ORIGINAL: IXLR8

Friday night at Houston Raceway Park - 86 degrees, sea level, 74% humidity.

Absolutely stock Daytona except Superchip software.

All runs were made by "mashing the pedal to the floor" and leaving it there.... No trick shifting.

Runs 1 & 2 were also using the SC data logger feature. The first run was off by about 2%, the second run was 'dead nuts on' up to third decimal place accurate!!!!

'06 Daytona GMG, ESP off, 4550 lbs with driver, Superchips 91 octane, Sport shift, no other changes:

R/T .984 (ouch)
60' - 2.154
330 - 6.096

1/8 - 9.301
mph - 76.60

1000 - 12.091

1/4 - 14.433
mph - 95.84

'06 Daytona GMG, ESP On, 4550 lbs with driver, Superchips 91 octane, Sport shift, no other changes:

R/T .973 (ouch)
60' - 2.256
330 - 6.213

1/8 - 9.417
mph - 76.69

1000 - 12.201

1/4 - 14.534
mph - 96.12

Loaded performance program, lost oil temp indication with load.
'06 Daytona GMG, ESP On, 4530 lbs with driver, Superchips 91 octane, Performance shift, no other changes:

R/T .615 (ouch)
60' - 2.409
330 - 6.438

1/8 - 9.662
mph - 76.36

1000 - 12.459

1/4 - 14.804
mph - 96.33


Reloaded stock config due to loss of oil temp indication, reloaded Sport
'06 Daytona GMG, ESP off, 4520 lbs with driver, Superchips 91 octane, Sport shift, no other changes:

R/T .762 (ouch)
60' - 2.266
330 - 6.273

1/8 - 9.498
mph - 76.60

1000 - 12.312

1/4 - 14.666
mph - 96.07


My best run was the the first one. It was a Sport shift loaded about two weeks ago. It looks as though it had a chance to adapt for little while and felt good as a daily driver

Next step, 180 degree thermostat. Reports from other Charger owners a the races claimed a 2/10 seconds improvement.

There were a number of other 5.7L and 6.1L DMX cars there. One of the 6.1L engines had a new top secret dual throttle body with two cold air intakes, one running to each front corner of the car. It arrived late, and I did not get it's numbers. One 300 ran a 13.10 @ 107.

Claims were being made about a modified 5.7L Charger being able to make low 12's with new still secret modifications. Talk with other drivers was that HAL may be dead, and ESP totally bypassed.

ORIGINAL: IXLR8

Check my other post about the horsepower calculator


Last night - Car Weight=4550, ET=14.433. Trap Speed = 95.84

Estimated rear wheel horsepower = 305.9 RWHP

Approx Engine Horsepower 382.4 HP


You say an ET of 14.00? I will just guess a 100mph trap?

Your guess - Car Weight=4550, ET=14.00. Trap Speed = 100

Estimated required rear wheel horsepower = 341.4 RWHP

Approx required Engine Horsepower 426.8 HP


That would mean that I would need to come up with an additional 341.4 - 305.9 = 35.5 RWHP or 341.4/305.9 = 1.12 or an additional 12% horsepower boost

A pretty tall order. It sounds easy until you have to do it.

ORIGINAL: Nicky B


Well that calculator is not 100% accurate if they were then it would save people hundreds of dollars in not going to a dyno to see how much HP they are making. And motortrend tested a R/T for a 14.2 at 100mph. Just work on the 60' time and you'll greatly lower your E/T. ANd how much do you weigh cause the charger weighs just under 4200pounds. And also if you run on a 1/8 tank of gas that will help as well.

ORIGINAL: IXLR8

The car went on a scale 20 ft past the timeslip booth. DodgeGirl, the scale seemed to move in large increments, the weight is when I happened to look at it. I did not think 30 pounds in 4500 would make that much difference.

Nicky B,

There are soooo many factors involved in getting a lower ET that nitpicking over one of them makes no difference. This was my first trip to any track as the driver, I thought I did quite well. I guess I cannot compete with the professional drivers at a car magazine, but I sure had fun. I am not going to add any headers, cold air intake, magical whiz bang device to knock 2/10's off of my time. But If I increase my skill and lower my time, then I know I am not relying on someone or something else for the improvement. That is where the fun is, not who has the the biggest pocketbook and can afford the biggest modifications, there is no skill in that.

The calculator is not perfect, but it is based on sound physics, did you study mass times acceleration? All other factors being equal, the difference in horsepower would be correct. Of course you would need better traction in order use it.

I'm just posting figures, that I experienced for the benefit of the community at large for comparison. If you don't like them then go create your own.