Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply US-PHARMACIES UGL OZ
Raptor Labs UGFREAK OxygenPharm
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplyUS-PHARMACIES UGL OZUGFREAKRaptor LabsOxygenPharm

No wonder Chrysler is broke:

Arabian

Arabian

Elite Mentor
Moderator
Platinum
I had a meeting today with the factory representative for our region and he was driving a new Charger with the SRT8 package. This package is the 425 hp Hemi and gets 6 to 8 mpg. I asked him about this and he said all of the reps either drove those or the Jeep SRT8s . same hp.. Now, this guy travels 50,000 thousand miles per year.. How much is that in gas.. I am really pissed about this. Anyone want to buy a Chrysler dealership...:evil::evil::evil::evil:
 
Arabian said:
I had a meeting today with the factory representative for our region and he was driving a new Charger with the SRT8 package. This package is the 425 hp Hemi and gets 6 to 8 mpg. I asked him about this and he said all of the reps either drove those or the Jeep SRT8s . same hp.. Now, this guy travels 50,000 thousand miles per year.. How much is that in gas.. I am really pissed about this. Anyone want to buy a Chrysler dealership...:evil::evil::evil::evil:
Click to expand...

I bet that was a good looking ride he was driving though right?
 
after watching on top gear what a turd that car was around corners......I'm cool on em. They look sweet, but their not really all that fast either. If they're going to corner like a walrus negotiating some rocks on his way to the beach, they'd better be like UBER fucking fast. Like 500+ HP minimum. I'll take that 545hp CTS over a charger any day.
 
Arabian said:
Should it be more?
Click to expand...

Well its roughly 71 hp a liter......

There are cars that make roughly 120 hp a liter for less than 30 grand.....

And if it's torque your after, one of the newest engines from Mercedes is a 2.2 liter 4cyl diesel that cranks our 370 ft/lbs, which equates to 168ft/lbs per liter.

So really, 425hp is hefty by all means, it's just nothing they werent doing 40 years ago.
 
chris302001 said:
Well its roughly 71 hp a liter......

There are cars that make roughly 120 hp a liter for less than 30 grand.....
Click to expand...

Naturally aspirated???

Still, 100HP/liter is easy enough to accomplish without a turbo.
 
chris302001 said:
Well its roughly 71 hp a liter......

There are cars that make roughly 120 hp a liter for less than 30 grand.....

And if it's torque your after, one of the newest engines from Mercedes is a 2.2 liter 4cyl diesel that cranks our 370 ft/lbs, which equates to 168ft/lbs per liter.

So really, 425hp is hefty by all means, it's just nothing they werent doing 40 years ago.
Click to expand...

Some of the old SS Camaros and Chevelles were putting out 375 and 450 hp from big blocks .....back in the day
 
Chrystler/GM doesnt matter if they still make cars or not (only to the familys that work for them) however what I mean is this. They can make millions just making parts for the cars they make that are on the road today.
 
superdave said:
Yea it really should
we got 4cylimder jap ricers pumping out that
Click to expand...
until they self destruct in a matter of months or less than 10,000 miles..... :rolleyes:

would any of these "fast 'n furious" jap riciers stay together for the warranty periods American car makers have now?

i think not....
 
chris302001 said:
Well its roughly 71 hp a liter......

There are cars that make roughly 120 hp a liter for less than 30 grand.....

And if it's torque your after, one of the newest engines from Mercedes is a 2.2 liter 4cyl diesel that cranks our 370 ft/lbs, which equates to 168ft/lbs per liter.

So really, 425hp is hefty by all means, it's just nothing they werent doing 40 years ago.
Click to expand...

and 40 years ago they didn't have all the restrictions either.
 
bottom line is the charger is more of the same old same old. They should be concentrating on making their engines smaller and lighter but with comparable HP. If you're going to be making a 6l engine, it had better be pumping out 600+ HP or else the tax you take from it around corners ain't worth it. Americans need to start making cars that go around corners. The new corvetter is a real nice, I mean REAL FUCKING NICE step in that direction. The top gear guys loved that car for the fact that you can drive around town comfortably no problem yet still have 650hp on tap. And it's one of the fastest cars around nurburg.........
 
manny78 said:
I believe 1L from a Wankel is 2L from a regular engine. Still, 240hp from the a 1.3L (2.6L) is 92hp per L which is very good.
Click to expand...


displacement is displacement. THere shouldn't be any "handicapping" of the wankel. It's a superior design to the reciprocating piston engine. Yes it generates more volume differential.......that's the whole point of the engine. So if you dip two engines in a displacement tank, and they're both equal......but one generates more horsepower per volume, that's an advantage to that engine and it shouldn't be handicapped "up" to the regular 2l engine. What a great advantage if they could make a 3-4l wankel that can generate supercar numbers. which begs the question why haven't they done this yet?
 
redsamurai said:
displacement is displacement. THere shouldn't be any "handicapping" of the wankel. It's a superior design to the reciprocating piston engine. Yes it generates more volume differential.......that's the whole point of the engine. So if you dip two engines in a displacement tank, and they're both equal......but one generates more horsepower per volume, that's an advantage to that engine and it shouldn't be handicapped "up" to the regular 2l engine. What a great advantage if they could make a 3-4l wankel that can generate supercar numbers. which begs the question why haven't they done this yet?
Click to expand...

I believe it has something to do with overheating and other related issues. Mazda has a few Le Mans cars racing with a Wankel so yes it's possible. Would the average Joe pay 200k for a Wankel supercar ? Considering most dont even know the difference between a V engine and Boxer then i guess you gbot your answer...
 
redsamurai said:
displacement is displacement. THere shouldn't be any "handicapping" of the wankel. It's a superior design to the reciprocating piston engine. Yes it generates more volume differential.......that's the whole point of the engine. So if you dip two engines in a displacement tank, and they're both equal......but one generates more horsepower per volume, that's an advantage to that engine and it shouldn't be handicapped "up" to the regular 2l engine. What a great advantage if they could make a 3-4l wankel that can generate supercar numbers. which begs the question why haven't they done this yet?
Click to expand...

Volume is volume, but the question on how to rate a Wankel's displacement has to do with how many times that volume is used per cycle.

Still, it's an apples and oranges comparison.

It's "superior" in some ways, but there are issues with reliability and torque (it doesn't have much of either...). Also fuel economy is dreadful. There have been some 3-rotor and 4-rotor wankels, but I don't think any ever made it to production.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

nangiggles
BS at the dealership
Replies
91
Views
10K
nangiggles
nangiggles
-SD-
Can I Religion of Peace?
Replies
29
Views
8K
redsamurai
redsamurai
shirlene29
the internet is a strange place
Replies
52
Views
11K
nangiggles
nangiggles
hanselthecaretaker
Russia spills a Deepwater Horizon size leak every two months
Replies
1
Views
1K
PICK3
PICK3
hanselthecaretaker
What does everyone think of this?
Replies
10
Views
3K
redsamurai
redsamurai
Top Bottom