How about this for an engine swap instead of the LS V8...

[mikeinsheffield]

Reading the "news" feed on Pistonheads today couldn't help but be small-boy impressed with the power and torque outputs for

"DODGE CHALLENGER HELLCAT: 707HP

Specifically 707hp, with 650lb ft of torque.

Dodge is offering the 'most powerful muscle car ever' with a six-speed manual or eight-speed auto."

That'd be nice, with the manual (of course!!)

Now, we've all heard of / seen / perhaps be fortunate enough to own an LS V8 engined TVR - from my limited understanding this has been done with Cerbs, a Tuscan, a certain silver Sag, and I think Chims??

Now - without wishing to stir up the "it's not a TVR if it doesn't have the engine in it that it had from the factory" debate.... (again)......


I just wonder what 700bhp and 650 torques would be like in a lightweight TVR rather than a bloated US-Musclecar??

Would it fit?
Is it possible?
Is anyone mad enough and with enough dough to do it???

[morebeanz]

It would be exciting, wouldn't it!

I tried to find out what engine it was based on, but it looks like it is properly all new, so there are no stats available for size, weight, etc...

Doh, just twigged. This isn't the Hellcat engine that Al Melling was banging on about, is it? As built by Dodge?

Edited by morebeanz on Wednesday 2nd July 15:56

[Geoff Ashcroft]

I thought Paul B's Sag had been raised to 750hp with the arrival of an LS9.... So 'just' 707hp is no longer enough....

[Geoff Ashcroft]

I thought Paul B's Sag had been raised to 750hp with the arrival of an LS9.... So 'just' 707hp is no longer enough....

[Alexdaredevils]

Geoff Ashcroft said:

I thought Paul B's Sag had been raised to 750hp with the arrival of an LS9.... So 'just' 707hp is no longer enough....

Neither is 750 enough any more

[7 TVR]

Being fortunate enough to run some silly figure TVR's a little word to the wise for those chasing numbers, once you get over 500hp and similar Torque figures things really start to get interesting both in chassis limits especially in the early car's Griff, Chim etc and traction problems, even with sticky 888's on a hot day getting the power down can be an interesting affair and it does not take much to get seriously caught out but i'd be lying if i said it was not fun
Alex i look forward to seeing your turbo install and in answer to the OP unless i was running TC 750 would be v hard to get down, the money spent on achieving those kind of numbers and the drive train, brakes and chassis etc to cope you would be better served getting it to handle right unless you only like drag strips

[BuzzBillsberry]

7 TVR said:

Being fortunate enough to run some silly figure TVR's a little word to the wise for those chasing numbers, once you get over 500hp and similar Torque figures things really start to get interesting both in chassis limits especially in the early car's Griff, Chim etc and traction problems, even with sticky 888's on a hot day getting the power down can be an interesting affair and it does not take much to get seriously caught out but i'd be lying if i said it was not fun
Alex i look forward to seeing your turbo install and in answer to the OP unless i was running TC 750 would be v hard to get down, the money spent on achieving those kind of numbers and the drive train, brakes and chassis etc to cope you would be better served getting it to handle right unless you only like drag strips

Common sense prevails!

Buzz

[Guillotine]

I think Tim Hoods LS7 Sag race car runs 650 or so with ooodles of torque and aero and big sticky tyres. Even so, to be quick and not just spin up everywhere, he has launch control and traction control.
Danny Winstanley did ok in his non electrickery Sag race car, built from a road car. He still needed Porsche brakes the size of dustbin lids and 330mm of red hot slicks. Even so, he still left 11s all over the race track with a wing generating 200kg of downforce!
great fun though....

[jamieduff1981]

I suspect that an inability to get near WOT at legal speeds other than 'labouring' in top gear would just frustrate me long term. By long term I mean after a day or two of enjoying the novelty before it wears off and I realise I genuinely can't use most of it.

[Geoff Ashcroft]

Sorry Alex, but with only one small turbo, you're just not trying hard enough...... lol

[neal1980]

Alexdaredevils said:

Neither is 750 enough any more

I raise your one....2 is more

[blackiepaul]

neal1980 said:

That is the only way to do it, I can not see it being done well with one turbo

[Alexdaredevils]

blackiepaul said:

That is the only way to do it, I can not see it being done well with one turbo

Could you please explain from a engineering point of view as to why it wont work?

Have you got the dyno graph of this 750 bhp? I'd love to see how smooth the torque is.


Geoff that thing is the dogs!......

Edited by Alexdaredevils on Thursday 3rd July 14:53

[blackiepaul]

I did not say it would not work, I am sure it would, I said it would not work well..... well it would not work as well as two smaller turbos where the cats used to be.

We will release more info on the car at some stage soon.

Alexdaredevils said:

Could you please explain from a engineering point of view as to why it wont work?

Have you got the dyno graph of this 750 bhp? I'd love to see how smooth the torque is.


Geoff that thing is the dogs!......

Edited by Alexdaredevils on Thursday 3rd July 14:53

[Alexdaredevils]

blackiepaul said:

I did not say it would not work, I am sure it would, I said it would not work well..... well it would not work as well as two smaller turbos where the cats used to be.

We will release more info on the car at some stage soon.

Why wouldn't it work well? All the turbo maths, camshaft and engine displacement have been worked out to give minimal lag and more than enough power

What do you mean release? Has it even been on the dyno? Or are we bench racing?

[spitfire4v8]

Keep going .. I'm a big fan (lol) of single turbos .. easier to package, less cluttered engine bay, probably more reliable (less pipes / joins / only one major heat source).
You've still got a BIG engine off boost, you're hardly going to be short of low end grunt anyway!

[Alexdaredevils]

spitfire4v8 said:

Keep going .. I'm a big fan (lol) of single turbos .. easier to package, less cluttered engine bay, probably more reliable (less pipes / joins / only one major heat source).
You've still got a BIG engine off boost, you're hardly going to be short of low end grunt anyway!

I'm glad you like it, you're going to map it

[Alexdaredevils]

[blackiepaul]

Hi Alex, your project not mine to butt in, I looked at turbos and I looked at superchargers and went the route I did and you are going yours - I have already done a turbo car in the last six months.

No it is dyno ran, it has been on it twice, the second time after changing the vast majority of the fueling system. There are agreements in place for others to be able to share information on the car rather than putting it on forums.

Alexdaredevils said:

Why wouldn't it work well? All the turbo maths, camshaft and engine displacement have been worked out to give minimal lag and more than enough power

What do you mean release? Has it even been on the dyno? Or are we bench racing?

[Geoff Ashcroft]

One big charger will be lazier and less responsive than two smaller ones on account of a larger exhaust turbine and larger compressor wheel that's needed to get the same flow. If you want some snap at the throttle you're better off with two smaller, lighter units.

I could have raised you to four turbos (three into one) but we've gone back to just three...... with 50-55psi of boost off the top two, with 110psi on the bottom, with methanol injection for charge cooling...... Massive lag, but not a problem for tractor pulling where we need lots of flow to burn 30 litres of fuel in 9 seconds Sorry to go slightly off topic.