Mopar Shows off Its 1,000HP 426 Hemi V8 Crate Engine Called the Hellephant

This is the discussion thread for a recent post on GTPlanet:

This article was published by Joe Donaldson (@Joey D) on October 31st, 2018 in the Automotive News category.

 

Hey, that’s not nice! Elephants aren’t THAT big and heavy.

 

I nominate this engine for "Best Name of the Year" award.

 

Hellacan't™

 

I'm waiting for the Hefalump.

And .why in the hell didn't they make the Charger look like this in the first place?!

 

Helliphino

 

Joining the posting club:

Hellemouse engines




On a serious note: I wonder if this engine would pass the emission regulations here in Europe. (this is a fair question isn't it?)

 

It's not even emissions compliant in the US. You can either put it in a non-emissions compliant vechile (like a 68 Charger) or in an off-highway modern car (drag racer, off-road racer, etc).

 

The thing I've liked about Chrysler in the past few years is that they know most of this stuff is a farce. They don't pretend they've made a credible alternative to a 3 series if only you can ignore the blind spots that can hide semi trucks and a trunk that would struggle to accept a pizza box. They don't pretend they've turned the entire industry on its head by making turbocharged 4 cylinders with the performance of a V6 and the fuel consumption of a V8.


They make big dumb cars with big shouty looks and they do the best they can with what they have on hand, and it will be a real shame if the ride ever stops.

 

I disagree, chiefly because they’re actually pretty awful.

Not because they’re big dumb shouty cars (considering that’s what I drive too) but because they’re utter crap.

Underneath the flashy exteriors is a chassis that was never designed with 800 HP in mind back in the 90s.

The main part about these cars that people enjoy, the engines, is also garbage. I’ve yet to speak to a mechanic who says that they’re anything but cheaply made time bombs.

Considering how many problems people have had even with completely stock setups on these, I can see why. Not even their supercharger rotors can stay in one piece without disintegrating into the engine and grenading the whole thing.

If I spent $80,000-$120,000 for a car to do that while stock, you can bet I’d be mad.

Chrysler saying “you know what, we make crap cars, but we own up to it so it’s cool!” is not an excuse. Everybody else has moved on to proper sports cars, Chrysler is still making muscle cars.

It was cool in the 60s and 70s. In fact, those cars are still cool now. But to throw caution to the wind and make crap cars is not cool to me.



Here are some cars that do everything you’re praising them for in a much better way.

-Corvette Z06/ZR1
-F150 Raptor
-Camaro ZL1/Z28/whatever the special new model of the week is.
-Shelby GT350/GT350R, and assumedly the new GT500 once it finally gets here.

You could even include some of the used cars from yesteryear, like the 2014 GT500, Vipers, etc.

I won’t use the excuse of “You could just take a stock (insert car here) and mod it to be faster than any of these cars” because, even though I feel like it is a relevant argument (as well as what I did to reach 820HP)

I understand that it is not an Apples to Apples comparison. Some people would rather have a car come that way straight from the factory, which is completely understandable (at least, when these cars are actually more reliable and don’t eat their own superchargers). If they have the money for that, then that’s fine.

Personally, the sooner this facade of Chrysler’s ends, the sooner they can build something worth the sticker prices they’re charging.

 

Except they aren't. Anything else?


I mean, it's entertaining and all that you're comparing a full size sedan and coupe to a 2 seat sports car, an off road pickup truck and a rolling pillbox (even before you leave the door open for comparing it to older cars that were discontinued due to lack of popularity), but it doesn't get any more substantive as an argument because you know mechanics.





If you really want I can go line by line with your post since there's certainly a couple of jewels to be found therein, but I think I made my point well enough.

 

Id love to see you try.

Their cars are garbage. Overpriced. Driven by tools. I’m more than happy to provide ample evidence of this. Can you provide ample evidence suggesting otherwise, though?

The comparison to every car I mentioned is completely relevant as they are all acceptable alternatives.

People buying a Hellcat Challenger or Charger consider all of these to be viable other options. They aren’t buying this for its practicality. The buy it specifically for its flash.

My friends in the car scene have gone through this very thing. One purchased a scat pack, wanted something faster, so he built a 2SS Camaro, wanted something flashier, got a Hellcat, the engine grenaded stock, now he drives the Raptor competitor made by Chevy, whatever it’s called.

Another was going to purchase a hellcat, found a 2014 GT500 instead and went with that since it’s a much more competent car overall, even with a SRA. Also, citation on the car being discontinued due to lack of popularity. The Mustang is redesigned every 10 years, UNLIKE the Challenger and Charger.

I would be amazed if you’ve ever even actually driven any of them. If you have, then your argument is even more perplexing. I can go with you allllll day on this one.

 

Okay. We'll sidestep the fact that I was clearly talking about the entire model range of the three cars (unless the GT500 is going to have a 4 cylinder, or the horrible visibility is something that only afflicts the ZL1) and you immediately jumped to "Why the Hellcat sucks" for now.

So the 2014 GT500, sitting on it's cheapened-but-still-largely-Lincoln LS floorpan except with a crappier suspension setup, must be just as bad with it's 630 lb-ft, right? Your Mustang, with it's supposed Challenger Demon power numbers, must be borderline undriveable, flexing and skitting around like a Terminator Cobra convertible.




Except the Mercedes at least immediately had an engine with over 450 lb-ft installed (compared to the Lincoln which was always pretty gutless), and the little fact that the LX chassis is not just a repurposed W210, and that the high horsepower Challengers and Chargers are not a modern day equivalent to a Spirit R/T.

I've yet to speak to a mechanic who says they have an inherent problem in their design.


I guess my argument is just as valid as yours then.

Sure is great that your friend (who is definitely not a tool like so many other Hellcat owners) finally found a car that he can beat the hell out of and not have it fail.



Because that might as well be the context for the single example you're applying to thousands of cars sold over the past couple years.

This is such a meaningless clarification that I'm impressed you made it with a straight face. The current Challenger and Charger are no less a modern car than either of the other two. They handle fine, ride fine, the brakes are good, they are safe, and they don't just slap the biggest engine they could in them with no regard to upgrading anything else. They're both bigger and heavier then them, but that does not make them this:






How different do you think the Challenger actually is for the overwhelming majority of the model ranges?

Cool. I mean, you clearly didn't even read my post before you started on about "Why the Hellcat sucks", but let's go anyway:

Seats more than two people in a much better way. Presumably.

Manages to drive like a car instead of a full size crew cab pickup truck on deliberately soft suspension and chunky tires in a much better way. Presumably.

Seats more than two people, has any ability to carry luggage and can actually be driveable in an environment when there are other cars on the road; all in a much better way. Presumably.

A pretty good alternative to a high spec Challenger, mainly coming down to whatever your personal preferences are for the compromises of the base car.

A car that hasn't come out yet (so, like... what the hell justification to you have to make that claim?), but is purported to be just as much of a lardass as the Challenger has always been.

No you can't. I could go buy a C6 ZR1 and it would waste your Mustang that I'm supposed to be super impressed about just as much as it would a Hellcat, but since they don't make that anymore it's not really relevant to a conversation about new cars in 2018.

It's not. If I put a Northstar from a junked Allante in an '88 Fiero circa 1992 it wasn't suddenly a legitimate 348 competitor.

Presumably not your friend, though.



But anyway:

Well the immediate response to this laughably overblown and personal tirade against people for buying a car you don't like is that it certainly seems that I can do the very same for Mustang owners and the initially-Hellcat buying people that associate with them. But that's not really, you know, an argument (no matter how hard you force it) so let's examine the statement in the context of this next one one:

Those people, but definitely not you and definitely not your friend who in fact bought one, are apparently just dudebro douchebags. They just flock to them. That demographic is what makes a couple completely unrelated cars "acceptable alternatives" to the top tier Dodges. But then, when those people buy those "viable other options" instead, they're... not? Why is that? How are cars, one of which isn't even in the same time zone of being a market rival, objectively better than a Charger/Challenger when the owners don't seem to care and the cars themselves weren't designed for the same goals? How much you resent those people (and I'm hoping not just because you couldn't afford one new) is not an explanation nor "ample evidence", so please provide something.





The Raptor is certainly better off road than a Hellcat. Is that the objective quality they should care about? The Corvette certainly gets better gas mileage than the Hellcat. Is that it?

OH BOY YOU SURE GOT ME!

Oh.

And just who the hell do you think you are? Jay Leno? You don't know anything about my financial situation, you don't know anything about my car preferences, and you don't know anything about what cars I've driven. I will say, though, that buying a used Mustang and ordering everything out of the Ford Racing catalog does not make you the leading authority is on what the best car in of the three brands as sold in 2018. If you'd like that to come across, maybe you can formulate an argument that isn't simply how much you hate the people who buy the highest spec Dodges and how your friend's blew an engine.


I've driven a Scat Pack Challenger. Two, actually. Also drove the regular SRT, but that one was one of the very early ones and they really weren't good at all. Working at a Dodge dealer for a little while had perks even if I did hate the job. I've driven the current Camaro in SS form as well, albeit one from before either of the facelifts the car has gotten since debut; as well as the previous generation (albeit one that I think was only the second year). To counter your amazement, it's not very hard to show up at a car dealer in a Corvette, ask to drive an averaged-price car and then be allowed to do so. And let me tell you, I do not care how much better the Camaro performs on a track. I do not care how much better the Camaro is on a skidpad. I don't care how much marginally more fuel economy the Camaro gets from its worse engine package. I do not care how much more like a European car the top spec ZL1 is than the Hellcat. You know what I care about, and why I would never buy the current car? The fact that you cannot see out of the damn thing; that anything aft of the B-Pillar might as well be invisible.. The fact that it is a big car in its own right, but has absolutely atrocious packaging efficiency in interior space and cargo usability. That despite being an entirely new generation of car, GM both of those things even worse. Those are things that matter to me when I buy a car. Those are things that the Challenger does so much better than the Camaro (despite being a ten year old continuously improved car instead of one recently redesigned from the ground up) that it is pointless to even compare the two. The Challenger also rode a decent bit better. The Challenger also had a better interior with better egonomics (other than the steering wheel being too thick) and was way easier to get into and out of. These are also all things that matter to me at least a little as well and why your rantings about tools buying Hellcats instead of the supposedly much more superior options you provided isn't really relevant to the post I made that you had a coronary over. And while your insinuation that the people buying Hellcats instead of a Raptor or whatever must be assholes is super convincing, it seems a bit of a stretch to apply that to all of the ~195,000 people who have bought Challengers for the past 3 years; in comparison to the so-much-better ZL1 that is part of a model whose sales have so thoroughly collapsed that GM has given it an emergency restyling twice.



And while both cars wouldn't be something I'd plan on throwing carseats in the back of any time soon, if I wanted a car with a rear seat as useless as the Camaro's I would just buy another Corvette. Which I was going to next year anyway, so there you go.








tl;dr:

If you were actually capable of doing so I imagine you would have started by now. So, again, anything else?

 

You can't though. Getting a faster car for the same price as something like a Demon is incredibly hard. I wrote about this with the Hennessey Exorcist, which is $40,000 more and barely beats it down the strip. A factory built car will almost always be better than X car with a bunch of modifications on it.

 

Why is the whole range relevant? We’re talking about the Hellephant engine in this thread to begin with, and you yourself said that what you like about Dodge is their flashy loud appeal. Does the AWD, 4400 lb V6 Challenger stir your soul like that?

Talking about the whole range is irrelevant in this context. A rental-car level Challenger/Camaro/Mustang is a completely different discussion. We’re on the opposite end of the spectrum with this Conversation.

Ouch. You just shot yourself in the foot there. A SRA is not significantly inferior in track driving; in some ways, it’s superior, as it is by nature much more capable of taking heavy loads than IRS.

Where a SRA suffers is on bumpy normal roads. I have no problem admitting this and it definitely makes driving it on rough roads less comfy. But it’s not a deal-breaker in any sense, and takes a lot of money off of the price of the car.

Nope. The fact I use R888Rs probably helps though.

It is well known that these cars are able to reach well over 600 WHP on pump gas. The new 18 coyote motors are able to make over 800 WHP on stock internals and E85. The evidence for this is not hard to find, if you truly are doubtful.

Still, I appreciate the “supposed”.

Here is me at one of the 4 road course track days I have taken the car to. If it was undrivable, don’t you think I would’ve switched to taking the STI instead?

This is actually a pretty horrible example as the Terminator Cobra is actually equipped with IRS. True, I’m sure that chopping the roof off makes it lose a good deal of ridgidity, but I would say that the GT500 convertible would’ve been a better example.


Moving on.

So, by that logic, 70’s Muscle cars must have GREAT chassis, since they were given so much torque when they came out, right?

The W210 may have had high torque motors to begin with. That does not inherently make it a good chassis for a car with 800 HP and with standards that have moved 20 years forwards.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ch...nger-mercedes-connection-37181/?t=37181&amp=1

Seems like enough of a connection to me.

But let’s say you’re right. Please explain to me how the Lincoln chassis of the mustang doesn’t also get a pass for now being re-purposed into a muscle car as well. It certainly weighs a lot less when it comes to the end product. Or does that not offset that it wasn’t designed with a big engine in mind?

I would be surprised if you’ve asked any to begin with.

I can’t do much to substantiate my own claims, unless you expect me to go to the ones I know and record them stating my sentiments. One of my main mechanics, Ben, who has worked at Porsche, Suzuki, GM, and, yes, Chrysler, as a mechanic, told me that the engineering in these Hellcat engines is “garbage, just inflated HP numbers on engines which weren’t designed to handle the power being thrown at them now”.

His source of income is his mommy and daddy, he spends half of his money at a casino and half on his cars.

The other local Hellcat owner tried to convince me that a CAI on his Hellcat makes it faster than a Demon. For a man who looked like a successful 60 year old businessman, I was surprised by his ignorance.

He’s only had it for about a month. His last car was an SS Camaro from 2016 which was Procharged, Meth injected, and Cammed, making over 800 at the wheels as well. He sold that because, as we are discussing, he wanted something more flashy (i.e. able to pick up ladies more easily with its badge name)

However, I have this to present to back up my claims on failures and major quality issues with these cars:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...-good-idea-to-keep-the-oil-in-the-engine/amp/

https://www.hellcat.org/threads/disappointed-at-3k-miles.127065/

Back in the day I remember you were the champion of making good factual arguments without taking personal shots. It’s sad to see that since my hiatus, you’ve fallen down to the point of these kinds of tactics and logical fallicies.

You just set yourself up here.

Here we go!

That must be why they’re described as “boats”, right?
A porsche 918 handles great. A Z06 Corvette handles well. An STI handles fine. A Fiesta ST and Miata handle well. A base Camaro handles mediocre, and it’s better than the Mustang.

The Challenger and Charger, especially the Demon, if you want to include it here, are lower down on this list than all of these other cars.

Better than the magnetic ride now found on its competitors?

Yes, if you throw a set of $5,000 Brembos on a car, they can stop it alright, even if it weighs as much as a house.

I will not argue here. Modern cars are extremely safe, and I think that’s something to celebrate more than anything.

Not that these have any groundbreaking systems like Subaru Eyesight, or Tesla’s collision prediction system. But they are definitely safe, and I applaud them for that.

The only thing I would note, is about the Demon being “banned” by the NHRA (even though this is more just a PR stunt than anything I imagine, considering how many of these you see at tracks) due to the lack of a roll cage. For how, admittedly, quick in a straight line the Demon is, this seems like a sketchy shortcut to make.

That would explain why they initially were snapping rear axles like nobody’s business, correct? Citation in one of the above links from earlier.

I hate, and I mean HATE, to refer to anything said in Top Gear, for something in an argument. But if you’re saying that they’re better than a car which a well-trained stunt driver could not aim for the target building in a movie, then that’s a pretty frail point.

I did read your post.

You said “They make big dumb cars with big shouty looks and they do the best they can with what they have on hand, and it will be a real shame if the ride ever stops.”

I am offering alternatives to “big dumb cars with big shouty looks” that are made from companies doing “the best they can with what they have on hand.”

Maybe you should re-read your own post?

Correct. But the Corvette will seat people much BETTER than the 1-seat-no-passenger-seat-for-weight Demon as well. You know, the one used for their marketing of that 9.96 quarter mile time.

What if somebody just wants something flashy? And they aren’t looking for a quarter mile killer? The soft suspension will give a nice ride, gliding over bumps. You can take it in any conditions nature can throw at you. It’s size lends it to be even safer, you’re sitting far up above whatever is likely going to hit you. I would love to own one.

Point 1: The ZL1 has back seats. Saying that the Z28 does not is like saying you can get them removed from the Demon as well.
Point 2: The Camaro is a massive selling car. Even rental car companies rent them out like crazy.

I know the visibility is bad. But if it was anywhere NEAR as bad as you say, there wouldn’t be a ditch without a Camaro in it. Every single one would have awful marks on their bumpers. You wouldn’t be able to insure them, it would cost too much.

Perhaps, like with any car, it’s a period of getting used to it, and you just were unable to do so in whatever time, I presume, you spent, you know, actually driving one?

Well I’m glad we can at least agree on that.

My main point is that, at least when new, the MSRP on the GT350 versus a Hellcat would be, I believe, be in favor of the Mustang by $15k? (Google searching shows $49.9k for a 16 GT350, $64.9k for a 16 Hellcat)

I do agree that I’m sure it will be far heavier than it should be. But I can also guarantee that the magnetic ride suspension will work wonders in aiding this. But we really don’t know, so you’re right. This was a weak point of mine.

Again, two points.

1. I’m not trying to say that you’re supposed to be impressed with it. It’s just simply my car. It’s what I have to base these opinions of mine off of.

2. Moot point since I fail to have video evidence, but I can confirm a stock C6 ZR1, despite the lower weight and better aero, cannot overcome the ~250HP deficit to what I’m currently making, in a straight line.
Corners, the ZR1 all day. A fantastic car, and a shame that the new one wasn’t closer to it in design ethos.

You could debate that, if strapped for cash and looking for something that would give you a similar thrill of a Hellcat for a lot less, buying a used car is a very useful idea.

Another logical fallacy, an inaccurate comparison.

You even made a relevant comparison just a second ago. A second hand C6 ZR1 versus a new Hellcat. I have no doubt that there are many people who, given the financial situation, would consider each of these a viable option.

Primarily, irrelevant to the argument at hand.
Secondarily, incorrect.

In just a little bit, you go into a rant about how I don’t know anything about your life, what you’ve driven, your financial situation, etc.

The same goes from me to you. You have no recollection of any of my experiences. What any of the people I have met are like. What my own financial situation is. So making judgements that I’m up my friend’s bum because he’s an acquaintance is very ignorant and hypocritical of you.

Thats the definition of an argument I present a thesis, state facts, you choose to either agree or disagree, in which case you would present facts too. But if you just want to bow out like this then it’s fine.

I’m one of the Mustang’s biggest critics. But that does not have any bearing on me feeling that it is still superior to the Chrysler products we are discussing at this time.

Moving along.

It’s sad to see you so low like this! What happened to you? I don’t mind being labeled a douchebag myself. I love my car and I love taking it to the track and having fun with it. I didn’t purchase it to show off. It is a tool for providing happiness, and it’s damn good at it.

I hope you have something to give you that happiness in your life.

Me disagreeing with the car they purchase =/= me resenting them.

These cars, including the one in a “different time zone” are all objectively better at particular highlight aspects of the Hellcat. Whether it be flashyness, overall power, practicality, cornering ability, etc. They each offer something that is done better than the Hellcat. I went through it above when going through each car.

If the buyer is just looking for something “cool” and a “panty dropper”, then yes. There’s a much better chance the Raptors all wheel drive and off-roading ability will come in useful than the Hellcat 707 HP will on a normal road, so that would seem like an alternative.

If somebody wants a fast car, as a car they drive often, and takes it on long trips, gas mileage would be very important. So the corvette would be a good alternative. Yes.

I love how when somebody presents you with facts about a false claim of yours, you react with a middle schooler response.

I’m somebody on the internet. Maybe you should take a break from this kind of thing if I can apparently incite so much anger over disussing a vehicle with you.

Again. This all goes both ways.

Please show me where I suggested I’m the authority on thi.

Please show me where I suggest that I hate the owners of these cars.

So far, I’ve presented an argument backed with citations and proof. You’ve gone on a rant about how I apparently am a conceited asshole who thinks his Ford is the greatest car in history. Your argument is non-existent.

Not caring about things that make it better... that’s new.

Thats a perfectly fine opinion.

But again, considering how many are on the road, I’d say a lot of people don’t share your problem with the visibility to the point where it’s a dealbreaker. So, should they still not care about everything else that makes it an objectively better car?

That was not my experience when driving them, but it’s a subjective thing. So I can appreciate that you prefer those things about it. That’s the nice thing about having such a big choice in cars overall!

I see what you’re thinking. You think that because I called them a tool, I am hating against them. I personally don’t think the two go hand in hand, but if that’s how you took that then I would like to say now that I also think that 90% of Mustang owners are tools, especially all of those who put Shelby badges and racing stripes on V6s. That doesn’t equate to an asshole. I hope the above makes sense.

Thats good. I don’t think any of these cars have a truly useable rear seat, something which I think all of them could do much better (minus the corvette obviously).

Nope, I was just busy studying calculus and then I was cleaning my car for our Cars and Coffee this morning. Took a while for me to have the free time to answer. Sorry to keep you waiting.

I agree to an extent. My issue is, unless you are TRULY dedicated to driving this half-race car on the street, some of the turnkey options (COPO and Cobra Jet) would seem like a smarter bet at this point. I’m not sure how they compare in price to be honest though.

If you own a Demon with the nice leather seats, regular tires, etc, then I see the appeal. If you’re ordering one with just a drivers seat, harness, and radials from the factory.. I guess it at least saves the money of having to buy a trailer?

 

Oh man this is the first time I've seen someone call modern Mopar garbage.

I have a '17 Scat Pack Charger and it's far from garbage.

I was going to engage you, but decided it's just not worth it.

 

You don’t need to. All my points and reasoning are above. If you disagree then I’d love to hear your experience.

 

@KinLM I have to be honest I'm not sure if you were having a bad day or what but a lot of your "arguments" are conjecture in that somewhat pissing contest, and somewhat over zealous read ins. @Tornado never said the SRA was a bad thing in a general sense, simply that the set up and derivative wasn't any more keyed in for the level of power it got than that of what you dislike. In reality it took plenty of engineering to get it up to working order. I've talked to Ford and Chrysler reps who worked on these projects and Engineering career fairs, and SAE events.

So from my experience and what I've gained knowledge wise form speaking to them is not as doom and gloom, and in reality it's quite interchangeable

As for pricing between the COPO and CobraJet. You're talking about vehicles that aren't street legal (which you seem to hint at) only designed for drag racing at super stock level and costing 130k USD for either. While the Dodge comes in at less, isn't limited to the track only and with a few check marks here and there when ordering it can run similar numbers. I'm not a fan of current Dodge in anyway but even I can see the cost benefit.

 

Wow I haven't seen threads like this since I stopped posting on SVTperformance like 8 years ago.

Great nostalgia trip!

 

Oh my. There sure is a lot to unpack here.

Because that's what I was talking about from the start.

Since that flashy and loud appeal applies to their entire range. A V6 Charger gets looks for being an aggressive looking car that you can get in wild colors just the same as a Hellcat does.

And if it did what is your problem with that? Like, Jesus Christ. I'd certainly rather have a V6 AWD Challenger than a Ford Explorer.

Oh, you mean in the context of the post I initially made mentioning offhand exactly that that you threw a fit about? Got you.

That would be exactly why I questioned why you went off on the Hellcat, yes; since a comment about the entire range (more towards the lower end for Ford, unless you think the GT500 will have a turbo four cylinder) was what my post was about.

No I didn't, because who gives a flying about track driving?

I'm not doubtful. I just don't actually care. It's not relevant.

That picture did it. Now I am definitely super impressed with your Mustang.

No it's not. You just don't know what an automotive platform even is enough to actually understand that I was making the most extreme example I could to get the point across. I'll get to this in a bit, but first to explain the example:
20 years prior to when the Terminator came out, people knew that that platform it sat on was a bit under spec for the higher power Mustangs (even then, when the car wasn't breaking 200 horspower); and that there were certain models that you bought if you wanted a car that was more stable and behaved with its handling.
Now make that car substantially larger, chop the roof off of it and put a heavier engine with 400 lb-ft of torque in it; all while sitting on fundamentally the same bones underneath.





Put another way, a Terminator Cobra, convertible or not, isn't a willowy noodle of a car because it has an independent rear end.

No, not by that logic; because no one would even confuse a 1970s Mercedes with a 1970s muscle car; nevermind a Mercedes made in the 1990s. Even if the LX cars were just a W210 (which, again, they aren't; which I'll also get to in a second), I have a good feeling that Mercedes put a bit more effort in 1996 into making sure that they could take a more powerful motor without completely overwhelming the chassis than Ford did when they dropped the 428 in the Mustang.

I wasn't saying that they did. I was asking what exactly inherently makes a 2014 GT500, riding on its significantly cheapened Jacques Nasser-era Lincoln floorpan and having nearly 400 more lb-ft torque than any engine the car originally had, any better?

Let's look at that list. So similar suspension setup in the rear (and only the rear) to the one Mercedes has used in pretty much everything since the 190e, same transmission, same computer/diagnostic system, same steering column and same cruise control stalk = same platform. Not that they were designed by the same engineers (the LX car's development mostly taking place after Mercedes had already ransacked Chrysler) of the cars Mercedes already had developed using the same design ideas and some parts shelf stuff, but that the platform was directly derived from it and not a clean sheet like Chrysler repeatedly claimed it was.


Incidentally, the front suspension of an LX car looks absolutely nothing like a W210:






But it is similar to a W220:

I dunno. I wasn't the one drawing a line in the sand between the Challenger (a chassis that isn't actually a repurposed Mercedes one from 1996) and the final S197 Mustang (a chassis that actually was derived from a Lincoln repurposed into a cheaper form) in the context of cars with hundreds of lb-ft more torque than they were supposedly designed in mind for; as if neither company had done anything beyond take the base model and stick the most powerful engine in it.

The point being, of course, that it's pretty meaningless to say on a forum that "I talked to this guy and he says they suck" as an argument; but oh well. I tried.

AMPLE EVIDENCE, Ladies and gentlemen.

So he bought a street car and then immediately broke it trying to use it like his built drag car that he got tired of. That was the final level of succession of the increasingly powerful cars he kept buying to show off before he gave up and started buying trucks.


Not doing wonders here for providing context for why he wasn't just an idiot and that it's instead the car's fault that he broke it within a month, but okay.

Good. Glad you finally brought up something.

Jesus, a recall about an oil leak!?

Oh noes.

This is like a parody at this point. That one guy got a Friday car, and the dealership (that has already had an unspecified screwup in the past) apparently hasn't exactly helped making it better. Entire model is garbage. Pack it up.





Do me a favor though. Type "heat soak Z06" into Google and take a look at what comes up.

Well, you don't seem to be any different than you ever were. Hip hip hooray.

You know, these would be more amusing if you haven't written three essay posts where the only thing you've actually raised was that a recall happened.

No, they're describe as boats because they are still very heavy vehicles. They don't handle as well as a GT350 or ZL1; but since there's more to handling than laptimes and how fast around a skidpad a car goes, yeah. Fine is a good description of how they handle. It isn't as if the other two are flawless across the range.


I mean, I could dig up stuff talking about how fine it handles, but do you even care?

These labels, good lord. You're trying to objectively quantify something handling "well" compared to something handling "fine," "mediocre," and "great;" and your first point of comparison was Porsche's most expensive model?

I wouldn't know. The Camaros I drove didn't have it; nor is it standard equipment across the Mustang and Camaro range.

You shouldn't have wasted your breath. The list of things that are "banned" from NHRA competition has been a sliding scale for years now.

Well, first of all, no it's not. You've posted three links in this thread. One of which was a post full of bad information about the similarity of the LX to the W210, one of which is about a product recall and the other one is about a guy who got a dud that the dealer seemed to have made worse.


Second of all, those problems existing doesn't... uh... mean that Chrysler just threw an 800hp engine into a V6 Challenger.


Finally, and I've alluded to this several times so it's odd that you keep avoiding it: Drive a car like an asshole and it's probably going to break! The original CTS-v would pop rear axles if you hammered on it, the E46 and E36 had infamous rear subframe problems, the R35 GT-R was blowing so many transmissions that Nissan completely changed how the launch control worked within a year.

No, I'm saying that the Challenger and Charger in 2018 are not the Challenger and Charger in 1970; the Challenger in particular being from an infamous crash borne out of the way muscle cars were made at the time. The Charger being from a famous movie was, you know, a joke. This is a point that you raised and you don't even get it.

Evidently not if you're still trying to force it to only be talking about the Hellcat.


This part did give me a laugh, though:

You're so quick on the draw for making gotcha comments that you aren't even acknowledging talking points you raised.

And? You going somewhere with this?

It's hilarious that you put this in as as part of your "reasoning the Challenger sucks" post; as if someone can only drive a Hellcat or Demon or whatever by putting it in first and flooring it at every stoplight.


Are you really that tone deaf?

Nah, I'm afraid I can't let you get away with making a post essentially saying that an F150 is better than a Challenger/Charger at being a pickup, and therefore the Charger/Challenger is bad.

No it's not. It's a figure of speech to represent the lack of interior space in the rear. I could have said the seats were for parcels, not people; but I didn't think you were going to take it literally.

Massive selling cars don't have two quick restyling jobs in three years. Massive selling cars don't start shedding sales to competitors that have been on the market for 8 years. Massive selling cars don't need to rely on fleet sales to keep them a float.

Okay. Score one for me.

I sure hope that the actual-Hellcat-competitor-GT500 comes out and costs 50 large, or this will look pretty foolish.

Magneride is an amazing thing, but it doesn't make a car that weighs over 4000 pounds (as the GT500 is claimed to) a Miata fighter. What it actually does is assist in dampening while driving sportily without necessarily incurring the hard ride when you aren't.

So handling doesn't matter so much when we're talking about your car as a point of comparison. Gotcha.

An inaccurate comparison isn't a logical fallacy. Stop using that word if you don't know what it means.

Also, you were the one who brought up modified cars. That would be why it was a separate point from the bit above, where I quoted you talking about used cars.

I wasn't the one who dropped statements like "I would be amazed if you’ve ever even actually driven any of them."

So far the extent of your facts in this thread, to support your thesis that the Charger/Challenger are terrible, is a single product recall. Saying the people who buy them are tools is not a "fact."

"Tool" being a well known term of endearment, of course.

Yes, a good alternative. Thank you.

False claim? You were the one who brought the Viper up! It's not my problem that you are so clueless to the things you keep claiming that you don't even realize when you are called on them and assume you're being responded to on something else.

Incredulity is the word.

"I would be amazed if you’ve ever even actually driven any of them. If you have, then your argument is even more perplexing"
"I’m more than happy to provide ample evidence of this. Can you provide ample evidence suggesting otherwise, though?"

And another one, in response to someone annoyed that you were telling him the car he owns was garbage saying he doesn't think it's worth responding to you about it:

"You don’t need to. All my points and reasoning are above."

I actually, legitimately laughed at this. There's no way this can't all be a joke. The only other person on the forum with this little self reflection was Interludes.
Until this post I'm quoting literally all you've done is claim that the LX platform is just a W210, that the engine in the Hellcat is bad because your mechanic thinks it sucks and your friend broke his, and the Charger/Challenger aren't good at being flashy cars because they don't do one thing as well as some other flashy cars that aren't even in the same market segment. You literally didn't cite a damn thing for proof until you started linking forum posts (with wrong information that you didn't understand the significance of anyway), a recall posting and another forum post about a guy who had a lemon.


Do you really need to be so right about a car you personally don't like that it's worth telling people, even one's who bought it, that it's garbage and lying about saying you've proven it?

I legitimately don't understand how you can make these sentences so close to each other and not have your fingers melt off.

All those objective things you listed, like "um", "er", and "yeah".

The Challenger seats 5 in a pinch, but very easily seats 4. It's not a secret. The only way it could be better at seating 4 people without getting even larger is if it had rear doors.

Once again not even remotely my point, no. It should go without saying that I don't expect you to reply to my post before I make it, so perhaps think a bit and note that maybe I'm completely unimpressed with the "AMPLE EVIDENCE" and "facts" and "citations" you've brought up to discussion in response to a post you never bothered to actually read before going on a rant; and that that lack of any actual substance in your post to that point was why I didn't expect you to ever start.


And I wasn't wrong, so...

 

Delete