revneck

https://www.yahoo.com/autos/s/watch-...160013172.html

I saw this on Yahoo and was thinking that 707 horsepower (More than that here) Should be good for a sub 10 second quarter mile? Not that a mid 10 is anything to sneeze at but we are talking 700+ horsepower here!!

There are ten year old, and older, rice rockets that can rip off a mid 10, and maybe faster. I think this article proves no matter how many ponies you tuck between the fenders, at some point that arc flattens out and there is about 300 horsepower under there that is just going to waste....

rcread

It weighs almost 4600 pounds. I would say that's pretty impressive.

revneck

Your right that is heavy.

AdamMeh

And it has officially broken the 200 mph mark making it the fastest production sedan.

GrandSportC3

C3 Stroker

also. That same amount of horsepower in a C3 weighing 1000 lbs. lighter would run a full second faster. 4600 lbs. is quite a load to pull.

revneck

Guys, we are talking 740 horsepower!!! Thats enough to pull laps around Dover later this month. I would expect a better time for the money and the power. At least a ten flat

Bloodzone

Power to weight ratio is 6.2 for the Dodge. A 500 HP, 3200lb C3 would be 6.4. I'm guessing the Dodge will lose less power to wheels being a modern car. Its interesting how much weight affects speed.

revneck

Todays cars squat and go

Bloodzone

I had the same issue last week.

Mikado463

everything come 'out' Ok ………..

C3 Stroker

.....well, drop that engine in a '69 Corvette, and it WILL run 9s. Weight is everything.

ddawson

10.63 seconds at 131.5 mph

135 is moving at the end.

ronarndt

horsepower is not everything. Weight of car, final gear ratio, type of traction control to get those horses to road instead of sitting there spinning, etc. I have a 93 RX-7 with 426 rwhp that does 10 second quarters, but the car only weighs 2400 lbs, has a 4.10 rear axle, Torsen differential, fuel injection and aftermarket computer set up to bring turbo boost on early, etc. My 68 Vette with 454 cu in and four speed will be hard-pressed to keep up with the little rice burner. RA

diehrd

It runs almost exactly what it is supposed to ..

https://robrobinette.com/et.htm

derekderek

most cars have a hard time keeping up with a well set up FD. and it is funny how much 03 vettes resemble 93 rx's

ddawson

Mine is stock so it' slow but the top comes down I don't care.

Sure wish my 496 could rev to 7K though.

TheSkunkWorks

However much Mopar may beat their chests about the big HP numbers, IMHO the Hellcat is little more than a factory funded exercise in bench racing. Given the same budget as one costs, tho the C3 may be viewed by its detractors as somewhat of an oxcart, I have no doubt my shark could be running circles around that lead sled with change to spare. No brag, just fact.

ronarndt

Nice convert. 1988? I had several RX-7s. 1986 base, 1987 base, 1990 GTUs and the 1993 I still have. After I bought the GTUs, I found Mazda only made 100 of the GTUs so they could compete in IMSA racing, back when they had a factory team. Best handling car I ever owned. It's on the back cover of the Mazda history book by John Matras. Sold it to a guy in VT who stripped it, put in a roll cage and raced it at local tracks. Got an email from him a couple weeks ago informing me the little car still holds the track record at a couple of the local tracks. Not bad for a 1.3 liter engine. RA

ddawson

Yep 1988. Fun car to drive into the mountains. Needs more power though as I have to rev the hell out of it to get over the mountains. Everything works and only 60K miles on it.