"themushman" (themushman)
09/18/2014 at 11:00 • Filed to: hellcat
1
18|
"themushman" (themushman)
09/18/2014 at 11:00 • Filed to: hellcat | 1
| 18 |
Saw this video today. I didn't see it posted anywhere. Motor Trend video of the hellcat on the dyno and it made 671 rwhp. That's about 790bhp with a 15% drive train loss, or about 750bhp with 10% drive train loss. I know there are plenty of Hellcat haters and skeptics, and realize that Dyno numbers do not mean a whole lot. But the recent front page article and rumors stating the motor is under rated seem to becoming more evident.
Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire
> themushman
09/18/2014 at 11:02 |
|
But why would the SAE under rate a motor?
mcseanerson
> Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire
09/18/2014 at 11:05 |
|
I thought the SAE number just represented a set method of testing and that the manufacturer was just verifying under those SAE parameters they were able to achieve xxx horsepower.
|
mcseanerson
> themushman
09/18/2014 at 11:09 |
|
Hellcat hater checking in. I have no issue or questions about how much horsepower the Hellcat makes. I don't doubt that it makes that much at all and have always felt that all these other boosted V8s have been very mildly tuned previous to this. This just confirms those suspicions.
|
Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire
> mcseanerson
09/18/2014 at 11:09 |
|
http://www.sae.org/certifiedpower…
|
themushman
> mcseanerson
09/18/2014 at 11:11 |
|
Which other boosted V8s are you referring to?
|
mcseanerson
> Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire
09/18/2014 at 11:15 |
|
J2723 is the one with a witness where J1349 is the method. The hellcat is only J1349 certified as far as I can tell.
|
mcseanerson
> themushman
09/18/2014 at 11:15 |
|
ZL1 GT500
|
themushman
> mcseanerson
09/18/2014 at 11:18 |
|
Gotcha. I never understood why they didnt make more out of the ZL1/CTS-V. My guess is they could have just went with a bigger blower and been fine. From what I understand the bottom end and internals are good to around 650-700rwhp.
|
themushman
> mcseanerson
09/18/2014 at 11:19 |
|
ps- would totally love to own either of those as well. Especially 13+ GT500
|
mcseanerson
> themushman
09/18/2014 at 11:20 |
|
Honestly I'd imagine the internals in both Ford and GM products are ready for even more horsepower than that. I think everyone was playing it safe and Dodge just said screw it.
|
mcseanerson
> themushman
09/18/2014 at 11:22 |
|
Now see, I don't like either of those cars either. I feel like I'm just expressing anti-Mopar bias (because I am biased) but really I don't like any of the modern supercharged muscle cars. From Ford I'd rather have a Boss 302, from GM I'd rather have a Z/28 or Camaro SS 1LE.
|
themushman
> mcseanerson
09/18/2014 at 11:25 |
|
Thats totally fine. The boss and Z28 are definitely more purposeful although less power. And who can argue the raw tq of the 427. Hell, even dodge's 426 is a monster just the same. Simple, solid, raw, balls to the wall.
|
mcseanerson
> themushman
09/18/2014 at 11:31 |
|
Yeah, I prefer cars that are a bit more raw and the only place I can barely stand a supercharger is in something like the CTS-V. Even then I'd still rather have turbos.
Goshen, formerly Darkcode
> themushman
09/18/2014 at 11:43 |
|
What if the drivetrain losses are lower?
|
themushman
> Goshen, formerly Darkcode
09/18/2014 at 11:47 |
|
that would be about a 5% drive train loss, to get 671rwhp, and claim the motor is 707bhp. 5% is not very likely, id almost say impossible in your general automotive drive train system (engine, transmission, differential, axles). But..that is a unscientific statement. It may be possible, but i personally dont know of any
Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again.
> themushman
09/18/2014 at 12:06 |
|
I think anything over 500hp is going to be having way less %loss than something with 200 hp, if they are talking 707 bhp then less than 10% loss is pretty believable.
|
Goshen, formerly Darkcode
> themushman
09/18/2014 at 12:09 |
|
I don't know, it's just that underrated engines seem to have become very common as of late, and with all the advances in drivetrain technology it really wouldn't be surprising if drivetrain losses were decreasing. Although I also think 5% is too low.
|
themushman
> Goshen, formerly Darkcode
09/18/2014 at 13:06 |
|
I would think 8-10% on the newest tech transmission would be about as good as you can do. But maybe you are correct, its not underating..its improvement in drivetrain efficiency and thermal management