Beat a Challenger RT Tonight

O

OhThatGuy

Member
I had some fun (on a closed course of course) against a new looking Dodge Challenger RT tonight. One car magazine test got a 0-60 time of 5.0 and a quarter mile of 13.5@105.9 for that model so I'm not sure why I was able to just slightly beat it.

We ran twice from a slow roll so there wasn't any big driver skill or traction issue factoring in. It was around 65 degrees and neither car had any passengers. My EX35 had only around an 1/8 of a tank of gas. The other driver was into it and gave me a thumbs up after (I think he was surprised).

Each time it seemed that I just barely pulling on him (gaining a couple of inches every few seconds). Is there any way that my light wheels and tires, which are slightly taller, made enough of a difference in performance to turn the tables here? He should have been slightly pulling away from me according to the mag tests of both cars.


 
RIPnFX said:
Oh wow that's dope bro, are you planning any performance mods in the future??
Click to expand...

Honestly, probably nothing but lighter/ bigger Wilwood brakes and a strut bar. I'm kind of keen to keep my warranty coverage and there really isn't much out there to make these much faster without spending tons of cash. I really want to see how bad an FX50 would stomp me from a 5MPH roll (any takers?).
 
that's awesome, but I do find it hard to believe (lol, also on a closed course)
Why not take it to the strip and see what it will really do, then you would have some believers and it would be done safely.
 
My EX35 is a RWD 2011 model with the 7 speed transmission. With only 1/8 of a tank and my lighter/taller wheels and tires it should run the 1/4 mile in around 14.1@97+ MPH?

I found some other numbers for the Challenger R/T: for 2009, the factory claimed 0-60 in 5.5 seconds (just a hair quicker than the EX35) and this test showed it slightly slower to 60 than that but quicker over the 1/4 mile...

[TABLE="class: data, width: 100%"]
[TR="class: even, bgcolor: #FAFAFA"]
[TD]0-60mph[/TD]
[TD]5.6s[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: odd, bgcolor: #E9E9E9"]
[TD]0-100mph[/TD]
[TD]12.8s[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: even, bgcolor: #FAFAFA"]
[TD]60-100mph[/TD]
[TD]7.2s[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: odd, bgcolor: #E9E9E9"]
[TD]1/4 Mile[/TD]
[TD]13.81s[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: even, bgcolor: #FAFAFA"]
[TD]Terminal Speed[/TD]
[TD]105mph[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Road & Track only got their 2009 Challenger RT to do 6.2 in the 0-60 and 14.5@99.0 for the 1/4 mile.
Edmunds R/T Challenger test showed 0 - 60: 5.5 sec. 1/4 mile: 13.9 @ 103.2
Maybe the two cars are closer than I thought. It must have been a shiny 2009 (if the newer ones are quicker)?
 
Last edited:
Your taller tires might of increased your overall final drive. Light wheels as well but it doesn't add up to .7 seconds in a 1/4 mile.

You just had a better jump and better mid range I guess. Or that guy was still spinning tires at a roll.

Either way good win. At a real track it might be different. I couldn't get the published times for the two cars I've taken to the strip. But that might be due to DA and track prep, I don't believe in the conversions and corrections formulas.
 
On the street, if the cars are even remotely in the same ball park, it's up to the driver. As others have said, maybe you got a slight jump on him, maybe his car had to downshift, maybe he was spinning tires, etc. .7 seconds sounds like a lot, but if you had a stopwatch, you'd see it's not much time at all. Your taller tires likely are a detriment. Higher final drive is great for cruising or high hp boosted cars to avoid wheelspin, but for most of us, it will slow acceleration some. The only time it might be an advantage is if you had a manual and the higher final drive avoids a shift. But on an auto, it doesn't matter.

The only time it really counts is at the track when he's right next to you because everything is controlled. On the street, there's too much going on and the car has much less to do with things. How many kill stories have you heard where some Civic took out a Ferrari or something and it turns out the Ferrari wasn't even racing. And the differing track times you see from various magazines is because conditions like altitude, track surface, and even variances between different cars of the same model. 2 identical stock cars can put down different horsepower numbers on the same dyno, I've seen it. Then some tracks are super sticky and fast while others are slick. When I used to go to the track my old car would run 13.5-13.7 at one track and no faster than 14.1's at another. Same car, different track. And friends cars would show the same variances.
 
I have two kill stories since i bought mine lol. I wooped this chicks ass in her brand new VW GTI. I was chuggin along down the highway and she cam flying up my ass (headlights burried) so instead of slamming on my brakes i mashed the gas and so did she. I pulled so damn hard on her lmao. pul like 2 bus lengths on her. (yes she was trying) i let off about 105 and she let off and we both slowed down. She was shocked lol.

Yesterday driving home some douche in a crown vic with exhaust and stupid ass looking muscle car rims was being stupid so i joined in......but i was a little suprised how well we kinda kept up but again i was pulling pretty good in the top end. The HR motors are rediculous!

Oh all on a closed course. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top