Um, I didn't say it was "just" a claim. I'm sure they did achieve that number in THEIR testing. So they claim that is what it can do.

My point is that you can't compare their own privately tested number against a magazine number generated on a different surface on a different day by a different driver, except in a very general sense.

Heck, from magazine to magazine, you can see swings of several hundredths of a g for the same type of car (in some cases, likely even the same actual press test car). 0.87 g here, 0.91 g there.

Manufacturers often claim performance figures for advertising purposes. Some, like Porsche, are often a bit conservative. Others maybe not so much. No doubt they have seen those numbers, but it is the head to head numbers that are best for comparison.

 

I wonder what kind of power the manual version of the 6.4 puts down since it won't have MDS, at least I don't think it will, nobody else has figured out a good way to do it with a manual tranny yet. Hopefully the stick gets a higher redline than the auto and has a better revvier cam.

 

The Challenger is a car full of irony.

First off, people think it's this huge tank. However, the Challenger is barely 2" taller than the Mustang, is the same width as the Camaro. It's a hair shorter than the Monte Carlo was.

Another irony is that the V6 version is a mere 40 pounds heavier than the Chevrolet Camaro (indicating that engine, drivetrain, and brakes of the V8s is where Challenger's weight is, and that the Challenger in and of itself is actually not bad weightwise), despite it's reputation of being the weight of a small truck.

Final irony is that the V8 Hemi (with it's reputation of being a fuel sucker), again is not anywhere near bad.

The R/T Hemi is rated at 16/25 (automatic) and 15/24 manual.

Pontiac's last GTO was 14/19 (automatic) and 15/23 manual.

Camaro SS is rated at 16/25 (automatic) and 16/24 manual.
Last year's 4.6 Mustang was 17/23 (automatic) and 16/24 manual


The Crown Victoria is 16/24
Infiniti's M45 is 16/21
Cadillac CTS's V6 is 16/25
Mazda's RX8 is 16/22
and the Mitsubishi Eclipse with (again) a V6 is 16/25


Jump over to the 425 SRT Challenger, and it's 14/22 rating (hope you're sitting down for this).... is pretty much on par with a Buick Lucerene's small and far less powerful V8 at 15/22.

A Mitsubishi Evo, the darling of ricers, gets only 16/22 mpg city/highway.

The GT500 is rated at 14/22.

Like I said. The Challenger is full of irony.... or rather, misconceptions.

However.....

ever since Ford's PR and liability catastrophy over the Cobra's power ratings almost a decade ago, and the dustup over how advertized power ratings didn't jibe with what was independently tested (especially with a lot of Japanese imports) earlier this decade, all manufacturers have been careful to give themselves a margin and to make sure cars perform as advertized, if not a fraction better.

When you have to resort to talking about different surfaces, you're going a bit off the deep end. That's like saying a car company's 0-60 times aren't valid because "what if you accelerate up a slight incline?"

Would you pull up such disclaimers if this was GM talking about the new Z28's roadholding numbers?

I don't think so.

Just the same, If you want me admitting that the 2011 Challenger SRT8 won't match the manufacturer's claims of 0.93gs on a cobblestone road, in the rain, with a 93 year old half blind lady behind the wheel, then OK, you got it.

But, if anything, the Challenegr's numbers should be a bit better than advertized once car mags get a hold of them. They should have no problem matching what Chrysler got in the SRT's roadholding any more than they had matching Ford's Mustang Track Pack numbers or GM's Camaro SS numbers.

 

Yeah I love how everybody out there with any type of performance car likes to think their car is somehow magically underated from the factory, it seems to be the case on almost every auto message forums out there especially on the foreign car forums. The only 2 vehicles I can think of off the top of my head that have been underated from the factory in the past 10 years are the SRT-4 Neon and the 4th gen LS1, I'm sure there are others but those were the most blatant I can remember. Then you have the Mazda RX-8's, 2001 Cobra's, which didn't make their advertised numbers.

 

did I miss somethign or is there no interior pics?

 

What is most to blame for this is the chassis dyno and poor understanding of drivetrain loss numbers.

At any rate I agree, except to add that the Terminator Cobra was perhaps slightly underrated. Not to the extent of the LS1 in an Fbody though.

 

03/04 Cobra's were realistically around 420-430hp cars.

 

When can we expect the Hornet?

 

What?? They made more to the wheels than they were rated from the factory.......not what I would call slight

 

Is this just going to be the Fiat 500?

 

That's internet fantasy, not reality.

An actual stock Terminator is something like 360-380RWHP on a Dynojet (and around 320RWHP on a Mustang dyno). That is close to but not more than their rating of 390HP at the crank.

Yes I have seen claims higher than that but a bunch of those cars are "stock" not stock.

 

Really? Huh, I guess all those mags that did the testing were living in a fantasy world? I guess all that data posted on this very site was fake? I could dig up dynos but I wont take the time. There is some fantasy going on but its not its a lot closer to you than the internet.

 

my 305 rated hp firebird put down 304 rwhp. 1 hp drivetrain loss ftw

 

The reason you hear a lot about engines being underrated is because there are quite a few engines out there that put out a little more than advertized.

The Neon SRT4 and the Camaro Z28's LS1 went beyond being just underrated. Dodge and GM blantaly lied about their output.

Add the Ford GT to that list of cars that the rating must have been taken at the rear wheels with the brakes on.

Supercharged Cobras were nortorious for putting out 350 to 370 horsepower through the rear wheels despite it's supposedly "at the crank" 390 horsepower (actual horsepower was at least 415). The Lightning also should have came with an asterisk next to it's advertized numbers.

Cadillac's supercharged Northstars put out notably more horsepower than advertized. SRT V8 engines tend to be advertized about 10 short of what they actually do. The new Camaro V6 engine's rating just jumped from 305 in 2010 to 312 horsepower this year.... with no changes whatsoever. The new 5.0 Mustang is closer to 420 horses than 412.


At the end of your post, you bring up the exact reason why so many vehicles are underrated today. The 1999 Ford Cobra fiasco and later the fallout from owners learning the true output of their RX8s wasn't what they paid for almost mandated that performance and sports cars advertize ratings lower than what the engines actually produce. Especially since as a result, both Ford and Mazda were faced with lawsuits.

In Mazda's case, it was how they measured power output. Mazda offered to buy back cars or give rebates to disgruntled owners who wanted to keep their cars.

In Ford's case, it was due to being screwed by it's suppliers (the intake manifolds and a few other pieces they made for the Cobras that were certified for production were downgraded by the supplier for production Cobras to save them money, and it was done without SVT's knowledge or permission. Ford then offered to replace these manifolds for free and make additional tweaks to ensure power output was above what was advertized.

After those 2 episodes, you can see why and understand most every automaker since the start of the decade tends to underrate performance cars, even if it's only 5-10 horsepower.

Most engine engine lines have a production variance of up to 5 horsepower. Takes little imagination to see someone taking their freshly bought performance car to a dyno, the engine gets less horsepower than advertized, then they use this to try to get a free car. Next thing you know, you have thousands of people doing the same.

Yes... lots of people say their car is underrated.

.... and they are almost always certainly correct.

 

You claimed they made more at the wheels than they were rated at the crank. They were rated at 390HP. You could either google stock 2003 cobra dyno or go over to one of the Mustang messageboards. It isn't too hard. Most of the really high claims are from people that didn't even buy the car new and assume it was stock, or even more likely poor correction factors in the dyno. Plus some people that are stock... except for exhaust or tune or other bs.

This is what I have seen. I would say that 415-425 crank HP is not an exaggeration at all.