I don't know. The SRT8 looks a little quicker to me. If you average the results, the SRT8 is .1s ahead a few mph faster. Considering that it's nearly 500 pounds heavier, those must be 425 healthy horses.

 

This thread needed closure:

FACT: ATCO is a freak track, especially in the dead of winter.

The SRT8 in question ran this at ATCO in mid-40 deg weather:
60.....1.89
330....5.32
1/8....8.11
MPH...86.56
990....10.47
1/4....12.56
MPH....111.50

A stock 05 A4 GTO ran the following at the same track in similar weather:
60.....2.033
330....5.542
1/8....8.382
MPH...86.15
990....10.784
1/4....12.927
MPH....109.40

With a matching 60' of 1.89 the GTO would have been somewhere in between
12.641 and 12.784. The GTO's trap would be +2 mph in the 1/4 if it were a manual.

05GTOlink

 

Downunder, the A4 LS2 HSV GTO is actually quicker than the M6... according to the testers... hey Mickey T?

 

I wonder what that GTO would have trapped with the M6 instead of the A4 at Atco. Probably a good few mph higher. With a 1.8 60' time I could see an M6 GTO running pretty decently in the 12s with at Atco in 40 degree weather.

*Edit - Didn't read the part in your thread where you speculated the same thing Danno.

 

I was just looking at a GTO brochure this evening.
Pontiac quotes 13.0 seconds for the A4 and 13.1 for the M6 car, both at 106 mph. I hadn't realized the Pontiac expects the A4 to be quicker.

 

Buy the GTO, take the money you save and buy a MagnaCharger and blow away anything in sight!

 

One thing does come through in this thread:

Don't let weight be the only thing you judge acceleration by!!

There's over a 400 pound difference between the GTO & SRT-8 Charger, and a mere 25 horse difference. Yet, the Charger is a blink quicker, and the GTO is well within half a second to the 600 pound lighter Corvette.

GTO has a nortorious computer program that does some serious power retarding in hot weather, while the Charger SRT-8's computer has a more agressive program than even the 300 SRT-8 does (despite the same horses...on paper).

The LS2 engine is underrated by no more than 5-10 horses, but the Chrysler 6.1 is probally around 20 underrated. The 6.1 also seems to have a more agressive torque curve.

Things to consider beyond weight and advertized horsepower.

 

Do you mean more aggressive at retarding horsepower or more aggressive about producing power?

Any idea why they would tune the Charger SRT8 and 300SRT8 differently? Maybe a better grille shape on one?

The thread on the Trailblazer SS shows another variable -- torque management. According to that thread, the computer update doesn't affect peak power much, but should help launches a lot (though perhaps at a cost to your poor transmission ).

 

How would the 6.1L Hemi pass emissions regulations if the mixture is leaned off? GM V8s do run quite rich from the factory... I've seen AFRs are in the order of 10.x:1, which is pig rich!!! Leaning off the mixture to a more ideal 13:1 AFR would nett an extra 30rwhp... and that's without even touching the timing.

 

What's this underrated BS? I thought with the new SAE rules for HP you could not under or over estimate anything.

 

Ok, i need help with clarrifying things. Dodge's website has the SRT8's base price at the price i posted earlier in the above quote. A month ago, i was looking at my MT mag (the one that had the little SRT pamplet in it) and it had the base msrp at $35,995.

What gives? Was there a price drop/hike recently?

 

Charger is tuned differently because Chrysler views Charger as the top performer. For starters, the electronic stability program is tuned to allow tire smoking, unlike the 300's, and quicker acceleration times. Word is also the timing is a bit more agressive.

The GTO's (supposedly moreso in the 2004 than the 2005) tend to get a bit sluggish in hot weather because the computer programing takes away alot of power. We'll find out if the '05 is much better when summer comes along, and '05 owners in in the south and southwest begain running their cars on the track.

 

The details I'd have to leave to someone more knowledgeable, since I only know the basics.

Unless I'm mistaken, you can advertise any horsepower figure you want, as long as the car makes at least that amount.

The only ones who seem to have gotten in hot water in this are the Japanese makes who exaggerated their numbers, and came up short in reality. GM hasn't changed their rating of the XLRv, even though it produces quite a bit more horsepower than advertized. Ditto the Ford GT.

Those are just the ones I know about.

 

damn marketing, I hate all that bull****. Just give me real numbers and don't try to mislead me. That's a big turnoff to me, but many companies sell on marketing alone... grrrrrrrrrr..........

 

Engines introduced before the new SAE standard of rating can keep their old ratings as seen fit by the manufacturer, and is totally voluntary. Honda and Toyota complied to the new standard complety, even when it was not necessary. The XLR-V's rating did change to 443hp. The STS-V went up to 469 I believe, though I am not aware what the exact differences are between the blown Northstar 4.4s used in each car. The Ford GT came out before the standard, so there is no need for Ford to comply for that particular vehicle.