2009 challenger rt auto vs 2010 L99

[ViperTomcat]

Originally Posted by Mr CLuTcH

Undermine the fact that there are people who run this car at the track who don't post on a message boards, so somebody could totally have gotten a higher time but YOU would never know about it simply because they don't post on a message board.

So....you basically said that because there are people who run cars that dont post, validates your rambling on about how the L99 is equal to the SRT8 because they arent posting their times.

And yes, I said AVERAGE because the vast majority of people who post on forums like this are AVERAGE drivers. Yes there are some exceptional drivers, NHRAStocker for instance, but most people will not even come close to matching his skill. I also pulled the times from this sites fast list to make a source to be easily accessible to the people who may post here.

And yes I accept the L99 trapped at 109 mph. What I am rejecting is the notion that average drivers can achieve that. Average SRT drivers do hit 108-111 MPH, Average L99 drivers hit 105-106, regardless of what the car is capable of.

[SGOS252382]

The L99 A6 Camaro is faster than the Challegner R/T. That's a fact. Anyone that thinks differently is just kidding themselves.

Drivers and conditions can make almost any car faster than another. But with skilled drivers in both cars (same day, same track, similar 60' times) the L99 A6 is faster. I've seen it with my own eyes. The L99 A6 is several tenths faster (on average) than the Challanger R/T.

Trap speeds don't equal E.T. The A6's aggressive 1st gear seems to really get it moving off the line quickly. It's easy to pull fast 60' times if you know what you're doing. Low 13s out of a stock L99 are quiet easy if you know how to drive an L99 A6.
I watched an stock L99 run 13.3 @ 106 mph in 90 degree heat (DA +2500 ft.)

[Sleestack]

Originally Posted by Mr CLuTcH

O

So much for struggling to exceed 108.

.

Even a blind squirrel can find a nut.......

Look at the L99 'fast list' on this site....

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Sleestack

Even a blind squirrel can find a nut.......

Look at the L99 'fast list' on this site....

I too found it odd that the magazines managed to reach 109 while none here can get past 108.

[Mr CLuTcH]

So....you basically said that because there are people who run cars that dont post, validates your rambling on about how the L99 is equal to the SRT8 because they arent posting their times.

No, not at all. What I'm saying is you can't base a car's performance or capability solely on a "fast line" on one internet forum. If so, what that means is your knowledge of a car's capability is limited solely to what you see posted on that message board. I'm sure there are other great drivers out there just like nhra-stocker who own the car and run at the track but don't post on a message board, so you can't say the car isn't capable of whatever time simply because "average" drivers cannot achieve or reproduce another great driver's results. That's the point I'm making.

And I don't use my "rambling" to validate the L99 being the SRT8's equal, I use other means: real world personal experience vs the SRT8, and stock specs differential between the two. The matter is such that we just both disagree on the subject; it's nothing personal. In my town, I've ran at least 4 SRT's, 1 from a dig, and 3 from a 60-130mph roll, in every instance I've won. That is chalked up as personal experience, I don't think I can use that on a message board because on messages boards anyone can say "my car beat this car, there that settles it", that is why I try to exclude my personal experiences from the conversation and rely on specs, "known" 1/4 times and trap speeds.

And yes, I said AVERAGE because the vast majority of people who post on forums like this are AVERAGE drivers. Yes there are some exceptional drivers, NHRAStocker for instance, but most people will not even come close to matching his skill. I also pulled the times from this sites fast list to make a source to be easily accessible to the people who may post here.

Oh yes, totally, ...but you cannot limit any car's performance only this known list on THIS SITE.

And yes I accept the L99 trapped at 109 mph. What I am rejecting is the notion that average drivers can achieve that.

LOL! You can accept that, but Sleestak can't, based on his opinion the L99 struggles to get past 108. I can accept that you may reject average drivers achieving a 109 trap speed, I also agree with you because they're just that-AVERAGE DRIVERS. The car is definitely capable of 109 though.

Average SRT drivers do hit 108-111 MPH, Average L99 drivers hit 105-106, regardless of what the car is capable of.

Now see that's where I disagree with you. You saying average drivers trap higher speeds in a SRT8 rather than a L99 but how can you go about proving such an assertion? Where's the proof? It sounds like mere opinion, or will you result to using "personal experience" from being at the track, something we all know doesn't hold up on a message board.

I've browsed around the net a little and found some times for a stock SRT8 Challenger, Charger, and Chrysler, none of the reported trap time were above 108. Not to say the cars aren't capable of it,...but from what's been found they "struggle to exceed 108".

SRT8 -12.99 @ 108-bone stock
http://www.300cforums.com/forums/tra...one-stock.html

Challenger SRT8- 13.78 @104mph-http://www.dragtimes.com/Dodge-Challenger-SRT8-Timeslip-18636.html
Charger SRT8- 13.20 @ 108-http://www.dragtimes.com/Dodge-Charg...lip-14735.html

Oh, and sorry on average Challengers are not running no where near 111mph stock since we want to use "fast list"-go on over to the Challenger forum and check they're fast list, many of the cars stock aren't even getting past 108, a mph many claim the L99 is stuck at. Now when you start modding, throw the preconceived stock notions out the door.



http://www.challengertalk.com/forums...le-list-31923/

Even a blind squirrel can find a nut.......

Look at the L99 'fast list' on this site....

Your point? ON THIS SITE........

Omg, I give up,......we're just bench racing on the internet. Pointless.

[GEEo]

Originally Posted by scythezo6

Those RTs are sloooow compared to an ss.

especially the auto one's.

[mrray13]

Originally Posted by ViperTomcat

I love how these threads go. The fastest L99 on the fast list, stock, trapped at 107 MPH. That being said that is ignored and the magazine posted time is held as gold, because that magazine time was faster.

However, the R/T's real world speed and times (around 105 MPH and in the low 13's) is ignored because it is faster than people want and hold to the pathetic times the mags got..

Real world-R/T's trap between 104-106 MPH on average
Real world- L99's trap between 105-106 MPH on average.

MPH gives you an idea of the HP involved in a 1/4 mile run. ET is traction. You can have a 500 HP car run a 14 second pass (which I have seen, a 09 Z06 spun horribly ran was taken out by a 09 Charger R/T) and still trap at 115+ MPH. Similarly you can have a car trap at 103 MPH and run a 12.8 because it hooked up.

The R/T Challenger is closest, on average and all things considered, to a L99 SS.

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

i agree. The list on this site is ignored all too often, yet provides invaluable real world information!!!

I agree as well, and there is a Camaro parked in my driveway. Yet, let someone post a magazine time about the new 5.0 and see what is said! Things like, " that's not real world, most people end up going faster/slower (depending upon your bias of course) then any mag can get."

I just looked at the fast list. Seems the L99 is 106-108mph trap speeds, ala the best drivers here. Throw the basics bolt ons at it, and it comes alive, with traps around 111-112mph. IMHO, the L99 will compete with the SRT8, should outrun the R/T, everything else being equal. BUT, the L99 slips up, the SRT8 finishes ahead and the R/T could too! They are really close.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by mrray13

I agree as well, and there is a Camaro parked in my driveway. Yet, let someone post a magazine time about the new 5.0 and see what is said! Things like, " that's not real world, most people end up going faster/slower (depending upon your bias of course) then any mag can get."

I just looked at the fast list. Seems the L99 is 106-108mph trap speeds, ala the best drivers here. Throw the basics bolt ons at it, and it comes alive, with traps around 111-112mph. IMHO, the L99 will compete with the SRT8, should outrun the R/T, everything else being equal. BUT, the L99 slips up, the SRT8 finishes ahead and the R/T could too! They are really close.

Here is the keyword. I find it hard to believe that Car and Driver and Automobile-Mag just straight up skewed the numbers to show the L99 at 109.

[VADER SS L99]

One thing to think about in all these trap speed talks is in my experience altitude and weather play a big part on what it can run. Also most of the time if I mess my launch up to bad and totally spin my trap can be 1-2mph higher than if I dead hook. Of course if I dead hook my ET is lower. When you look at our fastest list it is compiled off of ET not trap so that might be why you see no 109mph and up. You do see a high 12's run. Can a bone stock full weight RT say that? I highly dought it.

[mrray13]

Originally Posted by a_Username

Here is the keyword. I find it hard to believe that Car and Driver and Automobile-Mag just straight up skewed the numbers to show the L99 at 109.

I don't doubt that with the right driver the L99 can see 109mph. I really don't, however, in real world driving, there isn't that many posted. Is the potential there, yes. Can anyone do it? Not really.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by VADER SS L99

One thing to think about in all these trap speed talks is in my experience altitude and weather play a big part on what it can run. Also most of the time if I mess my launch up to bad and totally spin my trap can be 1-2mph higher than if I dead hook. Of course if I dead hook my ET is lower. When you look at our fastest list it is compiled off of ET not trap so that might be why you see no 109mph and up. You do see a high 12's run. Can a bone stock full weight RT say that? I highly dought it.

sure but that applies to everybody

Originally Posted by a_Username

Here is the keyword. I find it hard to believe that Car and Driver and Automobile-Mag just straight up skewed the numbers to show the L99 at 109.

the list here is a much larger sample size than car and driver.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

sure but that applies to everybody



the list here is a much larger sample size than car and driver.

Right, but that doesn't make it the gospel on the Camaro's performance.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by a_Username

Right, but that doesn't make it the gospel on the Camaro's performance.

never said it was, but it makes it a MUCH better reference of what the car will actually run at the track.

[Mr CLuTcH]

Originally Posted by a_Username

Right, but that doesn't make it the gospel on the Camaro's performance.

YES!! THIS!^

never said it was, but it makes it a MUCH better reference of what the car will actually run at the track.

I disagree. You see this is what you guys are doing, you take 20 guys, 10 are average drivers, 8 suck, and the other 2 are above average,all of them in different States, different weather, with different tracks-each with different track conditions and sea-levels, then these drivers all goto track and run they're car and get they're times, come back to the a forum and post them then you "Aha, you see this is what this car will run average at the track".
That's ridiculous.

Limiting a car's average performance to 1 "fast-list" on a message board isn't a good reference for anything. It just shows you what other people are running in they're car,- given the conditions they ran in at the time. If all the times we see are a result of a car's performance under a given condition,each with different drivers and settings, how can we take those numbers and claim it's a cars average? We can't. Fore the resulted numbers produced are relative of the condition tested and of the driver's skill, those numbers can quickly change if you were to switch out or change one parameter of the equation. With this in mind, all you CAN say is that these numbers on our "fast list" are what other people in they're car, in they're conditions ran, it's not what your car WILL run. OUR LIST isn't the gospel. Keep that in mind.