Those performance numbers are wrong!

Discussion in '1970 Dodge Challenger R/T' started by MericanMussl, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. Re: Those performance numbers are wrong!

    hehe gettin picky now... they weigh 3554 lbs.
     
  2. that quarter mile time is not right i have seen a completely stock hemi challenger at the pure stock drags run 12.1 at 112 maybe the times are old running on bias-ply tires i just wanted to let everyone know that it runs faster in the quarter than that!!!
     
  3. Re: Those performance numbers are wrong!

    I know....everywhere you look there are new numbers for the E-body Mopars. I think it's a facet of older timing machines, older tires, different drivers, different trannys.....all kinds of things could cause a discrepacy. Either way, I'd like to see any kind of import car pull numbers like this from stock.
     
  4. Re: Those performance numbers are wrong!

    The numbers on almost all of these cars are incorrect , im not sure why but there all off. Besides I look at the pictures of the cars not the 0-60 or the 1/4 mile. I think they need to get better sources of information for the times!
     
  5. Re: Those performance numbers are wrong!

    Ill agree they are wrong. If you notice also...the pics are wrong for a lot of cars too diff years and not R/T's either...with some exceptions of maybe removing the stripes and so on, but whyd you wanns do that? Gotta love the Charges / Challengers and of course, the Hemis.
     
  6. Re: Those performance numbers are wrong!

    You'll notice the nice factory-rated 425 horses, also. Trust me, it's a lot more than that stock. The 440-6 Pack is more than that factory rated, and a 1970 Car and Driver article says (440/6 Charger vs. Hemi Charger): "The Hemi stayed with the 440 until about 60 mph... where it (the Hemi) left it in the dust...")
     
  7. Re: Those performance numbers are wrong!

    according to my dad, the 426 was close to 500 horses
     
  8. Re: Those performance numbers are wrong!

    I was lookin at muscle car review, and all these stock oldies were racing... They had to run EVERYTHING stock. Only tricks were fine tuning (pretty stiff). The hemi Challenger ran a 12.053 1/4 mile. If youre interested, its the November edition of Muscle Car Review.
     
  9. Re: Those performance numbers are wrong!

    Had 490 lb-ft of torque at 4000 RPM, compression ratio of 10.25:1, bore of 4.250 in., and a stroke of 3.750 in.
     
  10. Re: Those performance numbers are wrong!

    Its front engined, has 2 valves per cylinder, redline of i believe 5500 rpm, id have to look at my tac, came with 4.10 Dana rear-ends, wheelbase of 110 inches, manual or power steering, 10.75 in vented disc brakes in the front, heavey duty torsion-bar suspension in the front, and 5 leaf springs in the rear.
     
  11. Re: Those performance numbers are wrong!

    Redline was closer to 7000, and the originals had 11.5:1 compression; that was the beauty of a Hemi, the whole design was around the hemi-spherical combustion chambers. I raced one, an original; I beat him, but not by much, and I think it might have been different if his very fat tires had ever stopped spinning.
     
  12. Re: Those performance numbers are wrong!

    i heard the 1/4 mile was wrong somewhere also<!-- Signature -->
     
  13. Re: Those performance numbers are wrong!

    They need to find better examples of these cars to display for the pics. The pics arent that great. But if you ever see one of these cars in real life, charish the moment. My dad has a 70 challenger, but its a regular 318 2V V8. Its just a fun car to drive. They dont make em like they used to.<!-- Signature -->
     
  14. Re: Those performance numbers are wrong!

    im thinking wth a eii would go a heck of alot faster than 146mph
     
  15. Re: Those performance numbers are wrong!

    That 1/4 mile time is way off! Someone screwed up there. Anyone remember this car from Vanishing Point?? This car is a thing of beauty, brings tears to my eyes.<!-- Signature -->
     
  16. Re: Those performance numbers are wrong!

    Yeah the numbers are wrong in a lot of the classic cars. For example, according to this I could beat a 1968 L88 427 Corvette (which had 580-600hp) in my stock Z28.<!-- Signature -->
     
  17. Re: Those performance numbers are wrong!

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from antireindeer</i>
    <b>according to my dad, the 426 was close to 500 horses</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    if not more. dodge under-rated the numbers for legal reasons(i think), but unfortunately most people believed them. consequently, nobody sprung for the $1500(?) hemi package and now it's damn hard to find an original hemi. oh well, we can still dream.
     
  18. Re: Those performance numbers are wrong!

    Many companies had policies regarding hp/l... as well as lowering performance ratings for insurance reasons.<!-- Signature -->
     
  19. Re: Those performance numbers are wrong!

    If you take a stock 426 hemi and dyno it at the flywheel, it makes 550 HP. Depending on the gear ratio of your rear axle, it can produce any where from 500 to 525 at the rear wheels. <!-- Signature -->
     
  20. Re: Those performance numbers are wrong!

    The Hemi only produces 525 to 550 horspowetr if you measure it on the old horsepower scale. If we are to assume a 35% drop in power when measuring at the rear wheels, ( 20% at the modern mesuring point, another 15% at the rear wheels), then the actual power output of a 426 Hemi is actually 357.5 Hp.

    Oh yeah, its spelled Ablan, not

    "Ablum, Ablum, come!"
     
  21. Re: Those performance numbers are wrong!

    This challenger is bad ass it way better than my 1971 charger 380 R/T
    But my charger does the 1/4 mile in 10.7 at 138
     
  22. Re: Those performance numbers are wrong!

    check these images of a 440/6 guys. $28K and it's yours. perfect condition as well.<!-- Signature -->
     
  23. Re: Those performance numbers are wrong!

    Numbers match? Any restorations? Period tires? Original engine? A little info would help.

    <!-- Signature -->
     
  24. Re: Those performance numbers are wrong!

    I wish I had one of these. a 440 with a 6pack would rock, I would have to put a set of tires on it every week though.<!-- Signature -->
     
  25. Re: Those performance numbers are wrong!

    A Challenger is a prime example of an upgradable car. It's fairly light, small, simple, and will accept almost any car engine available. From the factory the Challengers came with enough room under the hood for a 440 Magnum with power everything and A/C with plenty of room to spare. When I gutted my Challenger the engine bay was easily big enough to accomadate 4 standing adults. I'm working on a G-machine Challenger now, it's a pleasure to work on.
     

Share This Page