Dodge Demon/power figures

There are a lot of paths to speed and this thread has them all - the crazy new Mopars, superbikes and even a sleeper Corvair. Like many of you I grew up in the thick of it all and I certainly had my speed game on when I was younger. My '73 TA (455/4-speed) was a demon on the highway, easily pulling away from the 5.0/IROC crowd in a wave of big block torque. I had my fun on 2-wheels as well, owning several large displacement bikes and eventually owning a shiny yellow Triumph Daytona 955 that would do an honest 160. Now I like sleepers so I can keep the speed a little more discrete. My current sled runs an all aluminum 6.75L V8 with a turbo and about 9psi of boost. It's enough for 420HP/550lb-ft and it moves the 5300lbs of British iron with some spirit.

But no matter whether you're talking about 3HP mini bikes, or 1000HP Dodge Demons, one thing remains true. It all comes down to the driver/rider and restraint/respect for the machine. Mess with the bull and you *will* get the horns....

jblnut
 
Modern cars have lots of possibilities, as far as modding them goes. This is a quick video of my friend Van`s E90 BMW (2007 335i), originally came with 2 small turbos, he just converted it over to one LARGE turbo with new downpipe and huge intercooler. He`s still in the process of sorting things out, but it shows great promise....for a 3400 pound car motivated by a little 182 cubic-inch straight six, this thing hauls ass pretty good. This is @ 15 pounds of boost.

 
And that is why (it looks like) it needs 2 full seconds after he floors it for the sloooow turbo to kick in, at above 3500rpm. Pretty pointless IMO.

How`s your reading comprehension, Sport ? Did you not see this ?:
"He`s still in the process of sorting things out, but it shows great promise"....
 
Did you not see this ?
Yes I did...and of course it is a bit silly of me to try and make a point with one small video like this...
But the point of BMW using two turbos was to get rid of the turbo lag and have a very wide usable rev range and good torque very low down, I think it's just a shame to get rid of that, that's all.
 
(sigh)... sometimes less is more. A friend of mine once had a Cosworth YB powered Capri that he used to surprise crotch-rocket bikes with. His wife wanted a Frogeye Sprite (Bugeye in the US), he bought one for her, and had a blast driving it. It was only when he looked at the speedo, he realized he wasn't going that fast at all.

Lee.
 
His wife wanted a Frogeye Sprite (Bugeye in the US), he bought one for her, and had a blast driving it. It was only when he looked at the speedo, he realized he wasn't going that fast at all.

Lee.

Heehee,it's easy to have fun when you're driving a car that's smaller than a Walmart shopping cart:rflmao:
 
His own Frogeye has a 2 litre Zetec engine on throttle bodies and crank triggered ignition...

 
Yes I did...and of course it is a bit silly of me to try and make a point with one small video like this...
But the point of BMW using two turbos was to get rid of the turbo lag and have a very wide usable rev range and good torque very low down, I think it's just a shame to get rid of that, that's all.

You`re preaching to the choir on this....he wants to go quite a ways beyond the limits of the stock twin-turbo setup, he knows that low-end smoothness and drivability will be sacrificed.
 
(sigh)... sometimes less is more. A friend of mine once had a Cosworth YB powered Capri that he used to surprise crotch-rocket bikes with. His wife wanted a Frogeye Sprite (Bugeye in the US), he bought one for her, and had a blast driving it. It was only when he looked at the speedo, he realized he wasn't going that fast at all.

Lee.

I find that a great many crotch rocket drivers are not really capable of really extracting the top level of performance.

Personally, I can drive mine decently for the most part. But, I am not good at a strong launch. So, unless the power is fairly disproportionate the drag race is lost at the starting line.
 
Personally, I can drive mine decently for the most part. But, I am not good at a strong launch. So, unless the power is fairly disproportionate the drag race is lost at the starting line.

I had an old Ironhead Sporster drag bike that was a rocket (for what it was). There wasn't a stock part in the engine. It would leave so hard on the rice bikes that they wouldn't catch me until I clicked 4th gear, at about 70 MPH, I think they were just clicking 2nd. Even at the track, without a slick and a wheelie bar, there aren't a lot of people who can launch a high performance sport bike.
 
Won't get get regulated out of existence, we are running out of oil. That, or Global Warming will kill us all.

Forget all that... old age is going to kill us all anyway. Meantime.. fillerup with high test... I gotta get to the market for some milk and eggs before the wife starts throwing things.
 
Fuel injection and ultra-fast computers that control every tuning function have allowed the use of insane boost levels. My hat is off to manufacturers that can apply the technology and build road-worthy cars with sick power levels and still drive like their more pedestrian models. I have mixed feelings about it due to being an old fart who tends to live in the past. Kids are putting turbos on junk and running faster than we ever did with our huge cams and carburetors. But it's the new way things are done...get with it or move the hell out of the way.

Yes, it is amazing. Just wait though... talking about fuel injection and ECU control of tuning functions... the next big thing is the elimination of the camshaft. In it's place will be solenoid operated valves with ECM control over lift and duration for each valve for each cycle of the piston. The ultimate variable valve control. That will provide a huge improvement in power and efficiency. It will be for the valve train what electronic fuel injection is for carburation.
 
I had an old Ironhead Sporster drag bike that was a rocket (for what it was). There wasn't a stock part in the engine. It would leave so hard on the rice bikes that they wouldn't catch me until I clicked 4th gear, at about 70 MPH, I think they were just clicking 2nd. Even at the track, without a slick and a wheelie bar, there aren't a lot of people who can launch a high performance sport bike.

Some while back I was watching YouTube of some guy on a crotch rocket challenged a somewhat decrepit looking dude and his Harley rat bike to a race. The guy on the crotch rocket got positively smoked off the line and never could catch up. The old dude sure could drive that Harley and it was all go with that rat bike show.
 
I think things get lost in the mix though. Yesteryear's sub 13 cars got 5 miles a gallon needed they're plugs changed every 5k (probably 3 more like it) They ran for crap at idle.
Also without a lot of TLC they weren't too reliable. Today's power plants (for all the crap they put on them). Start on the first crank, Need a tune up every 100k or more, Idle smooth as can be, and if you can resist do high 20s into 30 mpgs.
I built Olds back the 80s (they were older, late 60s early 70s) (i should've done chevys , just a lot more plentiful supply of things and cheaper). So the point and the nostalgia isn't lost on me. What i did like was you could instantly tell one model from the other and one year from the next. Now everything looks alike. (i understand why). The other thing is they built things to a single purpose. What i mean is that challenger from the OP to be production viable started on paper as a 4000+ pound 300. It looks different but its still 4000+ pounds.
 
And conversely I occasionally see lament that you could get better mileage back in the day with. VW Rabbit diesel, et al. And, probably you could, with that whopping 52 horsepower. I'd expect if mfg. thought 52 horsepower was still viable we could see mileage of similar ilk, maybe better. Although there's probably another 1,000 lbs of safety and convenience features to lug around these days.
 
Yeah i often wonder why a smart car doesn't get 100mpg. Not much better than many sedans but i guess that's somewhat off topic in a 750+hp thread:idea:
 
Yeah i often wonder why a smart car doesn't get 100mpg. Not much better than many sedans but i guess that's somewhat off topic in a 750+hp thread:idea:

The Smart car's drag coefficient of .35 certainly doesn't help. Even the very blunt Chevy Bolt has a drag of bit over .30, with car like the Prius in the .24 range.

The Challenger is around .39/.40, it's a brick. Which is all the more amazing it's as fast as it is.
 
Drive an 80s Lincoln and tell me about poor aerodynamics sometime. 0.46 :) The 90s re-design dropped that to 0.36.


There were other very economical cars in the 80s that weren't quite as dismal as the Rabbit. The Honda CRX made similar mileage and had comparable power, but it would actually rev up a bit and didn't have that stinkpot non-turbo diesel rattle aspect to it. We're also talking about a ~2000 lb car that you'd die instantly in should you be involved in an accident. Smarts are similar weight, but a heck of a lot safer. If I was looking for an econobox, I think I'd give up a few mpg to not die if I hit a raccoon or something.
 
Back
Top Bottom