Allpar Forums banner
21 - 35 of 35 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,825 Posts
Everyone is confusing net vs. gross horsepower.
The 440-4 was rated 370 gross, 305 net.
The 440-6 was rated 385 gross, 330 net.
The 426-8 was rated 425 gross, 350 net.

So even if the Hemi was underrated from the factory, 500 gross still won't be that much over 400 net.

1970 and earlier published HP ratings are gross.
1972 and later horsepower ratings are net.
1971 was the only year Chrysler published both gross and new horsepower. The same net/gross applies to the published torque figures as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Everyone is confusing net vs. gross horsepower.
The 440-4 was rated 370 gross, 305 net.
The 440-6 was rated 385 gross, 330 net.
The 426-8 was rated 425 gross, 350 net.

So even if the Hemi was underrated from the factory, 500 gross still won't be that much over 400 net.

1970 and earlier published HP ratings are gross.
1972 and later horsepower ratings are net.
1971 was the only year Chrysler published both gross and new horsepower. The same net/gross applies to the published torque figures as well.
Chrysler under rated it for insurance, and people that drag raced them said it was more power than factory rated
 

·
Premium Member
2002 Ram 2500 Quad Cab 4x4 with Cummins. 2021 Jeep Grand Cherokee L Altitude
Joined
·
5,474 Posts
Anyone excited for me to point out we're getting nothing but rich boy toys and the idea of the average blue collar dad with a nice mopar in the garage in addition to the family hauler is urban legend?
That was basically my point as well. These are just rich boy toys and nothing more. Also, the profits on these must be astronomical.
 

·
Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
40,227 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
The 426 Street Hemi was dynoded at 500+ HP and 600 torque, the factory rating was bogus
Maybe gross, but the net official rating appears to have been accurate, based on other people doing dyno tests on unmodified engines.

Even if it was under-rated by 40 hp, that would just get it up to 5.7 figures, and it had to be retuned quite often to stay at peak.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Maybe gross, but the net official rating appears to have been accurate, based on other people doing dyno tests on unmodified engines.

Even if it was under-rated by 40 hp, that would just get it up to 5.7 figures, and it had to be retuned quite often to stay at peak.
Ford 429 Cobra Jet factory rating was 370 HP, Motor Trend said add about 100-130 hp and you would have the true rating of the engine
 

·
Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
40,227 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·

The 0-60 time for the Hemi Charger, according to Car Life, was 7.6 seconds. The 440 Coronet R/T did better, believe it or not, 0-60 in 6.6 seconds, which is the number at least one magazine got for a V6 Charger. The Dart GTS 340 ran 0-60 in 6.3 seconds, making it by far the most cost-effective way to get a quarter mile below 15 seconds.

A Plymouth Hemi run by the same magazine did get a 13.9 quarter mile and presumably a sub-6-second 0-60 time. But this really illustrates the problems of those engines—they really had to be perfectly tuned to get to their peak, and there was a lot of individual variation between engines from the same line.

Oops - Dodge Charger GT AWD did 0-60 in 6.4 seconds according to Car and Driver (2018); the RWD version did it in 6.2 seconds.
5.7 Hemi ran 0-60 in 5.1 seconds. Remember this is a 4,281 pound car in V6 form!
Car and Driver got 0-60 in 3.8 from the Scat Pack.

C&D: Tested: 2018 Dodge Charger GT AWD (the text has the references to the RWD V6 and the 5.7 V8. The 392 V8 is from a different story there. They observed 20 mpg city, 26 highway with AWD V6.)

Here's their test of a 2017 Charger 5.7 (automatic) - 370 hp, 395 lb-ft. Weight 4,287 lb. 0-60 was 5.1; quarter was 13.7 @ 105.
Fuel economy was 18 (observed), 16/25 EPA. Keep in mind this car has more interior space than the original Chargers. Base price, $41,090 in 2017. Today's Charger is $32,645; with V8, $42,870.

Chevy Bolt runs $33,000 and does 0-60 in 6.7 seconds.

 

·
Registered
2011 Challenger R/T Classic
Joined
·
1,128 Posts
Yeah my personal '11 R/T Classic has pulled 0-60 runs of 5.01 and 5.00 flat with 95,000 miles on the clock running narrow 245/45 bicycle tires. It has K&N intake and no mufflers. It also gets 18-20 MPG every tank and insurance is dirt cheap. I really love the car.

I think today's issue is that 400 HP is nothing anymore. If you get into a tangle with ANY other car whether it be a Scat Pack, 5.0 Mustang, 6.2 Camaro, 5.0 Lexus, 3.8 Nissan, whatever...you're going to see tail lights.

I love that Dodge is making these cool packages for the end, and I know we'll likely never see them on the street because rich collectors will buy them up and store them, but honestly I'm content with my old R/T Classic. I mean, if power is really what I want a $8k supercharger kit and tuning fixes all that.
 

·
Registered
2017 Ram 1500 3.6 Crew
Joined
·
7,173 Posts

The 0-60 time for the Hemi Charger, according to Car Life, was 7.6 seconds. The 440 Coronet R/T did better, believe it or not, 0-60 in 6.6 seconds, which is the number at least one magazine got for a V6 Charger. The Dart GTS 340 ran 0-60 in 6.3 seconds, making it by far the most cost-effective way to get a quarter mile below 15 seconds.

A Plymouth Hemi run by the same magazine did get a 13.9 quarter mile and presumably a sub-6-second 0-60 time. But this really illustrates the problems of those engines—they really had to be perfectly tuned to get to their peak, and there was a lot of individual variation between engines from the same line.

Oops - Dodge Charger GT AWD did 0-60 in 6.4 seconds according to Car and Driver (2018); the RWD version did it in 6.2 seconds.
5.7 Hemi ran 0-60 in 5.1 seconds. Remember this is a 4,281 pound car in V6 form!
Car and Driver got 0-60 in 3.8 from the Scat Pack.

C&D: Tested: 2018 Dodge Charger GT AWD (the text has the references to the RWD V6 and the 5.7 V8. The 392 V8 is from a different story there. They observed 20 mpg city, 26 highway with AWD V6.)

Here's their test of a 2017 Charger 5.7 (automatic) - 370 hp, 395 lb-ft. Weight 4,287 lb. 0-60 was 5.1; quarter was 13.7 @ 105.
Fuel economy was 18 (observed), 16/25 EPA. Keep in mind this car has more interior space than the original Chargers. Base price, $41,090 in 2017. Today's Charger is $32,645; with V8, $42,870.

Chevy Bolt runs $33,000 and does 0-60 in 6.7 seconds.

With much better tires to get off the line, times should improve. However, the newer version has about a 600 pound weight penalty. This shows how much more efficient the new engines are.
 

·
Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
40,227 Posts
Discussion Starter · #30 ·
The 426 Hemi was an amazing engine for the time - developed before computerized flow analysis and such, and without the ability for the factory to get anywhere near the precision they have today. I just want to be on the record as writing that...

The cost of beating competitors always rises as performance goes up. That next quarter second costs as much as the full second before it and the two seconds before that...
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,825 Posts
The 426 Hemi was an amazing engine for the time - developed before computerized flow analysis and such, and without the ability for the factory to get anywhere near the precision they have today. I just want to be on the record as writing that...

The cost of beating competitors always rises as performance goes up. That next quarter second costs as much as the full second before it and the two seconds before that...
That’s the same problem that killed Viper. Viper was easy to do when the competition was weak. Viper made the competition get better, which made Viper’s cost to remain competitive grow and grow.
 

·
Registered
2011 Challenger R/T Classic
Joined
·
1,128 Posts
If you got a 3.8 in a Nissan, that thing would probably outrun most anything on the road....
Considering the only 3.8 Nissan is the R35.
And the Z-380RS, and the Frontier, and maybe a couple others over the years...
 

·
Registered
2014 Jeep Compass
Joined
·
990 Posts
And the Z-380RS, and the Frontier, and maybe a couple others over the years...
Well, I'll admit I forgot about the Frontier having a 3.8, but that 350Z-380RS was probably Japanese only.
I actually looked up Nissan engines (because I got intrigued) and it looks like we only saw 3.8L Nissan motors in the new Frontier and R35's. They did put them into Juke's for UAE, I believe, but good luck finding one.
Thanks for the reminder!
 
21 - 35 of 35 Posts
Top