[Driver72]

You guys are right, too close to worry about anyway. Variances in the cars could make the difference.
So body of post has been deleted by me.

 

[Blackdevil77]

Only one way to find out! Good ol' fashioned roll races! I'm curious also. I feel like it all depends which car happens to launch better on a particular run. From a low speed roll, I think the Challenger will ever so slightly squeak a few inches on the Charger, until higher speeds are reached and aerodynamics come more into play, in which case the tables will turn.

One pleasant surprise I just found out today is the battery is located in the trunk. I know everybody probably knows that, but no magazine I recall stated that fact and it doesn't say anything about that on their website (unless I missed it.) That's good for a few reasons.

So on to the roll races!

 

[huggytree]

it would be a drivers race

 

[The Max]

This is like dealing with a hornet's nest.

Agree with most everything you say.

It would be very close until the upper reaches of the speedo.

 

[The Max]

What we need is the frontal area in sq. ft ,then the aero coefficient of drag for each car.

That would be a starting point.

But honestly there aren't too many stock cars that can keep up with these Hellcats.

From a roll these Hellcats are going to be Hellacious.

 

[ChallengerDad]

The top speed on the Charger Hellcat is listed at 204 mph. The top speed of the Challenger Hellcat is listed at 199.
I think you have your drag-coefficient issue already settled.

 

[Blackdevil77]

That is true Max. One of the car mags tested the Charger Hellcat and it actually beat the Viper's time in the 0-150 it IIRC also was very similar to the Corvette ZR-1 in that time.

That was car and driver, they got 11.4 quarter mile at 128, 3.4 0-60 and 0-150 time of 15.8 seconds. The test conditions were phenomenal though. The DA was like -2,000. It was 32 degrees when they tested the car.

 

[Blackdevil77]

But if I'm not mistaken, car and driver is one of the car mags that adjusts their times for "normal atmospheric conditions"
Meaning they very well may have actually BEAT those posted times and adjusted them to reflect slower to show what it would of done at sea level.

**Edit: I just looked the test up. Yes they did apply negative correction to those times. So the times they actually got were a bit faster than that yet.

That's interesting. I'd like to see more tests of this car. That's notably different than what Motor Trend got.

 

[Blackdevil77]

Motor Trend tests in So Cal at a closed down air force base not all that far from where I used to live on tarmac for all their performance numbers except acceleration. They do their acceleration tests at California Speedway. California Speedway a few years ago remodeled their drag strip.
It used to run west and was level but you'd be blinded driving into the sun on drag days in the afternoon.
Problem now is, they moved it to the other side of the facility and it is NHRA approved but it runs slightly UPHILL!!
Yes, that's absolutely factual, and if I'm not mistaken based on tests and official surveying, it runs an uphill slope of 4 feet over the 1/4 mile.
That clearly affects acceleration, so it and therefore Motor Trend's acceleration tests are often a bit slower than Car and Driver's.

That would explain the Chargers acceleration. How long ago did they start using using this uphill drag strip? Motor Trends results for the GT500 were faster than car and driver.

If owners start running low 11's at 128 bone stock with these chargers, I'll be at a Dodge dealer with my Shelby 10 minutes later, lol.

 

[Blackdevil77]

Very interesting, thanks! I didn't know that about the Motor Trend testing, very observant!