Motors gas guzzling coupes

There's a few Chargers and Challengers showing up in Mopar magazines here in the US with modern efi 5.9 V-8's/overdrive trannies pulled out of wrecked 93-01 Ram pickups. IIRC one Challenger had a 5.9 and Vortec centrifugal supercharger and ran mid 11's while returning 26mpg on the highway.

Nobody will be getting 26mpg from a 440/non-overdrive and run 11's. Handles much better with the 5.9, too. An 8.0 alloy V-10 from the Viper fits quite nicely as well.

 

The new 5.7 Hemi offers variable displacement for economy. That might find its way into older Chargers one day, at least it's still a Hemi.

Full story on the 265ci Hemi I6 here, in 1972 power rose from 280 to 302 horses and the car got 4 on the floor.

Hemi 6 !!

 

Not to ruin the whole hemi parade, but incase if you didnt know, the new "hemi" isn't even a real hemi. Some proof: http://www.ryansaghir.com/archives/2004/10/that_thing_got.html

 

While not a true Hemi it is still a great engine. What's not to like about a 350HP 5.7 V-8? 425hp when the new 6.1 is out.

 

The cost of filling it up with petrol?

 

who cares when petrol is £1.30 a gallon?

 

Yes, the word "Hemi" is more of a marketing tool these days, but the power is still real!

Interesting hybrid with the MGB GT V8, using the old Buick alloy V8.

 

Lazy engineering

*n

 

Well true if your a led foot like my pop but untrue if you pamper the car as it actualy turns off 4 cylinders when not neded.

I personaly like the 300hp v8 from gm that has mutch the same technology but it runs at 5.1L insted. Also the car manufacturers are boasting somewere in the reagon of 30mpg on the new multiple displacement engines, while thats still not exeptional fuel economy but in the US thats more than enough for me.

 

Mopar sells a Stage 3 upgrade for the Dodge Neon SRT-4 that pumps out 355hp and 365ft-lbs tq on 100 Octane from the 2.4 turbo. We know how to build high power low displacement engines. 230hp stock is nothing to sneeze at either.

 

its less than 100hp per litre , sports cars by definition should have at least 100 hp per litre.

 

They should be rear drive, too. The SRT-4 is just a fun toy. It has the torque to back up the HP. You don't find that on most I-4's.

 

Umm i did the math, and i got 147.91666666666666666666666666667 per liter. I also think that 100 hp per liter is way wrong. Its very hard to do that without a super/turbocharger. As im typing this, i cant think of a single car thats 100hp/l thats NA. Even the Lamborghini Murcielago isnt 100/1.

 

Have you ever been in a car that is pulling >500ft/lbs of torque no matter if the HP rating is "low"?

 

In stock form the SRT-4 has ~96HP per liter.

 

i was talking about it stock.

Rx-8 has 230 hp and is only a '1.3'

 

no but i would love a new SRT10 in Red


drools.........................

 

Cause the RX-8 is a 2 chamber wankel engine


Like i said HP/l is useless unless your compairing 2 identical engine types. You dont see people benchmarking P3's vs opterons.

 

BMW m3, 343hp, 3.2 litre engine... You do the math.
Honda s2000 2litre engine 240hp.
And some more cars, can't remember 'em all.

And sports cars with 100hp/litre is WITHOUT turbo/super charger.

 

RX8 is technically a 2.6 - 1.3 per rotor.

But yes, I'd agree that the 100bhp/litre N/A is a good milestone by which to judge an engine.

*n