure of torque over time/distance so that is the number you want to look at and refer to. A "torque laden" power curve really means a power curve that is fat lower in the rpm range...S2000 is miserable in this respect (referred to the car NOT just the engine). Torque is a static number , force at a single point . The torque curve determines the HP curve so yes they are directly related.

The SRT8's ACTUALLY weigh 4150-4200lbs full of all fluids including fuel. Camaro SS usually weigh around 3850+ and Mustang GT usually around 3600. Shelby GT500 (now lighter with alum. block , lighter wheels, electr. steering) is around 3750-3800 and the upcoming Camaro Z28 will prob. be around 4000+(given the CTS-V which is essentially the same car-engine/platform etc. is around 4275).

In cars this size and weight 100 lbs is roughly equal to 10 rwhp when comparing all out 1/4 mile times and trap speeds. This 100lbs/10 rwhp is also equal to about 1 tenth and 1 mph . SO, the Challenger weighing 350lbs more than a Camaro SS NEEDS roughly 35rwhp more than the Camaro (given all other factors are relatively equal) to equal its performance in the quarter mile. Well these preliminary dyno numbers seem to suggest that the Hemi is actually making ~70 more rwhp than an SS , at least.

What does it all mean ? Mustang Shelby GT 500,$53K, 500+rwhp , 3750lbs = capable of 11.9@121+ (under right conditions) . Camaro SS $37K, 380rwhp, 3850lbs = 12.9@111 . Challenger SRT8, $47K, 450rwhp, 4200lbs = 12.6@114 . Quickest Japanese car in the $37-53k range? NOT EVEN CLOSE- well maybe the 370Z ...13.3@107? not really. And dont be fooled into thinking these relatively heavy muscle cars dont handle or brake extremely well. Heck they even ride well and get relatively decent mileage considering their performance level.

What is NOT to like? You can keep your old S2000 (though they are nice cars and handle extremely well....power , um , no). Honda, Acura, Toyota, Lexus, BMW, VW, Porche, Mercedes, Infiniti, Nissan, Hyundai ...nope. The STi and EVO are nice rides too but they are NO muscle car....Right now we are living in the "good ole days" of great cars. Maybe Hyundai (great start with the V6 Genesis Coupe) will get crazy and put their big V8 into the Genesis coupe or something silly like that....now that would be kewl......

Why is there a comparison between the Challenger/Mustang/Camaro and a Honda? People- two totally different classes of vehicles and two entirely different engines! It's funny- it seems that when a pushrod V8 or 'muscle car' gets any sort of praise, the ricer loyalists come scurrying out of the woodwork to make some sort of point (hence the HP/L argument). Not relevant. If I'm buying this Challenger, I'm buying it because it looks bad-a** and it's got gobs of power and great sound to go with it. 20+ mpg on the highway is just icing on the cake. For me, it would be a toss-up between this car and a 2011 GT500 if I ever traded in my '04 SVT Terminator. I think the Challenger has the edge because I absolutely love the lines of this car and it looks gorgeous.

My only points on hp/L were that we big muscle fans don't even have anything to be ashamed about when it comes to hp/L. The modern generation of hemi's exceed or meet vtec when it comes to hp/L up to 6000 rpm. It's good not only on specific output, but also sheer output for what you get out of a single engine block.

It has also been noted in another forum that the new 6.4 L hemi essentially mimics the iconic 426 hemi on top end output. If you have ever wanted to experience a piece of golden era muscle reincarnated, this engine is a very special ticket to it!

Please do a LSA comparison - is this SRT stronger than the CTS-V/New Camaro engine?

542hp from this specimen with 20% losses figured.

It's a GLORIOUS time to be a car guy!