RE: You Know You Want To: Chrysler 300C SRT-8

[Pesty]

djdestiny said:

I HATE the sound of them, simple as that.
Im not a massive fan of big lazy engines either.
Mine is a 2.7 V6, yet has similar power to this without the need for it to be twice as big

really? this is a standard one don't forget some frequencies get clipped when recorded as well, this sounds pretty good to me.

sounds start at around 50 seconds standing starts at around 1:50 sounds pretty epic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NiIrJfP_JA

modded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXCQvoEdOHQ&fea...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j6D55NvrqY&fea...

Edited by Pesty on Tuesday 2nd October 21:29

[pSyCoSiS]

Thats something quite different, and pretty appealing.

Out of the two, I'd prob still go for the Merc, due to my bias towards German cars.

How comes no one has mentioned the C5 Audi RS6? Surely that would be another alternative, and probably the one I would go for...

[g3org3y]

Merc any day of the week over that hearse!

Problem with the Chrysler is you may get confused with one of those s that puts Bentley badges on these things. Plus you look like a drug dealer. Hideously inelegant.

Debadge the Merc and go bait some 911s.

[P4ROT]

g3org3y said:

Debadge the Merc and go bait some 911s.

Until you get to some corners

[djdestiny]

300bhp/ton said:

You cannot hate the sound, sorry but that's bks unless you hate every mechanical sound.

BTW - your 2.6 is probably almost as big, taller, wider and as heavy as an OHV V8. Wiki says it's 375hp, which is impressive (I like B5's ), but lets face it, that's 50hp (what 20%+) down compared to the 6.1 Hemi and in order to achieve this it's needed the addition of DOHC, multivalve technology and two turbo's.

I find it funny that you feel you are able to dictate what I like and don't like, and tell me that MY tastes are wrong!
I'm sure there are cars I love that you hate, but I would'nt tell you you are wrong to hate them.

Regarding size, I was'nt on about physical size, I meant capacity.
As you use mine as an example, yes I agree that the 2 turbos obviously make it a lot more powerful, but 6.1 litres making only 425bhp or so? To me that is one lazy engine.
Bare in mind, a simple remap on mine takes it to approx 410bhp, and that is no where near its limit.

PS. I also hate the sound of an Impreza and don't like MX5's either

[g3org3y]

P4ROT said:

g3org3y said:

Debadge the Merc and go bait some 911s.

Until you get to some corners

Of course, but we know the E55 wasn't made for corners. It was made for Autobahn storming (and as an estate you can bring the dog(s) too!).

[LuS1fer]

djdestiny said:

Regarding size, I was'nt on about physical size, I meant capacity.
As you use mine as an example, yes I agree that the 2 turbos obviously make it a lot more powerful, but 6.1 litres making only 425bhp or so? To me that is one lazy engine.
Bare in mind, a simple remap on mine takes it to approx 410bhp, and that is no where near its limit.

The Chrysler can be fitted with a supercharger at modest cost though (to compare apples to apples) giving 556hp and 501 lb/ft of torque.

Most large capacity American engines are lazy not only for torque but for mpg and strict emissions laws to be complied with.

[djdestiny]

What do you class as modest cost?

[LuS1fer]

djdestiny said:

What do you class as modest cost?

The kit is available for $7000 (£4375) plus you'd have to ship it and pay the (3.5%) duty and (20%) VAT and get it fitted (though the kits are designed so you can fit it yourself).
My Mustang supercharger was fitted in 2005 for around £5k. It would probably be nearer £6k now with the exchange rate and increased VAT.

The Vortech centrifugal charger (like mine) comes in at $6400 (£4000) and provides 560hp/510lb/ft

[300bhp/ton]

djdestiny said:

I find it funny that you feel you are able to dictate what I like and don't like, and tell me that MY tastes are wrong!
I'm sure there are cars I love that you hate, but I would'nt tell you you are wrong to hate them.

You can hate what you like, but I'm willing to bet few people (including yourself) can truly tell how many cylinders an engine has just by the noise it makes. Which then makes a mockery of "hate V8's only" due to their sound.

djdestiny said:

Regarding size, I was'nt on about physical size, I meant capacity.
As you use mine as an example, yes I agree that the 2 turbos obviously make it a lot more powerful, but 6.1 litres making only 425bhp or so? To me that is one lazy engine.

Lazy, no not at all. But engineering an engine design is somewhat more complex, do you honestly think skilled professionals with millions of £'s to spend on R&D don't have some idea of what they are doing.

Basing an engines potential purely on displacement is simplistic to say the least. In short the more air + more fuel = a bigger bang. A bigger bang means more HP.

There are lots of ways of getting more air into an engine, such as:

-higher revs. But this comes at the downside of stressing components more so and poor fuel efficiency at high revs. It also means to build a valvetrain to utilise high rpms, low rpm performance can suffer. And high rpms means you have to run short gearing in order to use the high revs and you often get poor low rpm performance, emissions and fuel economy.

-multi valve technology. In order to utilse high revs having more smaller valves is easier to control than larger fewer valves. More control means better use of higher rpms, means more air and power.

-force it in, compress intake air by means of a compressor.

-simply increase displacement.


A mix of all the above work, but there is no right or wrong answer. In fact some could say it's lazy to slap some turbo's onto an engine to make it perform, rather than developing an engine that can do the job without.

djdestiny said:

Bare in mind, a simple remap on mine takes it to approx 410bhp, and that is no where near its limit.

But that's because it's turbocharged

Do you know what a turbo is? It compresses intake air and forces more air into the engine than is possible naturally aspirated.

i.e. if you are running 1 bar of boost you forcing in twice the amount of air into the engine (assuming no loses which there would be some).

So by forcing more into the engine you are increasing it's 'effective' or dynamic displacement. So a 2.7 litre running one bar of boost is actually more like a 5.4 litre engine in terms of volume of air it is consuming, it's just you are squeezing it, compressing it to fit into less space.


So for example, you can buy blower kits for the Hemi V8, even with them running a high static CR these will take them to 100bhp/litre or higher. So an easy 610-650hp+

In fact as amazing as it is, the American V8 will actually adhere to the exact same laws of physics as the German V6 will and will have pretty much identical response to the same inputs and conditions.


You could for instance slap some DOHC heads onto the Hemi V8 and introduce multivalve technology. Would this increase PEAK Hp? Yes most likely it would, as you could spin the motor higher with more aggressive valve openings, yet still retain the same lower rpm ability it has now. But the down side to doing this is, it'd make the engine taller, wider, longer and heavier. It'd also introduce more components, so not only make assembly more complex, but it would also increase cost to manufacture and cost to service and maintain.

Sure by going DOHC they could likely attain the same PEAK hp figure with less displacement, but it would be at the cost of all the above points and such an engine would still make less torque and have less power in the lower rpms. I guess you could then add some turbo's to bolster the low and mid rpm torque band to bring it up to the level of a large displacement version. But adding turbo's adds more cost, more width, more heat issues and more complexity.


N.B.

I'm not saying turbo motors are wrong, indeed I currently own one and have had others. But judging an engine purely based on displacement vs HP is pretty dumb. Something like the Hemi V8 allows a compact, lightweight, broad powerband in a cheap and easy to produce package.

Edited by 300bhp/ton on Wednesday 3rd October 09:53

[Pesty]

Excellent post.


Thanks

[marcosgt]

If it's the beginning of the end for PH when people don't blindly adore V8s I say "Bring it on".

The love of everything V8 on here is akin to the belief that the Rodius is better handling than a Golf GTi (or similar, insert your own favourite FWD Hot Hatch here) because it's RWD...

There's nothing clever or terribly appealing about a V8 in general. Some are great, lots aren't.

M

[LuS1fer]

marcosgt said:

If it's the beginning of the end for PH when people don't blindly adore V8s I say "Bring it on".

The love of everything V8 on here is akin to the belief that the Rodius is better handling than a Golf GTi (or similar, insert your own favourite FWD Hot Hatch here) because it's RWD...

There's nothing clever or terribly appealing about a V8 in general. Some are great, lots aren't.

M

But probably a greater percentage are compared to V6s and four cylinders. I've never driven a bad V8 but have driven a bad RWD car (many in fact). A V8 is always a V8, a RWD car is not always a great handler but then neither is FWD.

[irocfan]

rtz62 said:

I'm sure someone on the previous page inferred that a Crossfire is a great car.
I presume they are a Chinese peasant who's previous transport was an oxygen and cart?
This car is great. Just as Tony Soprano is a benign waste management operator.
Utter bks for the uk market, wheel on the wrong side, drinks like a lapsed member of AA, won't fit in a lane of a carriageway or the average garage. QED.

what the fk are you babbling on about, the XF was a RHD car for the UK market and LHD for the relevant markets. Are you another one of those clowns who deride a car based purely on its' looks (which is a subjective issue anyway) and then follow the heard in quoting Clarkson (and his funny at the time comment about a stting dog). I've owned a TT and a Crossfire and I can assure you the XF is a FAR nicer ride and for my money a nicer place to be.

[boobles]

irocfan said:

rtz62 said:

I'm sure someone on the previous page inferred that a Crossfire is a great car.
I presume they are a Chinese peasant who's previous transport was an oxygen and cart?
This car is great. Just as Tony Soprano is a benign waste management operator.
Utter bks for the uk market, wheel on the wrong side, drinks like a lapsed member of AA, won't fit in a lane of a carriageway or the average garage. QED.

what the fk are you babbling on about, the XF was a RHD car for the UK market and LHD for the relevant markets. Are you another one of those clowns who deride a car based purely on its' looks (which is a subjective issue anyway) and then follow the heard in quoting Clarkson (and his funny at the time comment about a stting dog). I've owned a TT and a Crossfire and I can assure you the XF is a FAR nicer ride and for my money a nicer place to be.

It was me who said the Crossfire is a great car. Got a problem with that?

Oh wait, you are from Derby! Says it all really.

[Chunkychucky]

dvs_dave said:

Maybe, but that saggy rear suspension isn't going to be cheap to fix (these have the airmatic suspension as standard) and 150k is a pretty hefty mileage with some very expensive repairs lurking I'm sure.

Even with main stealer history..?

[LuS1fer]

On our way home and my wife says "Ooh look, a Bentley..."



EDited to add: it had a Bentley grille fitted.

Edited by LuS1fer on Wednesday 17th October 08:56

[boobles]

^^^^^^ It's ok, mine was mistaken for one of these a few weeks ago by a bloke walking past!


http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=mclaren+slr&u...

[robinessex]

It's gone now, but a SRT salon was in PH classifieds earlier in the year with 10 miles on the clock for £25,000 !! Not a bad buy, I was sorely tempted. Shouldn't have asked the missus what she thought of it really.

[StefanVXR8]

robinessex said:

It's gone now, but a SRT salon was in PH classifieds earlier in the year with 10 miles on the clock for £25,000 !! Not a bad buy, I was sorely tempted. Shouldn't have asked the missus what she thought of it really.

That one is back up again for sale but with a few more miles. I too was tempted having owned an SRT8 saloon in the past.

In tuned form (custom Diablo tune) they are blisteringly quick, my 0-60 was down from standard 4.7 to 4.0 dead, my best 1/4 mile was 13.02 at Santa Pod. The Touring mentioned here is only marginally slower.

Yes, they are typically American inside but it handled surprisingly well for the size of the car, and as for the comment earlier about someone's mate who ran the Touring on the Autobahn and said it maxed at 167mph due to it's shape, uh, no, they were limited to that speed. De-limited an SRT8 will approach 195mph top end.

Certainly the 300C SRT8 was no worse than the VXR8 I have now, both budget super saloons.

Stef