Dodge SRT Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Is anyone else concerned that the prototypes they used in the recent SCC and C&D tests were tuned more aggressively than what will come out of the factory?

That's got me a tad worried. I mean honestly, what would they have to gain by understating the power figures so much. They could only sell MORE cars. On the otherhand, they give these hypothetically "tuned" prototypes to SCC and C&D and the like, people see the numbers and will line up to buy the car. Odds are, since they were just tested, the mags won't test them again once they officially come off the assembly line (or anytime soon anyways) so they could detune them to better match the claimed specs and no one would be the wiser. Until of course they purchased the car.

All input welcome
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
Another thing in the back of my mind, are the cooling issues. I can't see Dodge sticking a huge intercooler in there just for looks, or to lend a hand to enthusiasts (as they so graciously did with the compressor integrated bov, turbo/manifold combo, etc). Then they change the front fascia, adding more holes for additional cooling. Me thinks they've had some problems with engines overheating etc. Which might not be a big deal with their additions if you leave the car stock... But certainly raises a question once you wanted to modify the car :cry:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,426 Posts
Here's my guess.

First off, I'm really not concern about the claim figures (215HP/245LB). It seems to me that they claim more on the SRT-4 being 5.9 seconds in 0 to 60MPH than the HP and tourque figures. Another thing that I feel about this is that they try to accomodate the anticipated performance modification tuners will do to the car, hence the huge intercooler and more holes for cooling (including the "functional" hood sccop that is yet to be cut open).

My thing is: How else will they come up with the 0 - 60 in 5.9, leaving everything else unchanged? Would it be possible to keep claiming that the SRT-4 goes 0 to 60 in 5.9 yet deliver a car that is as slow as the RSUX-a$$ stock?

Just my thoughts... 8)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
317 Posts
all i know is that turbo cars run better the cooler they are, i dont have any worries i just think they are trying to keep the car cooler for performance reasons.as for the specs all i know is that they were rated for 215 hp and 245 tq any more then that is a bonus, dodge doesn't claim more but SCC does maybe SCC modded it who knows????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
SilverBullet said:
Here's my guess.
(including the "functional" hood sccop that is yet to be cut open). 8)
The hood scopp is functional, the only part left to be cut open is the part above the intake. The scoop leads back to the turbo if you look at the pictures.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,578 Posts
wnxp0rnstar said:
all i know is that turbo cars run better the cooler they are, i dont have any worries i just think they are trying to keep the car cooler for performance reasons.as for the specs all i know is that they were rated for 215 hp and 245 tq any more then that is a bonus, dodge doesn't claim more but SCC does maybe SCC modded it who knows????
dodge heat-soaked the intercooler when they ran it on the dyno. they did this as a worst-case scenario. you wont find dynoed #s less than 215hp/235tq.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
But Dodge is strictly maintaining that it's 215hp and 245ft lbs at the FLYWHEEL (not the wheels). I know SCC got a heckuvalot more, but they also said that the daimler/chrysler folks were sweating bullets when they (scc) dynoed it. My concern, is that they (Dodge) gave the testers something more powerful than production tune just to put down some good numbers and boost sales.
Think about it. That 5.9 0-60 was just proven. And since the car already made the rounds in the major mags, who's to say they'd ever test the car again (if it was de tuned in theory) and prove that 0-60 claim wrong?

Anyone following???

I really do hope the production models put down the same kind of power and numbers, but I don't think we'll know until someone actually buys one and straps it on a dyno.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,578 Posts
where did you see that dodge says that it is at the flywheel?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
From the Dodge chat:

"A: Dodge Engineers: The official horsepower rating at the crank is 215 bhp @5400 rpms, and the maximum torque at the crank is 245lb-ft @3200-4200 rpms."
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,578 Posts
thats with a heatsoaked intercooler. dont worry, we will see those #s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
317 Posts
ill tell ya what, ill let you know how it does, i may be getting mine in about 8 weeks says the dealer by my house !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,426 Posts
iwntasrt-4 said:
SilverBullet said:
Here's my guess.
(including the "functional" hood sccop that is yet to be cut open). 8)
The hood scopp is functional, the only part left to be cut open is the part above the intake. The scoop leads back to the turbo if you look at the pictures.
Ooops. That's what I was trying to say...for the intake section. :oops:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,866 Posts
porad said:
I really do hope the production models put down the same kind of power and numbers, but I don't think we'll know until someone actually buys one and straps it on a dyno.
With a car of this much hype, I would imagine it is
going to find its way to a dyno by the public buyers.

I hate seeing "high" numbers from the factory.
It can be very harmful to your sales if people find
out the numbers are wrong. I have heard from a
good number of folks who do not want to buy the
new '03 Mustang Cobra because of what SVT had
happen to their HP numbers in 2000.
(I believe it was the 2000 model year...)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
449 Posts
"Official" hp numbers mean nothing. They are simply a contrived number to make both engineering, and marketing happy. Too high and insurance skyrockets and people won't buy the car. Too low and people who only look at hp numbers won't buy the car. This is by no means the first time a manufacturer has under-rated a car.

I'll bet some of the mags will re-test the car once the production cars hit the lots. I know that SCC usually really dislikes testing prototypes, they would much rather test the real deal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,422 Posts
thehemi said:
porad said:
I really do hope the production models put down the same kind of power and numbers, but I don't think we'll know until someone actually buys one and straps it on a dyno.
With a car of this much hype, I would imagine it is
going to find its way to a dyno by the public buyers.

I hate seeing "high" numbers from the factory.
It can be very harmful to your sales if people find
out the numbers are wrong. I have heard from a
good number of folks who do not want to buy the
new '03 Mustang Cobra because of what SVT had
happen to their HP numbers in 2000.
(I believe it was the 2000 model year...)
That was the MY2001 Cobra. In all fairness that was due to a cam design problem in the engine. The Cobra motors were making less HP than they should of because of a improperly engineered motors, not because Ford was looking to inflate their HP/LB numbers. The 2003 is the real deal, they're putting out exactly what they should be.

-5OH
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
If anything I hope DC actually under rate the numbers so that buyers don't get screwed when it comes time to insure these cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,270 Posts
From SCC:

One look at the enormous intercooler told us the engine would be all we hoped for and more. Power output is so far beyond anything else in this segment, it's almost embarrassing. The fact it makes 8 more horsepower at the wheels than DaimlerChrysler claims at the crank might be explained by a difference in test procedures. Since there's no specified SAE test procedure for simulating intercooler efficiency, DC measured output with a relatively hot intercooler as a conservative worst-case scenario. As with all turbo cars, we used a relatively weak fan (20 mph at best) and a spray bottle of water to keep the intercooler consistently cool on the dyno. All four intercooled cars in this test received the same treatment.
This might explain a little bit.....

The quote was taken from this article:
http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0301scc_under20gs/
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,578 Posts
you know how many people i have told that and heard. "your lying... dodge wouldnt under rate their hp #s, that would be stupid. and its at the flywheel, not at the wheels" etc, etc, etc....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
Just to calm everyone down who is "WORRIED"............



My main toy is a 2001 TransAm WS6, which GM claimed to produce 325hp ath the flywheel. The first time the car was dynoed, 1500 miles and 3 weeks after purchasing, completely stock, it pulled 328 at the rear wheels.

Like someone said previously, the manufacturer trys to state the worst case scenario in order to protect themselves from any legal issues. If someone were to dyno their car after say "hot lapping" it, or before its fully broken in, or running 91 octance and not 93, etc.

Ford had this problem with the 99 cobra, in the end, Ford replaced cat-back exhaust systems, intakes, and upgraded the ECM programming. I'm sure DC would rather understate than run into the same issues.

Plus, everyone gets insurance ratings at 215 crank hp, which is about 185- 189 fwhp. So, under 200 hp. fine with me.


Chris
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top