Has anyone had there stock srt 4 dynoed? i was wondering what they really put out because ive heard they are underrated for insurance....

 

I have not, but would also like to know. Not to start any "poop", but very honestly, (71roadrunner will probably back me up), but since the first muscle car, MOPAR has always underrated their horsepower and Chevrolet has always overrated their horsepower rating...

just some info that some of you might not have known...

 

You're right. Mopar has a history of under rating their engines for race purposes and insurance purposes. GM and also Ford have been tagged for overstating their "power figures". It's really all meaningless, whoever gets to the finish line first, wins......[sm=smiley5.gif]

 

thats right, they can tell you something has 2000 HP, but unless it runs/outruns the competition, who cares what those figures are...

IU have another question for you though. You know, you can go to Wal-Mart and buy a skill saw that is say 3.5 HP. Yopu try to cut a peice of 3/4 inch plywood, and it will get in a bind and stop the saw. Does that mean that 3 and a half horses could not pull through that peice of wood? The new 1000 HP cadilac, could that out pull or outrun one thousand horses?

That is just like sterios... In 1970 you could buy a 125 watt sterio that would literally blow away any 500-800 watt sterio today. Why is a quieter sterio today higher wattage than a louder old sterio? Why is it that HP of vehicles seems to rise every few years, but usually there is not that much power difference???

 

03 average 215-220 WHP, NOT crank

04 average 225-230, maybe 235 on the high end.

So you can figure what dodge rated at the crank, you get at the wheels

On the other note, 60s horsepower figures were taken at crank, no accessories (power steering, alternator, etc.) involved. so after those loses and drivetrain, the wheel figures were considerably less. So a 300 hp 68 Shelby might actually only be putting down 220-240. Given the weight penalty, it's easy to see what happens.

And actually, cars HAVE gotten quicker. Normal, sedate family sedans like Maximas put down numbers like "muscle cars" of the eighties did. 6-7.5 seconds 0-60, 15-16 1/4 miles.

 

Yeah, back in the 60's they always stated the "S.A.E. net horsepower"...big difference from nowdays....[&:]

 

to agree with glhs... newer cars are getting quicker... many of these "muscle cars" weren't as fast as we sometimes like to remember or believe they were... (and don't get me wrong, I love muscle cars... I have a 66 Chevy II Nova myself)... and this isn't to say that they aren't fast either!

at any rate... dusty is also correct... Net HP is different... an engine has an indicated HP, then you factor in fritional loss and get the brake power... once applied through the driveline (which I have heard a typical value for loss is on the order of 20-30% depending on setup) you get the HP that your tires are putting down... plus you have to always remember gearing! it's all in the gearing!

as for stereos... ohms, RMS, and... hmmm... not too sure, my electrical engineering skills are - how do the French say - ahh yes... lacking if you want more info on the stereo discussion I can contact some of my old roommates from college who have Elect. Engineering degrees they should have an answer

-j.

 

I remember reading not long ago in a magazine that an 03 Neon put down 230 HP at the wheels. Of course results can vary some from one car to the next.

 

Trust me (or visit the dreaded SRTforums, seach term, "stock and dyno", titles only) 03s put 215-220, 04s 225-235, all WHP.

What happpened is that Dodge did the official power ratings test in Death Valley, heatsoaked the entire system, and generally made it as tough as possible. So that no matter what condidtions an owner dynoed under, there could be no question of the car being underpowered. If you remember the Mustang Cobra fiasco, the cars were underpowered due to a miscalculation of something. Lots of owners dynoed them, numbers came up short, Ford looked REALLY bad. Same as the 350Z or RX-8, I can't remember which one.

And the "dreaded SRTforums" thing is a JOKE, I get jokes

 

Back in the dark ages when I was a kid, stereos were rated per channel... that is, a two channel stereo with 50 watts in each channel was just that....50 watts. Now they combine all the channels so you have the same stereo "power" with double the watts. A 50 watt system under the old system is a 100 watt system today. Looks good in print, but our ears know better.....[:'(]