Ever wanted to read pages and pages of technical discussion on what makes a 60s era 426 hemi engine different from the 2006 gen3 hemi? I didn't know I wanted that either!
http://www.auto-scape.com/?page_id=45
Printable View
Ever wanted to read pages and pages of technical discussion on what makes a 60s era 426 hemi engine different from the 2006 gen3 hemi? I didn't know I wanted that either!
http://www.auto-scape.com/?page_id=45
I started reading this but stopped at "Navier-Stokes equation." I get enough aerodynamics bullshit in school. But tbh I'll read this fully later after finals.
checked this link several times and always says bandwidth exceeded.
the answer though is "pretty much everything"
EDIT: wow have to admit i didn't know that the new hemis were still OHV. i thought for sure they were overhead cam engines, they are freaking big and wide enough compared to the LS series motors.
Finally got to read the article... understood about half of it in my semi-medicated and sleep deprived state. At either rate, I always thought mopar designers were a joke. I suppose there's a difference in design ethos (to plagiarize Lurker's word). I value serviceability over max performance in daily drivers. Also, the cost of parts from mopar has always been disproportionately high in my experience.
mopar is just constantly 15 years behind even the other american brands.Quote:
Originally Posted by ironyusa
i also hate them because of the hellcat. literally a car invented for every single one the reasons why car culture sucks. a car literally designed for the was born 10 years too late for the true muscle cars, and so does not realize just how shitty they actually drove, and so the hellcat will be the hero of every single imagined stop light race of never actually existed youth, all while his fat wife and 2 fat kids sit in the car with him. he can relax in his imagined superiority, his magazine racing skills above question. yes you cannot buy a new car with more power for less money, yes, that makes him better than you. because the most important metric in cars is HP per dollar, you'd be a fool if you thought any differently.
he took traction control off once. that burnout started sliding on him a few inches, so he keeps traction control on now. but while driving his coworkers to work, oh they hear about that wicked sweet burn out.
and then they can the viper, the only car of theres that actually doesn't suck. actually gen1 and gen2 vipers are getting reasonable, its on my list for sure.
also for the record, the challenger didn't need 700 hp ... it needed a 700 lbs diet. 4,500 lbs! jesus fucking christ, what a fat pig.
See also: the new miata is 155hp and is faster in every way than the 200hp BRZ because 500lbs lighter
#chapman
i mean i know im spoiled, but anything heavier than 3200lbs is fat pig material. they can make cars like that fast by the numbers, but the inevitably drive like shit regardless. see also: the 2015 mustang GT. tracked one, quite fast, but terrible to drive. the IRS helped, as did the brembos, but just shuffling that amount of weight around, its a chore.
in SSM trim, my mr2 will be around 1950lbs. if i buy a DM car, that will be around 1250lbs. and they now make a 15x11 wheel .... so you are talking about 1/4 the weight, and more than twice the tire (avon slicks versus streets), and you are still gonna be tire limited on a DM car (ie more tire would make it faster).
its a farce they even make cars like the hellcat. it is taking car culture and make it even worse in every single possible way. nope, fuck that.
the brz/frs is tire limited, the miata comes with a performance tire, the brz/frs doesn't. for hardcore use, i think the brz/frs has higher potential, but yeah, stock for stock, the miata is quicker.
I didn't understand the Challenger till I moved to Texas. I totally agreed with you. I had a Golf in WA, and some great little roads that I would slam it around, it was brilliant. The Challenger was stupid.
In Texas the Golf was boring. No fun. A Challenger? Oh yeah. My buddy had an R/T and it was great. Far more usable than a Mustang and Camaro.
It is the right tool for Texas. Or similar.
With the move to Tennessee we are back looking for something small and flingable - Older British roadsters, Datsuns, classic BMW 2002, Golf GTI. Even a late 90's 3 series seems too big. Reminds me of driving in the UK. I went down a ridge that was part of the Tail of the Dragon. Oh yeah, the wife was SO unhappy with my driving of our CUV.
A Challenger here? No. But it is fantastic in TX.
for the record i do think the challenger is the best looking of the retro revival muscle cars.
but its by far the worst of them too.
I have a hard time fitting in the front passenger seat of a Mustang, the back is insufferable. Same with a Camaro.
The Challenger though? Easy fit in the back. 99% of the time it is more usable, and in the end a better day to day driver, than either of the other two. On a track, that 95-99% of them will never see, it loses, yeah.
It weights enough for 2 cars, shoot our suburban is only 20-25% heavier and it hauls 9 plus groceries.